Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[GR66]

Incidentally, does anyone have a breakdown of the variants coming down the ramp of the most recent LAV VI Combat Support Vehicle project. It strikes me from what I read that it's C&C and CSS vehicle and anything but actual combat support.

This is from Wikipedia but I think it's in line with other articles I've seen:

41 x Troop Cargo Vehicles (TCV), 49 x Ambulance, 97 x Command Post Vehicles, 19 x Engineer Vehicles, 18 x EW Vehicles, 54 x Maintenance Recovery Vehicles, 70 x Mobile Repair Team Vehicles and 13 x Fitter/Cargo Vehicles.

 

[daftandbarmy]

This is from Wikipedia but I think it's in line with other articles I've seen:

41 x Troop Cargo Vehicles (TCV), 49 x Ambulance, 97 x Command Post Vehicles, 19 x Engineer Vehicles, 18 x EW Vehicles, 54 x Maintenance Recovery Vehicles, 70 x Mobile Repair Team Vehicles and 13 x Fitter/Cargo Vehicles.

Which is awesome in its own right, of course.

 

[FJAG]

This is from Wikipedia but I think it's in line with other articles I've seen:

41 x Troop Cargo Vehicles (TCV), 49 x Ambulance, 97 x Command Post Vehicles, 19 x Engineer Vehicles, 18 x EW Vehicles, 54 x Maintenance Recovery Vehicles, 70 x Mobile Repair Team Vehicles and 13 x Fitter/Cargo Vehicles.

Not too sound too pricky about it but 24 mortar carriers, 24 gun tractors for the M777, and maybe 24 TOW vehicles would have been more important than 97 command post vehicles.

Just for comparison, a complete Stryker brigade has 30 CP variants: 5 in Bde HQ, 5 in each of the three rifle bn HQs (and none for the company - they operate out of standard Strykers), 1 in the arty Bn (I presume for the FSCC) and 9 in the Cavalry Sqn (6 in the HQ and 1 in each of the three troops) - so for each CMBG as configured there should be 24 as only two bns are LAV'd and the Recce regt could probably be cut back to 5 as well - lets say 21 per brigade all up. That would leave 34 to repurpose.

Maybe it's just me but I'd prefer to see mortars and ATGMs under armour instead of a herd of superfluous staff officers.

Okay I could be persuaded away from the gun tractors although TLAVs were vital in Afghanistan to protect the detachments when moving by road.

 

[Ostrozac]

Okay I could be persuaded away from the gun tractors although TLAVs were vital in Afghanistan to protect the detachments when moving by road.

I‘m not fully convinced that towed guns behind armoured vehicles makes much sense. I remember when LG1 towed by Grizzly AVGP was supposed to be the next best thing — that didn’t last long. A US SBCT tows their M777 behind trucks. Either go with self propelled, or don’t. Halfway makes little sense,

We used to have self-propelled 81mm mortar versions of the Bison — I always found them to be an incredible useful, lethal, weapon system, and having 99 rounds on board was impressive. I’m not sure why we abandoned them. Nor why an SPM (either 81 or 120) isn’t on the table right now.

 

[FJAG]

I‘m not fully convinced that towed guns behind armoured vehicles makes much sense. I remember when LG1 towed by Grizzly AVGP was supposed to be the next best thing — that didn’t last long. A US SBCT tows their M777 behind trucks. Either go with self propelled, or don’t. Halfway makes little sense,

I have to admit I'm on the fence on the thing. I personally favour armoured SP's (wheeled or tracked) to provide protection from counter fire. The armoured gun limber doesn't do that but it provides armoured protection for the crew from IEDs (within reason) and from small arms fire while on the road. That was an important point for gun detachments in Afghanistan on those occasions where they had to occasionally change position by road. The armoured gun limber is also incompatible with air moves of a battery. For example an M119 and its HMMWV can be lifted by a Chinook and while an M777 can be lifted, it's armoured limber can't which limits things.

One of the big problems with the first few Kandahar tours was which vehicle would be the M777s limber. Gunners would train on one system in Canada and find themselves with something completely different when they finally arrived because folks in theatre reassigned vehicles willy-nilly.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I‘m not fully convinced that towed guns behind armoured vehicles makes much sense. I remember when LG1 towed by Grizzly AVGP was supposed to be the next best thing — that didn’t last long. A US SBCT tows their M777 behind trucks. Either go with self propelled, or don’t. Halfway makes little sense,

We used to have self-propelled 81mm mortar versions of the Bison — I always found them to be an incredible useful, lethal, weapon system, and having 99 rounds on board was impressive. I’m not sure why we abandoned them. Nor why an SPM (either 81 or 120) isn’t on the table right now.

A Bison like LAV 6 with a 120mm in it would make a significant difference right now.

 

[CBH99]

I'm am always amazed why the Infantry is willing to piss away combat forces that have been hard requirements and say "oh well, we don't need them right now..."
The Canadian Army seems to have an incredible power to be willfully ignorant.

Not to sound petty or immature, but I think it’s just a matter of an absence of common sense.

It’s pretty lacking in all areas of life - government, private business, everyday decisions made by people who haven’t thought through their actions beyond the immediate “Me Do This Now…”

I‘m not fully convinced that towed guns behind armoured vehicles makes much sense. I remember when LG1 towed by Grizzly AVGP was supposed to be the next best thing — that didn’t last long. A US SBCT tows their M777 behind trucks. Either go with self propelled, or don’t. Halfway makes little sense,

We used to have self-propelled 81mm mortar versions of the Bison — I always found them to be an incredible useful, lethal, weapon system, and having 99 rounds on board was impressive. I’m not sure why we abandoned them. Nor why an SPM (either 81 or 120) isn’t on the table right now.

Couldn’t agree more. The vehicles are already in production right here in Canada, and there are Stryker versions already in service that are of the SPM variant.

Talk about a simple solution to a problem that would increase the lethality of our field units. (Mind you, a modern ATGM is also a simple solution to another problem, and…..)

 

[markppcli]

Since when is penny-packetting TOW doctrine?

Siting TOW used to be part of the Bde Anti-Armour plan…

Well that would imply we follow doctrine….

Give infsntry platoon and section in battle a read and compare the organization it gives for a Bn in comparison to reality. We’ve decided that instead of using PYs for tow platoons we’ll make a section in deploying companies tow capable….

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Well that would imply we follow doctrine….

Give infsntry platoon and section in battle a read and compare the organization it gives for a Bn in comparison to reality. We’ve decided that instead of using PYs for tow platoons we’ll make a section in deploying companies tow capable….

FML…

 

[KevinB]

Well that would imply we follow doctrine….

Give infsntry platoon and section in battle a read and compare the organization it gives for a Bn in comparison to reality. We’ve decided that instead of using PYs for tow platoons we’ll make a section in deploying companies tow capable….

By now I think most people think Doctrine is that humor website with military satire...

 

[Weinie]

By now I think most people think Doctrine is that humor website with military satire...

I am a doctrine guy, and even I have to agree with that.

 

[suffolkowner]

Not too sound too pricky about it but 24 mortar carriers, 24 gun tractors for the M777, and maybe 24 TOW vehicles would have been more important than 97 command post vehicles.

Just for comparison, a complete Stryker brigade has 30 CP variants: 5 in Bde HQ, 5 in each of the three rifle bn HQs (and none for the company - they operate out of standard Strykers), 1 in the arty Bn (I presume for the FSCC) and 9 in the Cavalry Sqn (6 in the HQ and 1 in each of the three troops) - so for each CMBG as configured there should be 24 as only two bns are LAV'd and the Recce regt could probably be cut back to 5 as well - lets say 21 per brigade all up. That would leave 34 to repurpose.

Maybe it's just me but I'd prefer to see mortars and ATGMs under armour instead of a herd of superfluous staff officers.

Okay I could be persuaded away from the gun tractors although TLAVs were vital in Afghanistan to protect the detachments when moving by road.

from wikipedia as well

List of equipment of the Canadian Army - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

651 LAV III originally purchased. 550 upgraded to LAV 6.0 standard under the LAV UP program in 2019. Configurations consist of 278 Infantry Section Carrier (ISC), 181 Command Post Vehicle (CPV), 47 Observation Post Vehicle (OPV), and 44 Engineer LAV (ELAV).[146] Additional 66 vehicles are being upgraded to LAV 6.0 standard under the LAV Recce Surveillance System (LRSS) program by 2020.[145][115][147][148]

so another 181 LAV 6 Command Post Vehicles. Do we need more than the 278 Infantry Section Carriers? You would think it would be easy to add the motar carriers, IM-SHORAD, TOW. Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! after all.

 

[FJAG]

...
651 LAV III originally purchased. 550 upgraded to LAV 6.0 standard under the LAV UP program in 2019. Configurations consist of 278 Infantry Section Carrier (ISC), 181 Command Post Vehicle (CPV), 47 Observation Post Vehicle (OPV), and 44 Engineer LAV (ELAV).[146] Additional 66 vehicles are being upgraded to LAV 6.0 standard under the LAV Recce Surveillance System (LRSS) program by 2020.[145][115][147][148]

so another 181 LAV 6 Command Post Vehicles. Do we need more than the 278 Infantry Section Carriers? You would think it would be easy to add the motar carriers, IM-SHORAD, TOW. Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! after all.

If we already had 181 CP versions under LAV UP, why did we get another 97 under LAV Combat Support Vehicle?

Just doing some quick math at 4 section carriers per platoon (incl the pl comd) and three platoons to a coy (12) and three companies per battalion (36 - assuming the coy comd vehicles are CP versions) and six LAV battalions (108) (and just for fun, a complete extra battalion in storage for operational use (144) (and just for heck, lets say another battalion in schools etc (180) - so where are the other 98 section carriers (that's almost three battalions).

We seem to also have a herd of CPs (181? Really?), enough OPVs for 3 regt's (27 - 36 needed out of 47) and engineers (44).

And that's before we count what? 500 TAPVs? and another 361 LAV 6.0s under the LAV Combat Support Vehicle program.

At this rate we'll have more armoured vehicles then we can man? - Kind of like the navy and ships, isn't it? - Good thing that the Air Force has more than enough pilots

 

[suffolkowner]

If we already had 181 CP versions under LAV UP, why did we get another 97 under LAV Combat Support Vehicle?

Just doing some quick math at 4 section carriers per platoon (incl the pl comd) and three platoons to a coy (12) and three companies per battalion (36 - assuming the coy comd vehicles are CP versions) and six LAV battalions (108) (and just for fun, a complete extra battalion in storage for operational use (144) (and just for heck, lets say another battalion in schools etc (180) - so where are the other 98 section carriers (that's almost three battalions).

We seem to also have a herd of CPs (181? Really?), enough OPVs for 3 regt's (27 - 36 needed out of 47) and engineers (44).

And that's before we count what? 500 TAPVs? and another 361 LAV 6.0s under the LAV Combat Support Vehicle program.

At this rate we'll have more armoured vehicles then we can man? - Kind of like the navy and ships, isn't it? - Good thing that the Air Force has more than enough pilots

I've wondered about the LAV variants for years! None of my army buddies seemed to be able to explain the mix either.

 

[McG]

If we already had 181 CP versions under LAV UP

The LAV 6 CP is poorly named. It is a turreted command vehicle for platoon, company, and battalion commanders. Engr Recce Sgt sometimes operate from LAV 6 CP because they don’t need all the benches of an ISC.

The ACSV CP will be an actual stand-up CP reminiscent of a Bison & Queen Marry hybrid.

 

[OldSolduer]

The LAV 6 CP is poorly named. It is a turreted command vehicle for platoon, company, and battalion commanders. Engr Recce Sgt sometimes operate from LAV 6 CP because they don’t need all the benches of an ISC.

The ACSV CP will be an actual stand-up CP reminiscent of a Bison & Queen Marry hybrid.

An actual command post vehicle needs room for radios and other stuff - like people to man the radios. A vehicle with a turret on it isn't a CP.

 

[FJAG]

The LAV 6 CP is poorly named. It is a turreted command vehicle for platoon, company, and battalion commanders. Engr Recce Sgt sometimes operate from LAV 6 CP because they don’t need all the benches of an ISC.

The ACSV CP will be an actual stand-up CP reminiscent of a Bison & Queen Marry hybrid.

I seemed to sense that from the pictures of companies in their existing LAVs and of the LAV CS program CP variants. (I understood that the difference between a LAV III section carrier and CP carrier was the radio installation (and I think, a CP penthouse kit). IMHO the company CPs should stay exactly that way because - well - combat.

I can see roles for perhaps 5 Queen Marys in a bn CP and Recce Rgt CP and maybe 8 in a bde HQ, which puts us around 70 or so as currently structured - but 181 Queen Marys? Especially when there are no mortar or ATGM carriers?

Colour me cynical.

 

[suffolkowner]

I seemed to sense that from the pictures of companies in their existing LAVs and of the LAV CS program CP variants. (I understood that the difference between a LAV III section carrier and CP carrier was the radio installation (and I think, a CP penthouse kit). IMHO the company CPs should stay exactly that way because - well - combat.

I can see roles for perhaps 5 Queen Marys in a bn CP and Recce Rgt CP and maybe 8 in a bde HQ, which puts us around 70 or so as currently structured - but 181 Queen Marys? Especially when there are no mortar or ATGM carriers?

Colour me cynical.

I think its suggested maybe 97 from the ACSV not the 181 from the LAV 6.0

 

[McG]

Well, some of those CPs will replace bison CPs that currently do RRBs, I would guess. There is also unit & sub-unit CPs for Artillery & Engineers … including in 5 Div (when I saw 4 GS’s MRR Bty in the field it was all B fleet except for the Queen Marry CP). I imagine 1 Div HQ and/or JSR will claim a few more, and there are probably a few going to schools.

 

[FJAG]

I think its suggested maybe 97 from the ACSV not the 181 from the LAV 6.0

You're right of course. I think I'm getting too tired.

So with 97 ACSV CPs we should be able to fill all the brigade and mech bn CPs with maybe a few extras. That should release, one would think, 97 LAV 6.0 UP CP versions ( if they were already being used as bde and bn CPs and of which there are 181 total)- which begs the question: where will all those LAV 6.0 UP CP's be used if the bns and bde HQ won't need them any more.