Future Armour

[FJAG]

IMHO instead of the TAPV we should have either purchased BL or manufactured them under license.

My understanding is that the TAPV was initially envisioned by the army leadership as a small recce vehicle that was lightly armoured and could act as scouts for the armoured corps and also be given to light battalions to help them do patrols and also help with doing some heavier work. In my mind that creates the image of a VBL.

I do not have insight into what went on in the actual project process and how the SOR was framed but it appears to me that the emphasis must have shifted towards the mine protected features which then skewed the size of the vehicle.

 

[PrairieFella]

My understanding is that the TAPV was initially envisioned by the army leadership as a small recce vehicle that was lightly armoured and could act as scouts for the armoured corps and also be given to light battalions to help them do patrols and also help with doing some heavier work. In my mind that creates the image of a VBL.

I do not have insight into what went on in the actual project process and how the SOR was framed but it appears to me that the emphasis must have shifted towards the mine protected features which then skewed the size of the vehicle.

You've got it backwards. It's a purpose built MRAP that we procured for IED rich Afghanistan. When they showed up we shoehorned them in to the roles you mentioned because we had 500 of these pieces of shit and needed to do something with them. A lot of the issues with them can be traced back to using them improperly. It was never designed to be taking cross-country bounds on an advance to contact or zone recce, but here we are doing just that, rolling them all the time. The RCAC is especially short on platforms so we had to make do with what we got.

 

[quadrapiper]

You've got it backwards. It's a purpose built MRAP that we procured for IED rich Afghanistan. When they showed up we shoehorned them in to the roles you mentioned because we had 500 of these pieces of shit and needed to do something with them. A lot of the issues with them can be traced back to using them improperly. It was never designed to be taking cross-country bounds on an advance to contact or zone recce, but here we are doing just that, rolling them all the time. The RCAC is especially short on platforms so we had to make do with what we got.

Idiot question: wouldn't that original use have seen the TAPV needing to contend with slopes and so on, if only to move around blockages on the road?

 

[PrairieFella]

Idiot question: wouldn't that original use have seen the TAPV needing to contend with slopes and so on, if only to move around blockages on the road?

Sure, for a couple hundred metres across some flat, sandy terrain. Not for a 15km armoured trace through the Shilo/Gagetown/Petawawa/Wainwright badlands pushing bush twice a day with minimal maintenance support due to contract issues.

 

[KevinB]

You've got it backwards. It's a purpose built MRAP that we procured for IED rich Afghanistan. When they showed up we shoehorned them in to the roles you mentioned because we had 500 of these pieces of shit and needed to do something with them. A lot of the issues with them can be traced back to using them improperly. It was never designed to be taking cross-country bounds on an advance to contact or zone recce, but here we are doing just that, rolling them all the time. The RCAC is especially short on platforms so we had to make do with what we got.

Agreed.

The issue isn’t that the TAPV is an unmitigated piece of shit. They work for the role they were designed for (albeit I think some of the Canadian mods to the base system haven’t helped, especially with the CoG).

Any system can be terrible when used for a role it wasn’t intended for.

It’s a good convoy security vehicle, and a good airfield patrol vehicle. It isn’t an APC nor a Recce vehicle.

I do find it hard to believe that it is better protected than the LAV 6 for IED/Mines - mainly as the Stryker 2.0 has the same double V as the LAV 6.0 and does better than the up-armored M1117’s which have about 50% more armor than the original M1117, and the TAPV was supposed to be 20-30% more armored than the original 1117.

To me it appears that it was a knee jerk reaction buy, when the LAV-UP was basically doing the same thing that the TAPV was acquired for.


While not exactly new the USMC’s efforts to replace their LAV-25 may be interesting to the RCAC

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/IF11831.pdf

 

[PrairieFella]

Agreed.

The issue isn’t that the TAPV is an unmitigated piece of shit. They work for the role they were designed for (albeit I think some of the Canadian mods to the base system haven’t helped, especially with the CoG).

Any system can be terrible when used for a role it wasn’t intended for.

It’s a good convoy security vehicle, and a good airfield patrol vehicle. It isn’t an APC nor a Recce vehicle.

I do find it hard to believe that it is better protected than the LAV 6 for IED/Mines - mainly as the Stryker 2.0 has the same double V as the LAV 6.0 and does better than the up-armored M1117’s which have about 50% more armor than the original M1117, and the TAPV was supposed to be 20-30% more armored than the original 1117.

To me it appears that it was a knee jerk reaction buy, when the LAV-UP was basically doing the same thing that the TAPV was acquired for.


While not exactly new the USMC’s efforts to replace their LAV-25 may be interesting to the RCAC

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/IF11831.pdf

Good assessment of the situation. The LAV25 replacement program is interesting but would be an instant no-go from Industry Canada since we'd be buying the direct competitor to the LAV6.0. The LAV-700 has some cool weapons and FCS but it's just too damned big. I've been saying it forever but it's worth repeating, the EBRC Jaguar would be the perfect wheeled cav vehicle for the CAF. It's a cool piece of kit.

 

[KevinB]

Good assessment of the situation. The LAV25 replacement program is interesting but would be an instant no-go from Industry Canada since we'd be buying the direct competitor to the LAV6.0. The LAV-700 has some cool weapons and FCS but it's just too damned big. I've been saying it forever but it's worth repeating, the EBRC Jaguar would be the perfect wheeled cav vehicle for the CAF. It's a cool piece of kit.

Well given the two competitors, you may find some interesting synergies.

Marine Corps Awards Prototyping Participants for Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicle Program

MCB QUANTICO, VA. – The Marine Corps has selected General Dynamics Land Systems and Textron Systems Corporation to design, develop, and manufacture an Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicle 30mm Autocannon

www.peols.marines.mil

 

[PrairieFella]

Did anyone have Canadian-made AA technicals on their bingo card?

Roshel presented an anti-aircraft version of the Senator armored vehicle with a Ukrainian combat module

The Canadian company Roshel has presented an anti-aircraft system based on the Senator armored vehicle and a Ukrainian combat module

mil.in.ua

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm an old style sneak and peek Ferret guy. A Lynx is as big as I want to go. To me, a huge, noisy, diesel belching monstrosity, limited to hard pack roads is not a recce vehicle. If you're going to do recce by force, get something you can fight with and can take some damage while doing it. The Corps was in a recce quandary through my whole career. A new draft recce doctrine every few years, with none ever being adopted. We were still using the same tactics and drills in 2013 in G Wagons as I was doing in Ferrets in the 70s.

 

[PrairieFella]

I'm an old style sneak and peek Ferret guy. A Lynx is as big as I want to go. To me, a huge, noisy, diesel belching monstrosity, limited to hard pack roads is not a recce vehicle. If you're going to do recce by force, get something you can fight with and can take some damage while doing it. The Corps was in a recce quandary through my whole career. A new draft recce doctrine every few years, with none ever being adopted. We were still using the same tactics and drills in 2013 in G Wagons as I was doing in Ferrets in the 70s.

The recce regiment that was born out of that era was the problem that's killing the Corps to this day. There never should have been recce regiments at the brigade level, it's a total waste of resources and personnel. All three regular regiments should have been tank regiments, with a recce squadron per that could be split off for Div Recce tasks after being augmented by the reserves. The Ferret seemed like a great sneak and peek platform but that is an entirely cold war tactic. Armoured Recce should be constantly pushing and advancing and killing when needed, using their superior mobility and firepower not "maintaining observation". That's for the infantry until the main body attacks.

The passivity of the Cold War Recce Regiment haunts the Corps to this day. A recce unit should look more like the Second World War Recce Regiment, now that's a useful tool in the toolbelt.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The recce regiment that was born out of that era was the problem that's killing the Corps to this day. There never should have been recce regiments at the brigade level, it's a total waste of resources and personnel. All three regular regiments should have been tank regiments, with a recce squadron per that could be split off for Div Recce tasks after being augmented by the reserves. The Ferret seemed like a great sneak and peek platform but that is an entirely cold war tactic. Armoured Recce should be constantly pushing and advancing and killing when needed, using their superior mobility and firepower not "maintaining observation". That's for the infantry until the main body attacks.

The passivity of the Recce Regiment haunts the Corps to this day.

So, you are one of those tank regiment chappies and a 'Cavalry hater' then I see?

 

[PrairieFella]

So, you are one of those tank regiment chappies and a 'Cavalry hater' then I see?

We need more tanks and PYs dedicated to tanks, period (although we also need an organizational review first to determine where those tanks go but I digress).

I'm actually super keen on the Cav regiment, but it will not work with what we have in our current form. The Cav regiment needs mortars, drones, assault troops, a mix of weapons and vehicles, etc. 4 TAPVs pretending to be tanks isnt a cavalry troop, it's a LARP of a tank troop.

In my headcanon with in service equipment, a Cavalry Squadron consists of 3 x 6 Car Tp of TAPV with 3 cars with .50 and 3 cars with GMG. Ideally we have a mounted ATGM with the 50s but alas, not in-service. These are your typical armoured recce guys conducting routes, zones, possibly some other cav tasks like delays, guards, raids, etc. I'd also have 1 x 4 LAV LRSS Tp as a surveillance tp that also has the firepower to be called up if need be in a pinch. Finally, in TLAV or ACSV I'd have a 40 man combat support troop, 1 x mortar section, 1 x UAV section, 1 x ATGM section and 2 x assault sections for mobility, counter-mobility and mud recce tasks.

Total strength would be 122 guys in the fighting troops. Add a typical SHQ and Ech. Maybe 150ish. It's a big formation but not ridiculously so. Replace the TAPVs with something legitimate ASAP.

Obviously shitty napkin math but you get the idea you could go 4 car TAPV troops to get numbers down but you'd be limiting the frontage they cover for recce by force tasks.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The recce regiment that was born out of that era was the problem that's killing the Corps to this day. There never should have been recce regiments at the brigade level, it's a total waste of resources and personnel. All three regular regiments should have been tank regiments, with a recce squadron per that could be split off for Div Recce tasks after being augmented by the reserves. The Ferret seemed like a great sneak and peek platform but that is an entirely cold war tactic. Armoured Recce should be constantly pushing and advancing and killing when needed, using their superior mobility and firepower not "maintaining observation". That's for the infantry until the main body attacks.

The passivity of the Cold War Recce Regiment haunts the Corps to this day. A recce unit should look more like the Second World War Recce Regiment, now that's a useful tool in the toolbelt.

I have never been against tanks. My Centurion years were some of the best of my career. I have zero problem with tanks in every Regiment with a recce sqn to detach. He'll, I want four full squadrons of tanks per Regiment.

The problem lies with lack of vision by higher ups. Lack of money from the government. Meddling by the government of the day trying to put their own stamp on things they know nothing about. Not enough troops or facilities.

Most of all, and here's the part we can't control. We are given our task by higher, whether they understand anything or not and provided whatever equipment is sold to us by lobbyists and ordered to use by ass kissing politicians. GDLS is a perfect example.

Our job is to get out there and adapt to whatever job we're told to do with the equipment given to us. That is our bread and butter. That is what we are paid for. Nobody asks for our input. Nobody said we have to agree or like it. It what we do.

 

[KevinB]

We need more tanks and PYs dedicated to tanks, period (although we also need an organizational review first to determine where those tanks go but I digress).

I'm actually super keen on the Cav regiment, but it will not work with what we have in our current form. The Cav regiment needs mortars, drones, assault troops, a mix of weapons and vehicles, etc. 4 TAPVs pretending to be tanks isnt a cavalry troop, it's a LARP of a tank troop.

Basically you describe a smaller version of the US Army CAV Squadron

In my headcanon with in service equipment, a Cavalry Squadron consists of 3 x 6 Car Tp of TAPV with 3 cars with .50 and 3 cars with GMG. Ideally we have a mounted ATGM with the 50s but alas, not in-service. These are your typical armoured recce guys conducting routes, zones, possibly some other cav tasks like delays, guards, raids, etc. I'd also have 1 x 4 LAV LRSS Tp as a surveillance tp that also has the firepower to be called up if need be in a pinch. Finally, in TLAV or ACSV I'd have a 40 man combat support troop, 1 x mortar section, 1 x UAV section, 1 x ATGM section and 2 x assault sections for mobility, counter-mobility and mud recce tasks.

Total strength would be 122 guys in the fighting troops. Add a typical SHQ and Ech. Maybe 150ish. It's a big formation but not ridiculously so. Replace the TAPVs with something legitimate ASAP.

Obviously shitty napkin math but you get the idea you could go 4 car TAPV troops to get numbers down but you'd be limiting the frontage they cover for recce by force tasks.

To me the CAV Squadron should be a Bde asset, as it requires Crewmen (crewpeople?), Infanteers and other occupations to be integrated in order to fulfill its mission.


Keep the Armoured Regiments in Tanks for at least 2 Bde’s

 

[PrairieFella]

Basically you describe a smaller version of the US Army CAV Squadron

View attachment 87781


Essentially. I'm actually moreso modelling it off the Canadian Recce Regiment from the second world war but you're not wrong.

To me the CAV Squadron should be a Bde asset, as it requires Crewmen (crewpeople?), Infanteers and other occupations to be integrated in order to fulfill its mission.


Keep the Armoured Regiments in Tanks for at least 2 Bde’s

They did just fine with dismounted crewmen during the war however if they don't want to allocate those positions to crewmen then for sure let's add some ground pounders to the mix. This is where a mixed reserve and reg unit would come in handy, I'd have this armoured unit as div recce and promote one of the reserve units per Div to fill this role, maybe 70% reg and 30% reserve. They'd be headquartered out of the regimental home but ultimately there would need to be some major infrastructure upgrades to have a 3 squadron regiment stood up. This of course assumes the deployment of a Div which I think Canada should strive towards.

I think 250 tanks would be plenty in a realistic world, but id love to see upwards of 350-400.

 

[KevinB]

View attachment 87781


Essentially. I'm actually moreso modelling it off the Canadian Recce Regiment from the second world war but you're not wrong.



They did just fine with dismounted crewmen during the war however if they don't want to allocate those positions to crewmen then for sure let's add some ground pounders to the mix. This is where a mixed reserve and reg unit would come in handy, I'd have this armoured unit as div recce and promote one of the reserve units per Div to fill this role, maybe 70% reg and 30% reserve. They'd be headquartered out of the regimental home but ultimately there would need to be some major infrastructure upgrades to have a 3 squadron regiment stood up. This of course assumes the deployment of a Div which I think Canada should strive towards.

I think 250 tanks would be plenty in a realistic world, but id love to see upwards of 350-400.

Personally I would opt to go 100% Reg for this role, just because the time requirements to operate as a uniform entity. Let the pure Armor and Infantry units be 30/70, but stick the more specialized be either 70/30 or 100/0

Mainly as there will be more and more Uncrewed systems both ground and air for this role and it will become a time sink that the PRes won’t be able to overcome without long class B/C periods.

I do agree with you that in a realistic world Canada would have around 400 tanks.
Plus a lot of other Armor enablers.