LAV 6.0

[Humphrey Bogart]

One of the problems with some of these 'robotic' systems, when thinking of large calibre wpns, such as cannons, is the reload time and time taken to change types of ammo.  That was one of the most serious problems with the MGS, the ammo carousel and reloading of that carousel once it was empty.  Changing the ammo from one type to another type, meant that the carousel had to cycle through several rounds to find the newly selected round.  As the carousel is not large enough to hold the full ammo load of the vehicle, another problem was the length of time required to reload the carousel after it was emptied.  Not ideal times when one is in Contact.

Let's not even mention dealing with jamming and misfires.  Think of how sensitive the bushmaster 25mm is.  If Bloggins happens to improperly layer the ammunition in the ammo bins, you'll end with a massive jam which will often require you take the feed covers and chutes off and hack at the ammo with plyers and wrenches.  Imagine having to do this to an RWS while under fire. 

 

[MedCorps]

I agree, doctrinally the medics should not have to ride in a Inf Pl veh, because there should be no medics in the Inf Pl.

In situation where you want a medic in the Inf Pl (based on the medical plan) then it is unlikely that they will be mounted in a Bison Amb (due to armd amb limited quantities and allocation in the land force). Sometimes it even might be undesirable (the Bison Amb trying to keep up with a LAV 6.0 Pl cross country, protection offered by the Bison Amb and having a support armoured vehicle in a platoon which needs to be managed outside of the regular LAV Pl TTPs). As such, as an exception to the standing employment concept, if medics are going to be pushed down to the Inf Pl they will need somewhere to ride.

The concept I am describing is not Afghanistan-centric (where it seemed that every Pl had a Medic) but rather how it seems to be set out from the proceedings of the HS Future Field Force Working Group / doctrine re-write. 
 
MC 

 

[Infanteer]

Pardon my foggy memory, but trying to recall my Jr NCO course, didn't a section consist of 12 people?

No.  Doctrinally it is 10.  In reality, they are only established at 8, and there are often holes in this.  5-6 is the norm.

 

[Infanteer]

Actually, the force employment ratio for an Inf Coy is 2 Med Tech per Coy (1 x Cpl & 1 x MCpl) under the direction of the CSM.  After just seeing the results of Second Future Health Services Field Force Working Group I am confident this will remain and be reinforced in upcoming doctrine revisions. In a mech (motorized) infantry company these Med Tech's should be mounted in their own armoured ambulance. Especially given the prevalence of TCCC ratios in the Infantry Corps and the vast majority of force planning scenarios where we have air superiority the ratios should hold.

Now, if justified by the unit medical plan additional medics can be attached from the HS Role 1 unit integral support (aka UMS) if they have one, to the Coys, in which case they might be attached down to Pl level and require space in the LAV.

Food for thought. 

MC

I've never seen this.  A Rifle Company Medical Det has been a MCpl with the CSM and Pte-Cpls embedded in each Platoon (for four personnel).  In Afghanistan, this was augmented with an attached ambulance with two additional pers (1 x Med Tech and a driver, not necessarily a medic).

Over the last few years, I've seen the Field Ambulance fires over one Medic/Platoon and a Coy Medic when possible for every deployment.  The hardest fill has always been the Master Corporal Coy Medic.  I believe this is a useful construct as platoons can be dispersed around the Companies operating environment.

 

[Infanteer]

We've greatly increased the weight of the original hull which has altered it's off-road performance and also made it far less mobile.  Putting an RWS on the hull to prevent death from rollovers is also a false savings because we need to think of how many lives the decisive firepower of the 25mm has saved.  I can think of a number of engagements, where without the 25mm, things may have turned out a lot differently.  In his book, "Dancing with the Dushman", Col Hope refers specifically to the combat power of the LAV III 25mm being the decisive weapon in his engagements with the Taliban.

I would offer that an RWS with a .50cal HMG or a C-16 GMG would provide sufficient firepower.  I'm a fan for taking turrets off so we get away from over aggressive use of a light armoured vehicle and create more space for what they are really supposed to be doing - moving dismounts to an approriate location to get their job done.  We need an APC, not a light tank.

 

[dapaterson]

No.  Doctrinally it is 10.  In reality, they are only established at 8, and there are often holes in this.  5-6 is the norm.

My understanding is that they are doctrinally ten, Reg F establishment within the Bns eight, and for deployment set at eight Reg F + two P Res augmentees.

 

[Lumber]

I would offer that an RWS with a .50cal HMG or a C-16 GMG would provide sufficient firepower.  I'm a fan for taking turrets off so we get away from over aggressive use of a light armoured vehicle and create more space for what they are really supposed to be doing - moving dismounts to an approriate location to get their job done.  We need an APC, not a light tank.

What about putting an RWS on the vehicles with infantry mounted on them, and have one additional LAVIII with bushmaster per platoon (or maybe company?) there for fire support?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

What about putting an RWS on the vehicles with infantry mounted on them, and have one additional LAVIII with bushmaster per platoon (or maybe company?) there for fire support?

The French do something very similar with the VAB.

 

[George Wallace]

I would offer that an RWS with a .50cal HMG or a C-16 GMG would provide sufficient firepower.  I'm a fan for taking turrets off so we get away from over aggressive use of a light armoured vehicle and create more space for what they are really supposed to be doing - moving dismounts to an approriate location to get their job done.  We need an APC, not a light tank.

I am proponent of having as little as possible above eye level of the commander, on a vehicle.  We used to be able to effectively ambush vehicles cresting, by simply watching for their antennae and waiting for the vehicle to appear under them.  Now people want to put a big honking RWS up top, with sights.  If antennae were easy to pick out, a big object like the RWS is even more obvious.

 

[McG]

I would offer that an RWS with a .50cal HMG or a C-16 GMG would provide sufficient firepower.

Why not one RWS with both an MG and a GMG?  We could use the same RWS as was designed for the TAPV and then have a single common gunner course.
More firepower and a reduced individual training footprint.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am proponent of having as little as possible above eye level of the commander, on a vehicle.  We used to be able to effectively ambush vehicles cresting, by simply watching for their antennae and waiting for the vehicle to appear under them.  Now people want to put a big honking RWS up top, with sights.  If antennae were easy to pick out, a big object like the RWS is even more obvious.

George, I know you are also a strong believer in heads-out commanding but what would you say to mounting the sights at the top of the array so that they are the first thing to crest the hill.

It was the difference between the Kiowa with the MMS and the Apache with its Chin mounted sights

 

[cupper]

...where do we put the Medic? The Dog Handler and Dog?  What if you have a FOO/FAC attached?  Where do these augments go? 

Isn't that what the equipment racks are for? >

 

[George Wallace]

George, I know you are also a strong believer in heads-out commanding but what would you say to mounting the sights at the top of the array so that they are the first thing to crest the hill.

It was the difference between the Kiowa with the MMS and the Apache with its Chin mounted sights

Ummm!  Although that is a sidetrack, the same reasoning applies.  Back in the day, before the advent of the Apache, it was the norm for a Kiowa to be the first thing you wanted to shoot down, as they were the FOO/FAC, and navigator for the flight of Cobras.  The first thing you would see of a Kiowa or attack helicopter would be the rotors above the trees or crest.  The addition of a MMS on top of the rotors made it even easier for one to detect their presence. 

In those days I always wondered what a 105 mm APFSDS would do to such a contact.    :camo:

 

[Loachman]

The "periscope" would be a lot less visible than the rotor and entire fuselage above eyeball level, however.

And the EO/IR system is a lot more effective than stab binos, allowing for greater stand-off.

The heat signature, however...

 

[Franko]

The only way you'll see a Canadian tank on the battle field is when it's ready to kill you. We don't expose our vehicles unless it's nessisary, just like George is talking about. We also shut off our engines to listen for other vehicles approaching.

All we show is eyes above a crest with binds and more often than not, we will see you first, then use sensors to confirm and get the gun on you prior to firing, then adopting a hull down position and firing immediately.

Again, it all depends on the crew and their commander. A good crew with proper SA will get the first shot off regardless of do-dads on a turret or hull. All these things are going to carry over to the new platforms as well. They work.

Infantry don't have the worries of this stuff because, for the most part, they go from waiting area to waiting area waiting for combat team orders while Armour Recce and the tanks are in the lead.

As for 105 APFSDS, try 120. We have the slew rate to track aircraft now.   

Regards

 

[George Wallace]

Don't get me wrong.  I am in full agreement that the Infantry need wpns that will provide them with extra firepower.  Those weapon systems though, have to be of the right design that they can be easily cammed and employed without exposing a good part of, or the whole, vehicle.  Unfortunately, something like this does not fit the bill in my opinion; unless you are fighting on a baldass relatively flat tabletop:

 

[Good2Golf]

Whatever you guys do, stick with weapons on the LAV and trying to cram the full section in, that's the vital ground...don't give anyone ideas about using half a section and putting something on LAV-150 TAPV...like a 90mm or anything... 

 

[Good2Golf]

Don't worry.


HLTA fixes that problem.

MilPoints inbound, after I clean up my coffee...  :rofl:

 

[ArmyGuy99]

Med Corps:

That is perhaps what is on paper...however in practice both on domestic OPS AND in Afg HSS deployed 1 Coy Medic and 3 Juniors to the Infantry also in Afg each OMLT/POMLT got one too.  Limiting the Inf Coy to two medics (a dismount and a mounted) and putting both those eggs into one vehicle with a giant hit me here on the sides IS bad doctrine and Piss Poor Planning.  Regardless of what Ottawa thinks there ARE enough pte's/cpl's to fill the need.  As stated it's getting the M/Cpl slot filled.  Also don't loose your medic you might not get a new one.  But there are enough to fill out 2 of our CMBGs  With limited augment from the ResF units (that's their function anyway..different discussion i know) well at least there WAS 2 years ago when I got the 3B kick in the ass.

So it goes to reason to make sure you have the room for augments...even if we remove the dismounted medics from the plt level what about translators and other force multipliers?  Having tunnel vision of just looking to put combat arms into the armored vehicle is being shortsighted.    The LAV works for the most part...it's just that the powers with the check book need to listen to the boots and pay attention to the lessons learned to improve it and actually buy it. 



ANY future vehicle needs to have room OR purchase enough so that there ARE enough vehicles to hand out...(like that's going to happen)...It's a change in Corporate thinking that's needed...no one ever thinks about where to put the doc or translator UNTIL you need a band-aid or have to talk to the local wing nuts.

And that's MY arm chair quarterbacking for the Generals for the day.

 

[a_majoor]

Bringing us back full circle, since we don't really seem to have any doctrine, we can't define what exactly we want our vehicle fleet to do for us.

Carry a dismounted section plus a few "enablers/floppers"? Bring back the M-113, a roomy, reliable battle taxi with plenty of room for "stuff". Just don't expect to fight it out with others on a one to one basis.

Zoom around to bring your dismounted section places before your enemies can figure out what you are doing and react, plus carry extra people and stuff? A Stryker would seem to fit the bill, being a souped up M-113 on wheels.

Go into a fight supporting your dismounted Panzergrenadiers? Now you need an IFV carrying a cannon and armour protection. The main principle is it should have similar mobility to the tank and other AFV's ion the combat team. How much protection is needed should be a carefully considered trade off, but a CV90 class vehicle would seem to be rather light for the role (even if teamed up with CV90120's and other CV90 based AFV's), so realistically we are looking at PUMA, ACHZARIT or NAMER class vehicles, with all the logistical headache that would entail.

The initial LAV III was a fairly decent compromise between the wheeled M-113 and having more firepower, but the LAV 6.0 is pushing the limits of a wheeled platform pretty hard, and the mobility and protection will never match that of a true IFV. Even replacing a lot of parts with titanium and ceramics (lots of advances on material science, including how to make titanium parts inexpensively) and replacing the turret with a RWS is never going to make the LAV 6.0 an IFV, regardless of what anyone says.