Infantry Vehicles

[Kirkhill]

Further to these discussions about lighter vehicles.

No argument - The Vickers was a better gun than the Browning. If you are going to have to lug that much weight it might as well be useful.

Or you could put wheels on it

Ukrainian Soldiers Shoot Maxim Machine Gun

Ukrainian soldiers shoot maxim machine guns on a firing range.

www.military.com

Thanks for that. Just thinking that, if it existed, a sight that combined the ballistics computations of the Aimpoint FCS13 with the registration of the C2 would be interesting. If its one or the other I would stick with the C2.



Hey. Where did I, on this thread, mention anything about the Grizzly?

I won't argue any of your points. The LAV is a much superior piece of kit for what the Canadian Army wants it to do. The AVGP was adequate for what Pierre Senior wanted it to do - keep the FLQ off the streets.

Having said that - babies and bathwater.

The Swiss modified their AVGP 6x6s in the early 2000s. They took the old turrets off them and replaced them with a proper RWS

View attachment 70917

Mowag Piranha II, Kdo Pz 6x6 gl - Gepanzerte Fahrzeuge - Radfahrzeuge | militärfahrzeuge.ch

militaerfahrzeuge.ch

Now the question is - That? (at 9800 kg kerb weight and amphibious)

Or This? (14,500 kg kerb weight and not amphibious)

View attachment 70918

Or even this? (at 6400 kg kerb weight and not amphibious).

View attachment 70919

But we are getting off track now.

In the same weight class as the Senator and the JLTV but amphibious and with NBC over-pressure system. And room in the back for an sUAS.

View attachment 92114

With essentially zero armour or sensors. There is some wisdom in vehicles like this for certain tasks but they're essentially useless in modern LSCO. For context, the armour is less effective on these than what you'd find on both JTLV and Senator.

General Dynamics debuts Pandur 6x6 SHORAD variant - Breaking Defense

Moog’s Reconfigurable Integrated-weapons Platform turret was added to the 6x6 vehicle following a US Army pre-solicitation last year.

breakingdefense.com

General Dynamics Land Systems is rolling out a modified version of its European built Pandur 6X6 combat vehicle, outfitted with a short-range air defense (SHORAD) turret currently in the US Army’s arsenal.

“The intent behind the Pandur is to start looking at how it can fit into the light infantry and the joint forcible entry requirements and operations that the Army has,” Ray Moldovan, the company’s manager for US business development, told Breaking Defense this week. “And currently they don’t have a short-range air defense capability that would basically give that formation the protection that it needs.”

In mid-2024, the service released a notice calling for ideas for potential air defense solutions to protect dismounted maneuver forces, under its Maneuver-SHORAD (M-SHORAD) Increment 4 program. Specifically, the Army was interested in cheaper, smaller options than its Stryker-based “Sergeant Stout” M-SHORAD system, with the new systems able to down unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) groups 1-3, and rotary wing and fixed wing aircraft.

Since GDLS is under contract for Sergeant Stout, it decided to use the same configuration of Moog’s Reconfigurable Integrated-weapons Platform (RIwP) turret for the smaller Pandur vehicle. That turret includes two Raytheon Stinger Vehicle Universal Launchers (SVULs) with each one carrying four surface-to-air missiles suited for faster, lower flying threats. Northrop Grumman’s XM914 30 mm Bushmaster Chain Gun, and an M240 7.62 mm machine gun is also on the turret.

Ray Moldovan, also working on US business development for the company, estimated that the Pandur configuration tips the scales around 40,000 lbs, or roughly 20,000 lbs lighter than the fielded Stryker variant.

“We’re looking at lighter weight and greater inter-theater and intra-theater transportability,” Moldovan said.

----

If we wanted a lighter, cheaper version of a LAV then why not just dial the clock back and order some variants of the lighter, cheaper earlier models?

 

[Maxman1]

To me the Pioneer Platoon should be a "Mimic" of the Battalion/Bde it is part of, as so should the Combat Engineers (with a lot more stuff)
So for a LAV Battalion that would mean some sort of LAV based Engineering vehicle combination -
Down here the M1257 Stryker 2.0 Engineering Squad Vehicle isn't a good fit for (IMHO) a LAV unit - it has a straight plow blade for surface clearing - mine rollers. Generally any other Engineering equipment is towed behind the Stryker SEV. It generally works down here for what the Strykers are envisioned for - but for Canada using the LAV as an IFV, it could work for the LAV BN but not for the CER's due to the tank aspects.

A backhoe and trench cutter would be IMHO a good addition for that role -- so probably 2-3 different LAV SEV designs should be configured for Canada (IMHO)

The M1132 was the older Stryker (single V hull) SEV, about 50% of those donated to Ukraine have been destroyed

We have that.

I have been told it isn't easy and in terms of the LAV or Bradley it would be a massive undertaking, and it would realistically be cheaper to buy a new turret.

As I understand, the Bushmaster variants use the same receiver and only need a barrel change and a few different parts to change calibre.

 

[KevinB]

We have that.

Rumor has it that the new plow barely touches the ground due to chassis height changes…
I’ve also been disappointed by how a 8x8 wheeled vehicle can push earth.

As I understand, the Bushmaster variants use the same receiver and only need a barrel change and a few different parts to change calibre.

Issue with the cannon is the FCS in the SHORAD Role the standard LAV FCs is not designed to take external STC data nor hold on airborne moving targets.

Raytheon had a MiniMissile C-UAS and low altitude air engagement system at ISOF. I swung by to check it out at the lunch ceasefire and it was man packable, but would go better on a very light vehicle.

 

[FJAG]

Rumor has it that the new plow barely touches the ground due to chassis height changes…
I’ve also been disappointed by how a 8x8 wheeled vehicle can push earth.

I was never too impressed with the blade on the M113 either. It was good at pushing snow out of the gun park parking lot in the winter but digging in a gun battery? not so much. No lift with the blade and not enough power (even with tracks) to move more than a thin skiff of earth at a time.

 

[OldSolduer]

I was never too impressed with the blade on the M113 either. It was good at pushing snow out of the gun park parking lot in the winter but digging in a gun battery? not so much. No lift with the blade and not enough power (even with tracks) to move more than a thin skiff of earth at a time.

There is not enough torque to push much dirt. To push dirt real good you need a proper dozer.

 

[lenaitch]

Blades push; buckets lift.

 

[ueo]

Better tha

There is not enough torque to push much dirt. To push dirt real good you need a proper dozer.

Better than a Mk 1 shovel!

 

[GK .Dundas]

The Brits and the Americans developed the Terrier CET and the M9 ACE I suspect because of those failings mentioned above.

 

[Maxman1]

Issue with the cannon is the FCS in the SHORAD Role the standard LAV FCs is not designed to take external STC data nor hold on airborne moving targets.

I thought you meant upgunning an IFV.

A dedicated AD vehicle would almost certainly need a different turret.

 

[Kirkhill]

We have that.

As I understand, the Bushmaster variants use the same receiver and only need a barrel change and a few different parts to change calibre.

How about swapping out the blade for a bucket and turning that beast into a front end loader?



If you want dig in it seems to me the loader would be a better General Purpose option. With a set of tines it would also make itself useful as a Fork Lift.

 

[KevinB]

How about swapping out the blade for a bucket and turning that beast into a front end loader?

View attachment 92452

If you want dig in it seems to me the loader would be a better General Purpose option. With a set of tines it would also make itself useful as a Fork Lift.

The loader generally has an articulated body to pivot, and 4x4 wheels that give ground pressure beyond what a LAV has. They get moved by low beds as they don’t move well off road, and the ground pressure that helps them lift earth in some situations also hurts them sink into softer terrain.

You can’t make a FEL out of a LAV.

 

[Kirkhill]

The loader generally has an articulated body to pivot, and 4x4 wheels that give ground pressure beyond what a LAV has. They get moved by low beds as they don’t move well off road, and the ground pressure that helps them lift earth in some situations also hurts them sink into softer terrain.

You can’t make a FEL out of a LAV.

But...

you can stick a pivot on the front of a Leo, add a bucket and call it a Badger.

You do the best you can with what is at hand.

 

[PrairieFella]

But...

you can stick a pivot on the front of a Leo, add a bucket and call it a Badger.

You do the best you can with what is at hand.

A tank hull is essentially a tractor in a lot of ways, follow the lineages far back enough and you find tractor factories and parts hence strapping all that shit to it isn't much of a stretch. A LAV, not so much.

 

[Ludoc]

Not everything needs to be a LAV. If you need a hole dug you call the engineers and they bring an MPEV.

Should they be able to dig holes under armour? Maybe. If so, why hamstring them by trying to bolt a bucket to a LAV? Armoured front end loaders exist. Yes, small orphan fleets are bad, but so is trying to extend the capabilities of a vehicle so far it can't accomplish its purpose.

Someone on this board keeps pushing "horses for courses" this is one of those situations.

 

[lenaitch]

How about swapping out the blade for a bucket and turning that beast into a front end loader?

View attachment 92452

If you want dig in it seems to me the loader would be a better General Purpose option. With a set of tines it would also make itself useful as a Fork Lift.

There a reason they call it a loader - it moves or piles stuff, it does not dig. A blade either anchors or pushes stuff around.

I did a quick sample check. The Cat 982 is a large, 40 ton articulated loader. It has a maximum 'dig depth' of about 4.5". When you angle a bucket down or force a blade down to try to dig, it simply wants to keep going deeper until the vehicle either stalls or breaks traction, which won't take very long.

I am reminded of the 'boy scout knife' I had as a kid - the one with all the attachments including a spoon and fork. It did a lot of things - none of them well.