Canada's tanks

[Dana381]

Here's a thought provoking post from the Facebook "Battle Machines" forum.


Here's the Type 16 MCV

It then became the basis of four variants by way of the Common Tactical Wheeled Vehicle program which included an APC (including ambulance), a recce and surveillance vehicle, a mortar carrier and, of course, the Type 24 wheeled IFV.

We've been playing the process wrong the whole time. First the US failed to produce a decent MGS on the Stryker chassis and now we're contemplating loading a 155mm L52 RCH on a LAV 6 or 10X10.

I'm certainly not advocating for adoptions of the Type 16, but do think that when designing a common vehicle fleet, starting with the heaviest need and then subtracting elements, variant-by-variant, is a sound design process. A lesson for the next generation (maybe of a tracked fleet).

I love that logic and it ill work well for them. The IFV and other variants will also have room to grow.

However I imagine The bean counters view will say those other variants will be a waste of money because they are overbuilt.

I.E. If you are buying 1000 units of witch 100 are the heavier version than 900 are overbuilt. An accountant will have you build to the 900 and have the 100 make compromises on capability to make them "work". Also don't build with room to grow because what if you never need the room, Then it's a waste of money. Build for today.

 

[suffolkowner]

Here's a thought provoking post from the Facebook "Battle Machines" forum.


Here's the Type 16 MCV

It then became the basis of four variants by way of the Common Tactical Wheeled Vehicle program which included an APC (including ambulance), a recce and surveillance vehicle, a mortar carrier and, of course, the Type 24 wheeled IFV.

We've been playing the process wrong the whole time. First the US failed to produce a decent MGS on the Stryker chassis and now we're contemplating loading a 155mm L52 RCH on a LAV 6 or 10X10.

I'm certainly not advocating for adoptions of the Type 16, but do think that when designing a common vehicle fleet, starting with the heaviest need and then subtracting elements, variant-by-variant, is a sound design process. A lesson for the next generation (maybe of a tracked fleet).

Do you think those issues with the Stryker would follow with a Lav 6 or 700 or Piranha5 or Boxer?
With respect to the RCH i think it was stated that the Boxer had 5 tonne more capability than the Piranha5 10x10 and presumably the LAV6

 

[FJAG]

However I imagine The bean counters view will say those other variants will be a waste of money because they are overbuilt.

My thought runs along this line - design a tank like the M10 Booker make it about 10 tons heavier at roughly 50-55 tons. Front engine; 120mm autoloader; crew of three, well armoured all around; Trophy. Make the engine, the lower hull, the running gear standard for all derivative system.

For the IFV remove the 120 turret, raise the hull a bit to accommodate dismounts, same front armour, lighter side armour, 30-35mm RWS with crew of two and eight dismounts. The OPV riffs off of the IFV.

For SPs remove 120 turret replace with 155 L52 autoloader turret module, lighter armour all around, crew of two.

All CS and CSS vehicles riff off the SP with lighter armour and Boxer-like purpose built modules.

The key to cost savings is to have one common base hull, engine and running gear for one basic production line and maintenance simplicity.

Do you think those issues with the Stryker would follow with a Lav 6 or 700 or Piranha5 or Boxer?
With respect to the RCH i think it was stated that the Boxer had 5 tonne more capability than the Piranha5 10x10 and presumably the LAV6

Yeah. That's hard to say for me because I haven't seen any nailed down specs. For an SP the issue isn't just weight, it's also the firing shock and its effect on the suspension (which varies at the angle of fire both in bearing and elevation). I keep saying I have a hard time believing Boxer can handle the RCH 155 . . . but the Brits seem to think it can . . . so I guess that tells me.

The best that I see is the technical limit of the A3 being between around 38 -41 tons and the Boxer RCH being <39 tons. For the LAV 6 I see a rough 30 ton mass and for the Piranha IV 10 x 10 AAC at roughly 40 - vehicle 33 tons and payload up to 17 tons. My understanding is that the AGM turret itself uses aluminum armour and comes in at around 12.5 tons.

 

[Kirkhill]

My thought runs along this line - design a tank like the M10 Booker make it about 10 tons heavier at roughly 50-55 tons. Front engine; 120mm autoloader; crew of three, well armoured all around; Trophy. Make the engine, the lower hull, the running gear standard for all derivative system.

For the IFV remove the 120 turret, raise the hull a bit to accommodate dismounts, same front armour, lighter side armour, 30-35mm RWS with crew of two and eight dismounts. The OPV riffs off of the IFV.

For SPs remove 120 turret replace with 155 L52 autoloader turret module, lighter armour all around, crew of two.

All CS and CSS vehicles riff off the SP with lighter armour and Boxer-like purpose built modules.

The key to cost savings is to have one common base hull, engine and running gear for one basic production line and maintenance simplicity.


Yeah. That's hard to say for me because I haven't seen any nailed down specs. For an SP the issue isn't just weight, it's also the firing shock and its effect on the suspension (which varies at the angle of fire both in bearing and elevation). I keep saying I have a hard time believing Boxer can handle the RCH 155 . . . but the Brits seem to think it can . . . so I guess that tells me.

The best that I see is the technical limit of the A3 being between around 38 -41 tons and the Boxer RCH being <39 tons. For the LAV 6 I see a rough 30 ton mass and for the Piranha IV 10 x 10 AAC at roughly 40 - vehicle 33 tons and payload up to 17 tons. My understanding is that the AGM turret itself uses aluminum armour and comes in at around 12.5 tons.

For me, with a childhood fixation on the Saladin and Saracen armoured cars, I always found the practice of just sticking a turret on top to be just lazy engineering. You can always trim or expand a hull and keep the power train and running gear. There is a whole industry based on that premise.

 

[FJAG]

For me, with a childhood fixation on the Saladin and Saracen armoured cars, I always found the practice of just sticking a turret on top to be just lazy engineering. You can always trim or expand a hull and keep the power train and running gear. There is a whole industry based on that premise.

I learned that when I found out that my brand new ( I think 1987 - maybe 86) Ford Aerostar - which was one of the first minivans and as such a whole new concept, shared many components with the Ford Ranger light trick and, with its rear wheel drive, had the same 5,000 lb tow capacity as the Ranger. . . Which was bullshit because the 5,000 lb Prowler trailer that I had and could easily tow with my old 77 Country Squire, was an absolute risk to life and limb behind my Aerostar when encountering even gentle Prairie breezes. . . . And then there's the 360 I did on the Trans-Canada on a sheet of ice at Portage La Prairie.

 

[FJAG]

Small correction to my post two up. I said the Piranha IV 10 x 10 AAC had a mass of 33 tons with an payload of appx 17 tons. That should read that the basic mass of the vehicle is 23 tons with a 17 ton payload for a total 40 ton appx mass.

 

[KevinB]

My thought runs along this line - design a tank like the M10 Booker make it about 10 tons heavier at roughly 50-55 tons. Front engine; 120mm autoloader; crew of three, well armoured all around; Trophy. Make the engine, the lower hull, the running gear standard for all derivative system.

I am not yet at the crew of three - and while I distrust the autoloader, that isn't my sole issue -- I think that 4 is the ideal self contained small unit size - as it is the bare amount for 24/7 operations for any significant period.

I would have breaching, combat bridging, recovery in a variant for this as well.

For the IFV remove the 120 turret, raise the hull a bit to accommodate dismounts, same front armour, lighter side armour, 30-35mm RWS with crew of two and eight dismounts. The OPV riffs off of the IFV.

I would be wanting to look at a larger cannon, from 30-60mm, and I am pretty based to 40mm at this junction - enough velocity, and large enough for a good payload, but also not too big to limit ammo capacity - and the 40mm CaseTelescoping ammo is pretty robust option.
I am not sold on the RWS as opposed to a manned turret, and I still want an ATGM setup in the IFV. I also want the ability to have th same armor package as the MBT - as I want to be able to crash an objective with the tanks.

Also add a Combat Engineer, MRT, Medical Evacuation, C-UAS, and LL-AD (cannon), and C-RAM variant to this build.

For SPs remove 120 turret replace with 155 L52 autoloader turret module, lighter armour all around, crew of two.

I'm not there with this crew of two - I like the idea of being able to run the gun with minimal numbers, but schlepping ammo and manning 24/7 comes back to me that 4 is the min.

All CS and CSS vehicles riff off the SP with lighter armour and Boxer-like purpose built modules.

Most of the CS vehicles I would use the IFV chassis for - as I don't think that Combat Engineers want a lighter skinned vehicle if they have to be up at the front - same with a MRT, Medical Evacation, Line Laying, EW, etc

The key to cost savings is to have one common base hull, engine and running gear for one basic production line and maintenance simplicity.


Yeah. That's hard to say for me because I haven't seen any nailed down specs. For an SP the issue isn't just weight, it's also the firing shock and its effect on the suspension (which varies at the angle of fire both in bearing and elevation). I keep saying I have a hard time believing Boxer can handle the RCH 155 . . . but the Brits seem to think it can . . . so I guess that tells me.

The best that I see is the technical limit of the A3 being between around 38 -41 tons and the Boxer RCH being <39 tons. For the LAV 6 I see a rough 30 ton mass and for the Piranha IV 10 x 10 AAC at roughly 40 - vehicle 33 tons and payload up to 17 tons. My understanding is that the AGM turret itself uses aluminum armour and comes in at around 12.5 tons.

 

[FJAG]

I am not yet at the crew of three - and while I distrust the autoloader, that isn't my sole issue -- I think that 4 is the ideal self contained small unit size - as it is the bare amount for 24/7 operations for any significant period.

There's a dividing line here. With a crew of three you can have an unmanned turret with four most probably a manned one with no autoloader. With a front engine I see the driver forward, the gunner right behind him and the commander somewhere else. It depends on the engine size and configuration.

I would have breaching, combat bridging, recovery in a variant for this as well.

Yup.

I would be wanting to look at a larger cannon, from 30-60mm, and I am pretty based to 40mm at this junction - enough velocity, and large enough for a good payload, but also not too big to limit ammo capacity - and the 40mm CaseTelescoping ammo is pretty robust option.

I'm not sold on bigger is better. Firstly I see the IFV as working with tanks - always. I'd leave the primary anti-tank fight to the tanks and missiles. I see the gun as intimate fire support for the dismounts. HE frag that can get in close to our friendlies. Also more on-board rounds. If case-telescoping 40mm becomes cheap and reliable then, sure.

I am not sold on the RWS as opposed to a manned turret, and I still want an ATGM setup in the IFV. I also want the ability to have th same armor package as the MBT - as I want to be able to crash an objective with the tanks.

Yes on the ATGM definitely. Manned turrets subtract from hull space. My preference is to maximize dismounts. Definitely same armour on front. For the side I see lighter armour but with a system that defeats RPG-like projectiles - spaced. reactive, slats, whatever.

Also add a Combat Engineer, MRT, Medical Evacuation, C-UAS, and LL-AD (cannon), and C-RAM variant to this build.

All of that is possible with a standard hull with a system for modules.

I'm not there with this crew of two

I see that as a standard configuration with a forward engine - a driver to the side of the engine with a gunner behind him. In some case, like the tank there is a crew commander. In some cases like the IFV he's a gunner/crew commander of the Zulu vehicle and in some cases, like a gun, he's the gunner/detachment commander.

The question really is how far forward you can put a driver plus one so that they are forward of the mission module. In the Boxer, it's just the driver with a passageway leading from his station to the mission module. In a bigger tracked vehicle one might be able to get two forward. It would allow for much greater adaptability across mission modules, if possible. Incidentally, I'm not hot on swappable mission modules like the Boxer. I do prefer a standard engine, hull and drive train while the mission module can be bespoke. I'm open to change on that though.

- I like the idea of being able to run the gun with minimal numbers, but schlepping ammo and manning 24/7 comes back to me that 4 is the min.

I see the gun as operated by two, under armour. I see each gun with a dedicated armoured limber vehicle with extra crew - say a driver, a det 2 i/c plus two with an ability for a magazine reload on the gun while under armour. Lets say six guns to the battery, six limber vehicles and six more pallet carrying ammo vehicles with trailers (each with two drivers) to the battery A Ech. Add another 16 identical pallet carrying vehicles and trailers to the regimental A Ech so that up to 3/4 of the battery ammo vehs can be swapped out, when empty, for full ones from the regiment.

Most of the CS vehicles I would use the IFV chassis for - as I don't think that Combat Engineers want a lighter skinned vehicle if they have to be up at the front - same with a MRT, Medical Evacation, Line Laying, EW, etc

I guess that depends on what you call heavy and light. Our non-tank F vehicles have been pretty lightly armoured, even now. The CS and CSS have been the same or lighter. Like you I see IFVs accompanying the tanks onto the objective when appropriate. I tend to see everyone else at least a bound behind. It's an interesting debate as to where the heavy and less-heavy line should fall. Does lighter = more agile = survivable through speed of movement?

 

[suffolkowner]

with respect to tanks and IFV the updated schedule for the Leonardo-Rheinmetall joint venture



the previous schedule as i understand it


the first few produced are supposed to be in an "international" configuration which i take to include german power train and not the Italian one

 

[Kirkhill]

I am not yet at the crew of three - and while I distrust the autoloader, that isn't my sole issue -- I think that 4 is the ideal self contained small unit size - as it is the bare amount for 24/7 operations for any significant period.

I would have breaching, combat bridging, recovery in a variant for this as well.

I am going to throw a spanner into the works. You made it easier by bringing in the breaching gear.

What if....

Your crew manages two vehicles - one manned and the other unmanned or optionally manned?

Why not have two crew per vehicle and allow the "breaching vehicle" crew to retire to the "mothership" during breaching ops?

You still have a contained team of 4 which, like you, I like for the reasons you mention and because it is something of a working standard throughout most western armies, but you have them distributed over a number of hulls.

I will go you one better. We have discussed this before.

1 vehicle with 4 crew on board and 3 unmanned robots

OR

4 robot vehicles with 1 crew on board of each of them?

I prefer option 2.

I would be wanting to look at a larger cannon, from 30-60mm, and I am pretty based to 40mm at this junction - enough velocity, and large enough for a good payload, but also not too big to limit ammo capacity - and the 40mm CaseTelescoping ammo is pretty robust option.
I am not sold on the RWS as opposed to a manned turret, and I still want an ATGM setup in the IFV. I also want the ability to have th same armor package as the MBT - as I want to be able to crash an objective with the tanks.

Also add a Combat Engineer, MRT, Medical Evacuation, C-UAS, and LL-AD (cannon), and C-RAM variant to this build.

I'm not there with this crew of two - I like the idea of being able to run the gun with minimal numbers, but schlepping ammo and manning 24/7 comes back to me that 4 is the min.

But you are going to be dealing with robots sooner or later. And smaller crews mean smaller targets. If the maintenance/replacement plan is built to manage a bunch of robots then maybe you will have to get used to the ultimate plug and play programme and just swap out your vehicle when it is N/S rather than trying to fix it in the field.

Most of the CS vehicles I would use the IFV chassis for - as I don't think that Combat Engineers want a lighter skinned vehicle if they have to be up at the front - same with a MRT, Medical Evacation, Line Laying, EW, etc

I think the Combat Engineers would be thrilled to have more kit like this



but looking more like this

Ukraine tests "Solomandra" land drone for mine clearance operations - Euromaidan Press

Ukraine has trialed the "Solomandra" robotic platform, an unmanned ground vehicle intended to clear anti-personnel mines, facilitating demining operations while minimizing risks to personnel.

euromaidanpress.com

https://www.undp.org/ukraine/press-releases/innovative-ukrainian-mine-clearing-technologies-field-tested-undp-support

 

[KevinB]

I am going to throw a spanner into the works. You made it easier by bringing in the breaching gear.

What if....

Your crew manages two vehicles - one manned and the other unmanned or optionally manned?

I beleive that unmanned systems will be a requirement for some very high risk tasks.

Some breaching, bridge laying tasks can absolutely (and should) be done by unmanned vehicles.

Why not have two crew per vehicle and allow the "breaching vehicle" crew to retire to the "mothership" during breaching ops?

I’d rather have a smaller ‘disposable’ unmanned vehicle than one with unnecessary armor in areas not needed.

You still have a contained team of 4 which, like you, I like for the reasons you mention and because it is something of a working standard throughout most western armies, but you have them distributed over a number of hulls.

I will go you one better. We have discussed this before.

1 vehicle with 4 crew on board and 3 unmanned robots

OR

4 robot vehicles with 1 crew on board of each of them?

I prefer option 2.

I think option 1 is better - anything manned means you will need armor in a lot of areas - as opposed to just focusing on primary threat axis.

But you are going to be dealing with robots sooner or later. And smaller crews mean smaller targets. If the maintenance/replacement plan is built to manage a bunch of robots then maybe you will have to get used to the ultimate plug and play programme and just swap out your vehicle when it is N/S rather than trying to fix it in the field.

I think you are being overly optimistic on the availability or practicality currently of UGV’s for a lot of tasks.

I think the Combat Engineers would be thrilled to have more kit like this

View attachment 94959

That is an RC-IED task not a combat engineer task.

but looking more like this

View attachment 94960View attachment 94961

Yes something like that for mine clearance and obstacle breacher would be practical.