LAV III Recce Vehicles

[Colin Parkinson]

The G-wagon can also be had in a soft top version and likely partly armored, there is also the British Jackal 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

What is this 'Cyclone' thing being talked about??  >

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

While we all have a favourite Recce vehicle, the point now is to find the best way to integrate TAPV and LAV Recce in a mixed Troop.

Kirkhill,

I think it is completely wrong to base your requirements for a Recce vehicle on what can be lifted by a helicopter. We do not deploy that way. We are not a Marine Corps (and note that they use LAVs). Stuff moves by unglamourous shipping to a port, and then maybe by C17 or contract air to the airhead if applicable.

Cheers,

T2B

 

[Loachman]

You are completely overlooking our purchase of C-17s, with which we transported our Chinooks to and from Afghanistan, along with our Leopard 2s.

We didn't take Chinooks to Afghanistan, and we did not bring them back.

 

[Kirkhill]

While we all have a favourite Recce vehicle, the point now is to find the best way to integrate TAPV and LAV Recce in a mixed Troop.

Kirkhill,

I think it is completely wrong to base your requirements for a Recce vehicle on what can be lifted by a helicopter. We do not deploy that way. We are not a Marine Corps (and note that they use LAVs). Stuff moves by unglamourous shipping to a port, and then maybe by C17 or contract air to the airhead if applicable.

Cheers,

T2B

While the Marine Corps uses LAVs for Recce they also have ships to carry them, LCUs, LCACs, HSVs and Helicopters to take them to shore

Is that the way they generally do business? No.
Can they do business that way? Yes.

My point on sizing the recce vehicle for air portability is that there has been a lot of talk about limited budgets and multiple fleets.  Given that then I am suggesting that the RCAC look at a lighter solution for Recce that is deployable by a larger number of platforms and is more useful in a variety of terrains.

The fact that lighter is smaller and that it plays to Mr. Wallace's preferred types of vehicles is just an unfortunate coincidence.  >

A couple of final points on deployment - I trust we never have to deploy a battle group to Eureka, but it would be nice to know we have the capability.

As well, there was some concern about lack of vision,  it would be nice to know that we could repeat this operation:

Nicosia - 1974

On 1 Apr 1974, 1 Commando Group (1 Commando and 1 Airborne Field Squadron, Canadian Military Engineers), were sent on the Regiment's first peacekeeping mission, a 9-month tour of duty on Cyprus as the Canadian contingent of United Nations Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP). On 6 Apr the Group was tasked with the Nicosia sector. In Canada, 2 Commando and 3 Mechanized Commando continued normal training.

On 15 Jul, the Greek Cypriot National Guard staged a coup and overthrowing president Archbishop Makarios III; UNFICYP forces were placed on alert. Five days later, on 20 Jul 1964, the Turkish army invaded in response to the overthrow, officially claiming they wished to protect the Turkish minority on the island. Airborne and amphibious operations (including 1,000 Turkish paratroopers) landed Turk soldiers near Nicosia and Kyrenia; Greek forces used the positions of the United Nations peacekeepers to shield themselves while conducting defensive operations, and UN observation posts were necessarily abandoned as Turkish forces opened fire on them.

The Airborne soldiers, with British support, took command of the international airport to deny further troop movement, then intervened with patrols to prevent escalation of the conflict. The remainder of the Canadian Airborne were deployed to Cyprus as the UN forces tried to establish a cease-fire. On 2 Aug 1974, Colonel Lessard, the Commanding Officer of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, established a heavy patrol schedule, along with re-establishment of UN observation posts and where necessary the removal of both Greek and Turkish roadblocks.

On 14 Aug 1974, a new invasion by the Turks began to actively target the UN soldiers; after two days a ceasefire was established with both Greeks and Turks preparing defensive positions. The Airborne continued their patrols, between the soldiers of both sides, as well as assisting with aid to civilian refugees and the prisoner of war exchanges between the two sides.

During the hostilities, Private Lionel Gilbert Perron, age 20, and Private Joseph Jean Claude Berger, age 21 both of 1 Commando, were killed and 30 Airborne soldiers were wounded. Perron was killed on 6 Aug 1974 and Berger on 10 Sep 1974. They were the first combat casualties suffered by the Canadian Army since the Korean War but unfortunately not the last Canadian soldiers to die on operations in the 20th Century.

Eventually, two Stars of Courage and six Medals of Bravery were awarded for actions during this operation. Five members of 1 Airborne Field Squadron were also made Members of the Order of Military Merit. Their work had involved reconstruction and repair duties, as well as the clearance of mines and creation of safe lanes through minefields. The last members of 1 Commando returned to Canada on 12 Dec 1974.

Final thought -

In the event of NEO operation - would it not be useful to be able to pick up Canadians from a remote airhead, secured by Canadians, rather than having them move with the madding crowd, along congested roads, to the ports and airports that are being shelled?

 

[Kirkhill]

What is this 'Cyclone' thing being talked about??  >

Alright.... Sea King if you prefer.

 

[cupper]

Found this little gem while doing a search for various recce vehicles.

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/07/the-c-quad-recce-vehicle/

At first I figured it would be a humourous sidebar, but then thought that combined with a slightly larger vehicle such as the Jackal to carry the additional stores, heavier armament providing overwatch while two or three quads moved further forward could be a viable option.

But I'm no expert on recce operations, just what I was taught on my CLC way back in the dark ages.

Thoughts?

 

[daftandbarmy]

The G-wagon can also be had in a soft top version and likely partly armored, there is also the British Jackal

Too bad we don't have something like this anymore: purpose designed for recce, armoured and armed, airportable, and can be parachuted strapped to a platform. And cheap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooVh_HtHZU

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This was to be the replacement for the Ferret. There are lots of options, the real key is nailing down what the role is and what is absolutely must have and what will you sacrifice for it. Have listened to many experienced recce types, it seems the surveillance portion was/is to be covered by the Coyote and replacement LAV III. But there is no current dedicated recce vehicle. So we need to know the tactical use of that vehicle which will dictate the requirements (open topped, turret, armament, tracked vs wheeled) I personal like the way the Brits set the recce units with 3 types to create a layered screen with ability to observe and to fight as required. 

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

We have a dedicated Recce vehicle - the Coyote. We will soon have two dedicated Recce Vehicles: LAV Recce and the TAPV. Searching the web for our pet favourite Recce vehicle is fun and all, but at the end of the day it is left to the reconnaissance units to find the best TTPs for the Recce vehicles that we have.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

We have a dedicated Recce vehicle - the Coyote. We will soon have two dedicated Recce Vehicles: LAV Recce and the TAPV. Searching the web for our pet favourite Recce vehicle is fun and all, but at the end of the day it is left to the reconnaissance units to find the best TTPs for the Recce vehicles that we have.

I agree T2B.  Personally, I have some reservations about a mixed troop which seems to be the way the Armd Corps wants to go with this.  Here is a question for you; will the LAV 6.0, when it is upgraded with the surveillance suite, have the ability to still accommodate a couple of dismounts in the back?

Perhaps each Regiment could form a Recce sqn based off the TAPV while also forming a "Cavalry" Sqn based off the LAV 6.0?  I would envision this Recce sqn operating more like a USMC LAR or even 1 REC of th French Army.  Somethi like this might even provide the opportunity to sneak back in TOW/Javelin in the near future which would be a great capability for this LAV based Cav Sqn to have? This to me would seem preferable than mixing fleets in a troop, which seems like it would be a logistical burden on the echelons.  Looking for your thoughts on this?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We have a dedicated Recce vehicle - the Coyote. We will soon have two dedicated Recce Vehicles: LAV Recce and the TAPV. Searching the web for our pet favourite Recce vehicle is fun and all, but at the end of the day it is left to the reconnaissance units to find the best TTPs for the Recce vehicles that we have.

So you plan on sending the Coyote or it's LAV III to poke through holes in the enemy lines? I'm not recce but that seems to be a waste of a resource to me. The distinction of recce and surveillance seem pretty clear even to a Herbie like me. I spent my time watching the BCR's doing great recce with the M38's. One appears to be passive surveillance within the general safety of our own frontlines and the other a active if stealthy acquisition of information by probing beyond our frontlines or flanks. Is that a fair statement?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

So you plan on sending the Coyote or it's LAV III to poke through holes in the enemy lines? I'm not recce but that seems to be a waste of a resource to me. The distinction of recce and surveillance seem pretty clear even to a Herbie like me. I spent my time watching the BCR's doing great recce with the M38's. One appears to be passive surveillance within the general safety of our own frontlines and the other a active if stealthy acquisition of information by probing beyond our frontlines or flanks. Is that a fair statement?

It works for the Marines and US Army so why not?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Likely as they have replacements, we will not be able to sustain many losses. How many are going to have the full suite attached?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

We have a dedicated Recce vehicle - the Coyote. We will soon have two dedicated Recce Vehicles: LAV Recce and the TAPV. Searching the web for our pet favourite Recce vehicle is fun and all, but at the end of the day it is should be left to the reconnaissance units to find the best TTPs recce vehicles for the Recce vehicles TTPs that we have.

;D

 

[Lance Wiebe]

I agree T2B.  Personally, I have some reservations about a mixed troop which seems to be the way the Armd Corps wants to go with this. 

Royal Drew; I'm pretty sure that this is not the way the Armour Corps wanted to go.  The TAPV was never a requirement for the Corps, in fact, I'm not sure the Army had a requirement for it. In my opinion, the TAPV is being bought so there would be a rational excuse to cut down the number of expensive surveillance vehicles. The TAPV is going to be a terrible recce vehicle, little situational awareness, limited mobility, high silhouette and (again, my opinion) a poor choice of weapon.

 

[Eland2]

So you plan on sending the Coyote or it's LAV III to poke through holes in the enemy lines? I'm not recce but that seems to be a waste of a resource to me. The distinction of recce and surveillance seem pretty clear even to a Herbie like me. I spent my time watching the BCR's doing great recce with the M38's. One appears to be passive surveillance within the general safety of our own frontlines and the other a active if stealthy acquisition of information by probing beyond our frontlines or flanks. Is that a fair statement?

One of the advantages the M38's had aside from being small and therefore harder to see and hit, is that you could drive them up to a spot where you could observe the enemy without being detected, fix the grid reference, then quickly double back a tactical bound or two and then call in a fire mission.

The enemy would never quite be able to find out how their location was pinned down, as you would be long gone by the time their counter-recce elements had probed the tactical bounds that you had covered. Not that this would necessarily matter, as the first thing the enemy would do is call in a counter-battery fire mission once the origin of the incoming rounds had been figured out. But the bottom line is that the enemy would have been forced to needlessly deploy their own recce elements only to find nothing.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

One of the advantages the M38's had aside from being small and therefore harder to see and hit, is that you could drive them up to a spot where you could observe the enemy without being detected, fix the grid reference, then quickly double back a tactical bound or two and then call in a fire mission.

The enemy would never quite be able to find out how their location was pinned down, as you would be long gone by the time their counter-recce elements had probed the tactical bounds that you had covered. Not that this would necessarily matter, as the first thing the enemy would do is call in a counter-battery fire mission once the origin of the incoming rounds had been figured out. But the bottom line is that the enemy would have been forced to needlessly deploy their own recce elements only to find nothing.

We are talking about a vehicle that is as old as my father, not really relevant on today's battlefield, I dare say.  I hate to say this but any vehicle we buy has to first and foremost, be survivable.  An M38 is nowhere near the type of vehicle we need and you may as well order mor body bags if you send guys out on patrol in one.  We had how many LAV's destroyed overseas?  Some people died but imagine if all those guys were in an M38. 

Sorry but conducting reconnaissance on today's battlefield in an M38 is a stupid idea.

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting dialog from ARRSE 2013 - On the occasion of the Light Dragoons transferring from Scimitars to Jackals.

Ok that makes a little more sense that I initially thought, BUT what is it a light cav regiment can bring to a battle that an infantry unit mounted on Jackals cant?
Or am I seeing this wrong? When you say they would be more specialised on the jackals, do you mean like for example they would go ahead of a main force and do recce, with the capability to camp out in their jackals and fight in minor engagements etc? I think the role sounds really good I just don't understand what the role will be if you get me, can you elaborate. It's a case of always wanted to join the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards but don't want to be doing a job any infanteer could do.

Many thanks

As I have stated elsewhere:

As a member of the Light Dragoons Regimental Association, I got the Journal in the Spring. Back from AFG for the last time at the end of last year, they have handed back CVR(T)s for the last time and will be first regiment into the light cavalry role, which is apt since Eliot's light Horse (Eliot's Light Dragoons / 15th Light Dragoons / Hussars / 15th/19th Hussars / Light Dragoons) were raised in 1759, the first regiment in the British Army to be raised as light cavalry: the circle is complete.

The Journal makes it clear that currently nobody knows for sure what the role will really be, so the LD, as first in, will make up the role as they go along. So in my considered opinion, the next few years could be really interesting for the LD as Light Cav, but maybe somewhat less so for Scots DG.

One upside of reroling the Scots DG is that you will get precious little time to be crew bitch as suggested elsewhere. I joined 15/19H in NI a few months before they reroled as Armd Recce and because I was as well trained as (or better than) most of the sweats, I was always treated as an equal.

Except that's not what is happening. LD, by virtue of their position in the training and deployment cycle, are first to actually try things out, but the concept of employment is being hashed out by all three regiments. Nobody has their paws on it exclusively, and things will chop and change for the next few years as we work out the job between us all.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/mbt-crewman-or-light-cav.201923/page-4

You may not still be waiting but avoid buying QRL bits from the PRI!

I understand they will be Armd Recce on clapped out CVR until Scout comes in!

I also undertand that rather like LC the doctrine for use of Scout in AR is still to be written!

Thank god for CR2 at least we know how it works (or do we, RTR is currently writing new doctrine for use of MBT in future peer to peer ops, why one would want to go to war with ones peers is beyond me, pick on the little shit in the corner is far better!).

http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/mbt-crewman-or-light-cav.201923/page-5

 

[daftandbarmy]

We are talking about a vehicle that is as old as my father, not really relevant on today's battlefield, I dare say.  I hate to say this but any vehicle we buy has to first and foremost, be survivable.  An M38 is nowhere near the type of vehicle we need and you may as well order mor body bags if you send guys out on patrol in one.  We had how many LAV's destroyed overseas?  Some people died but imagine if all those guys were in an M38. 

Sorry but conducting reconnaissance on today's battlefield in an M38 is a stupid idea.

So the Germans and Dutch have got it wrong then?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fennek