LAV 6.0

[McG]

I hope not. I'm holding out for tracks and if has to be another LAV 6.0 then I want one with the turret gone,

Even if it is bought for medium cavalry?

 

[FJAG]

As someone with experience commanding vehicles with a unified gunner/commander position - I dont think you guys realize how hard it is to crew command them safely and in a tactically effective way

Those of us looking for a smaller crew appreciate the issue.

It comes down to a trade off as between a three-man crew and an additional dismount in contact. My preference goes for the extra dismount because IMHO, the LAV is not up to being an IFV even if we call it that.

As an aside I note that the DND websites describe the LAV 6 [20.6k tonnes/28.5k tonnes with add-on armour] as "Canada's IFV" but GDLS's website describes it as the Infantry Section Carrier. Note that GDLS's AJAX, which comes in at 38.5 tonnes, is described by GDLS as an armoured fighting vehicle, The later version of the CV-90, like the Mk IV, are also coming in at around 35-38k tonnes and are described by BAE as an IFV. IMHO those ten tonnes of mass and the tracks matter when it comes to the issue of how much the vehicle should be used in close combat and even fire support in an LSCO scenario.

I would see a dedicated driver and gunner who stay with the LAV at all times. The vehicle would be crew commanded by the section commander while the troops are mounted but that on dismounting the gunner assumes the crew commander role as well as gunner. In large measure that's because some of us consider that the LAV should not be a close combat/fire support vehicle as it is too vulnerable - it should disgorge its dismounts under cover and/or withdraw to a position where it can cover flanks, do air defence, and perhaps operate as a launcher vehicle from cover for loitering munitions, UAVs and ATGMs.

I feel completely differently for a tracked IFV - like the AJAX (ARES), CV-90, AS21 Redback (42k tonnes) and Puma (Level C 43k tonnes) that are built and configured to fight while their troops are mounted, penetrate onto or very close to objectives and provide close support during the fight. Those should clearly have a three-man crew for the reasons you state.

 

[Rifleman62]

As an aside I note that the DND websites describe the LAV 6 [20.6k tonnes/28.5k tonnes with add-on armour] as "Canada's IFV"....

They, the government would, wouldn't they. Say if often enough and everyone will believe it. Next the Infantry will be employing IFV tactics with "Canada's IFV".

NO more LAV's please. This vehicle is going to get our soldiers killed because we are too cheap to get an IFV.

If GDLS built an IFV we might purchase the vehicle because jobs and votes are a higher priority than worthwhile equipment to give our soldiers tools for the task.

 

[KevinB]

As someone with experience commanding vehicles with a unified gunner/commander position - I dont think you guys realize how hard it is to crew command them safely and in a tactically effective way. Now I know infantry crew commanders are a bit more lax with positions and vehicle tactics, but the same principles apply and it is tricky business commanding the vehicle, battle tracking on your map, gunning and navigating simultaneously. Shoot, move, communicate all at once at 50kmh. In a two person turret the commander's workload is cut in half, meaning drills, positioning, nav, etc are superior.

That said, this may not apply to a mech inf CC, Im not actually too sure what their tactics look like on that front, it may be simple enough to get by without suffering too much performance wise. I may just be overthinking IFV RWS as a crewman.

I 100% agree with you.
But as @FJAG notes, the issue what the role of the vehicle is for.
To me an AFV in the "assault role" needs a 3-4 person crew. There is only so much that one person can do to retain SA in a moving vehicle, keep it in the fight and engage effectively and not be a danger to friendlies, the 2 person turret is a check and balance to ensure that the weapons are not brought to bear on the wrong targets.
To quote a friend of mine during some operations in Iraq, "the Abrams is the number one threat to US Infantrymen". Mainly as any larger vehicle that will jockey to reduce the likelihood of taking effective enemy fire is dangerous -- the vehicle commander is generally not going to be in the open hatch looking around if there is direct and indirect fire coming in. Now vehicle SA systems have come a long way from 2003-2006, but large vehicles are still a threat (even if friendly) to dismounted troops.

We have IFF beacons on helmet to avoid fratricide - and individual positioning now as well with some comms systems - so there are ways to introduce SA to the vehicle crews to watch out for "crunchies".

Quite frankly no western army really knows how bad it will be in an LSCO for AFV crews as the ability to ride hatches open will be totally removed - the CC riding head up to find targets and look around is fully removed - AFV's not having advanced Commander independent cupola sensors will be severely degraded. As well in a non EW degraded environment there will be a mass of data input as well which can be overwhelming, I suspect this is the reason that some AFV designs that use an autoloader have a 4th crewman to manage non direct features SA and other data.

Now if you look at the Stryker - it is really a battlefield taxi - there is no intent to assault positions (at least in an LSCO against a Peer/Near Peer Enemy) with the Stryker's - it disembarks the dismounted troops outside of engagement range (which sucks in an artillery saturated environment).
The Stryker's have some support weapons via RWS (Mk19 GMG and .50 M2 or GAU-19 if SOF Stryker) but those are generally more of a self defense weapon system than an actual firebase for the attack, unless it is a very limited enemy in terms of size and weaponry.

So for the APC role, the 2 person crew (driver and CC) isn't as limiting as it is to a vehicle that is expected to interoperate with other AFV's and dismounts on the battlefield.

Where I get confused it where is the LAV 6.0's role on the LSCO battlefield. Because it is neither fish nor fowl.

 

[Kirkhill]

To me the difference has always been that the APC is there to serve the troops. In an IFV the troops serve the vehicle.

Once the troops are dismounted the vehicles are tied to the 4 mph battle if they are supplying integral fire support.

The cavalry types want to make those periods as short and infrequent as possible so they can continue with the 40 mph battle.

The infantry doesn't want their support doing a Rupert and swanning off into the blue. They want something that will soak up punishment along with them and give them the fire support they need. Thus infantry tanks like Matilda were heavily armoured and the lack of speed was a feature not a bug.

Rather than two IFVs I would sooner the infantry was supplied with an MBT that stayed with them on the objective and an APC that delivered them and retired to a safer location.

For the caVALry there I can see value in IFVs and 3-4 man crews with dedicated small, low profile vehicles.