I'll believe it when I see it.
Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,777
- Points
- 1,060
I think theres a lot of truth to this too and jives with my equipment experience where the tracked vehicles werent necessarily heavier IMO. Usage drove wheeled vs tracks
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,250
- Points
- 1,160
Make it three fleets because I think we need at least two light brigades as well. (not to mention arty, sustainment and combat support)
- Reaction score
- 22,855
- Points
- 1,360
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,250
- Points
- 1,160
I agree with the architecture and the fact that this is one of the reasons why wheeled APCs are so high which makes them a more vulnerable target and IMHO, less desirable as an IFV.
That I agree with
I'm of the view that the word is still out on rubber tracks in so far as their upper weight limit. Soucy used to be limited to under 40 tonnes which was enough to handle the CV 90. They now claim it can handle the 42 tonnes required for the Australian Redback. (and per this article are touting a bit more down the road.) At the moment I'm of the view that a good IFV like Redback and PUMA come in at around the low forty tonnes and my guess is that will continue to climb upward. Bradleys are lighter than that but AFAIK steel tracks are still the go-to solution for them and the even lighter AMPV. I like Soucey for a lot of solutions but not the high end IFVs yet.
Not so sure on that when you take into consideration that there are more road wheels and torsion bars and trailing arms are involved. (generally 12/14 v 8 sets)
The profile is clearly lower but I wonder how long we'll put up with flat bottomed APCs when most other vehicles have gone to a V hull.
That's true - amongst several other benefits.
Not so sure that the thinking process goes quite like that. At least not mine. I also add in the fact that wheeled APCs were specifically built that way to be lighter than IFVs for air transportability, highway speed, less need for armour as they do not fill the same close combat role as IFVs (or at least weren't supposed to - i.e the Bradley is designed to go into close combat; the Stryker was designed to bring troops close to the combat area but not fight in it)
That leads to the conclusion that the drive train and suspension needs to be heavier to support a vehicle that is fundamentally heavier as it needs significantly higher protection and a manoeuvrability.
Therein lies the point though. IFVs are not comparable vehicles to wheeled APCs as to armour protection, weapon systems etc - see Redback and Puma above. Tracked IFV's might be lower, but not smaller or lighter. Notwithstanding that we've hung an untold number of things on the LAVs and upped their armour, they are still not designed to do the job that an IFV does. It only comes in around 30 tonnes. The Stryker at considerably less. We're comparing apples to oranges to a large extent. Frankly I'm not sure what a suspension system for a wheeled APC at 40+ tonnes would require.
That makes two of us so I could be too. I've looked for a better analysis and while I remember something that I came across in the past that did an apples to oranges comparison vis a vis weight I can't find it now.
- Reaction score
- 1,777
- Points
- 1,060
out of curiosity when was the last time Canada fielded an IFV type?
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,250
- Points
- 1,160
Well, the Kangaroos were a open-topped converted Priest M7 self propelled gun (which in themselves were converted from M3 and M4 tank chassis) and converted Ram tanks designed to accompany Sherman tanks in WW2. Technically it was more an APC but since it was designed to accompany infantry into the fight alongside tanks and had some of the same armour protection and all of the mobility as the tank one could stretch the definition for that time frame.
Everything after that was basically a lightly armoured APC starting with the M113. We've had lovely tussles in this forum as to whether or not the LAV III or 6.0 qualifies as an IFV or not. I won't restart that debate here.
This is the only 40T wheeled all-terrain suspension I know of. I don't think it would suit a fighting vehicle well because of its massive size.
This particular one is a liebherr LTM 1070 and according to their website is good for 40-48T on road and 54T off road.
That is for a 40-60T IFV a 16T LAV would need less robust suspension, think of a Nodwell 110 which is 11T
You could V hull a tracked APC I guess. But I think the V hull is a way to offer lighter vehicles better protection without the weight of heavier armour. A Bradley belly armour may already provide comparable belly protection to a LAV because it's got heavier armour. I don't know just speculating that's where much of its weight comes from.
Agreed. I believe the requirements for a lightly armoured wheeled APC allowed the use of wheels instead of tracks on the LAV. However it's growing all the time and I question if they are pushing the wheeled chassis too far.
Also I'm not comparing vehicles rather suspension for a given weight. I'm saying tracked suspension allows for a smaller overall package if cabin volume and armour thickness are the constants. The smaller package should mean an overall lighter vehicle.
In 1961 when they developed the M113 wheeled systems weren't there yet to allow a 12+T vehicle decent off road mobility. Maybe they will soon be able to offer a compact 40T wheeled system suitable for an IFV.
- Reaction score
- 1,777
- Points
- 1,060
the Boxer is already a fat pig running up to 38.5 t
"The Dutch/Germans use Michelin 415/80R685 XML tyres (27 inches in metric) which are ‘tuned’ to give maximum soft soil (mud) traction, but only carry 4.5T per tyre. Block 1 of Australian Boxers will be fitted with 415/80R685 XForce 2 tyres (higher load rating @5T and sand-optimised) and Block 2 (and all future Boxers for Australia) will be fitted with 415/80R685 XForce ZL tyres (even higher load rating @5.6T allowing further growth potential and all-round off-road pattern)."
whereas the LAV 6 has 20" wheels as does the 700
now if you went with an articulated dump truck i think they are running 25" except the VolvoA60 which is running 29" and has a pretty impressive 60 t payload
"The Dutch/Germans use Michelin 415/80R685 XML tyres (27 inches in metric) which are ‘tuned’ to give maximum soft soil (mud) traction, but only carry 4.5T per tyre. Block 1 of Australian Boxers will be fitted with 415/80R685 XForce 2 tyres (higher load rating @5T and sand-optimised) and Block 2 (and all future Boxers for Australia) will be fitted with 415/80R685 XForce ZL tyres (even higher load rating @5.6T allowing further growth potential and all-round off-road pattern)."
whereas the LAV 6 has 20" wheels as does the 700
now if you went with an articulated dump truck i think they are running 25" except the VolvoA60 which is running 29" and has a pretty impressive 60 t payload
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,872
- Points
- 1,210
probably with armoured vehicles right now is we are circling back to what happened in ww2, IE we are putting more and more armour which is reducing mobility. Until some innovation comes in light weight armour technology, things like V hulls to double V hulls, ERA etc will continue to add additional tonnage which will slow our armoured forces down.
I would use the term off road loosely with that setup.
Cool suspension with individual height adjustment for each wheel, tire inflation system. Independent wheel torque on some models.
From what I have witnessed once they hit more then a logging road they snap planetary drives very easily.
We usually towed them in with cats in muddy locations
Not many 16 ton Lavs.
The new Bradley has a V hull now. The basic hull armour on the Lav and Bradley are similar. They both have added different add on armour.
Just add wider tires. it depends on what terrain your planning for.
It's becomes interesting track verses wheels especially weight wise.
I still feel wheels can and should be at the forefront and not ignored. Things can be compensated for to make wheels pretty decent in comparison and for overall capabilities.
Ultimately both track and wheel have their limitations. I don't think we have hit what a wheeled systems limits are yet. But we are at the limits of tracked systems.
This truck system has a robust offroad capability.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,505
- Points
- 1,260
ASCOD has been in service for twenty years at this point
we started in 1997 and haven’t stopped
I’ll once again quote the only actual definition
“
The term "armoured personnel carrier" means an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped to transport a combat infantry squad and which, as a rule, is armed with an integral or organic weapon of less then 20 millimetres calibre.
The term "armoured infantry fighting vehicle" means an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad, which normally provides the capability for the troops to deliver fire from inside the vehicle under armoured protection, and which is armed with an integral or organic cannon of at least 20 millimetres calibre and sometimes an antitank missile launcher. Armoured infantry fighting vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of armoured infantry or mechanised infantry or motorised infantry formations and units of ground forces.”
- conventional armed forces in Europe treaty
Whether that LAV is a good IFV or not is a seperate debate, it meets the criteria and we use it as one. Ergo an IFV.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,250
- Points
- 1,160
I must admit that it's a learning (or perhaps relearning) experience. In the early days of the LAV III we learned rapidly how susceptible flat bottomed, thin hulled LAVs were to IEDs and the like. Even RG 31s had issues with stacked anti-tank mines (vis. Jul 4, 2007).
Tanks did better but even there we went to "M" versions with reinforced hulls. When I see videos of T72s brewing up and the vast number of mines laid by the Russians (and Ukrainians) it puts the whole issue into focus. Lighter vehicles are more vulnerable; flat-bottomed vehicles are more vulnerable. Then there is the whole top-attack and FPV ammunition that targets soft tops and backs.
There is going to be an escalating race to build better protected vehicles, probably with APS systems for those engaged in direct close combat. Lighter, less protected, systems might do for the follow up forces or security forces that follow or screen the close attack elements. Heavy equipment requires tracks to guarantee the high degree of manoeuvrability/mobility that heavy forces need during combat in all terrain. This accepts the fact that they are slower and perhaps harder to manoeuvre from one theatre of operations to another. Lighter forces might be more mobile when moving on undisturbed roads when not in contact but are less manoeuvrable in rough terrain when engaged. (the simple ability to pivot a tracked vehicle gives manoeuvre options that a wheeled vehicle lacks). Everything is a question of capability and risk trade offs and IMHO you need both. One shouldn't put all one's eggs in one basket as Canada has done with a wheeled medium force.
I've said before that I've spent years in light wheeled and medium tracked gun batteries both of which are far removed from close combat. I'll take a tracked battery any day of the week for its manoeuvrability and protection.
You're quite correct as to the definitions as set out in the CFE. But note the terms "as a rule" and "normally provides." I think one is better served in the discussion when one looks to the manner of tactical employment a given vehicle is designed for.
When you looks at "FM 3-96 Brigade Combat Team" you find that an SBCT is described as:
"SBCTs balance combined arms capabilities with significant mobility. The SBCT primarily fights as a dismounted Infantry formation that includes three SBCT Infantry battalions."
While the ABCT is described as:
"The ABCT’s role is to close with the enemy by means of fire and movement to destroy or capture enemy forces, or to repel enemy attacks by fire, close combat, and counterattack to control land areas, including populations and resources. The ABCT organizes to concentrate overwhelming combat power. Mobility, protection, and firepower enable the ABCT to conduct offensive operations with great precision and speed."
The Stryker was designed to get the infantry under protection to the battlespace where the infantry dismount and fight dismounted perhaps with the nearby support of the Z vehicles.
The Bradley, OTOH, was designed to be part of an all arms team that rapidly assaults and overwhelms the opposition often without ever dismounting its infantry elements. The vehicle was designed to be the centrepiece of the fight with its cannon and ATGMs and not merely a support vehicle for dismounted infantry. It's not surprising that early versions of the Bradley, like the Marder and the BMP had firing ports for their infantry to fire their small arms from while moving (an impractical solution in the long run notwithstanding it being referenced in the CFE.)
When you parse the CFE definition, one can look to the cannon size as a determinant of whether a given vehicle is an IFV or an APC. IMHO the focus should be on the words that AIFVs "serve as the principal weapon system of armoured infantry ..." The issue here is whether the vehicle or the squad is the primary/principal weapon system. For SBCTs its the squad while the vehicle is secondary. For ABCTs its the Bradley while the squad is secondary.
Yup. I know there are differences of opinions on this and I certainly won't say other opinions are wrong. I just think that the tactical employment purpose of the vehicle ought to define the parameters by which which it is designed and built. The tactical "primary weapon system" concept is, to me, where the designs ought to flow from.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,505
- Points
- 1,260
Sorry I was responding specifically to the ask about Canada fielding IFVs not the general topic. We do fight LAVs as IFVs in the close dismount and support through the objective that we train for, although I don’t know if any mechanized infantry really sees the carrier as the primary weapon system but that’s probably a whole different debate. I certainly wouldn’t argue that the Stryker is an IFV.I must admit that it's a learning (or perhaps relearning) experience. In the early days of the LAV III we learned rapidly how susceptible flat bottomed, thin hulled LAVs were to IEDs and the like. Even RG 31s had issues with stacked anti-tank mines (vis. Jul 4, 2007).
Tanks did better but even there we went to "M" versions with reinforced hulls. When I see videos of T72s brewing up and the vast number of mines laid by the Russians (and Ukrainians) it puts the whole issue into focus. Lighter vehicles are more vulnerable; flat-bottomed vehicles are more vulnerable. Then there is the whole top-attack and FPV ammunition that targets soft tops and backs.
There is going to be an escalating race to build better protected vehicles, probably with APS systems for those engaged in direct close combat. Lighter, less protected, systems might do for the follow up forces or security forces that follow or screen the close attack elements. Heavy equipment requires tracks to guarantee the high degree of manoeuvrability/mobility that heavy forces need during combat in all terrain. This accepts the fact that they are slower and perhaps harder to manoeuvre from one theatre of operations to another. Lighter forces might be more mobile when moving on undisturbed roads when not in contact but are less manoeuvrable in rough terrain when engaged. (the simple ability to pivot a tracked vehicle gives manoeuvre options that a wheeled vehicle lacks). Everything is a question of capability and risk trade offs and IMHO you need both. One shouldn't put all one's eggs in one basket as Canada has done with a wheeled medium force.
I've said before that I've spent years in light wheeled and medium tracked gun batteries both of which are far removed from close combat. I'll take a tracked battery any day of the week for its manoeuvrability and protection.
You're quite correct as to the definitions as set out in the CFE. But note the terms "as a rule" and "normally provides." I think one is better served in the discussion when one looks to the manner of tactical employment a given vehicle is designed for.
When you looks at "FM 3-96 Brigade Combat Team" you find that an SBCT is described as:
"SBCTs balance combined arms capabilities with significant mobility. The SBCT primarily fights as a dismounted Infantry formation that includes three SBCT Infantry battalions."
While the ABCT is described as:
"The ABCT’s role is to close with the enemy by means of fire and movement to destroy or capture enemy forces, or to repel enemy attacks by fire, close combat, and counterattack to control land areas, including populations and resources. The ABCT organizes to concentrate overwhelming combat power. Mobility, protection, and firepower enable the ABCT to conduct offensive operations with great precision and speed."
The Stryker was designed to get the infantry under protection to the battlespace where the infantry dismount and fight dismounted perhaps with the nearby support of the Z vehicles.
The Bradley, OTOH, was designed to be part of an all arms team that rapidly assaults and overwhelms the opposition often without ever dismounting its infantry elements. The vehicle was designed to be the centrepiece of the fight with its cannon and ATGMs and not merely a support vehicle for dismounted infantry. It's not surprising that early versions of the Bradley, like the Marder and the BMP had firing ports for their infantry to fire their small arms from while moving (an impractical solution in the long run notwithstanding it being referenced in the CFE.)
When you parse the CFE definition, one can look to the cannon size as a determinant of whether a given vehicle is an IFV or an APC. IMHO the focus should be on the words that AIFVs "serve as the principal weapon system of armoured infantry ..." The issue here is whether the vehicle or the squad is the primary/principal weapon system. For SBCTs its the squad while the vehicle is secondary. For ABCTs its the Bradley while the squad is secondary.
Yup. I know there are differences of opinions on this and I certainly won't say other opinions are wrong. I just think that the tactical employment purpose of the vehicle ought to define the parameters by which which it is designed and built. The tactical "primary weapon system" concept is, to me, where the designs ought to flow from.
- Reaction score
- 22,378
- Points
- 1,260
The problem the CA refuses to admit is that the LAV doesn’t have the same rough terrain mobility as the Leo2.
As such I view it as IFV’ish, but not a true IFV in terms of its ability to partake in combined operations in LSCO’s.
So to me Canada should have at least 2 (preferably 4) BN’s of a CV-90/Bradley type tracked IFV that has a 30-40mm cannon (preferably with APFSDS-DU) and a UA ATGM (preferably NLOS) with Fire and Forget.
Just as importantly more Armored Engineering Vehicles, more Breaching Tanks, BridgeLayers, and Under Armor Mine Clearance Systems (from MICLIC launching systems to autonomous breaching systems).
Plus more guns and some actual
rocket artillery.
- Reaction score
- 366
- Points
- 780
We investigated early Marders, bought Early LAVs. Makes one wonder who has the "biggest" pull in OW.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,872
- Points
- 1,210
CCV program has entered the chat
- Reaction score
- 1,528
- Points
- 1,160
BUT, Canada is too cheap, and that is going to get troops KIA using a system that was not designed as an IFV as an IFV.
- Reaction score
- 22,378
- Points
- 1,260
The issue isn’t that it isn’t an IFV, it’s that it doesn’t have the same off road mobility as the tanks. Which then can limit the tactics on the approach, forcing the separation of the tank and infantry depending on terrain. The lack of ATGM and Canada not buying into APFSDS-DU makes the IFV greatly dependent on the tanks for Anti Tank or Anti Heavy AFV defense.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,216
- Points
- 990
Is that not conflating two different shortcomings?
If I understand correctly, CA doctrine is for the Infantry on the defense to have a robust anti-armour plan relying on assets integral to the bn, to not rely on tanks, avoid penny packeting tanks to maintain a massed armoured fist for counter attacks, spoiling attacks, general offensive operations.
Shortcoming 1- the LAV Bn's are not equipped properly to enact an anti armour defense absent tank support, but the LAV is fine as an IFV for job
Shortcoming 2- the LAV itself is not an ideal IFV for intimate support of tanks
Two problems- two solutions. 1 could be soon solved with the ATGM replacement project being scoped equip doctrinal orbats and a commitment to organize as such. 2 could be solved with a Bradley loan equipping C squadron LdSH.
Similar threads
- Article
