Infantry Vehicles

[KevinB]

Close ,15



I think it works out to around 55 or so?

Thanks, it's been years and I couldn't recall at the Coy level who got a LAV, my assumption had been OC, LAV-Capt, but wasn't sure if there where others.

I also wasn't sure who at the BN got a LAV these days - and beyond the Rifle Coy's what other Coy's had LAV holdings.

I think that number is inclusive of CP, FO, and Eng vehicles.

Roger, as I understand it the CP, FOO, and ENG vehicles are the ACSV (for reasons I don't get) - only the Armoured and Inf are retaining Turreted LAV's
I’d scratch that idea as I think it’s foolish.


So if we say 50 LAV ISV (Infantry Section Vehicle) / BN, that is at most 450 (9BN) - which leaves 165 turreted LAV for other uses.
*I swapped some LAV-ISV for ACSV in the BN to account for the CP's

So if you get 288 CBT SPT LAV Variants
Then say 120 LAV-Eng variants

Add another 66 LAV-LRSS to get to 122

Plus a LAV-FIST for Arty at 48 (more than currently needed)
Then 48 MSHORAD

I’m not really sure what the CAF is going to do with 300+ ACSV, unless each BN/Reg’t got 6 (that’s maybe 114, as 9 Inf, 3 Armor, 4 Eng, 4 Arty) and 25 went to each Svc Bn (100 or 125) , and 25 for Bde HQ’s (and Sigs Reg’t) (again another 100-125) that uses them up I guess.
*and yes I understood the plan was for those be used by Cbt Engineers, etc but I think that is insane.

With the current LAV variant holdings
You need an additional 600 ish LAV hull’s to fully equip 3 CMBG’s worth and 6 CSSB

Or one could basically equip 2 CMBG’s with the current LAV hulls in the system.

Then one could acquire 500 ish tracked IFV systems for 1 CMBG and make it an Armored Bde / and still have the 2 other LAV based CMBG’s.


Or better yet acquire both the tracked systems and the additional LAV’s put a Bde worth of LAV’s etc into war storage, and have the makings of 1 Armor Bde, 2 LAV Bde, 1 Light Bde, and enough LAV equipment to either reroll the Light Bde or enough to have actual war stocks…

 

[markppcli]

Thanks, it's been years and I couldn't recall at the Coy level who got a LAV, my assumption had been OC, LAV-Capt, but wasn't sure if there where others.

OC, 2 IC, LAV Capt

I also wasn't sure who at the BN got a LAV these days - and beyond the Rifle Coy's what other Coy's had LAV holdings.

Yeah I’m a bit fuzzy beyond the CO / DCO… and others I guess. I through 55 as a rough guess but it’s probably high.

Roger, as I understand it the CP, FOO, and ENG vehicles are the ACSV (for reasons I don't get) - only the Armoured and Inf are retaining Turreted LAV's
I’d scratch that idea as I think it’s foolish.

Not to my knowledge. The ACSV will replace the MRTs, Bison (not LAV) CPs and AMBs. The E LAV is fairly new I can’t see it being replaced.

So if we say 50 LAV ISV (Infantry Section Vehicle) / BN, that is at most 450 (9BN) - which leaves 165 turreted LAV for other uses.
*I swapped some LAV-ISV for ACSV in the BN to account for the CP's

Tracks for numbers

So if you get 288 CBT SPT LAV Variants
Then say 120 LAV-Eng variants

Add another 66 LAV-LRSS to get to 122

I think those are desperate as I didn’t check when I pulled my numbers.

Plus a LAV-FIST for Arty at 48 (more than currently needed)
Then 48 MSHORAD

I’m not really sure what the CAF is going to do with 300+ ACSV, unless each BN/Reg’t got 6 (that’s maybe 114, as 9 Inf, 3 Armor, 4 Eng, 4 Arty) and 25 went to each Svc Bn (100 or 125) , and 25 for Bde HQ’s (and Sigs Reg’t) (again another 100-125) that uses them up I guess.
*and yes I understood the plan was for those be used by Cbt Engineers, etc but I think that is insane.

Like I said it’s replacing the Bison and TLAV fleet across the CAF. MRTs, Sigs stuff, AMBs, Queen Mary, ect. Sadly no mortar carrier.

With the current LAV variant holdings
You need an additional 600 ish LAV hull’s to fully equip 3 CMBG’s worth and 6 CSSB

Or one could basically equip 2 CMBG’s with the current LAV hulls in the system.

Then one could acquire 500 ish tracked IFV systems for 1 CMBG and make it an Armored Bde / and still have the 2 other LAV based CMBG’s.


Or better yet acquire both the tracked systems and the additional LAV’s put a Bde worth of LAV’s etc into war storage, and have the makings of 1 Armor Bde, 2 LAV Bde, 1 Light Bde, and enough LAV equipment to either reroll the Light Bde or enough to have actual war stocks…

Sorry I’ll just throw this down here instead of piecemealing it. It’s from Wiki but the citations are good:
LAV 6.0:
Configurations consist of 278 Infantry Section Carrier (ISC), 181 Command Post Vehicle (CPV), 47 Observation Post Vehicle (OPV), and 44 Engineer LAV (ELAV).[151] Additional 66 vehicles are being upgraded to LAV 6.0 standard under the LAV Recce Surveillance System (LRSS) program by 2020.

ACSV
Replacement for M113 and Bison vehicles.[154] Order placed with General Dynamics Canada in August 2019.[155]Configurations consist of 41 Troop Cargo Vehicle (TCV), 49 Ambulance, 97 Command Post Vehicle, 19 Engineer Vehicle, 18 Electronic Warfare Vehicle, 54 Maintenance Recovery Vehicle, 70 Mobile Repair Team, and 13 Fitter/Cargo Vehicle. First vehicles to be delivered in 2021.[156]

I would assume the Engineer ACSV would be for their more specialized roles and be replacing the TLAVs they already hold or even the Cougars but I can’t say for certain.

 

[childs56]

I'm a heavy truck mechanic, every company everywhere is short mechanics. Why would any of them join the reserves and get paid less than their regular job for the same work?

Again think outside of the box. The company gets the contract to maintain the vehicles. So their Mechanics just go to work. A few of them are also Reservists for training benefits.

Not to mention the extra duties like reserve training and drill. Just the pain to get and maintain security clearance to be allowed to work on armoured vehicles.

Security clearance are maintained by Tens of thousands of Civilian Contractors across the country ever day. Not a hard feat to accomplish. They work on more sensitive equipment.

Also I don't even like working on my own vehicles on the weekend, I want to do anything else.

Why would you work on the weekend outside of normal hours? You would work your regular work schedule.

As for the electronics forget getting locals to fix them, it wouldn't be allowed as the technology is often top secret.

Lots of Electrical Techs around that work on sensitive equipment already. Again maintaining security clearance would not be that difficult for them.

Overall its a way of thinking outside of the box.
Large Companies such as Finning, John Deer, International, Mack already do lots of work on Defence equipment. To flip that over and have a them sign on to a contract to provide on call services for a Reserve Unit is not impossible for Training exercises. If they offer a few incentives for HD mechanics to become Reservists. For example pay for a guys tools, pay for specialty training. Think outside of the box and things can work.

Companies I have worked for had Mechanics/ E Techs on Call 24hrs a day 7 days a week in the field with our equipment. Some hated it, some loved it. It was their job and they got paid to do it.
Nothing is free in life and some specialties cost money to have.

 

[markppcli]

Again think outside of the box. The company gets the contract to maintain the vehicles. So their Mechanics just go to work. A few of them are also Reservists for training benefits.

Security clearance are maintained by Tens of thousands of Civilian Contractors across the country ever day. Not a hard feat to accomplish. They work on more sensitive equipment.

Why would you work on the weekend outside of normal hours? You would work your regular work schedule.

He was talking about reservists mechanics who are mechanics civie side.

Lots of Electrical Techs around that work on sensitive equipment already. Again maintaining security clearance would not be that difficult for them.

Overall its a way of thinking outside of the box.
Large Companies such as Finning, John Deer, International, Mack already do lots of work on Defence equipment. To flip that over and have a them sign on to a contract to provide on call services for a Reserve Unit is not impossible for Training exercises. If they offer a few incentives for HD mechanics to become Reservists. For example pay for a guys tools, pay for specialty training. Think outside of the box and things can work.

This was the point that was being made. We have a very very hard time getting mechanics / trades people to want to do their job as a reservist. It’s not hard to understand that a guy who just did his shift as a heavy duty mechanic doesn’t want to spend his weekend doing the same thing. Even if you love it.

Companies I have worked for had Mechanics/ E Techs on Call 24hrs a day 7 days a week in the field with our equipment. Some hated it, some loved it. It was their job and they got paid to do it.
Nothing is free in life and some specialties cost money to have.

Okay so let’s follow that line. We call for recovery a 1 am because a LAV rolled. Vehicles arrive and because they’re contracted for this stuff they get it righted and tow it to their shop. That’s obstacle one and having off road wreckers is probably a big ask but let’s assume they do have it. Now it’s at the shop, it’s an a vehicle, so who’s securing it / what security does this shop have ? Or do we tow it to an armouries, now we need to retrofit those to have lifts / hoists / tool cribs. I’m not against that but that requires massive investment and changes.

And finally will the reserves be able to actually do the 20-30 training day driver / Gunner courses these vehicles require ?

Insurmountable? Of course not but would require adjustment to certain things. I’m in favour of the RCAC having reserve crewmen units who are located close to major bases and train on existing equipment myself. Facilities are already there and it doesn’t require massive reorganization and legislative changes.

 

[daftandbarmy]

And finally will the reserves be able to actually do the 20-30 training day driver / Gunner courses these vehicles require ?

Insurmountable? Of course not but would require adjustment to certain things. I’m in favour of the RCAC having reserve crewmen units who are located close to major bases and train on existing equipment myself. Facilities are already there and it doesn’t require massive reorganization and legislative changes.

Based on the Class A Reserve's experience trying to maintain a platoon of Grizzlies in a unit?

No. Not with any degree of consistency. It's a complete waste of time and resources.

 

[childs56]

He was talking about reservists mechanics who are mechanics civie side.

We have think more then just weekend training and employing Mechanics as weekend Reservists. Most fixes besides oil changes., tire changes take a bit longer. Trying to fit this into a weekend is next to impossible. Again we have to think a larger picture and not just on the weekend.

This was the point that was being made. We have a very very hard time getting mechanics / trades people to want to do their job as a reservist. It’s not hard to understand that a guy who just did his shift as a heavy duty mechanic doesn’t want to spend his weekend doing the same thing. Even if you love it.

That's why you approach a company who has Mechanics on call already. Offer some incentives for them to become Reservists and go from there.

Okay so let’s follow that line. We call for recovery a 1 am because a LAV rolled. Vehicles arrive and because they’re contracted for this stuff they get it righted and tow it to their shop. That’s obstacle one and having off road wreckers is probably a big ask but let’s assume they do have it. Now it’s at the shop, it’s an a vehicle, so who’s securing it / what security does this shop have ? Or do we tow it to an armouries, now we need to retrofit those to have lifts / hoists / tool cribs. I’m not against that but that requires massive investment and changes.

What offroad Recovery does Canadian Military truly have? On Road Wreckers with cross country capability aka mud tires installed.
This is what we called when our trucks were broke down off road, rolled in the ditch or doing a rig move.

or this similar variant if it was really muddy out

Then you call this guy in to tow him down the highway.

And finally will the reserves be able to actually do the 20-30 training day driver / Gunner courses these vehicles require ?

Why does a guy need a specialty driver course? He holds a Class once license already. A day or two of familiarity like they do for other equipment would suffice.
Gunner course would have some difficulties. Again offer to pay the Tech the money to go for training, Its amazing when you offer courses to People what can happen.

Insurmountable? Of course not but would require adjustment to certain things. I’m in favour of the RCAC having reserve crewmen units who are located close to major bases and train on existing equipment myself. Facilities are already there and it doesn’t require massive reorganization and legislative changes.

We had problems often getting base Maintenance fixing our MLVWs let alone other equipment. they had other priorities then fixing Reserve Trucks. When the local Comms unit had a Mechanic we use to have him perform some work so we could at least get our Gun Tractors for exercise. Until the higher ups found out he was doing work for us. They shut that down pretty quick, Some of these things left trucks on the healing fence so we were short for the exercise.

We had local shops that offered to perform maintenance on our trucks, we just were not allowed to. Not that they could not.

It would be interesting to see what the most common issues are on the LAV that are not specialtie services.

 

[KevinB]

Sorry I’ll just throw this down here instead of piecemealing it. It’s from Wiki but the citations are good:
LAV 6.0:
Configurations consist of 278 Infantry Section Carrier (ISC),

So under 6 BN of Inf LAV, hmm

181 Command Post Vehicle (CPV), 47 Observation Post Vehicle (OPV), and 44 Engineer LAV (ELAV).[151] Additional 66 vehicles are being upgraded to LAV 6.0 standard under the LAV Recce Surveillance System (LRSS) program by 2020.

ACSV
Replacement for M113 and Bison vehicles.[154] Order placed with General Dynamics Canada in August 2019.[155]Configurations consist of 41 Troop Cargo Vehicle (TCV), 49 Ambulance, 97 Command Post Vehicle, 19 Engineer Vehicle, 18 Electronic Warfare Vehicle, 54 Maintenance Recovery Vehicle, 70 Mobile Repair Team, and 13 Fitter/Cargo Vehicle. First vehicles to be delivered in 2021.[156]

I would assume the Engineer ACSV would be for their more specialized roles and be replacing the TLAVs they already hold or even the Cougars but I can’t say for certain.

So Only in Canada would you mirror the number of ISC (278) with the number of CP's (181 x 6.0 and 97 x ACSV)


I cry

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So how fast can GDLS build new LAV's to replace combat losses, using the Ukraine conflict for a loss rate, can they keep up or our you going to see a steady decline in vehicles due to part shortages and lack of new replacements?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Pointless to speculate about armouring vehicles not intended for closing with the enemy.

Send a team of pocket-protector nerds to Ukraine to do proper operations research - accumulate data on knocked-out vehicles and analyze it to determine if any degree of added armour weight really matters, and if so, for what particular applications.

Complexity of soldiering has advanced to the point at which mobilizing ready reserves (for WWI, about two weeks) isn't practical because the soldiers aren't sufficiently capable. The general underlying principle has to be that the field force has to be able to remain combat capable for as long as needed to properly mobilize follow-on forces. That essentially removes worrying about whether the reserves have combat-capable equipment, because the whole mobilization plan has to include people, equipment, and supplies.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Our mobilization plan= The US will give us everything we need. Everyone else mobilization plan = The US will give us everything we need.

The US = "Good effing luck on that"

 

[IKnowNothing]

I guess my response is what need is being met here ? In inventory we have 500 TAPV and 616 LAV 6s with over 300 ACSV on order.

278 ISC's out of all of that. Lots of support vehicles, but only 278 section carriers. By the unit requirements you've posted in this thread more or less 1Bde + 1Bn pre-positioned + 1Bn shelved for war stock. 6 more RegF Bn's and the rest of the reserve infantry walks.

So I'd say Roshel discussion is (perhaps misguidedly) driven by a desire to fix that ratio and fill that gap, with the subconscious Canadian acknowledgement that with those 1400 vehicles already in inventory that any chance of adding a material volume of vehicles would be dependant on cheapness.

In a timeline where the TAPV purchase had 300+ of the 500 hulls configured in 3+7 and in widespread use by RCIC I don't think the Senator gets anything more than a "hey neat" in this thread

 

[markppcli]

We have think more then just weekend training and employing Mechanics as weekend Reservists. Most fixes besides oil changes., tire changes take a bit longer. Trying to fit this into a weekend is next to impossible. Again we have to think a larger picture and not just on the weekend.

So see my earlier question about where you sit AFVs while they’re being worked on multi day. Who secured them?

That's why you approach a company who has Mechanics on call already. Offer some incentives for them to become Reservists and go from there.

What offroad Recovery does Canadian Military truly have? On Road Wreckers with cross country capability aka mud tires installed.
This is what we called when our trucks were broke down off road, rolled in the ditch or doing a rig move.

Have you never seen an MRT? Or an ARV?

Then you call this guy in to tow him down the highw
Why does a guy need a specialty driver course? He holds a Class once license already. A day or two of familiarity like they do for other equipment would suffice.

Fucking nope. Besides the fact that they drive different, there’s the off reading, formation driving, maintenance learning, using the DVE, how to operate the other systems. This is clearly not your wheel house, but there is a reason why for Fighting each vehicles we take a long time to teach it.

Gunner course would have some difficulties. Again offer to pay the Tech the money to go for training, Its amazing when you offer courses to People what can happen.

Im not just talking about techs I’m talking about everyone.

We had problems often getting base Maintenance fixing our MLVWs let alone other equipment. they had other priorities then fixing Reserve Trucks. When the local Comms unit had a Mechanic we use to have him perform some work so we could at least get our Gun Tractors for exercise. Until the higher ups found out he was doing work for us. They shut that down pretty quick, Some of these things left trucks on the healing fence so we were short for the exercise.

We had local shops that offered to perform maintenance on our trucks, we just were not allowed to. Not that they could not.

Yeah I agree we handle maintenance, especially on the B Esch fleet badly. No question on that one.

It would be interesting to see what the most common issues are on the LAV that are not specialtie services.

HMS, and drifting turrets. That’s the most common issues. And then the comms suite having problems.

So under 6 BN of Inf LAV, hmm

Well only if you assume every LAV in a company is an ISC. It’s more like 12 + 3 CP, and the 9er tac cars are CPs as well. So 45 ISC plus… let’s say 12 ish CP

So Only in Canada would you mirror the number of ISC (278) with the number of CP's (181 x 6.0 and 97 x ACSV)


I cry

Don’t look up the numbers for the British Boxer purchase then lol.

 

[markppcli]

278 ISC's out of all of that. Lots of support vehicles, but only 278 section carriers. By the unit requirements you've posted in this thread more or less 1Bde + 1Bn pre-positioned + 1Bn shelved for war stock. 6 more RegF Bn's and the rest of the reserve infantry walks.

So I'd say Roshel discussion is (perhaps misguidedly) driven by a desire to fix that ratio and fill that gap, with the subconscious Canadian acknowledgement that with those 1400 vehicles already in inventory that any chance of adding a material volume of vehicles would be dependant on cheapness.

In a timeline where the TAPV purchase had 300+ of the 500 hulls configured in 3+7 and in widespread use by RCIC I don't think the Senator gets anything more than a "hey neat" in this thread

I don’t know how you’d ever get 7 kitted troops in a TAPV, but fair enough. In truth the Bns are the ones that rejected them.

 

[KevinB]

I don’t know how you’d ever get 7 kitted troops in a TAPV, but fair enough. In truth the Bns are the ones that rejected them.

Not the CAF version, the non "Elite" version.
The one down here can take 7 dismounts - and doesn't mount the tire on top to screw with the center of gravity

 

[markppcli]

Not the CAF version, the non "Elite" version.
The one down here can take 7 dismounts - and doesn't mount the tire on top to screw with the center of gravity

Look if the doors down lock when the dash lights on fire I’m not interested. What’s life without danger.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Not the CAF version, the non "Elite" version.
The one down here can take 7 dismounts - and doesn't mount the tire on top to screw with the center of gravity

What do you think of the Brits with their 4 Inf "weights" rather than 3?

Armoured Infantry IFV Bn's (Warrior) (US Bradley)
Mechanized Infantry Heavy Protected Mobility Bn's (Mastiff/Cougar HE) (US Stryker)
Mechanized Infantry Light Protected Mobility Bn's (Foxhound/Ocelot) (US ?)
Light

Honestly, in my ignorance is ascribed the LPM Bn's to being motorized Light forces rather than lightweight mech, and that's the niche I saw for the Roshel.

 

[markppcli]

What do you think of the Brits with their 4 Inf "weights" rather than 3?

Armoured Infantry IFV Bn's (Warrior) (US Bradley)
Mechanized Infantry Heavy Protected Mobility Bn's (Mastiff/Cougar HE) (US Stryker)
Mechanized Infantry Light Protected Mobility Bn's (Foxhound/Ocelot) (US ?)
Light

Honestly, in my ignorance is ascribed the LPM Bn's to being motorized Light forces rather than lightweight mech, and that's the niche I saw for the Roshel.

Because they had enough mastiffs for x and enough foxhounds for y would be my guess. I’ll ask a Brit I know if there’s a real doctrinal difference.

 

[KevinB]

Don’t look up the numbers for the British Boxer purchase then lol.

UK details Boxer variants and confirms plans for bigger fleet

The UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) has released more details on what variants of Boxer Mechanised Infantry Vehicles (MIV) it is acquiring and confirmed it is looking to increase the overall size of its Boxer fleet.

www.army-technology.com

Of its 523 Boxer MIVs, the UK will receive 85 infantry carrying vehicles, 60 engineer section vehicles, 62 recce and fire support vehicles, 28 mortar carriers, and 50 equipment support and repair platforms.

The British Army will also acquire a mix of 123 command and control vehicles and C2-utility vehicles, 19 observation post vehicles, 24 beyond-line-of-sight platforms, 11 electronic warfare & SIGINT (signals intelligence) vehicles and 61 ambulances.


The UK vehicles Remote Weapon Stations will be equipped with a mix of Heavy Machine Guns (HMG), Grenade Machine Guns (GMG) and General Purpose Machine Guns (GPMG).

Some Boxer variants are also expected to be equipped with Javelin anti-tank missiles that will be capable of being fired from under armour.

In fairness to the UK, they aren't planning on using the Boxer alone, the Warriors (and perhaps AJAX) will be the main UK IFV.

 

[Kirkhill]

Pointless to speculate about armouring vehicles not intended for closing with the enemy.

Send a team of pocket-protector nerds to Ukraine to do proper operations research - accumulate data on knocked-out vehicles and analyze it to determine if any degree of added armour weight really matters, and if so, for what particular applications.

Complexity of soldiering has advanced to the point at which mobilizing ready reserves (for WWI, about two weeks) isn't practical because the soldiers aren't sufficiently capable. The general underlying principle has to be that the field force has to be able to remain combat capable for as long as needed to properly mobilize follow-on forces. That essentially removes worrying about whether the reserves have combat-capable equipment, because the whole mobilization plan has to include people, equipment, and supplies.

ready reserves (for WWI, about two weeks) isn't practical because the soldiers aren't sufficiently capable

And yet the citizens of Kyiv and Sumy..... and the Russians stopped. And retreated.

Taking ground is something else again and it does need large numbers of trained troops - but how much training - a month to create an assault trooper?

If both the Russians and Ukrainians are husbanding their tanks and holding them in reserve because of the effectiveness of the anti-armour forces available what does one expect from the tankers? And the Bradleys? Will they carry troops or will they be loaded up with all the 7.62, 25mm and TOWs they can carry to fight from prepared positions?

And as to the Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Infantry Section Carrier, Armoured Personnel Carrier, Troop Carrier spectrum - don't forget the advent of the Protected Mobility Vehicle

I could start with the Saxon, the Foxhound, Bushmaster, Hawkei, Dingo, ... Wheeled vehicles designed primarily to move troops on highways and hard tracks, under cover from the elements, artillery and bombing attacks. They may be pressed forwards depending if the commander ascertains that fire is effective or not, or in the absence of a better solution. But ideally I would think that in this high end conflict the role of those armoured vehicles is to rapidly move reinforcements from reserve to covered positions on the FEBA or to supply reinforcement for "proper" IFVs and ISCs.

And, when the environment permits, those light vehicles can act as scouts, patrols and light cavalry.

 

[Brad Sallows]

And yet the citizens of Kyiv and Sumy..... and the Russians stopped. And retreated.

Kyiv, large. Assault force, small. Not gonna jump on the spontaneous taking up of arms bandwagon as if it bears some relationship to acquiring equipment for the forces.