Reserve Armoured Units Role?

[12alfa]

Al, I did not say that! LOL

I was recce and now again.

The ferret type of wheeled afv would be a great veh i would think, small, silent, easy to maintain compared to tracks. In the track dept i would like the wiesle.
The brit simatar is ok as well. The Swedish CV90 seems to be doing well on operations in Afaan and in Africa.

But why not build here at home, we lave a long history in AFV building. It would provide jobs and the tech know who as well. I would not want it build in Que though, but hey thats just me. IE: iltis, mlvw, you gate the picture i think.

Al my post above was to piont out the effects of firing on a mbt with a Lav, don't take it the wrong way.

 

[Yard Ape]

How goes the ATV Recce experiment in LFCA?

 

[loyalcana]

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.

Would that be the T28 Super Heavy Tank?
http://ipmslondon.tripod.com/museumreviews/id12.html

 

[Gunnerlove]

We can build anything than anyone else in the world can. We also have one of the most skilled workforces in the world. The problem that we face is economy of scale. It does not make much sense to build a large factory and all the tooling needed to build say 100 main battle tanks or 100 aircraft. This is why COTS is so popular right now production volume allows for economy of scale. Kind of like dumping a billion dollars into developing a new tank from the ground up and then only making 100 of them. Development costs would be 10 million for each vehicle. If we find a vehicle we like chances are we can build them under license and purchase only the difficult/costly to manufacture parts from the original manufacturer. An example would be welding up our own turrets but buying the composite armour plates ready made. Same same for powerpacks and fire control.

So lets get a bunch of samples from around the world and "drive em like we stole em" just like an Iltis.

 

[DOOG]

Okay, I am finally going to wade in..
Greetings All.
Hi Lance, Hi Leo..

Perhaps we would all have an easier time getting our heads around the changes in the Corps if we ditched the term "recce" and substituted"cavalry". I really think we should be the RCCC instead of the RCAC. We can't dwell entirely on the way it was in WWII, Korea, the Cold War, or GW1. Warfare, peacemaking and regional conflicts are causing us to constantly adapt our way of operating. In the US Civil War the horse soldiers did recce, security, guard, and ambush tasks. They used to really enjoy getting into tthe other guys rear area and going after his trains. They did not do a lot of head to head sabre work. Would a modern Canadian Cavalry unit be employed much differently?

There are a lot of things that need doing that don't actually fit into the categorie of "mud recce". I believe that our problem may be not enough vehicle flexibility to cover our likely tasks. I won't go into the tank discussion but a recce force of only one vehicle type is none too smart. We have a good/great surveillance vehicle and are getting a decent to good "light recce" vehicle (g-Wagon). What about the situation that calls for something a bit bigger, harder, and with a bit more firepower. The vehicles exist. There lots of them out there. I can't believe that this army won't have a requirement for a Cav unit that is equipped with something more than a G-wagon. There are a number of good armoured car type vehicles that will handle a 25 mm gun or a AGL or whatever, and are cross country capable, but with better protection than a G-Wagon.

As for the issue of the G-Wagon, I look forward to Reserve units having a vehicle that is not parked on a CF base hundreds of kms away, owned/controlled by somebody else. The cougars were hard for Reserve units to maintain, but then nobody ever actually sat down and studied that problem and attempted to solve it, did they? We just winged it for 20 years. The G-Wagons will allow Reserve Crewman to get in touch with their vehicles on a regular basis as opposed to "occasionally". Regardless of whether or not you do the real work of recce on foot, on the crest, up ahead of your vehicle after you've dismounted, you still have to be intimately familiar with all your kit. That includes the truck.

Give us horses if you must, but give us enough horses and then get out of our way.

Doog

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Hi Doog.

I think we are both thinking along the same lines.  Recce can be, and should be, one of the Commanders most flexible arms.  Sneek and peak, convoy escort, rear area security, flank security, exploitation, and if required, a force that can augment another unit with firepower and manpower. 

We cannot do that currently, and won't be able to in the immediate future.  I, personally, would rather the Reserve Recce be issued with Weasels, can you imagine doing recce in those?  And if we had a mix of cannon and missile Weasels, well, heck, all of a sudden we are once again a flexible force.  Combine the recce with the surveillance capabilities we have, and we would enhance the recce elements capabilities way beyond what we have now.

I'm not totally against the Gelandewagen, but it lacks cross country mobility (compared to weasel), and lacks firepower.  The advantage of the Gelandewagen is a three vs two man crew, which will give more flexibility, and its much cheaper operating cost.  It also has a firepower deficit.

 

[12alfa]

Okay, I am finally going to wade in..
Greetings All.
Hi Lance, Hi Leo..

Perhaps we would all have an easier time getting our heads around the changes in the Corps if we ditched the term "recce" and substituted"cavalry". I really think we should be the RCCC instead of the RCAC. Would a modern Canadian Cavalry unit be employed much differently?

A name change I would think will not solve our current problems.

I believe that our problem may be not enough vehicle flexibility to cover our likely tasks.

This is a given now.[/i]

I can't believe that this army won't have a requirement for a Cav unit that is equipped with something more than a G-wagon.

It has for some time, but the will is not there to fix the problem, rather buying million dollar sat systems that we never used along with other wastefull idea's that we don't need.

As for the issue of the G-Wagon, I look forward to Reserve units having a vehicle that is not parked on a CF base hundreds of kms away, owned/controlled by somebody else.

Wait for it!! We will get them but... no off roading, no driving in bad weather, and on and on....[/i]

Give us horses if you must, but give us enough horses and then get out of our way.

TCCS and now horses, dam I'm gettin to old for all this new teck stuff, and who will be the subject matter experts?[/i]

Doog

12Alfa

 

[Lance Wiebe]

12A, not to put words in Doog's mouth, but I think he mentioned the name change not for the sake of change, but to change the mindset of those stuck in the "sneak & peek or OP's" doctrine.

Something has to be done to convince people that recce is more than that.  Maybe a name change will assist in a doctrine change.  Who knows, maybe in the future we will have Cavalry as well as Surveillance teams, and "Recce" Units will be a thing for old soldiers to talk about.

Actually, we talk about it now.  Recce as it is being practised now needs some work.  Maybe a lot of work.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Mechanized infantry, mounted rifles, dragoon, armoured cavalry, reconnaissance.  The lines are blurred.

 

[Infanteer]

They always have been (Think of the old horse cavalry; scouts, Hussars, Dragoons, etc).  As I advocated on another thread, perhaps we should adopt the WWII German model and put the doctrine of all forces that fight mounted (Tanks, IFV's, Mounted Recce, Cav, etc) under a single Arm.  I'm partial to the name Cavalry as well, as it has a historical air to it and seems to denote the flexibility the horse offered our predecessors.

 

[12alfa]

Ok see your point.

But we have for a long time been doing the recce role in one form or another. What we do in this role has been in most parts the same as well, with all of it's many tasks.

All of a sudden we need to change what we call it, how we do it and what we do it in. Why?

The missions have not changed, we still want to gain information, do security, guards, and other tasks as before.

Seems to me , now that we employ Coyote's we now need to change everything. To what end?

The G-wagon is nearly the same as the iltis or the 67 pattern jeeps we used before, why the needed change?

We did recce in Europe in Cougars, not that far from Coyote's with out the survallance equip, but again another change is needed, why?

The res units have been doing recce all along, but now we to change, why?


Is the reason for change because we need to reinvent ourselves now we are loosing the Leo's? or getting the G-wagon?

The task is the same, some twists have been added, but the core recce skills have not changed all that much. I for one do not see what all the fuss is about, lets get on with the job and do the same job we have for a long time, maybe with some newer equipment, maybe not.

And I don't like the Cav thing....sounds so American...don't ya think?

 

[FGH_Recce_DJ]

Do any of the Reg guys in here think that by making all Reserve armoured Regiments the guys who carry out the "mud recce" is a good idea. I think it would free up alot more of the Reg guys to work on the Coyotes and the MBT's, because i don't think you will ever see a reserve recce regiment getting a troop of Coyotes, and we sure won't be getting MBT's