Canada's tanks

[FJAG]

Dan Ross did not like LAV. He blamed GDLS for design flaws in LAV III that DND project staff boasted of having suggested.

As ADM(Mat) at the start of the TAPV project, Dan Ross would have stood in the way of any effort to institutionalize the RG-31 with a sole sources LAV variant.

Dan and the army were at loggerheads over several issues. One of his main complaints about the LAV3 was its vulnerability to mines (and IEDs) because of its thin hull armour. That was one of the reasons behind the CCV project which was pulled by the army when it went for LAV-UP. At the time Dan and Leslie were pushing for a more robust fighting vehicle for deployments.

I'm not sure what other design flaws there were that were an issue (short of room taken up by the turret and taking space for dismounts)

Dan Ross thought he was responsible for requirements and managed to be so, unfortunately.

The opposing view is that the people in the army who were making decisions on procurement at the time were not doing a good job and that Dan's plans made a lot more sense. I don't know the full story on TAPV which would have happened on his watch. Some day I'd like to see it.

 

[Kirkhill]

It's a feature, not a bug

New consulting opportunity?

 

[FJAG]

I thought they were very easy to roll.

That's anecdotal. The army has rolled pretty much every vehicle it ever owned because we put them through tough paces. It does look like it has a high centre of gravity which is a side product of the V hull. I'd be interested on seeing statistics on the frequency of roll-over accidents.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a defender of the TAPV per se but am merely saying that if we have 500 of them and if they aren't fit for the purpose they are being used for then find a purpose where they will do fine.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Just for the edification of someone who has never been inside a TAPV, what is that box in the left rear of the crew compartment that prevents adding two more dismounts? The whole layout seems to me like a large vehicle with a lot of wasted space that could have been used for multiple specialty configurations up to and including a section carrier.

View attachment 79526

In the photos FJAG linked to there is box labelled "40mm AMMO." Could that be it?

 

[markppcli]

In the photos FJAG linked to there is box labelled "40mm AMMO." Could that be it?

Yeah so there’s a radio tray and a spot for spare ammunition there. Quick use of google and this is what comes up.


I don’t know what’s inside that box. I could ask but none of our maintainers even want to casually glance in the direction of the TAPV less they be forced to try and fix one.

 

[suffolkowner]

Parts is not a problem with the vehicle. It's a procurement and sustainment issue unless there are certain parts that have a high, unreasonable failure rate.

I can think of dozens of roles that the TAPV fits into as the need for hardened CS and CSS vehicles increases. The fact that it hasn't been rerolled to its highest and best use and replaced as a vehicle where it is failing is an army not vehicle issue.

Some equipment are just maintenance hogs its why we hated Caterpillar but eventually the market wore us down

TAPV / Stryker ICV

18,482 kg / 16,470 kg
6.31 m / 6.95 m
2.75 m / 2.72 m
3.225 m / 2.64 m
272 kW / 260 kW

How much cheaper would it have been to just buy 500 Double V Hull Strykers configured like the Bison? I don't see many tactical advantages, or logistical advantages, of the TAPV over the Stryker/LAVIII.

Stryker ICV / ACSV (estimated from LAV 6 info available)

16,470 kg / 20,700 kg
6.95 m / 7.8 m
2.72 m / 3.3 m
2.64 m / 3.3 m
260 kW / 338 kW

Then, to complete the cycle

Bison 2 (ACSV) / Bison (LAV II)

20,700 kg / 13,000 kg
7.8 m / 6.5 m
3.3 m / 2.6 m
3.3 m / 2.6 m
338 kW / 206 kW

Did we really gain that much with TAPVs that couldn't have been met by buying more of the original Bisons which were smaller, lighter, more generally functional and amphibious ( ).

or just one of the many IMV out there but yeah you think we could have London build another 500 LAVs of some sort

As I have suggested before, the first three simple fixes -

Lower the ride height back to at least the ASV level
Remove the spare wheel and that silly crane from the roof and mount the spare on the front panel
Remove the RWS / Replace it with a lighter 7.62mm one for CUAS and self protection.

Then you can use it as an armoured jeep for the CS and CSS types.

Do we have somewhere where we can experiment with alterations after the fact?

 

[Kirkhill]

I meant that little box just to the left of the guy sitting in the rear. Are you saying that a part of the engine needs to protrude into the crew compartment? That's just sloppy engineering.

I've looked at these photos of the interior and to me the whole thing just reeks of an abandonment of both function and form. As I said, I haven't actually been inside one but when I compare it to how we maximized every cubic inch of the M113s. It just strikes me that with a bit of thought, the TAPV could be a valuable vehicle for many purposes (except maybe recce )

This is probably the best suite of photos that I can find.

WarWheels.net - Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) Photos

Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) Photos courtesy of Don Allen

warwheels.net

Judging from the fasteners around the "ammo" stencils they look to be holding cladding covering mechanical devices.

 

[FJAG]

That's definitely the box I was talking about plus that white overhead box with what looks like black vents. With those gone it looks like one could put in two more seats.

 

[KevinB]

Dan and the army were at loggerheads over several issues. One of his main complaints about the LAV3 was its vulnerability to mines (and IEDs) because of its thin hull armour.

Honestly it has a steel V hull, so it was the best option outside a dedicated MRAP, which by general design aren’t fighting vehicles.

That was one of the reasons behind the CCV project which was pulled by the army when it went for LAV-UP. At the time Dan and Leslie were pushing for a more robust fighting vehicle for deployments.

Honestly my biggest issue with the LAV was it wasn’t tracked and didn’t have the best off route mobility.

I'm not sure what other design flaws there were that were an issue (short of room taken up by the turret and taking space for dismounts)

They wanted BradleyA2 level armor on a LAV style vehicle.

The opposing view is that the people in the army who were making decisions on procurement at the time were not doing a good job and that Dan's plans made a lot more sense.

The LAV made sense when the plan was to get rid of the LeoC1. As soon as Leo 2 entered CCV made a lot more sense for at least a Bde worth.

I don't know the full story on TAPV which would have happened on his watch. Some day I'd like to see it.

Too much tequila is my guess…

 

[suffolkowner]

The problem with the CCV program was it might have ended up with another wheeled platform winning

 

[suffolkowner]

also in honour of the Polish defeat of the Soviets have a look at some Polish tanks

https://twitter.com/x/status/1691391311356604416

 

[Underway]

Recently talking to a PPCLI WO regarding the LAV6's. He frustratedly told me we should have just gotten LAV III with a hunter killer turret. LAV 6 is just to big and heavy right now.

Big challenge with armoured vehicles. That video by Chieftan talking about the German design process for the next tank.

50 tons max, with 70 ton capable powertrain (because of expected growth). There were 300 things they decided a modern tank must have. But you can't fit those 300 in a 50 ton vehicle (or even a 70 ton one). So the Germans have decided that they need a family of four vehicles to do all the jobs with all the survivability they want from a tank.

Which of course leads to crewing issues, and division of labour issues etc...

 

[FJAG]

The problem with the CCV program was it might have ended up with another wheeled platform winning

The decision was imminent and I think the vast majority were of the view that the sole tracked contender was about to be the winner. Both Leslie and Ross were gone by then and they were the CCVs champions. In some respects the LAV-UP had negated much of the need for 3/4 of the CCVs in the competition but I'm of the same mind as @KevinB - once we had the Leo2 we needed a tracked IFV as a proper combined arms CCV.

also in honour of the Polish defeat of the Soviets have a look at some Polish tanks

https://twitter.com/x/status/1691391311356604416

A few years ago I put a small book together and in researching the bang for the buck that various armies get I found myself quite impressed with what the Poles were doing. This was well before their recent shopping trips.

 

[Kirkhill]

Recently talking to a PPCLI WO regarding the LAV6's. He frustratedly told me we should have just gotten LAV III with a hunter killer turret. LAV 6 is just to big and heavy right now.

Big challenge with armoured vehicles. That video by Chieftan talking about the German design process for the next tank.

50 tons max, with 70 ton capable powertrain (because of expected growth). There were 300 things they decided a modern tank must have. But you can't fit those 300 in a 50 ton vehicle (or even a 70 ton one). So the Germans have decided that they need a family of four vehicles to do all the jobs with all the survivability they want from a tank.

Which of course leads to crewing issues, and division of labour issues etc...

I'm also taken by this factoid from 2:20 of this report which I posted on the Ukraine thread.

The Ukrainians are using the Leos but in Stand-off mode, not for closing and crushing. They also seem to be uparmouring the western tanks with ERA blocks and cages.

Ukrainian Leopard 2 Tank Seen Covered In Explosive Reactive Armor

Seeing explosive reactive armor that traces its roots to the Soviet era on a Leopard 2 main battle tank is certainly different.

www.thedrive.com

https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/15s1142

That and the fact that imagery still seems to suggest that tanks are not being used en masse.

The key value of the tanks, Russian or Western, or even the French AMX 10RC, seems to me to be the gun and the optics which lend themselves to extreme range engagements.

 

[KevinB]

That and the fact that imagery still seems to suggest that tanks are not being used en masse.

Which is part of the problem.
But also shows the issue with the UA and combined arms and larger scale operations.

The key value of the tanks, Russian or Western, or even the French AMX 10RC, seems to me to be the gun and the optics which lend themselves to extreme range engagements.

You can do it better at longer range with an ATGM, and as far as bang for the buck, a Javelin turret on a JLTV would quite frankly be a better option as a mobile tank killer.

The FCS on the western tanks (and IFV’s) make them exceptionally suited for night operations compared to the RuAF.
I am surprised that the UA hasn’t done a night breach of a minefield using MICLIC’s over 10-12 lanes and then forcing the most advantageous lanes with Mine plow tanks and the rest of the Bde AFV’s

 

[suffolkowner]

The decision was imminent and I think the vast majority were of the view that the sole tracked contender was about to be the winner. Both Leslie and Ross were gone by then and they were the CCVs champions. In some respects the LAV-UP had negated much of the need for 3/4 of the CCVs in the competition but I'm of the same mind as @KevinB - once we had the Leo2 we needed a tracked IFV as a proper combined arms CCV.

We should have polls for our procurement decisions. I for one would not want to bet big money that the tracked vehicle (CV90?) would have won. What would have been worse? VBCI or Piranha winning?

 

[Kirkhill]

Which is part of the problem.
But also shows the issue with the UA and combined arms and larger scale operations.

Agreed. But can they risk massing in the absence of air superiority? And is it reasonable to ignore the effects of all those mini-drones flitting all over the skies?

You can do it better at longer range with an ATGM, and as far as bang for the buck, a Javelin turret on a JLTV would quite frankly be a better option as a mobile tank killer.

I'll take the Brimstone on a Supacat for a thousand Alex.

The British Almost a Year Ago Made the Wolfram Combat Vehicle for Ukrainians to Launch Brimstone Missiles | Defense Express

The Wolfram launcher may soon also appear in a new modification - on the chassis of the Boxer wheeled armored vehicle

en.defence-ua.com

The FCS on the western tanks (and IFV’s) make them exceptionally suited for night operations compared to the RuAF.
I am surprised that the UA hasn’t done a night breach of a minefield using MICLIC’s over 10-12 lanes and then forcing the most advantageous lanes with Mine plow tanks and the rest of the Bde AFV’s

I'm not sure that the Ukrainians are using things based on their intended purpose so much as using things in whatever way makes them most useful to them.

It is likely true that they can't organize a Brigade assault on a 10 km front due to lack of trained personnel. On the other hand the equipment and personnel they have in a Brigade like that can be writing down the Russians, and supporting the Ukrainian lines, right now. And maybe, the Ukrainians are already finding out things about tanks that are not widely published.

Perhaps they are applying extra armour out of an abundance of caution or previous experience with Soviet kit and just applying a bit of "belts and braces" logic to the problem. On the other hand there is experience with modern western tanks, particularly Leos, in Syria.

https://runway.airforce.gov.au/resources/link-article/leopard-2-was-one-worlds-best-tanks-until-it-was-sent-syria#:~:text=Cold%20War%20era%20Turkish%202A4,%2C%20IEDs%2C%20rockets%2C%20etc.

Again, we can point to tactics and employment but tactics and employment could also change the results if older western and even Soviet tanks were used.

We have been "selling" the benefits of Western technology more than the benefits of Western tactics.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Independent article referenced in the article cited above

A B&Q generator and a commandeered truck: The UK vehicles helping Ukraine fight Putin

Wolfram vehicles are now standard weaponry for the British military, with possible export orders pending, writes Kim Sengupta

www.independent.co.uk

 

[KevinB]

Agreed. But can they risk massing in the absence of air superiority? And is it reasonable to ignore the effects of all those mini-drones flitting all over the skies?

The Lancet success rate is single digits on Western AFV’s.

We have been "selling" the benefits of Western technology more than the benefits of Western tactics.

Tactics beyond the Coy and Bn level aren’t something that NATO really shares, because it also requires a lot of things we don’t want to sell to non members, and at Bde plus level very few Armies even in NATO actually conduct real training exercises with any regularity and none above Div outside of the USA….

 

[Kirkhill]

The Lancet success rate is single digits on Western AFV’s.

Tactics beyond the Coy and Bn level aren’t something that NATO really shares, because it also requires a lot of things we don’t want to sell to non members, and at Bde plus level very few Armies even in NATO actually conduct real training exercises with any regularity and none above Div outside of the USA….

Fair enough. So the secret to battlefield success is our equipment used according to our instruction manual - but we can't give you the manual?
Is it then a surprise that Ukrainians aren't following our manual?