Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle - RG-31, LAV Coyote, and (partial) G-Wagon Replacement

[PuckChaser]

Does the 8 man section have to man the driver/cc seats as well? Might be the photo angle but looks pretty small to fit a dismount section in there. Coyote replacement potential for sure though.

 

[quadrapiper]

How loud is it, at cruising or creeping about speeds? Didn't see anything on Youtube without music or voice when the vehicle was running.

 

[Underway]

Not having been in one, I am curious what the ability to view all around it is/blind spots to observation.  Having optics are great but you get a 'straw' view.  And everyone can get sucked into looking down that straw to the detriment of SA.

Last I spoke to a RCD MWO, I think the blind spots issue for "observation" was relatively minor.  To do recce properly you need dismounts and to get out of the vehicle and LOOK (so I was told, emphasis his, swear words removed...).  Can't do recce properly mounted.  I'm sure someone here will correct my if I'm off base.  But are these TAPV recce vehicles or observation vehicles.  There is a big difference between sitting in one spot and watching vs doing recce I would think.  I don't know if traditional armoured recce has a place in peace support or counter insurgency operations (which I'm sure TAPV will be pretty good at).  Observation certainly does.  Now with UAV's is traditional roles for armoured recce dying on the vine?  Can a TAPV do them effectively?

 

[George Wallace]

Last I spoke to a RCD MWO, I think the blind spots issue for "observation" was relatively minor.  To do recce properly you need dismounts and to get out of the vehicle and LOOK (so I was told, emphasis his, swear words removed...).  Can't do recce properly mounted.  I'm sure someone here will correct my if I'm off base.  But are these TAPV recce vehicles or observation vehicles.  There is a big difference between sitting in one spot and watching vs doing recce I would think.  I don't know if traditional armoured recce has a place in peace support or counter insurgency operations (which I'm sure TAPV will be pretty good at).  Observation certainly does.  Now with UAV's is traditional roles for armoured recce dying on the vine?  Can a TAPV do them effectively?

To do RECCE you need to use all your senses; not just vision.  Enclosed in an armoured vehicle, or using a UAV, takes away your sense of HEARING, and to lesser, but just as important, SMELL and TOUCH.  When you do not have 360 degrees of vision, you are greatly hampered.  If you can't hear what is out there, you are even more hampered.  If you don't smell changes in the air, you may really be screwed.  Touch (although rather minor) could be anything from direction of wind, to any other factor that may affect your detecting a threat or approaching a threat. 

Size of the vehicle that you are using, and the noise it produces, are factors that affect if you are able to go undetected or not.  Do you want to be like an elephant bowling through the countryside, or a ferret hidden in the long grass?

The Armour Corps has been plagued for the past four decades with buying vehicles, not to match the Doctrine, but matching the Doctrine to the vehicles it buys.  This is one (or more) instance where 'Change' is not necessarily good, nor ideal.  Changes to Armour Doctrines, not only affect the way the Armour Corps does business, but all the other Cbt Arms and Support Arms.

 

[Kirkhill]

George:

Is part of the problem embedded in the identity of the Corps:  the Armoured Corps?

Would the issue be addressed differently if it were still the Cavalry Corps?

Armour is all about protection and specifically breaking sieges.  I think I can make a case that Armour could be primarily and engineering asset.

If troopers were still riding their vehicles rather than being encased in their vehicles, how would the Corps' tactics change?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

To do RECCE you need to use all your senses; not just vision.  Enclosed in an armoured vehicle, or using a UAV, takes away your sense of HEARING, and to lesser, but just as important, SMELL and TOUCH.  When you do not have 360 degrees of vision, you are greatly hampered.  If you can't hear what is out there, you are even more hampered.  If you don't smell changes in the air, you may really be screwed.  Touch (although rather minor) could be anything from direction of wind, to any other factor that may affect your detecting a threat or approaching a threat. 

So a Reece mantra would be like: "No one controls my fate, especially not one who smells of garlic and attacks downwind!"

 

[Underway]

The Armour Corps has been plagued for the past four decades with buying vehicles, not to match the Doctrine, but matching the Doctrine to the vehicles it buys.  This is one (or more) instance where 'Change' is not necessarily good, nor ideal.  Changes to Armour Doctrines, not only affect the way the Armour Corps does business, but all the other Cbt Arms and Support Arms.

This seems like a self inflicted wound.  RECCE vehicles by the national procurement budget are very cheap relative to other procurements we are currently arguing about (Fighter and ship programs).  They would be a rounding error on one of those.  The TAPV is goodreplacement for the RG and some of the other lighter vehicles in the fleet but as you so eloquently put it, is probably an elephant for RECCE.  I'm sure with a mast as a mobile OP it's a fine Coyote replacement.  But from what you said the G-Wagon is a better RECCE vehicle.

So why is this?  Is the doctrine held and applied by the NCO's and the officers forget it when they are promoted or something?  What are they teaching you on AOC these days?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Last I spoke to a RCD MWO, I think the blind spots issue for "observation" was relatively minor.  To do recce properly you need dismounts and to get out of the vehicle and LOOK (so I was told, emphasis his, swear words removed...).  Can't do recce properly mounted.  I'm sure someone here will correct my if I'm off base.  I don't know if traditional armoured recce has a place in peace support or counter insurgency operations (which I'm sure TAPV will be pretty good at).  Observation certainly does.  Now with UAV's is traditional roles for armoured recce dying on the vine?  Can a TAPV do them effectively?

I used to do mud recce (it's been a few years, so the drills, etc I am talking about may have been superseded or changed); I don't consider any blind spot to observation a good thing, but I'd be more concerned if they were between 9 to 3 o'clock.  Yes, there are times you dismount doing recce and other times you don't, but that has SFA to be blind spots to the pers remaining mounted.  If I am dismounted doing a defile drill, the mounted pers aren't doing the same thing and watching/eyes on the same area as I am. 

You certainly can do armd recce properly while mounted.  There are drills the require pers to dismount (defile, gap, blind corner, etc) during a recce.  There are also degrees of search (am I observing into the gap, or do I need to physically walk the gap itself.  DOS normal, DOS intense) that determine how much dismtd stuff you do, and a Rate of Advance you have to consider or suddenly you might have the main body looking at you, 100m to your rear with a 'holy f**kballs, get moving!!!!!' look on their face.  Well, not really.  4 or 49 would likely have told you to get your shit together long before that happened.  Point being, you have to move fwd at a certain rate (depending on the task and en, of course).

It's like the difference between doing a route recce hatches up or hatches down.  Much better observation hatches up, and better observation = armd recce doing their job better.

But are these TAPV recce vehicles or observation vehicles.  There is a big difference between sitting in one spot and watching vs doing recce I would think.

Recce vehicles are by nature of armd recce tasks "observation vehicles".  Recce also does O.P.s (Observation Posts).  I've done dismounted and mounted O.P.s and you want at least 2 heads out of hatches to do it properly. 

An Armoured Recce Sqn can do a fairly sizeable mixed bag of tasks.  RAPZ (Route, Area, Point, Zone) Recce's are just part of it.  Flank surveillance or flank guard if reinforced.  Rear Area Security.  TCPs.  O.P. screens.  Convoy/VIP Escort. 

Recce Sqns/Troops can be doing a Route Recce one minute, get radio orders to move into a mounted O.P. screen the next.  So they may be changing from "sitting in one spot" to "doing moving, mounted recce" in a very short timeframe.  Even during a mounted route recce that is "Normal degree of search", they are changing between sitting in one spot/watching and what you call "doing recce" between bounds.  Leapfrog is a tactical movement we used lots where you would leap ahead past the lead callsign 1 tactical bound, who is sitting in a position of observation watching and listening ahead into the area you are going to move into (the "bound", the next position forward, dominating ground, where you can be supported either visually or by the main armament of the callsign to your rear).  This can be done down to the patrol (2 veh's) level, with one veh moving, one veh stationary observing/covering.  There is no easy distinction for Armd Recce between 'observing' and 'doing recce', they are both part of each other.

I've done mud recce in a few different veh's, the GWagon included and I thought it was garbage as a recce veh.  The design rendered the observer incapable of actually observing; the crew commander needs to be out the hatch, the doors and windshield didn't drop like it did in the Iltis, there was no air sentry hatch like a Bison or family hatch like a track for the observer to poke his/her head out of.  It was crap for mud recce.

For ability to observe and as George points out LISTEN, dismount and mount quickly, to creep along quietly and do the "see without being seen" stuff, the Iltis had some strengths.  It had zero protection, not as good mobility as a track or 8 wheel AFV (but she would still go places with a good driver). 

Everyone has a big hard-on these days for 'sensors'.  EO/IR etc are good but they are STRAWS.  You have GREAT SA on one little particular spot, that's it.  Recce veh's do not want the limited SA a UAV has (most of them, at this time). 

I've said before and I'll say it again...the Bison was a great mud recce veh.  8 wheel drive, capable of swimming.  You could be doing x-country at 10km/hour, flip a few switches to turn on your marine drive and raise your splash guard, ford across a waterway, flip a few switches down, and be doing 120km/h now down a MSR all inside a few minutes.  There was room for kit;  NODLRs, the dismtd version of the Coyote mast, ammo, water, rats, batteries, you name it.  It was limited to a C6 on the slew ring, but you could carry some extra SRAAWs and you usually had comm's with a Golf c/s.

The problem is/has been IMO that we do not buy veh's that support doctrine, we get veh's and then have to adjust doctrine/TTPs around them.  Back-arsewards.

Last point;  I've been on a route recce before (on exercise in the Lawfield) and detected an En callsign when they started up...behind us.  IMO you need to be able to observe (as much as possible) all around, and hear.  We were in a Bison on that particular trace, and if we'd been sitting in our posn of obs with the diesel idling, I doubt we would have heard them.  My Obs/JAFO was in one of the air sentry hatches with his headset off one of his ears, and he heard it.  :2c:

The Iltis was awesome for ability to see/hear all around you.  You just died quickly in it from any threat (even c/s Bear who was after your rations  :nod

 

[Kirkhill]

There was room for kit;  NODLRs, the dismtd version of the Coyote mast, ammo, water, rats, batteries, you name it.  It was limited to a C6 on the slew ring, but you could carry some extra SRAAWs and you usually had comm's with a Golf c/s.

One of my pet peeves is the notion of permanently fixing gear to vehicles.  It removes a lot of options.  There may be advantages but now the capabilities of the attached system are no longer available unless you can get the attached 20 tonne anchor into position as well.

 

[George Wallace]

So why is this?  Is the doctrine held and applied by the NCO's and the officers forget it when they are promoted or something?  What are they teaching you on AOC these days?

Procurement is not always done following the advice of the end users, NCO or officer.  Often we have people making the decisions on what to buy solely on costs, not advice of the SME's.

 

[George Wallace]

So a Reece mantra would be like: "No one controls my fate, especially not one who smells of garlic and attacks downwind!"

Well.....you smell something sweet in the air that could be a sign of a chemical agent, then you know what to do......although the smell coming off the CC, depending on what they ate, could throw you off at times as well.  [

Sulfur Mustard - includes mustard gas, usually odorless and colorless in pure form but yellowish-brown with an odor reminiscent of the mustard plant, garlic, or horseradish when used in warfare

Chlorine Gas - pale greenish gas with a suffocating, unpleasant odor, similar to chlorine bleach

3-quinuclidinyl benzilate (QNB or NATO BZ or Iraqi Agent 15) - odorless incapacitating agent

Lewisite - WWI blister agent that smells strongly of geraniums

Phosgene Oxime - blister agent with an irritating smell, though somewhat of mown hay or cut green corn

arin - extremely toxic odorless nerve agent

VX - probably the most toxic nerve agent, odorless

Soman - nerve gas that smells like Vicks VapoRub or rotting fruit, depending on who you ask

Tabun - highly toxic nerve agent with a faint fruity smell, though odorless when pure

Zyklon B - hydrogen cyanide-containing blood agent, famous for its use in Nazi death camps, which has a bitter almond odor (not everyone has the ability to smell it though)

Hydrogen Sulfide - blood agent that smells of rotten eggs

Adamsite or DM - odorless riot control agent that causes vomiting and sneezing

CS Gas - tear gas, odorless

 

[MilEME09]

One of my pet peeves is the notion of permanently fixing gear to vehicles.  It removes a lot of options.  There may be advantages but now the capabilities of the attached system are no longer available unless you can get the attached 20 tonne anchor into position as well.

Not to mention said kit may need power from your vehicle, which limits your operating time, or you are taking batteries to operate longer, which weighs you down.

 

[George Wallace]

George:

Is part of the problem embedded in the identity of the Corps:  the Armoured Corps?

Would the issue be addressed differently if it were still the Cavalry Corps?

Armour is all about protection and specifically breaking sieges.  I think I can make a case that Armour could be primarily and engineering asset.

If troopers were still riding their vehicles rather than being encased in their vehicles, how would the Corps' tactics change?

The Armour Corps can only do what it can with what the Government provides.  If the Government does not want to listen to the SMEs and buy something that they perceive as being a cost effective solution, they will and the Corps must adjust their MO to that purchase. 

Within the Corps, there are some problems with the abilities of some to do only one aspect, Armour or Recce, with some capable of doing both.  The Armour side almost disappeared when we sold the Centurions and purchase less than half the number of Leopard 1's, and then made worse when we were retiring the Leo 1's.  In 1980, the majority of the Armour Corps was doing Recce.  The purchase of the Cougar, was supposed to retain some "Tanker skills" but it was not a tank and did not operate like one cross country.  Skill fade set in. 

Tanks are there to engage the enemy with direct fire in support of the Infantry, with the support of the Engineers and Artillery.  Tanks are the best anti-tank system in the game.  They are not artillery, although they are capable of indirect fire.  They are not "Siege Machines" that the Engineers could employ, but they do have some capabilities against fortifications and other structures.  Tanks are also, with two or three radios, a useful tool in a Cbt Team.

Recce is to seek and report, not get into a fire fight.  Their weapons do not have to be heavy calibre, but a defensive tool if needed.  Their major weapon are their radios and the skills of the crew to remain undetected.  "Recce by Death" is one thing: either the Recce reports regularly with their updates or contacts; or they disappear from the Net and the CP knows that they were hit by something.  Either way, they have indicated where the enemy are. 

For years the debate to make them two separate Trades has gone on.  Fine if you have the guarantee that there will always be Tanks for the Armour and Recce Vehicles for the Recce; but our Government makes no such guarantees.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Not to mention said kit may need power from your vehicle, which limits your operating time, or you are taking batteries to operate longer, which weighs you down.

There is the option, too, of running your engine for XX minutes every X hours; not ideal in all situations, of course.  But better than having no comm's in the OP Base or becoming lay-back instead of conducting a withdrawl in ctc.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Typically, with mud recce, when you move to your next position of observation, you have a good look around, make sure of your spot, then switch off. You stay that way until it's your turn to move again.

As to size and type of vehicles, I found nothing worse for recce than the big, black exhaust spewing, jake brake noise of the current vehicles trying to do 'sneak and peek.'

I did mud recce in Ferret for years. If you want to do mud recce, that is the type of vehicle that should be used. We could go miles, quietly, in most any condition, without replen for three days. That is critical because armoured recce is operating medium recce in an area 30-40 km ahead of the FEBA or to the extent of the Brigade's AoI. They are, minimum, Brigade assets or Div. Not Regimental.

From the CFP 305 (2)

106. Concept

1. Canadian doctrine holds that brigade level reconnaissance units should be lightly armed
for self-protection, mounted in fast and agile vehicles, equipped with extensive radio
communications and organized to operate a large number of sub-units in surreptitious
reconnaissance. (Sounds like a Coyote, Lav 6.0 or a TAPV right? NOT! :facepalm

2. Although, in garrison, the reconnaissance squadron will be an integral part of the
armoured regiment, in operations it will normally operate independently under the direct control
of the brigade commander.

3. The reconnaissance squadron is required to provide information to the brigade
commander and most tasks will involve reconnaissance or surveillance. Without important
augmentation in firepower, the squadron has almost no capability to impose delay on a
determined enemy. It can observe, report, maintain contact and provide warning, but little more.

However, no doctrine exists for mud recce. We've been winging it for, at least, 40 years. The Troop Leader's Guide to the Galaxy (The Reconnaissance Squadron in Battle) CFP 305 has not been updated since 1979, IIRC. Last I looked it still showed the T-62 and PT-76 as our main threat. Interim, draft doctrine has been attempted at times, but never got to the Queen's Printers.

 

[blackberet17]

I may have mentioned this before, but it ties in to the current shape of the discussion.

If there is to be advocating for separating the Corps into two animals - Tanks, Recce - then maybe the idea of "heavy recce" needs to find a new home, too. This was practiced at an ex the Armour School hosted two years ago for the three maritime PRes Armd Recce units (Hal R, PEIR, 8CH). Tanks were used with LAVs and Coyotes - and I think a couple of LUVWs (I missed it, I was on course), to test the School Comd's idea of heavy recce.

Recce by nature is sneak and peek. Or so I was taught. Not bash and smash. Unless someone decides "light recce" and "heavy recce" REALLY need to start finding their way into the Corps vernacular and doctrine...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Maybe a good place to start is a (reinforced with panzers) 60 Tp?  The 'concept' is already there (flank guard).

 

[Eye In The Sky]

As to size and type of vehicles, I found nothing worse for recce than the big, black exhaust spewing, jake brake noise of the current vehicles trying to do 'sneak and peek.'

Situation dependant, but I'd be willing to trade off some of the noise a Bison makes for the stuff it did 'better';  more stores, protection, mobility, an actual place to mount the GPMG.  A boiler vessel...who doesn't love hot dogs in the OP base without having to fire up a stove?  ;D

Although, with that said, I am just picking from the stuff we have had recently or have now.  I'd do something different if it was up to me.  I was a fan of the VBL myself.  One ea of the turret/turretless versions per Ptl.  50 cal in the turret.

 

[Eland2]

Situation dependant, but I'd be willing to trade off some of the noise a Bison makes for the stuff it did 'better';  more stores, protection, mobility, an actual place to mount the GPMG.  A boiler vessel...who doesn't love hot dogs in the OP base without having to fire up a stove?  ;D

Although, with that said, I am just picking from the stuff we have had recently or have now.  I'd do something different if it was up to me.  I was a fan of the VBL myself.  One ea of the turret/turretless versions per Ptl.  50 cal in the turret.

I always thought that the VBL would have been a good recce platform for reserve armoured units. It's small, appears to be capable of doing mud
recce at a basic level if the terrain isn't too rough, and I doubt that it would cost anywhere near as much as the TAPVs do. So it would probably be fairly cheap to maintain and operate. It's rather jeep-like, so armoured recce crews used to running around in jeeps would likely not have to go through a substantial period of adaptation to learn how to operate the vehicle, nor would they have to adjust their TTP's much.

It can also accommodate a proper mount for a .50cal HMG, and at the very least a GPMG, unlike the jeeps of yore which had a jury-rigged
pintle mount located on the crew commander's side of the vehicle and could accommodate only a GPMG.

I agree that the vehicle doesn't look like it has much room for stores or creature comforts like a boiling vessel. However, reserve recce units
tend not to need to be self-sustaining in the field for much beyond 24 - 48 hours, so they could probably make do with only enough room to store two days' worth of rations and water plus a Coleman stove or two.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We should have bought the VBL in the 90's, a similar vehicle would be a good replacement for the Reserves G-wagons.