Infantry Vehicles

[Kirkhill]

So you’ll have 140 odd people tasked to patrol YVR on Saturdays and Thursdays?

Well ignore that this doesn’t answer what I asked and has nothing to do with vehicles for the infantry.

No, I will have 140 people available to heavy up the permanent civilian presence if the situation demands.

And Roshel type vehicles, if not Milverados, would be perfectly adequate for those types of lo al taskings.

 

[PrairieFella]

Better yet, hand all the LAVs over to the RCAC.

Square peg, meet round hole.

The LAV is not a good RCAC vehicle. We don't need to carry a section of dismounts, we need firepower, armour and mobility. Adding room for 8 dudes lessens all 3 of those. We use the LAV as a crutch in the RCAC since we're so low on turreted platforms however that doesn't mean we want them. What we want is tanks and an actual cavalry vehicle, not a glorified APC with a 25mm that cannot deal with anything heavier than a BMP.

We'd be better off replacing all the RCAC LAVs in the medium context (minus LAVs for the new assault troop programme) with something like a Jaguar, Booker, M3 Bradley, etc.

Tldr: room for a section is a waste of room in any RCAC vehicle that would be better served for ammo and armour.

 

[Kirkhill]

Square peg, meet round hole.

The LAV is not a good RCAC vehicle. We don't need to carry a section of dismounts, we need firepower, armour and mobility. Adding room for 8 dudes lessens all 3 of those. We use the LAV as a crutch in the RCAC since we're so low on turreted platforms however that doesn't mean we want them. What we want is tanks and an actual cavalry vehicle, not a glorified APC with a 25mm that cannot deal with anything heavier than a BMP.

We'd be better off replacing all the RCAC LAVs in the medium context (minus LAVs for the new assault troop programme) with something like a Jaguar, Booker, M3 Bradley, etc.

Tldr: room for a section is a waste of room in any RCAC vehicle that would be better served for ammo and armour.

Fair comment.

But looking beyond the individual vehicle towards a trained unit or formation I would as soon task all the panzergrenadiers to the RCAC and give the RCAC a suitable carrier around which they could plan and train their tactics.

That would make them the SMEs. They could then be responsible for incorporating the regular infantry when necessary, or supplying reinforcing teams to the infantry.

 

[KevinB]

Fair comment.

But looking beyond the individual vehicle towards a trained unit or formation I would as soon task all the panzergrenadiers to the RCAC and give the RCAC a suitable carrier around which they could plan and train their tactics.

That would make them the SMEs. They could then be responsible for incorporating the regular infantry when necessary, or supplying reinforcing teams to the infantry.

Then who runs the tanks?
The LAV isn’t a tank, and it isn’t a Recce vehicle.

I disagree with the Armor being the COE for Mech Inf, but Mech Inf does need to work hand in hand with the Armor.

But that has zero to do with the ISV and the Light Forces.

 

[Kirkhill]

Then who runs the tanks?
The LAV isn’t a tank, and it isn’t a Recce vehicle.

I disagree with the Armor being the COE for Mech Inf, but Mech Inf does need to work hand in hand with the Armor.

But that has zero to do with the ISV and the Light Forces.

If the RCAC handles Mech Infantry then the needs of the infantry are clarified and integrating ISVs and Light Forces becomes simpler.

 

[KevinB]

If the RCAC handles Mech Infantry then the needs of the infantry are clarified and integrating ISVs and Light Forces becomes simpler.

No.
Armor isn’t Infantry - and the primary role of the Infantry is dismounted fighting.

Where Mech and Light differ is that Mech Infantry plan to fight with the vehicle, either in, beside or supported by. Canada really causes issues as the LAV isn’t a heavy tracked IFV to interact with tanks.
Nor does it have an ATGM and neither did Canada buy into APFDDS-DU so it’s not as off road mobile as the tanks nor can it slug it with a tank is need be.

 

[markppcli]

So the military buys a chevy Colorado with out the body, adds some rocker protection a skid plate and adds a 24volt system and everyone is overwhelmed with this.
Yet we are underwhelmed with the Roshal truck?

Who’s overwhelmed by this ? It’s a vehicle that can be used to move troops. That’s it, it does what we used G Rides and MRZRs for.

Agreed.

But I don't necessarily agree that all Brigades need to be formed as the deployable active Brigades. Alternate configurations are possible especially if atts and dets are the norm.

Deployable is a by word for operational. Formations should be built to do things beyond force generate.

Plans and training?

What plan and what training ? The plan to guard the local air port on your weekends?

And yet civilians do make themselves available at short notice for short term emergency duties. What is difficult to find is anybody, civilian or otherwise willing to deploy away from their family and community at the drop of a hat for an extended, not to say indefinite,
period of time.

By civilians making themselves available do you mean SAR volunteers, and volunteer fire fighters? Those are excellent human beings who give up time to save life and limb, or critical property - when it face with active and obvious danger. Huge diffference to manning the AD Guns in Kelowna.

Finding people to take a shift down at the local airport a couple of days a week or month shouldn't be impossible.

Would you want an employee to not show up every third day so they can inspect the wire and EIA?

Nor do I think it would be impossible to replicate the Flank Companies of yore that made themselves available to the Government for immediate reaction.

Given government willingness.

You mean slightly more active reservists ? Isn’t that just class B? Honestly you have a weird obsession with regurgitating names and concepts from hundreds of years ago. When Issac Brock raised flank companies, he didn’t have nearly the same amount of regulars to rely on.

In reference to “heavying up” the civilian presence, are we expecting TSA to maintain the equipment or are we just going to drive it to location when required?


Lastly your push for the RCAC to do mechanized infantry work displays a lack of understand of the roles of both.

 

[PrairieFella]

Fair comment.

But looking beyond the individual vehicle towards a trained unit or formation I would as soon task all the panzergrenadiers to the RCAC and give the RCAC a suitable carrier around which they could plan and train their tactics.

That would make them the SMEs. They could then be responsible for incorporating the regular infantry when necessary, or supplying reinforcing teams to the infantry.

You'd be wasting crewman by taxiing the inf around the battlefield. Your light and medium crewman should be forward of the main body doing recces by force, raids, screens, delays, fixes, etc. Some should also be on the flanks or in the rear pulling guards, TACSEC, etc. Essentially skirmisher and light cavalry of yore duties.

Your heavy armour should be supporting the infantry and pouring hell on whichever poor sods have to face 20 (at minimum) tanks advancing to contact in support of the infantry.

By pulling already limited crewmen off these tasks and making them the bitch of the LAV Captain, you're stripping the local commander of some serious capabilities and nevermind stripping the infantry of the capability to plug people into LAVs when necessary.

 

[childs56]

No.
Armor isn’t Infantry - and the primary role of the Infantry is dismounted fighting.

Where Mech and Light differ is that Mech Infantry plan to fight with the vehicle, either in, beside or supported by. Canada really causes issues as the LAV isn’t a heavy tracked IFV to interact with tanks.
Nor does it have an ATGM and neither did Canada buy into APFDDS-DU so it’s not as off road mobile as the tanks nor can it slug it with a tank is need be.

The APFDDS-DU and ATGM can be solved fairly well and with minimal effort.
Purchase DU rounds, buy and install the mounts for ATGMS for the turrets.

There are lots of arguments about this. Reality is they are compatible and can be installed/used if needed. Not having these capabilities is more out of not wanting then not able to get them.

The Bradley has similar base armour as the LAV, it's add on armour is what is different. One can look at adding similar armour to the LAV. Add wider tires and maybe rear track system for the rear wheels one would have a half track LAV. Would be pretty decent cross country.

 

[markppcli]

You'd be wasting crewman by taxiing the inf around the battlefield. Your light and medium crewman should be forward of the main body doing recces by force, raids, screens, delays, fixes, etc. Some should also be on the flanks or in the rear pulling guards, TACSEC, etc. Essentially skirmisher and light cavalry of yore duties.

Your heavy armour should be supporting the infantry and pouring hell on whichever poor sods have to face 20 (at minimum) tanks advancing to contact in support of the infantry.

By pulling already limited crewmen off these tasks and making them the bitch of the LAV Captain, you're stripping the local commander of some serious capabilities and nevermind stripping the infantry of the capability to plug people into LAVs when necessary.

I think he means the LAV companies would be armoured squadrons to improve expertise… ignoring that the critical factor is the dismount / vehicle integration

The APFDDS-DU and ATGM can be solved fairly well and with minimal effort.
Purchase DU rounds, buy and install the mounts for ATGMS for the turrets.

There are lots of arguments about this. Reality is they are compatible and can be installed/used if needed. Not having these capabilities is more out of not wanting then not able to get them.

The Bradley has similar base armour as the LAV, it's add on armour is what is different. One can look at adding similar armour to the LAV. Add wider tires and maybe rear track system for the rear wheels one would have a half track LAV. Would be pretty decent cross country.

I think we’ve beaten the ease of installing an ATGM to death at this point. Half Tracks died for a reason, you’d just end up with a worse off road tracked vehicle that has all the down sides. LAV 6 has issues but it’s a very workable IFV and will defeat its Russian and Chinese peers with the 25mm.

 

[suffolkowner]

I think we’ve beaten the ease of installing an ATGM to death at this point. Half Tracks died for a reason, you’d just end up with a worse off road tracked vehicle that has all the down sides. LAV 6 has issues but it’s a very workable IFV and will defeat its Russian and Chinese peers with the 25mm.

Do you think it is that difficult to install a MOOG turret on the LAV ie the IM-SHORAD?

 

[markppcli]

Do you think it is that difficult to install a MOOG turret on the LAV ie the IM-SHORAD?

No I don’t, but we’ve been through previous discussion on this topic about retrofitting turrets in house - which I think is probably a more expensive and more time consuming option.

 

[FJAG]

Canada doesn't so much have light infantry as MIWOV - Mechanized Infantry WithOut Vehicles.

This is the latest iteration of "what the heck do we do with the Third Battalions when we aren't converting one of their companies to LAVs to round out another battalion that's deploying".

The original plan, if I recall, was to equip all the third battalions with TAPVs and fill a similar patrol/transport role as the Nyalas. Had a really great ResF infantry sergeant work for me on JAG CIMP who went RegF officer and tech staff and was posted to 3 RCR with, amongst other things, the task of receiving the TAPVs and working out how to use them and how to integrate them into the bn. Spoke with him a few years later and the whole thing had gone down the tubes. I was never too sure why that happened. I know reliability issues delayed its IOC but I don't know much more than that.