LAV III Recce Vehicles

[Lance Wiebe]

I personally think the Coyote is a better surveillance vehicle than a recce vehicle; although it is capable of conducting recce ops.
Way back when, the 8CH, 12 RBC and LdSH had a Sqn of Ferrets and a Sqn of Lynx. Like Recceguy, I spent time on both. The Ferret was fast, quiet, small and was quite maneuverable. It mounted no optics, had no firepower to speak of (C5) to get itself out of trouble, and in adverse terrain conditions (deep snow, extremely rough terrain, swamp and so on) it just sucked. As a "sneak and peek" recce type vehicle, it was hard to beat on good ground. It also excelled (as one would expect) on route recces, rear area security, and other such tasks.
The lynx was much noisier, had no optics, and somewhat better firepower with the .50. But it was unstoppable in almost any kind of terrain. and could take advantage of extremely rough ground to get in to positions to set up OP's where no one in their right mind would think to look for them. It was also much lighter armoured than the ferret....
The Coyote, as mentioned by T2B, has reasonably good optics and a fairly capable gun. But it suffers in it's mobility the same way the Ferret did. The same way any wheeled vehicle would suffer. 
Recce, of course, has many and widely varied tasks. The Coyote is capable of doing most of them very well, and even excels at some of them. But it suffers from being wheeled. My own feeling is that conducting advance to contact in inclement terrain conditions limits to a great extent the Crew Commanders' options. Which also makes the enemies job just that much easier.....
Sorry for re-hashing so much stuff, I felt that there might be one or two people around here not that familiar with Lynx's and Ferrets.Not everyone is as old as Dave and George! (and myself)

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Not everyone is as old as Dave and George! (and myself)

Thanks Lance :waiting: That just what I needed to hear

 

[Loachman]

The lynx ... set up OP's where no one in their right mind would think to look for them.

Like the middle of huge and deep farm manure piles in Germany.

I hovered upwind.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I'm not a Recce guy so I won't get into specific TTPs but I don't think it's necessarily fair to say the Coyote is a bad recce vehicle,  after all, it was originally designed as a recce vehicle for the Marine Corps.  This being said, the Marines concept of reconnaissance, along with much of their other doctrine is quite different from ours.

The Marine Light Armored Reconaissance Battalions (LAR Bn), from my understanding, is designed to conduct reconnaissance-in-force and actively seeks out the enemy and harrasses them in order to attrit them before they are confronted by the main body.  The LAV-25 is a perfectly suitable vehicle for this task.

If your concept of Recce is sneaking and peeking, than maybe you need a vehicle that is more quiet, has a smaller signature and is more maneuverable.  If your concept of Recce is going out and luring the enemy into a gunbattle, than the LAV-25 is a perfectly suitable vehicle for this.

:2c:

 

[Kirkhill]

Like Drew - not my game but...

If you're in BC hillcrests, trees and rocks offer hull down positions every couple of meters.

If you're in Shilo, Dundurn, Suffield or Wainwright hill crests are kilometers apart.

On the other hand the valleys between the hillcrests in BC are really deep allowing a tall vehicle with poor optics to get up close if it is quiet.  On the prairies the valleys are shallow so a short, noisy vehicle, or even a tall noisy one can work - so long as it has great optics.

On the prairies you may be belly down behind a hill and still be 100 m behind the crest.

2 more pesos.

 

[blackberet17]

I personally think the Coyote is a better surveillance vehicle than a recce vehicle; although it is capable of conducting recce ops.
Way back when, the 8CH, 12 RBC and LdSH had a Sqn of Ferrets and a Sqn of Lynx. Like Recceguy, I spent time on both. The Ferret was fast, quiet, small and was quite maneuverable. It mounted no optics, had no firepower to speak of (C5) to get itself out of trouble, and in adverse terrain conditions (deep snow, extremely rough terrain, swamp and so on) it just sucked. As a "sneak and peek" recce type vehicle, it was hard to beat on good ground. It also excelled (as one would expect) on route recces, rear area security, and other such tasks.
The lynx was much noisier, had no optics, and somewhat better firepower with the .50. But it was unstoppable in almost any kind of terrain. and could take advantage of extremely rough ground to get in to positions to set up OP's where no one in their right mind would think to look for them. It was also much lighter armoured than the ferret....
The Coyote, as mentioned by T2B, has reasonably good optics and a fairly capable gun. But it suffers in it's mobility the same way the Ferret did. The same way any wheeled vehicle would suffer. 
Recce, of course, has many and widely varied tasks. The Coyote is capable of doing most of them very well, and even excels at some of them. But it suffers from being wheeled. My own feeling is that conducting advance to contact in inclement terrain conditions limits to a great extent the Crew Commanders' options. Which also makes the enemies job just that much easier.....
Sorry for re-hashing so much stuff, I felt that there might be one or two people around here not that familiar with Lynx's and Ferrets.Not everyone is as old as Dave and George! (and myself)

Sounds like an (imperfect) mix of what you'd find in a LUVW.

Small. Fast Relatively quiet (when the fan and crew heater aren't running).
Reasonably good over certain terrain (forget deep snow, swamp, or extremely rough - although, there are a few tracks I DIDN'T think we'd get through, and did).
No optics, short of the binos on the CComd/Gunner's neck.
C6, so "decent" firepower. Even better when you toss in an M72 and Carl G to make things interesting.

Really, my only gripe about the vehicle is it's too damn tall for its wheel-base. Ok, maybe I have more gripes, but I'll save those for another cup of java. Oh, and it breaks down too often and too easily. And top heavy. And...

Light recce, sneak and peek role, rear area, suitable vehicle. Other than that, drawing board where are you!?

 

[George Wallace]

Like Drew - not my game but...

If you're in BC hillcrests, trees and rocks offer hull down positions every couple of meters.

If you're in Shilo, Dundurn, Suffield or Wainwright hill crests are kilometers apart.

On the other hand the valleys between the hillcrests in BC are really deep allowing a tall vehicle with poor optics to get up close if it is quiet.  On the prairies the valleys are shallow so a short, noisy vehicle, or even a tall noisy one can work - so long as it has great optics.

On the prairies you may be belly down behind a hill and still be 100 m behind the crest.

2 more pesos.

Please. 

Have you ever done a "Crest Drill" with a large vehicle that has the commander located in a turret on the back third of the vehicle?  The option to dismount a crew member works fine ONCE.  Doing a long Route Recce over fifty miles/kilometers (take your pick) and dismounting a crew member for every crest, not to mention every defile, lateral, corner, gap, bridge, ford, etc. will soon have the Bde Comdr on your case within an hour.

The LAV 25 that the Marines use is not a Coyote.  It is 'First Generation' and has a marine drive and trim vane with which they can swim ashore from ships at sea.  As Drew points out, their philosophy of Recon is not the same as our philosophy of Recce.  They are willing to risk contact and fight for their info.  The Germans are the same way; they fight for their info.  The German Luchs is large, fast, well armed and very quiet.  The Luchs also has two drivers, one front and one rear, who have the capability to drive the vehicle just as fast in 'Reverse' as in 'Drive'.  (Note:  Those familiar with the Luchs may remember the problem with their brakes making the same noise our LSVW brakes make.  The Germans solved that problem.) 

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Please. 

Have you ever done a "Crest Drill" with a large vehicle that has the commander located in a turret on the back third of the vehicle?  The option to dismount a crew member works fine ONCE.  Doing a long Route Recce over fifty miles/kilometers (take your pick) and dismounting a crew member for every crest, not to mention every defile, lateral, corner, gap, bridge, ford, etc. will soon have the Bde Comdr on your case within an hour.

The LAV 25 that the Marines use is not a Coyote.  It is 'First Generation' and has a marine drive and trim vane with which they can swim ashore from ships at sea.  As Drew points out, their philosophy of Recon is not the same as our philosophy of Recce.  They are willing to risk contact and fight for their info.  The Germans are the same way; they fight for their info.  The German Luchs is large, fast, well armed and very quiet.  The Luchs also has two drivers, one front and one rear, who have the capability to drive the vehicle just as fast in 'Reverse' as in 'Drive'.  (Note:  Those familiar with the Luchs may remember the problem with their brakes making the same noise our LSVW brakes make.  The Germans solved that problem.)

Exactly George, two very different philosophies.  The Marines aren't only willing to risk contact, if they can destroy the enemy with their recce, they will.  US Army Cavalry works the exact same way.  It was Recce elements in Bradley's that destroyed the Republican Guard at the Battle of 73 Easting during the Gulf War.  The Cav crested a hill and came upon the Republican Guard in a reverse slope defensive position.  Rather than stopping the advance and waiting for heavy armour, they drove right through them and lit them up.

We had a US Army Scout Cavalry come up for the last Ex MAPLE RESOLVE and they caught a lot of people by surprise when, rather than attempting to break contact when they were engaged, they would turn towards their attackers and immediately counter-attack.
 

 

[blacktriangle]

When was the last time "sneak and peek" Armd Recce was used in a high intensity conflict between conventional forces?

Just curious if anyone has any good examples from the last 10-15 years or so.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

When was the last time "sneak and peek" Armd Recce was used in a high intensity conflict between conventional forces?

Just curious if anyone has any good examples from the last 10-15 years or so.

The only modern conflict I can think of where this would have occurred is probably the South African Border War and even then, a lot of Armoured Recce units didn't operate like our doctrine says in the traditional sneak & peek sense as the war had aspects of both insurgency and conventional warfare.  Koevet (South West African Police Paramilitary Tracking Unit) operated from Casspir Armoured Vehicles across the bush and would track OPFOR down and then call in Fireforce (Airmobile forces) to finish them off.  This could be considered a sneak and peek operation in one sense.

At the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale in 1987/88, which was one of the largest battles of the South African Border War.  South African Reconnaissance elements didn't initially engage Angolan/Cuban Forces and sat and waited (unseen).  It was only after they observed the sloppiness/poor soldiering of the Cubans/Angolans did they decide to engage.  South African Armoured Recce used the Ratel 90 whose 90mm cannon could engage and destroy the T-55's used by the Cubans/Angolans.

 

[Kirkhill]

Please. 

Have you ever done a "Crest Drill" with a large vehicle that has the commander located in a turret on the back third of the vehicle?  The option to dismount a crew member works fine ONCE.  Doing a long Route Recce over fifty miles/kilometers (take your pick) and dismounting a crew member for every crest, not to mention every defile, lateral, corner, gap, bridge, ford, etc. will soon have the Bde Comdr on your case within an hour.

The LAV 25 that the Marines use is not a Coyote.  It is 'First Generation' and has a marine drive and trim vane with which they can swim ashore from ships at sea.  As Drew points out, their philosophy of Recon is not the same as our philosophy of Recce.  They are willing to risk contact and fight for their info.  The Germans are the same way; they fight for their info.  The German Luchs is large, fast, well armed and very quiet.  The Luchs also has two drivers, one front and one rear, who have the capability to drive the vehicle just as fast in 'Reverse' as in 'Drive'.  (Note:  Those familiar with the Luchs may remember the problem with their brakes making the same noise our LSVW brakes make.  The Germans solved that problem.)

No, I haven't.  A point of which both of us are fully aware.  However I do regularly drive over hills on the prairies and observe oncoming vehicles.

The length of time that it takes from a vehicle's roof line to be visible to the time that its lights, much less its tires, are visible is measured in minutes (well fractions thereof 15 to 45 seconds).  At a two mile a minute closing rate that suggests that the angle of the slope behind the crest puts the hull down position some hundreds of meters or more beyond the local skyline.

I agree that dismounting somebody to belly up to a crest half a kilometer away would be time consuming.  That's why on the prairies I would imagine that optics are more important than the vehicles.

Conversely, in BC, every turn is an adventure.  Same across Superior and in the Kawarthas.  There the vehicle, I would guess, is more important than the optics.

By the way... Which is Ukraine more like? Petawawa or Shilo? 

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

By the way... Which is Ukraine more like? Petawawa or Shilo? 

judging by the picture of the Donetsk Airport I saw yesterday, neither!  It looks a heck of a lot like the Décarie Expressway in Montreal  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

judging by the picture of the Donetsk Airport I saw yesterday, neither!  It looks a heck of a lot like the Décarie Expressway in Montreal  ;D

Mid Rush Hour....

 

[George Wallace]

No, I haven't.  A point of which both of us are fully aware.  However I do regularly drive over hills on the prairies and observe oncoming vehicles.

OK.  Now move into the back seat and drive from there, and you will start to get the idea.    >

 

[blacktriangle]

A diverse tool box of capabilities would seem the most flexible, but maybe that's just me. From an outsider's perspective, I see inherent strengths and weaknesses in "sneak and peek", "fighting for info" and pure surveillance.

With that said, we are a small army with limited resources - a LAV III with a surveillance suite might not be the worst choice out there (although I see one HUGE potential issue, but I will have to do more research on that)

 

[George Wallace]

Exactly George, two very different philosophies.  The Marines aren't only willing to risk contact, if they can destroy the enemy with their recce, they will.  US Army Cavalry works the exact same way.  It was Recce elements in Bradley's that destroyed the Republican Guard at the Battle of 73 Easting during the Gulf War.  The Cav crested a hill and came upon the Republican Guard in a reverse slope defensive position.  Rather than stopping the advance and waiting for heavy armour, they drove right through them and lit them up.

We had a US Army Scout Cavalry come up for the last Ex MAPLE RESOLVE and they caught a lot of people by surprise when, rather than attempting to break contact when they were engaged, they would turn towards their attackers and immediately counter-attack.

Oh.  I know.  We had an American ITV Troop from one of the Cav units attached to our Recce Sqn one Reforger.  We had to constantly tell them that they were NOT TO ENGAGE.

As for how we (Canadians) do Armour Recce; it is not unusually to land up in an OP Screen and then find ourselves twenty to forty kilometers behind enemy lines.  A large vehicle to get to those locations and hide in those locations is a hindrance.  That we have not had a large conflict where large enemy mechanized forces have been involved does not mean that that role has not been practiced.  If you look at what we did in Afghanistan, when patrols were sent out to perform OP tasks, the large Vehicles with masts were dead giveaways. 

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

A diverse tool box of capabilities would seem the most flexible, but maybe that's just me. From an outsider's perspective, I see inherent strengths and weaknesses in "sneak and peek", "fighting for info" and pure surveillance.

With that said, we are a small army with limited resources - a LAV III with a surveillance suite might not be the worst choice out there (although I see one HUGE potential issue, but I will have to do more research on that)

It also fits into our idea of being able to project a medium weight force

 

[George Wallace]

A diverse tool box of capabilities would seem the most flexible, but maybe that's just me. From an outsider's perspective, I see inherent strengths and weaknesses in "sneak and peek", "fighting for info" and pure surveillance.

With that said, we are a small army with limited resources - a LAV III with a surveillance suite might not be the worst choice out there (although I see one HUGE potential issue, but I will have to do more research on that)

We are a small army with very limited resources, and tight budgets.  Often we will see purchases made by persons who have no idea what the 'end users' actually need, which will then dictate a change to policies/doctrines.

We currently have one of, if not the, best surv suites in the world.  It fills one of your three criteria above.  When it comes to fighting for info, then it is the Recce and Surv pers who will direct the 'big guns' in to get it; be they the Infantry, tanks, arty or some other arm, or a special unit that specializes in the more 'surgical' methods.  Armour Recce's main weapon is its radios.

 

[blacktriangle]

It also fits into our idea of being able to project a medium weight force

It sure is nice to get another capability onto a LAV-III platform, but it was sad to read (earlier in this thread) that not all will be upgraded to the same level.

Definitely time to upgrade and get rid of our Bison variants, though.

 

[Kirkhill]

OK.  Now move into the back seat and drive from there, and you will start to get the idea.    >

Good enuff.  Butting out ..... for a moment.