- Reaction score
- 27,315
- Points
- 1,090
ACSV is a LAV hull - this probably should be on the LAV 6.0 thread, not the TAPV thread (GDLS vs Textron).
I haven't seen a proper balanced "review" yet. I've seen bitching but that does not constitute a review. In my limited discussions with a few armoured MWO's there are pros and cons to the TAPV. They see value in the vehicle, it's surprisingly mobile and proved useful in the domestic operations it was deployed on. The negatives are well known at this point (signature -noise-size, crew numbers etc..).Also, I know reviews on the vehicle have been poor, does anybody know if any efforts have/are being made to improve on it? Besides renaming (restructuring? I haven't received the lastest versions of the course content for Armour Reserve yet) Reserve Armoured Recce units to Armoured Cavalry?
I haven't seen a proper balanced "review" yet. I've seen bitching but that does not constitute a review. In my limited discussions with a few armoured MWO's there are pros and cons to the TAPV. They see value in the vehicle, it's surprisingly mobile and proved useful in the domestic operations it was deployed on. The negatives are well known at this point (signature -noise-size, crew numbers etc..).
Honestly, as an outsider, I think some of the initial roles envisioned for the vehicles are wrong. I don't think the Army got a lemon, they just bought a security/escort vehicle and were hoping it could do recce.
And what did we actually end up with? The RG31 with higher mobility and lower troop transport capability.Or we just didn't make up our mind, and got what we deserved: The Waffle Wagon...
A compromising Situation... TAPV
"A key problem facing potential TAPV bidders was that they were effectively being asked to replace two vehicle types from opposite ends of the capability, mobility and protection scales – the RG31 Mk3 and the Coyote LAV. At the LOI stage, the short-lived benefit for potential bidders was that there was no specific requirement for the Recce and Gen Util variants to be based on a common platform. However, the general consensus of opinion within industry was that while two distinct variants of the same base vehicle (ie: 4x4 and 6x6) might ultimately be acceptable to DND, the clear optimum solution of two totally differing vehicle platforms would never be."
1847-A-compromising-Situation...-TAPV| FrontLine Defence
defence.frontline.online
Its too bad there wasn't a light-weight, air-transportable, tracked vehicle with high road speeds, capable of mounting cannons and missiles.
View attachment 66126
CVR(T) FV101 - Scorpion 90 (Indonesian Army)
Is it really obsolete if there is no replacement with similar capabilities?
Cockerill® CSE 90LP - John Cockerill I have seen one of these 90mm Scorpions at Port Dickson, the gun is a bit much for the poor hull and you can see signs of cracking. To be fair these were old Scorpions refitted and used hard.
Yikes. Hope the troops are OK. Watching the video, however, I'm not sure my SUV wouldn't have rolled over either...
That's BAE's AMPV (Armored Multi Purpose Vehicle) which the US Army's M113 replacement.One of the OMFV candidates appeared to be BAE but was right beside GDLS’s Bradley M2A4 - so I need to confirm tomorrow when the booths are setup correctly As it has a very Bradley like track layout and the size is very very similar but with room for a lot of troops compared to the Bradley due to the front left placed 1 man turret - appears to have room for 12 dismounts View attachment 73500
Get a bunch of interior shots for whatever looks good.One of the OMFV candidates appeared to be BAE but was right beside GDLS’s Bradley M2A4 - so I need to confirm tomorrow when the booths are setup correctly As it has a very Bradley like track layout and the size is very very similar but with room for a lot of troops compared to the Bradley due to the front left placed 1 man turret - appears to have room for 12 dismounts View attachment 73500
meanwhile in other countriesThat's BAE's AMPV (Armored Multi Purpose Vehicle) which the US Army's M113 replacement.
GDLS's entry into the OMFV competition is the Griffin III. It has a 50mm cannon and only fits 6 x dismounts.
View attachment 73501
TAPV |
| |||||||
Length | m | 6.81 | 6 | |||||
Width | m | 2.75 | 2.6 | |||||
Height-Hull | m | 2.39 | 2.215 | |||||
Height - OA | m | 3.21 | 2.6 | |||||
Height - Turret | m | 0.82 | 0.385 | |||||
Clearance | m | 0.635 | 0.46 | |||||
Weight | kg | 18,500 | 13,400 | |||||
Tires | 16.00 R20 XZL | 14.00 R20XZL | ||||||
RWS/Turret | Off Centre Right Front | Dead Centre | ||||||
5 Tonnes heavier | ||||||||
Sitting 6 inches higher | ||||||||
Standing 2 feet taller | ||||||||
Turret off center right front instead of Dead Center | ||||||||
Tires rated for 55 mph (89 km/h) not 110 km/h |
Drove the prototypeM1117 guardian(U.s. Version) used as scout vehicles and gun trucks. Convoy security in Iraq from 06-07. Some reason concerns of roll overs came up. Fully inclosed turrets where held in mainly by gravity, so if it goes upside down, the turret came out. Mk19 auto-grenade launcher as a primary was restricted from use in urban environments. So secondary weapon(Browning m2) became the primary. Can personally attest to it's survival rating against I.e.d.s. I'd be goo in a bag mailed home, if not for textron's vehicle. If I had the money i'd buy a stripped down version for use.
First unlike many of the people who commented on this I am still serving and I work at the Armd School which is the Centre of Excellence for the TAPV. Matsimus has relied too much on the Textron talking points. Although Textron makes Commando Armored Vehicles that have seating capacity for 7 dismounts over and above the crew the Commando variant that Canada calls the TAPV only has seating capacity for 6 total in the general propose vehicle, 3 crew and 3 dismounts. The Recce variant has seating for 5 as extra batteries required it to lose a seat. Not a big loss since the crew complement in the Recce Orbat is 4. Again although Textron makes a Recce variant of the Commando the CAF did not buy the items like the surveillance tower and an independent crew commander's sight that would have made our Recce vehicle better suited to do Recce with. As I said Textron makes variations to the vehicle that would have made it more conducive to Recce and wanted to sell those variations to us but the CAF chose not to buy them.
Now in reality there ended up being 3 projects that were thrown into the one project that they bought the TAPV to fill. The Armd Corps has been looking to buy a "Light Recce Vehicle" since the mid 90s to compliment the Coyote (not replace it). Later on the Infantry Corps wanted a "Patrol Carrier" for 1 coy of their Light Battalions and then after our Afghanistan experience the CAF wanted to replace the G-Wagon in conflict zones as the run about vehicle. Somehow all three projects got moulded into one. The Textron Commando that we now know as TAPV was bought to answer all three needs. The 100 or so that were going to the Infantry were rejected because the Infantry decided that with only 3 dismounts the vehicle did not meet their needs. Although the Armd Corps took delivery of the vehicles it was much larger than the Light Recce Vehicle we were looking for. Also as has been pointed out by others, the weapon system is not configured for what the Armd Corps does ( Recce or anything else). This leaves the Run About vehicle in a conflict zone. It actually works very well for that as the original vehicle was designed for the US Army Military Police to drive around the Vietnam countryside without getting their butts shot off.
So some of the strengths of the vehicle. First one is crew protection. Textron claims that it has THE BEST crew protection of any 4 wheeled light armed vehicle in service with any military today. I believe it. This ended up being the single most important requirement from the CAF point of view and Textron had to redesign the vehicle several times to answer that requirement. The second strength, much to everyone's surprise, is the cross country mobility. Some of the crew who have used it cross country say it's as good as the Coyote, some say it is better. This consistent review from just about everyone initially surprised me but then I realized that the vehicle looks like a Damned Tree Farmer, so I guess it makes sense that it's good cross country.
As for the distribution throughout the Armd Corps, 17 of the approximately 27 F-Echelon vehicles in the Reg F Recce Sqn is now the TAPV. So approx 60%. The Armd Reserves have been included in the TAPV distribution so that the Reg F and Reserve side of the Corps now share a deployment vehicle. The TAPV is now the default PCF vehicle for the basic Crewman course for both sides of the Corps.