Reserve Armoured Units Role?

[George Wallace]

OKEY Guys!

Let's get away from Gunnery.  The Theory of Gunnery does not change.  Be it 105 mm, 76 mm, 25 mm, or 7.62 mm; it is all the same.  The only thing changing is the weapon system and sights.  The Cougar is no longer in the Reg Force because of the shortage of parts.  It is easier to let the Reserve use the Cougars that are left with the reduced supply of parts, than keep them in the Regs.  That way the Reserves get to maintain "Gunnery Skills".  :soldier:

It really doesn't matter what weapon system we use, just that we have a system to train on to maintain those skills.  We can "upgrade" our Gunners as the demand requires.

A common vehicle for the Regs and Reserves would be ideal and will probably happen in the future, but for now it is cheaper to cascade the Cougars down to the Reserves and give them a platform to train on.  If the Reserves get Coyote's, they will be bareass, with no Surv Suites.  That way Drivers and Gunners can be trained. 

In all likelyhood, in the future we will see that the Surv Suites will be moved into LAV IIIs for the simplifying of the Logistic System of supplying parts.  One Common Vehicle.  Presently the Bison, Coyote and LAV III, not to mention the Cougars and Grizzly's, all have different parts.  This is an expensive way to run an Army logistically speaking.

GW

 

[Recce41]

I'm sorry to say but the Cougar can fire to a limited extent on the move. The old Ram's Head days, we did have battle run one yr. In Recce you are NOT there to fight  the big fight. You are there to get imfo. The Americans liked the Cougar, they sent a email. Stating the Cougar would a great Urban warfare veh. The short barreland speed. I have taken fight in a Cougar. They have driven over mines and survived better than a APC.

 

[Yard Ape]

I think you are asuming too much with the above statements, yes sometimes this may happen, but as allways not all the time. There could as well be "no moving to break contact", "a smaller enemy", "a inferior enemy", "unable to manover" and "uncapable/unwilling to destroy the cougar" .

To assume the above is dangrous, best I would think is ,to not try to second guess your options before hand. If I were to think of all the bad things that "could" happen , I may never show up 

You must always be prepared for the worst case senario.  It is not a bad assumption to plan for that worst case senario.

It really doesn't matter what weapon system we use, just that we have a system to train on to maintain those skills.  We can "upgrade" our Gunners as the demand requires.

A common vehicle for the Regs and Reserves would be ideal and will probably happen in the future, but for now it is cheaper to cascade the Cougars down to the Reserves and give them a platform to train on.   If the Reserves get Coyote's, they will be bareass, with no Surv Suites.   That way Drivers and Gunners can be trained.  

A LAV turret on the Cougar would eliminate the need to "upgrade" gunners, and it would make use of an available chassis to do it.  Only drivers would need upgrading to augment a Recce Sqn (or even augment an Inf Bn as LAV III crew).

 

[12alfa]

The Lav 25 mm turret was a no go for the cougar.

Besides that idea, it's just more money for what ,better sights, stab, and a smaller tube, on a old veh. We will need a new veh, the same as the reg's for the future. I am happy with the Cougar till we get a real Recce veh, we don't now.
What we finnaly get ?????
Question though? Whay do we need so many recce units? With all reserv now converted to recce we will have no direct fire res units, and we could as the regs will loose that skill.
Has our deployments in the last 20 years led us to belive we don't have enough?
And has those deployments showed that we no longer needs MBT's?

As for the Cougar, Bision, Coyote, and Lav all have different parts, they probly have more parts in commond than and veh feet in our history for a wheeled fleet, would it not. Same fuel,ammo (coax) tires,comms, etc.
One advantage of theses veh's is the easy to train the troops, give him one veh, and a upgrade course, not a new veh course. This has been I think a good $ saver.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Interesting Thread.  What seems to have been lost amongst all of this is that we are totally changing the way we think about Recce - all part of the Recce Rationalization study that is ongoing.  First, we are splitting Surv from Recce, and the surv paltform will be Coyote.  The Recce platform will be the LUVW C&R.  At end state (07) we will have 6 (and maybe 7) Surv Sqns in the Reg Army, and 9 Recce Platoons.  Both will be based on 8 car troops.  Additionally, we will have 24 Res Armd Recce Sqns, each equipped with either one or two 8 car troops.  As of right now, we wil be Force Generating Surv/Recce Sqns for employment on Ops, which will have a mix of Coytote and LUVW.  Given that ATOF is based om the 5+1=6 methodology, and that we have 12 TF HQ vice only 6 Surv Sqns, this mix will enable us to FG enough sqns to match our requirements.

 

[Yard Ape]

Surveillance should be separated from Recce.  This is a good move.  However, LUVW is still wrong for Recce.  We will be moving them into theatres with the LAV III, so where is the need to worry about saving a few pounds?  The recce vehicle should be armoured so that it can survive SA fire upon being compromised.  We need an Eagle or VBL (or modern ferret).

Let the light battalions use LUVW for recce.


8) Yard Ape

 

[Recce41]

My father did recce in the old jeep with a GPMG. Then to the Honey M3s (Stuarts for the US). Then to the Ferret. If you think the Ferret,VBL,Dingo has more armour than a LUVW. Take a look at one. The armour Luv has double.

 

[Yard Ape]

The LUVW is a soft skin vehicle.  No blast blanket will change that.

I would not suggest we go to the ferret.  I said "modern ferret" meaning a current generation of true armoured LUVW sized recce vehicle.

 

[strat0]

Everyone is stuck on armour protection. it doesn't matter how much armour you have there will always be a weapon that will defeat it. In WW 2 the Sherman tank was used for Armoured Recce, it was defeated by handheld weapons, various anti-tank weapons and German tanks. What we require in Armoured Recce is a vehicle that has Good cross country capability with an ability to defeat small arms fire, is manouverable, small enough to hide, able to ford or swim small bodies of water. Don't forget you can dismount from a vehicle to "check over that next crest", it is not a requirement to stay mounted to do your job. Have a look at the FENNEK from Germany, it could fit the bill. Just my opinion.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The Germans are experimenting with a light recce concept.  In it they use one Fennek, using its pop-up camera from behind cover, to control a team of two weasels.  In the trial report I saw, the Fennek was behind a crest with its mast up, a TOW weasel was in a position to provide covering fire (hull down), and a 20mm Weasel was doing the actual close recce.

This strikes me as a fairly valid concept.  The problem we would have is that the Coyote is relatively slow to pop its mast up and down, so we might have to use a team of two Coyote employing leapfrog techniques, and two of the LUVW doing the actual close recce.  For a route recce, this would be rather slow, I would think, but for area recce this technique should work.

Any thoughts?

Keep in mind also that in Europe, during WW11, the RCD as recce, often were tasked to fight for information if necessary, using the massive 2-pounder gun on their scout cars!  They did that and more, they would conduct a crossing site recce, sieze the beachead, and hold it for the main force.  So it was a combination of stealth, and then using their initiative and firepower to actually hold ground for a limited time.  We got away from that type of recce, and started using stealth as a matter of staying alive, as we couldn't fight from our Ferrets and Lynx's.  If you look at the recce elements of any other modern army, they all have some kind of firepower to back themselves up with.

Seems to me that there is a mindset in Canada that recce simply does not fight, that if we dirty our weapons we haven't done our job correctly.  I would say that recce has to be capable of aggressive action if necessary.

 

[12alfa]

Seems to me that there is a mindset in Canada that recce simply does not fight, that if we dirty our weapons we haven't done our job correctly.   I would say that recce has to be capable of aggressive action if necessary.

This is just what I was saying, seems to be taught on course :rage:. Something happened from the 70's till now while I switched to Cougars, but now that I'm back on the Recce thing I should see this pop up more now. :

Way back when ( 70's) on my course ,we were not told this, and we did Recce the way you posted, fightin for it, using stelth most of the time , but when it was nessary to : we pushed the envelope :rocket:.

Round and round we go.... ;D

 

[ZipperHead]

I tend to agree with Lance (and going contrary to popular opinion within the Corps) on the fighting for info. I don't think we should do the "recce by death" charging into the battlefield, but we should be able to get our hands (and boots) dirty. Too many people are "chained" to their vehicles, and God forbid a crewman would dismount to see what they want to.  :skull:

As a fellow that I work/instruct with says: "Recce is the ultimate extreme sport". It's much more involving, physically and mentally, than tanker stuff. I was a tanker for the majority of my career, and enjoyed it, but I am enjoying getting to use my brain more with recce tactics. As long as you are free to use your brain and initiative, it can't be beat. Too many people, alas, are stuck in the old ways, and want to constrain everybody with the checklist, by-the-book mentality. Good riddance to them, I say.

And please, all crewmen (Reg and Reserve) reading this: get with the program, and get fit. Being a gravy drinking, donut gulping tanker is in the past. Be fit to fight. We should have been all along, but the lazy dog-fornicator mentality allowed us to become complacent with the "Why walk when you can ride?" philosophy becoming in vogue.

Al

 

[bgreen]

Very interesting discussion on fighting for information.  I have some recce experience and have had the good fortune to speak with vets of WW11 8th Recce Regt and US, Brit and Cdn instructors of recce tactics and ops.  For what its worth here are some thoughts.

The very first thing the Cdns did after landing in France was add on steele plates and 50 cal MG to their armoured cars (Staghounds) and Bren gun carriers that they scavenged from veh and aircraft that were on the battlefield.  And yes there were opportunities where an individual troop or patrol might choose to engage the enemy or might have to fight there way out of an ambush.  But the majority of time was spent in stealth mode gathering information, passing it back to HQ and doing handovers of contacts to the Inf and tanks following up.  The Recce Sqn also had assault troop, some mortars and direct fire capability.  There were many times when the enemy was simply allowed to retreat around a recce troop that was concealed while the troop maintained contact by observation and without engaging.  Indeed the troop leader that I spoke to told me it was often fatal for members of the troop to engage the enemy because the en formations were always larger and better armed.  And that there were often more en troops in front and behind you than friendly troops.  There were occasions however when a patrol of 3 men (the drivers and one cc would remain with the veh hide) would take out an anti armour gun that was blocking their advance and for which no bypass could be found.

So where does that leave us today.  Well most reserve units do not have an assault troop and the tasks you will be given in the advance are in the medium to long range recce in front of a Bde.  So you and your sqn will be 10 to 60 km in front of your Bde across up to 15 km frontage.  What I am getting at is that you will be in a patrol of 2 vehs with 6 pers.  One of your limitations is the lack of a reserve and even replenishment support and medical support outside your patrol are distant and limited to what the ssm can get to you and usually only at night.  Every veh and crew member that is damaged is unlikely to be replaced.  You are the eyes and ears of the Bde Comd and he counts on you for factual and timely info so that he can get inside the en battle rhythm and enhance his own movement.  He has other assets to engage and destroy/disrupt the en.

Recce soldiers use cunning, guile and hunting/scouting savvy.  They are intelligent and innately curious and courageous in order to get info and make inferences about its meaning.  I guess what I am leading to is that you must use and tutour your soldiers in these recce skills as they are a very valuable asset to your comd and to your patrol/troop.

In withdrawal there may be some opportunity to impose delay on adv en forces but again the mainbody you are in contact with will likely have recce units that have already passed through your location.  I could draw some parallels with peace keeping in the Balkans and the employment of a recce sqn but I'll save those for another post.

I also support the post on the need for fitness because only fit soldiers will be able to withstand the rigors of recce ops.  In a recent combat skills competition the RCD recce teams came second only to a Gurka team that had trained with the SAS.  So their fitness skills are way up their.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

I think that what I am trying to say is that recce is more than just sneak and peek.

In Italy, Recce Units, as I said earlier, would recce out a ford site, send the info back, and at times, was ordered to sieze it and hold it until the main body arrived.

Recce was also used to mislead the enemy of where an attack was coming, by providing feint attacks in different locations.

Recce is a very valuable resource for any commander.  Having a  recce force that CAN fight if necessary, and doesn't need to be rescued when engaged, gives a commander just that much more flexibility.

I am not saying that the old sneak and peek is dead.  I am saying that our recce training cannot be just sneak and peek, that our forces had better be prepared to conduct infiltration, hasty attacks on lightly defended crossing points, bridges, etc, pursuit, withdrawal in contact, and so on.

 

[ZipperHead]

Again, I'm in agreement with Lance. We were both on the same net, but came across like we'd want to slug it out. Wouldn't work too great with  the current platforms we have, but would with the kit that he stated previously. Also, not having to call in the Cavalry to save the cavalry is a good thing, too

We have a bit of an old mentality that we shouldn't worry about our 25mm gunnery, because all that we had before on the Lynx was a .50 cal, which was strictly self-defence. We shouldn't be super-anal gunnery wise, like we were with the Leopard. But we do need to maintain the skills, so that if we do need to use them, we can still get a first round/burst hit, first. People scoff at the 25mm (compared to the 105mm), but 2 or 3 3-round bursts of service sabot WILL do a number on anything up to and including many modern main battle tanks (ie. the average banana-republic militaries kit that we would probably go up against). I saw the results on a T54/55 in Bosnia after Coyotes fired on it. It might not blow it up all purty like a 105, but it'll leave a mark on/in you if it hits you.  :akimbo:

Al

 

[12alfa]

Would engaging a Mbt with a 25mm be wise? I seemed to recall reading a study done in G-town with LeoC2's and Lav's, and the end result (If i understand it correctly) that the Lav's will come out on the loosing end of such a engagement. Now I'm not saying all the time but enough for self def and that would be it.

And given that, they, as we do operate in groups/teams, where there is one (which you are firing upon) there are more around and about to issue a fire command onto your veh?

And given that most tank crews pratice using the main wpn system in a degraded mode, even screwing up the outside external quipment will not nessary limit his ability to return fire with a wpn that is allways larger that your own, and at a greater rang (most times) ?

And given they again, as we do ,operate in concert with inf and their hand held ATGM's, that will pass through the thin armour of the Lav's/Coyote's?

What is the current thinking from the operators of the 25mm?

I would think that a Mbt, even a T-55 with a 100mm gun if it returns fire on the Lav would destroy/NS  the Lav.

Am I wrong with my data/facts my data shows that latest gen of T-72's would do well against 25mm ammo?

I do however admire you bravery, heheh.

 

[ZipperHead]

My point was not to go "toe to toe" with an MBT, but that even a smaller caliber round such as the 25mm, while not as impressive as the 105mm, will still make people put their heads down (so to speak) when fired upon. And if a MBT fires at a LAV and misses, and the crew can get off a few bursts (and hopefully blind the MBT by knocking out optics and LRF, etc), they can still run away to fight another day. That is the biggest thing to get over from the tank mentality: not getting decisively engaged. A Coyote can fire fairly effectively on the move due to the stab system, so it would still be able to lay down fire as it moves out of observation/range of the MBT/APC/AIFV. Particularly since the weapons system can be fired by one crew member (the gunner) without any "input" or assistance from any other crew members (no loader, no need for commander to do anything other than "supervise" (ie. let the gunner do his own thing, while he (the CC) gets the vehicle out of Dodge).

"They" say that if you have to fire the main gun (while conducting recce) you aren't doing your job. I think that is basically true, but it is fairly inevitable that you will be seen, and fired upon, because the Coyote isn't particularly stealthy (the height and engine noise), nor does it have the mobility to go where tracked vehicles could (ie ditches, low ground, overly rough ground, etc). As well, some people seem averse to using the optical systems (day sight and thermal) to the full potential, instead prefering to use the Mark I eyeball, and binos. The eyes and binos should be used the great majority of the time, but if you are going to be "tracks up" (we haven't figured out a cool expression for wheeled vehicles yet.... "wheels up" sounds like something fly-boys use to indicate their plane has taken off....) or at least in a hull down, due to the fact that sometimes you have to be due to the ground, and the fact the Coyote is so high, you should use the optics as much as possible, without getting tunnel vision.

Anyway, I don't want to sound like a GM cheerleader (I spent more time in Bosnia than I cared to "selling" the vehicle to other nations, without the benefit of any  commision making it my way.....) but you have to make do with what you have. I'm sure all the Reservists in the crowd know exactly what I mean..... We can wish we had another vehicle (Wiesel,VBL, etc), but we have the Coyote. Maybe somebody can convince Stephen Harper to push for better Recce vehicles, if/when he becomes PM. I think even the Liberals could be sold on a "sneak & peek" vehicle over a big, nasty tank.

My 2 shekels,

Al

 

[12alfa]

Ok I see your point, but a question to highlight mine, (not that I disagree with yours).

Say we have our Leo's in a troop formation, line formation on a position. Along comes a BMP2 with a 20mm, he fires on a c/s..
Do you think that A) he will be seen by the troop? B) will he be able to dis engage and make it to a protected piece of ground before 1 of the 4 tanks gets a hit on said BMP?

Given all things equal, i would have to say very unlikely.

Now replace the BMP with a Lav, and the Leo with a t-72/80, ...and now?

With locking arcs within the troop, any threat firing would, in most engagements would not survive.... or am I thinking wrong here?

 

[Infanteer]

Sorry to interject, but maybe you zips could help me out on this.

Does the requirement for a reconnaisance vehicle neccessarily mean a "light, mobile, stealthy" platform.  Doesn't the US use Abrams in the Cav units as "scouts".  Maybe the notion of armoured recce needs to be broken down?

 

[ZipperHead]

By 12A's argument, every vehicle on the battlefield should be a MBT, so that it can survive being hit by another MBT. If that BMP2 had a 125mm cannon, with an AT-8 Songster up the spout, it would still die a fiery death (by one of the 3 remaining Leo's  :skull. Then we get into the whole, "must build bigger tanks to counter the bigger guns" theory. There is a reason why (presently) tanks only weigh so much, and only have as big as guns as they do. I forget the name of the big, behemoth prototype tank in front of the Fort Knox tank museum, but it had 2 tracks per side, and weighed over 80 or 90 tons (correct me if I'm wrong here). Notice I said prototype. The bigger you are, the bigger target you are. The more of a threat you are, the higher priority you become as a target.

From Janes: http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw030620_1_n.shtml

Details of the M1 losses were given, including one where 25mm armour-piercing depleted uranium (AP-DU) rounds from an unidentified weapon disabled a US tank near Najaf after penetrating the engine compartment. Another Abrams was disabled near Karbala after a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) penetrated the rear engine compartment and one was lost in Baghdad after its external auxiliary power unit was set on fire by medium-calibre fire.

Methinks that the "unknown" 25mm weapons system was part of the US inventory, and somebodies AFV recognition sucked. Or they just don't like tankers (must be a universal thing  > )

If it can be built, it can be destroyed. So I guess it all boils down to making sure that you aren't seen, and if you are, get off the first rounds faster and straighter than the other guy.

Al