Canadian Armoured Cavalry

[30 for 30]

2B,

Would bringing the LAV 111/Coyote intregration concept down to the troop level be advantageous? Your idea of a mixed sqn sounds like an ideal mech direction for the CF. I see a mixed tp as having two surv vehs supported and assisted by two inf vehs, with the inf perhaps taking on more of a dismounted scout role. I believe the US ACRs similarly mixed Abrams and Bradleys at the pl level, though I suppose that was for a different purpose. Merging our mech and recce units into "cav" bns seems highly sensible considering the fact that our Army really isn't outfitted for conventional close mech combat.

 

[Zipper]

It sounds great. It would save the life of the Armoured Corp.

I would try to find a way of getting a LAV III with the coyote's capabilities and get rid of the coyote entirly so as to have only one chasis. Otherwise the LAV chasis APC is already around, so go with it. Upgunning one of the varients would be a very good idea as well.

I like it! 

Then we could add track armour later... ;D

 

[a_majoor]

My modification wish list:

Replace the Delco turret on the LAV III with an OWS. CASR has an interesting concept illustration of a LAV III with a 25mm OWS, but whatever we use, it will make the LAV lighter and have a lower shillouette. An HMG or AGL should discourage thoughts of tank duels, but provision for a "Fire and Forget" missile to be mounted should be made for self defense purposes. (Clip on Javelin mount?)

US Stryker Recce vehicles have a sensor head replacing the weapons station in the OWS, which provided the "periscope" effect, and also leaves more room in the back for dismounts. The minus is lack of firepower (just a pintle mounted MG to my knowledge). For recce/surveillance I would advocate a 1-2 approach (all on a common LAV III hull); A Coyote II with the delco turret mounting the chain gun and a good thermal imaging sight, with one varient carrying the dismounts, while the other carries the improved surveillance mast. The space in the back can also support the kit for an NBC recce version, should that be desired. These two would be the prime versions for the recce/surveillance squadron, either as pure troops or mixed and matched as the situation requires.

I agree the current MGS is a curiosity, but some sort of gun version is desirable just for the high rate of fire a gun provides.

A "Bison II" or a pickup truck LAV III chassis for front line CSS and all the support varients is also a must.

LAV-Missile, well I've made my views known.... ;D

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

RNW,

When I was on the Cav Course in the States the heavy cavalry had tank platoons (M1s) and scout platoons (M3s) in the Cavalry Troop (a sub-unit or equivalent of our Sqn).  The tanks and scouts were not mixed at platoon level and it was not standard practice to have the tanks "overwatch" the scouts.  There were a couple of reasons for this.  First, the M3s had TOW, 25mm and good optics and therefore could overwatch each other.  Second, the tanks were kept back slightly to allow them to be deployed advantageously.

The Light Cavalry Tp (found in 2nd ACR and the Light Divisions at the time) had two platoons of scouts in HMMVWs with .50 and Mk19s and two platoons of HUMMVW TOW.  They could either function the same as their heavy cousins and have the TOW kept back or they could be pushed up to overwatch the scouts.  This could be taken further by having a Troop Scramble formation with 2 x TOW, 4 x HMMVW Scout and 1 x HUMMVW Command (either a Pl Comd or Platoon First Sgt) in each platoon.  The advantage of the Scramble formation is that the TOWs with their superior optics and firepower are integrated into the otherwise somewhat defenceless gun armed HUMMVWs.  I believe that the USMC use a CAAT (Combined Anti-Armour Team) based on groups of three HUMMVWs.  One with a .50, one with a Mk 19 and one with a TOW (Matt can probably shed some light here).

It is hard to "overwatch" with a Coyote mast since it takes a while to get set up and tear down.  Both the Coyote and LAV have excellent turret optics, however, and do not rely exclusively on the surv gear.  All that being said, a mix of Coyotes, LAVs or Coyotes with Scouts in the back and a pair of LAV TOW would make an interesting Recce Tp.  Six to eight vehicles would make a flexible package and could be the building block of a Cavalry Sqn.

Phew, I think that we're back to the beginning!

My original concept was for a Task Force that used our current equipment and organizations but with a slightly different role than usual.  One refinement I'm thinking of is to have the role of the Cavalry Task Force being to protect other formations.  This protection can come in many forms, ranging from a screen to protect the flank of a Division to a convoy escort task for humanitarian assistance groups.  My paper is actually being written (in fits and starts) and I'm debating even using the Cavalry term at all.  It is a loaded term in Canada, especially after the whole Cougar to Coyote DSFV Sqn fiasco.  The term Cavalry Sqn was bandied about but without any supporting doctrine.  Perhaps I'll try to Trojan Horse the Cavalry thing...

A more revolutionary Cavalry would be along the lines of Kirkhill's post where the Armoured Corps become the Cavarly and take over all the AFVs and associated crews/dismounts.  I do like this idea and have advocated it on other threads although I feel that it will go over like a Led Zeppelin right now.  AMajoor's equipment ideas also make sense and I would like a LAV version of the M548s for sure.

Any more thoughts on the virtues of vices of having mixed "Troops/Platoons" or is it better to cross attach?

Cheers,

2B

 

[George Wallace]

2B

Many of the comments by others are valid, but let's not forget that not all Coyotes in the Surv role have masts.   We currently run one Mast and one Remote/Ground Mount per patrol.   In both cases, when on operations, the GIB is 'securely' seated in back protected by mounds of equipment.   Even the Command Variant of the Coyote, really won't offer up much room in back to add a couple of Scouts.   It may be best to go to the Coyote II that you alluded to (LAV III).

GW

 

[Zipper]

A more revolutionary Cavalry would be along the lines of Kirkhill's post where the Armoured Corps become the Cavalry and take over all the AFVs and associated crews/dismounts.   I do like this idea and have advocated it on other threads although I feel that it will go over like a Led Zeppelin right now.   Majoor's equipment ideas also make sense and I would like a LAV version of the M548s for sure.

Any more thoughts on the virtues of vices of having mixed "Troops/Platoons" or is it better to cross attach?

Its not a bad Idea.

Since I am sad to say that all the arguments that I and many others have put up here (and other threads) about keeping tracked vehicles and other forms of Armoured Corp ideals are already dead. The decisions to go all wheel, and to fill in the "niche" role have already been made, as is the purchase of the MGS.

So with that being said. I do like Kirk's idea of keeping the "cavalry" role inside the Armoured Corp. If we do not then we are basically spelling l the death of the Corp. which I, of course am against. Then again I may be to late on this even and the decision to do so may be already made.

But it makes sense with what equipment we are going to, to go to one of the roles that have been mentioned above.

2B - I agree with you totally about going to the Coyote II so as to streamline the support needed.

As to the Cavalry thing. I am against the term only because I am not big on American methodology and their ways of doing things. I think we could take the term back again if we added our own Canadian flavour to it and made it our own. In other words, make alot of references to our past roles as Cavalry (horsed) and play on the Regimental histories with which the Armoured Corp is so very fond of.

 

[Steel Badger]

We could always call them Panzer-Aufklarungs Abteilung >

 

[TCBF]

The modern term in use by the Bundeswehr is Panzeraufkarungsbataillon.   They are Div Recce Bns. In the late 80s/early 90s they had ten or twelve of them.   They took turns hosting the Boeselager Recce Competitions.

Tom

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

George,

I do like our current inclusion of both a mast and a remote in each Patrol.   The doctrine guys like to focus on the mast but I've seen the remote used very effectively.   I've seen suggestions in the Armour Bulletin to go with one surv system per Patrol but I prefer having the flexibility (and backup gear) of having both.   I do not see the Surv Ops as dismounted scouts, although they can do it in a pinch I suppose.   If we strip out the back of the Command variants we could probably get two people back there with some comfort to try out the Scout concept.   LAV IIIs would probably be better in some ways and they have the advantage of already existing.   Even a Bison with a FLIR or sight could be suitable.   A common chassis would be nice (which makes the Coyote Comd Scout option attractive)!   We covered this in the Recce Tp/Sqn thread to some extent but we got a little de-railed by my musings on having a Command Patrol!   Perhaps we need to go back there.

All,

Mixed Troops with Scouts (LAVs or Coyotes with dismounts), Surv Coyotes and TOW would be useful for many scenarios.   It would offer a complete package for a variety of missions.   There could be times, however, when the TOW would be less useful than an additional Coyote Patrol.   I'd be interested in the feasibility of having a TOW system attached to the Coyote turret.   Not to go tank hunting but to give the Tp some self-defence against armoured targets.   I'm sure that the tech gurus will have reason why we do not have this.   I can also appreciate the training issue.

Perhaps we could go with three Recce Patrols (2 x Coyote Surv Ptls, 1 x Coyote or LAV Scout Scout Ptl) and a Command Patrol as the baseline.   TOW could always be attached for specific missions I suppose.

Going back to the main topic, "pure" Recce Squadrons and LAV Infantry Companies could be "cross-attached" to form composite Cavalry sub-units if the mission so dictates.   This would have to be practiced in peacetime and pre-deployment training.

Cheers,

2B

p.s. The Coyotes with the Surv gear would still be "recce" and would be the ones leading most of the time.  The surv gear would be used in OPs, not to "overwatch" the scouts.  The Scouts would be called up to investigate danger areas with their dismounts (overwatched by the other Coyotes using their turret systems and any LAV TOW if attached).  If there was a way to get 2 x scouts in the back of a Coyote with the Surv gear then we could just go with that.

 

[George Wallace]

Quibbling over the name is not a big thing.  The fact that we still have a Cavalry Association could justify us being Cavalry, if you so choose.  We could also call everyone "Dragoons" as that will be what they are.  Perhaps the Hussars, Horse, etc. will be upset with the term Dragoon, so Cavalry may in the end be the most commonly accepted term if people get too hung up on their Regimental Affiliation.

I am convinced that the Coyote is reaching the end of its' usefulness.  Why?  Because we are adding more electronics and sensors to it and it really is getting very cramped inside.  As I said, the GIB is buried under kit when the vehicle is fully kitted for operations.  It is time for an upgrade to a LAV III chassis.  That may solve some of the noise problems, plus gives a bit better system in which to keep batteries charged.  The Surv Suite mounted on the LAV III chassis would greatly improve crew comfort, especially the GIB's.  It would provide a commonality of the fleet.  It would allow for Scouts to be easily attached to a Troop. 

Although, one of my major concerns with the Coyote was its' size (another being its' turret being located two thirds of the way back on the hull) I am recommending the switch to the even large LAV III. 

I could forsee the Recce Troop increasing in size, to become an ten car troop.  Three two car Surv Patrols, One two car Scout Patrol and the Command Patrol.  Having this configuration there would be a vast amount of tasks that a Recce Troop could fulfill that they can't effectively do today.  The Surv Patrols would remain with one Mast and one Remote.  The Scout Patrol would provide dismounts for minor Assault Troop Tasks and the majority of any Dismounted Patrolling.  The Command Patrol would have the room to carry out resupply in the Screen that isn't there today.  It would also be better protected.  If UAVs are added, then the troop would become even larger, by one or two vehicles.

I would like to see our turrets upgraded also.  The 25 really doesn't pack enough punch to defend the vehicle enough.  A 30 or 35 may be a bit more realistic.  I'd also like to see a missile system incorporated, as in the M2 and M3 Bradleys. 

As pointed out, the sights on the Coyote are quite often good enough to use in the OP, without using the Mast or Remote.  However, you will not always be in a position where you can operate 'Mounted' or have the ground or location where that would be feasible. 

GW

 

[Zipper]

Ok. A little confusion on my part.

What about the Gwagon? Where does it fit?

Also. I thought we came to the conclusion that the coyote is not a very good recce vehicle as it cannot sneak and peek, and is more of a surveillance vehicle?

Now. Another problem I forsee is the fact that even if we do buy new Herc's, we will not be able to deploy our LAV's ourselves as they do not fit. So we will either have to deploy them slowly using our new ships (???), or to rent other means as always from the US.

Otherwise. All these ideas sound pretty good. And I agree with you 2B as to keeping the TOW back to deploy on a as needed basis only.

Up gunning from the 25 would be nice as well, especially if we have them in the Armoured Corp. We have to have the biggest guns after all. ;D

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Zipper,

I'm one of those heretics that considers the Coyote a Recce vehicle!  I've left the G-Wagon out intentionally.  When vehicles start moving they get seen whether they are a jeep or a Coyote.  I would employ the G-Wagon or some other "light" vehicle for Recce Tps/Sqns that are supporting true Light Forces where we have limited space on the aircraft and getting there fast is the prime consideration.

As for getting a Cavalry Task Force somewhere I envision us either having to use US airlift or renting the good'ol Antonovs if shipping is not an option.

George,

What is the maximum size of a chain gun that can fit onto a two-man turret?  I've seen the 30mm Bushmaster II on the CV9030, but I was told that it would not fit in our turrets.  A LAV III with the surveillance kit would be roomier! 

All,

I've strayed away from indirect fire.  The US have two mortars in their Tp (their equivalent of a Sqn).  Do we need organic indirect fire support for this force and if so at what level?

Cheers,

2B

 

[George Wallace]

When it comes to up-gunning the Coyotes and LAVs, it will mean a redesigned turret.  The current turret would have to go.  With a redesigned turret, a missile system could be incorporated. 

The Recce Troop is becoming quite large with what we are talking now, so mortars would have to be relegated to a Support Troop, as in WW II.  This would be a troop on its own which may even include MGS.  Assault Troop would be a completely different entity.  Support Troop would do well to have 120 mm mortars and the new munitions that are out there today for Illum, Anti-Tank, etc.  It would really beef up a Recce Sqn.

There is another option for mortars, which is found on some MBTs today, and that is the turret mounted 40 or 60 mm mortars that would provide HE and Illum in emergencies. 

I wouldn't throw out any ideas of incorporating the GWagens into the Recce Troop.  Having been a "Jeep Jockey", I know how effective they would be.  Open GWagens would be a good solution (By open, I mean no tops, no Roll Bars, no wind screens.) and one that would allow the Reserves to use the same kit as the Regs use.  I know that being open and unarmoured they would be more susceptible to enemy small arms and mines, but that is a hazard of the trade.  They are a valuable resource and can still be used effectively, as long as everyone remembers their limitations.  If the fear of small arms and mines is too prevalent in todays political climate, then I would suggest a small vehicle like the Ferret or its brother the Fox.  I would think that getting anything larger would be disadvantageous; so Fennek and Fuchs size vehicles are stretching the boundaries (Except in the NBC Recce roles). 

Again, I believe the Coyote and LAV are too big for the Recce role, but they are the way we have decided to go.  I feel that the only vehicle of this size that I would accept as a Recce vehicle, would be the German Luchs.  Because of its' abilities to drive at speed Forward and Reverse, with its' drivers in front and rear, it is a more thoroughly thought out design.  It also has a larger gun.

GW

 

[McG]

What is the maximum size of a chain gun that can fit onto a two-man turret? I've seen the 30mm Bushmaster II on the CV9030, but I was told that it would not fit in our turrets. A LAV III with the surveillance kit would be roomier!

When it comes to up-gunning the Coyotes and LAVs, it will mean a redesigned turret. The current turret would have to go. With a redesigned turret, a missile system could be incorporated.

The manufacturer already has a turret with 30 mm cannon and TOW missiles that is based on our current turret.   There is also a 35 mm that is of a newer generation.

http://www.gdls.com/

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I believe that they considered putting TOW on the Coyote but discarded it due to cost.  It obviously works since that is the arrangement on the Bradley.  I've been told that the 30mm will not fit in our current turrets and that we'd need a whole new turret.  I assume that the LAV-30 turret can fit in the turret ring of the Coyote and LAV III.  Cost might get in the way here but I have some ideas...

At the risk of pulling this thread further away from the topic, I venture that the Recce vehicles need the TOW on the turret more than the infantry carriers.  Recce vehs can find themselves far from help and in need of the ability to hit an enemy vehicle that is engaging them.  We like to say that Arty will do the job but I feel that this is simply assuming the problem away.

On the other hand, having TOW on both the LAV III and Coyote could perhaps mean that we would do away with the LAV TOW.  The US Army did away with its mech TOW platoons once it had the M2/M3 Bradleys with TOW and 25mm.  There would be a training bill to go with this but it would make for a cleaner org chart and would give each vehicle/patrol/tp the ability to defend itself.  Perhaps if we funnelled the MGS, MMEV and LAV TOW money into a LAV-30 TOW/ LAV-25 TOW turret instead we could make this happen.

Cheers,

2B

 

[McG]

Lots of thoughts on Coyote & LAV APC anti-armour capabilities here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25800.0.html

 

[Zipper]

Hmmm.

How effective are we going to be able to be as a screening force (cavalry)? We do not have the punch to enable us to engage any strong force that may try to outflank our larger formation. If we do go with TOW on turret, it will disrupt our mobility. And most screening forces usually have a lot of cross country ahead of them to stay on the main forces flanks. So I ask, how well do we expect to do this job if it is given to us?

Now. The recce role. How well are we going to be able to do this job? Most recce that I am even slightly familiar with is either sneak and peek, which the LAV's are terrible at. And recce in force (or aggressive information gathering) which again we do not have the punch or protection for with our current plans. So the Gwagon is our only "real" recce capable vehicle.

So what role will we be able to fill? Base protection which the coyote is very well proven to provide. Supply chain escort which is mainly road and the coyote and LAV III's are again proven well equipped for. And of course peacekeeping patrols.

I'm sorry. I am just having a hard time seeing us fill any of the other "combat" related rolls that those countries who we will be supporting cannot better fill themselves. Am I way off base here?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Zipper,

What do mean by the Coyote only being good for base protection?  In my opinion the Coyote can perform the Recce role.

All,

Perhaps we are getting a little too equipment specific here.  I'd like to look at capabilties for a bit and then look back at our kit and see how it fits.

My own view for Cavalry Task Force is that it has the following capabilities:

    a.  recce (find the enemy)

    b.  counter-recce (destroy the enemy's recce)

    c.  perform screens and guards

    d.  conduct Rear Area Security (RAS)

    e.  perform econonmy of force tasks

Its integral capabilities should be as follows:

    a.  sensors (Coyote at a minimum but perhaps including UAVs, EW etc);

    b.  some capability to act to include:

        (1)  anti-personnel weapons

        (2)  anti-armour weapons

        (3)  some form of fire support

  c.  mobility and counter-mobility support

  d.  CSS

  e.  command

I believe that some "sensors" such as Coyotes and other recce vehs are also "actors" and need to be able to fight as well as gather information.  Going back to the whole TOW bit, putting TOW on the Coyotes and LAVs would at least give the guys up front the ability to deal with any threat (not conduct assaults, but at least be able to fight out of a situation).

Should the component sub-units have integral anti-armour, fire support and mobility assest or should these be centralized?

Cheers,

2B

 

[Zipper]

Zipper,

What do mean by the Coyote only being good for base protection? In my opinion the Coyote can perform the Recce role.

I didn't say it was ONLY good for base protection. Just that is is already proved itself in that roll.

I am just questioning how capable we will be, beyond what those countries we will be supporting (US, Britain, NATO) can already do for themselves with better equipment? In your 5 rolls I see below. We are really (with the equipment that we are getting) only able to preform very well at (on par or better with what other countries military's can do) are: b,d, and e.

I'm not saying we are not capable personal and training wise to do all of the other jobs. Just that our equipment will hold us back at performing a and c   better then what our bigger cousins can do for themselves.

Otherwise I agree with you on everything except that the Coyote is a good recce vehicle. To big and noisy. I also think that the units should have integral anti-armour, fire support, etc. As by the time you call in the separate units for support. You may have lost more of your unit then was necessary.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

What is "base protection?"

Our "sense" capabilities have been in demand with our allies (which includes the Coyotes).  If our allies do not want our support than I guess that we'll have to live with it.  I would argue, however, that recce and/or Cavalry would be a very welcome addition to a coalition force.  Perhaps we would miss out on an "invasion", but our equipment and skill set would be a good fit with the follow-on stability phase.

Cheers,

2B