- Reaction score
- 6,334
- Points
- 1,160
;D
The "G Wagon" (Iltis replacment for Recce & the Reg Force)
- Thread starter Scoobie Newbie
- Start date
1
12alfa
Guest
As you know, there is a big differance in a unit that deploy's and a res unit back here in Canada. We get what the eis say's, nothing more.KevinB said:
Right now we have old 125 sets, the TCCS have been taken away with our Cougars, see my point now!
If you have knowledge of how to get extra equipment , please e-mail me , our unit could use more of what we have from the system.
Stay safe over there by the way, if you r still there.
- Reaction score
- 6,334
- Points
- 1,160
12Alpha,
The TCCC's were taken in so the harness and radios could be moved into the MILCOT and G Wagon. We have the same situation with the Iltis right now. 524's and 125's. The stuff from the cougars, iltis etc is already being installed. Our MILCOT goes in this week.
However, on another note. We made the argument to keep CANFORNCODE and veiled speech in the radio procedure, in case we ever had to operate on an unsecure net. We were told we would never require it again and forget about it, because the TCCC's was secure and everyone had TCCC's. Hmmm... and we're using what now?
The TCCC's were taken in so the harness and radios could be moved into the MILCOT and G Wagon. We have the same situation with the Iltis right now. 524's and 125's. The stuff from the cougars, iltis etc is already being installed. Our MILCOT goes in this week.
However, on another note. We made the argument to keep CANFORNCODE and veiled speech in the radio procedure, in case we ever had to operate on an unsecure net. We were told we would never require it again and forget about it, because the TCCC's was secure and everyone had TCCC's. Hmmm... and we're using what now?
1
12alfa
Guest
rgr;
But still we can't just demand another 10 X TCCS headsets is my point.
TCCS headsets I was told are very $, and our past history of trying to get more have failed.
This whole radio thing is very poor in the way it is being done.
I belive we had more Cougars radio's than we are puting into the new veh's we are getting ( if we do get them). So my question is where are the rest? Could they not be sent to us to use till we get the new veh's and radio's? The trays could have been installed, and the sets send to us for our use, the radio is not needed for the install, is it?
My point is if they are not needed, they are sitting somewhere not in use, but needed by us. Now if I;m wrong in this , It's my mistake, but the last time I looked the radio's are not needed for the install, just the CPU and keypads and wiring. Am I wrong?
But still we can't just demand another 10 X TCCS headsets is my point.
TCCS headsets I was told are very $, and our past history of trying to get more have failed.
This whole radio thing is very poor in the way it is being done.
I belive we had more Cougars radio's than we are puting into the new veh's we are getting ( if we do get them). So my question is where are the rest? Could they not be sent to us to use till we get the new veh's and radio's? The trays could have been installed, and the sets send to us for our use, the radio is not needed for the install, is it?
My point is if they are not needed, they are sitting somewhere not in use, but needed by us. Now if I;m wrong in this , It's my mistake, but the last time I looked the radio's are not needed for the install, just the CPU and keypads and wiring. Am I wrong?
R
R22eRKodiak
Guest
As far as putting the CC in the 'cupola' (or whatever we can call the turret ring on these vehicles), I am no fan of this option.
I'll get the chance to try this live soon enough, but I am none too crazy of the following (please consider that I have 2 years recce pl experience on Coyotes as I say this). Controling a veh/section in such a light and unprotected vehicle from an exposed position is not effective because:
1. I cannot control my driver, my other vehicle, or my platoon while trying to keep my wits about me to keep the vehicle safe from ambush, IED, etc.
2. I cannot effectively man a platoon and battalion net (or whatever system you happen to be using, in the inf at least, all sec comd should be monitoring both nets)
3. Visibility from the front passenger seat is actually very good. I can also tell the driver exaclty where I want to go in the same manner as if I was in a turret from that position as well.
4. I cannot help and control the platoon/section when I am the first one to be rendered combat ineffective by a grenade tossed at the vehicle (because I am sticking my head out)
5. I cannot protect the vehicle when I am dead or critically injured by the fragment that grenade blast that I didn't duck in time for because I was reading my map.
6. I can't write down contacts and fire missions while I am busy shooting at the bad guy from the turret. If I don't the bad guy will kill me and I will be of no further use to anyone
7. While I am telling my driver to speed away from a contact, reporting to higher, moving my other callsigns into position to back me up, shooting at the enemy and praying to dear God, my map will probably have a tendency to fly off the truck and thereby be rendered useless. I am no good lost.
8. Facing the reality of modern conflict and operations (e.g. Iraqi Freedom, Op Athena, etc.), the battlefield is no longer nicely stretched out and divided into clean, clearly identifiable fronts. Threats may come from the front, sides, rear, above and below. If I am busy making a map estimate or writing down FRAGOs or some other critical CC task, I am not paying attention to the little kid who is closing in on the back of the truck and who was told by his wrangler to slap an IED on the back of it (or insert any other attention-requiring scenario here).
The gunner's job is to ensure the immediate security of the vehicle. He is entirely engaged in that task and will be burnt out after a day's work by doing that single task alone. He does not require the added stress of trying to CC the vehicle. It is not because it was done in the past in relatively simple conflicts that this is what we must do today.
However, I would argue that the recce vehicle that will replace the LUVW C&R (yes, the G-WAGEN is an interim recce vehicle -- all infanteers can rejoice now! It is your job to get recommendations out as to what the next thing should be, so that we are not saddled with another fancy dispatch vehicle that is not ideally suited to our job -- as it is, the GWAGEN is nice, awesome even, for bombing around off roads and looking cool. It is not up to speed with what we need for recce, though) should also have a weapon mount for the CC in the front passenger seat (aka navigator seat), much like US SOCCOM HMMMVWs or the aussi long range patrol vehicles, as it is critical for the CC to fight back if required.
As an aside note to another question asked earlier: yes the turret can traverse 360 degrees. And yes, I wish the thing had a shield on it, too. It's going to get mighty ''drafty'' up there otherwise.
I'll get the chance to try this live soon enough, but I am none too crazy of the following (please consider that I have 2 years recce pl experience on Coyotes as I say this). Controling a veh/section in such a light and unprotected vehicle from an exposed position is not effective because:
1. I cannot control my driver, my other vehicle, or my platoon while trying to keep my wits about me to keep the vehicle safe from ambush, IED, etc.
2. I cannot effectively man a platoon and battalion net (or whatever system you happen to be using, in the inf at least, all sec comd should be monitoring both nets)
3. Visibility from the front passenger seat is actually very good. I can also tell the driver exaclty where I want to go in the same manner as if I was in a turret from that position as well.
4. I cannot help and control the platoon/section when I am the first one to be rendered combat ineffective by a grenade tossed at the vehicle (because I am sticking my head out)
5. I cannot protect the vehicle when I am dead or critically injured by the fragment that grenade blast that I didn't duck in time for because I was reading my map.
6. I can't write down contacts and fire missions while I am busy shooting at the bad guy from the turret. If I don't the bad guy will kill me and I will be of no further use to anyone
7. While I am telling my driver to speed away from a contact, reporting to higher, moving my other callsigns into position to back me up, shooting at the enemy and praying to dear God, my map will probably have a tendency to fly off the truck and thereby be rendered useless. I am no good lost.
8. Facing the reality of modern conflict and operations (e.g. Iraqi Freedom, Op Athena, etc.), the battlefield is no longer nicely stretched out and divided into clean, clearly identifiable fronts. Threats may come from the front, sides, rear, above and below. If I am busy making a map estimate or writing down FRAGOs or some other critical CC task, I am not paying attention to the little kid who is closing in on the back of the truck and who was told by his wrangler to slap an IED on the back of it (or insert any other attention-requiring scenario here).
The gunner's job is to ensure the immediate security of the vehicle. He is entirely engaged in that task and will be burnt out after a day's work by doing that single task alone. He does not require the added stress of trying to CC the vehicle. It is not because it was done in the past in relatively simple conflicts that this is what we must do today.
However, I would argue that the recce vehicle that will replace the LUVW C&R (yes, the G-WAGEN is an interim recce vehicle -- all infanteers can rejoice now! It is your job to get recommendations out as to what the next thing should be, so that we are not saddled with another fancy dispatch vehicle that is not ideally suited to our job -- as it is, the GWAGEN is nice, awesome even, for bombing around off roads and looking cool. It is not up to speed with what we need for recce, though) should also have a weapon mount for the CC in the front passenger seat (aka navigator seat), much like US SOCCOM HMMMVWs or the aussi long range patrol vehicles, as it is critical for the CC to fight back if required.
As an aside note to another question asked earlier: yes the turret can traverse 360 degrees. And yes, I wish the thing had a shield on it, too. It's going to get mighty ''drafty'' up there otherwise.
- Reaction score
- 6,334
- Points
- 1,160
Many of your points are valid, in the context of "urban ops". However, in traditional(?) ops, fighting the veh, maintaining comms on two nets, controlling your junior, navigating and controlling your driver and gunner are things that the average AFV mounted Armoured CC take as par for the course. We did it in tanks, light track, AVGP and scout cars. It's what we've been doing for over 50 years. It's not that difficult once you get the hang of it. You don't sit next to your driver in a LAV or Coyote, but you still control him. Until the schools and doctrine change to urban ops, instead of RAPZ recce, we'll have to stay flexible, a characteristic of recce. The situation will dictate. I think, IMHO, you should be ready and able to CC from either pos'n.
1
12alfa
Guest
KevinB said:
Why the neg. waves?
Please post the link (quote) where I said that had "supreme knowledge ".
And you did not offend, but confirmed what I had in mind already of you. There is time for attitude; this is not the place.
Try to get along, it will help you in getting ahead in this org, as you probably already know this don't you.
More sharp trg'ing maybe?
.
R
R22eRKodiak
Guest
Recceguy,
I am not arguing that the CC shouldn't be able to take up the gunner's position. However, I believe that it should not be the primary position for the CC. I am a very able CC in my own right (hopefully this doesn't sound too self-aggrandizing ;D), but was more than grateful for any assistance with maintaining local security that my gunner could lend me while I am dealing with a situation requiring the direction of the other cars in my section/platoon/troop. I have worked recce mainly in the standard scenario, 'rolling over the plains of Europe while seeking out Fantasian/Granovian/Stromian/Insert generic enemy force here. In every case, I could do the job on my own, but simply not nearly as well, quickly and effectively as when I had a switched on gunner to help me out. A switched on gunner also doesn't need much direction (although we should always keep tabs on them in case they ever get overenthusiastic), however the gunners I have had so far in recce platoons have all been top notch and could effectively do their job without a single prompt from me (including identifying and engaging the enemy). While for legal reasons, the order to fire still is best issued from the CC, the reality is that the strategic corporal is going to have an ever increasing impact, including the requirement to open fire when he believes the rules of engagement permit. Hence the importance of having well trained and switched on pers, but I digress.
Sitting next to the driver has very little impact on my ability to control the driver. In fact, I control (and do -- we've had the G Wagen since September, SMP not C&R version so we still haven't tried the turret yet)the vehicle in the same way as if I was CC in a Coyote. The main reasoning for being in the navigator's seat is so that I can be unengaged from the immediate tasks, thereby allowing me to be 'one step back' so that I can effectively command. This is just as when a section commander (in the infantry) is spending his time shooting at the enemy, rather than telling his troops where and when to shoot and move. He simply is not doing his job. His job is to control his entire weapon system, which is the section, and not his rifle. Although I am referring to a worse case scenario in my previous post, it is during the worst case scenarios that we are able to validate most of our doctrines.
If my gunner were to be injured/incapacitated/killed, then I would have no choice but to take the position over. This is a good alternative and it is workable. I am not convinced that it is the optimal solution, though. I am not bashing what has been done before, having done some of it myself, but I am advocating for what I have found to be the most effective solution to the situation.
I am not arguing that the CC shouldn't be able to take up the gunner's position. However, I believe that it should not be the primary position for the CC. I am a very able CC in my own right (hopefully this doesn't sound too self-aggrandizing ;D), but was more than grateful for any assistance with maintaining local security that my gunner could lend me while I am dealing with a situation requiring the direction of the other cars in my section/platoon/troop. I have worked recce mainly in the standard scenario, 'rolling over the plains of Europe while seeking out Fantasian/Granovian/Stromian/Insert generic enemy force here. In every case, I could do the job on my own, but simply not nearly as well, quickly and effectively as when I had a switched on gunner to help me out. A switched on gunner also doesn't need much direction (although we should always keep tabs on them in case they ever get overenthusiastic), however the gunners I have had so far in recce platoons have all been top notch and could effectively do their job without a single prompt from me (including identifying and engaging the enemy). While for legal reasons, the order to fire still is best issued from the CC, the reality is that the strategic corporal is going to have an ever increasing impact, including the requirement to open fire when he believes the rules of engagement permit. Hence the importance of having well trained and switched on pers, but I digress.
Sitting next to the driver has very little impact on my ability to control the driver. In fact, I control (and do -- we've had the G Wagen since September, SMP not C&R version so we still haven't tried the turret yet)the vehicle in the same way as if I was CC in a Coyote. The main reasoning for being in the navigator's seat is so that I can be unengaged from the immediate tasks, thereby allowing me to be 'one step back' so that I can effectively command. This is just as when a section commander (in the infantry) is spending his time shooting at the enemy, rather than telling his troops where and when to shoot and move. He simply is not doing his job. His job is to control his entire weapon system, which is the section, and not his rifle. Although I am referring to a worse case scenario in my previous post, it is during the worst case scenarios that we are able to validate most of our doctrines.
If my gunner were to be injured/incapacitated/killed, then I would have no choice but to take the position over. This is a good alternative and it is workable. I am not convinced that it is the optimal solution, though. I am not bashing what has been done before, having done some of it myself, but I am advocating for what I have found to be the most effective solution to the situation.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Greetings Recce people..
I have been running around with an A1 Echelon (Cougar Sqn) up my butt for a few years now so I don't claim to be up on the latest recce practices. I understand where both 12A and R22eRKodiak are coming from. What I would like to know is what about dismounting? Is it easy for the GIB to dismount and run off to check out a bridge etc? I would think that the front seat would be better for that. I agree that we have been commanding from up top though quite a series of vehicles now and I don't recall anyone having any misgivings about it before.
Drive around town in the passenger seat of a car and see how much vis you get on the things going on around you. Compare this to how much you can see when you are standing up in a cupola. Yes, if a bad guy chucks a bomb on the roof, the CC loses his head. But that's why he gets paid the big bucks. Adds to the incentive for paying a lot of attention to stuff goin on around you.
If I had been asked to design a light recce vehicle of this type (and I can't imagine why I wasn't asked) I would have set it up for a 4 man crew so you could have an observor/dismount and a gunner as well as a CC. That way you have eyes all the way around while the CC does the radio/map/driver control thing.
But then again, what the hell do I know anyway.
Keep on ticky-tacking down the road..
I have been running around with an A1 Echelon (Cougar Sqn) up my butt for a few years now so I don't claim to be up on the latest recce practices. I understand where both 12A and R22eRKodiak are coming from. What I would like to know is what about dismounting? Is it easy for the GIB to dismount and run off to check out a bridge etc? I would think that the front seat would be better for that. I agree that we have been commanding from up top though quite a series of vehicles now and I don't recall anyone having any misgivings about it before.
Drive around town in the passenger seat of a car and see how much vis you get on the things going on around you. Compare this to how much you can see when you are standing up in a cupola. Yes, if a bad guy chucks a bomb on the roof, the CC loses his head. But that's why he gets paid the big bucks. Adds to the incentive for paying a lot of attention to stuff goin on around you.
If I had been asked to design a light recce vehicle of this type (and I can't imagine why I wasn't asked) I would have set it up for a 4 man crew so you could have an observor/dismount and a gunner as well as a CC. That way you have eyes all the way around while the CC does the radio/map/driver control thing.
But then again, what the hell do I know anyway.
Keep on ticky-tacking down the road..
R
R22eRKodiak
Guest
D00G,
You have underlined a very important difference in how infantry and armoured recce function, which may be one of the sources of difference in opinions here. Bde/Armoured recce (as I am coming to find out) functions in a different manner than does Bn/Inf recce.
In the armoured corps, I have found (from my recent and still limited experience with Bde recce) that the CC/GIB relation is different from that of the infantry in many subtle ways.
Operating from the top of the Coyotes has led many in the infantry to dismount much less often than we used to while working in jeeps. The CC in the infantry recce also dismounts much more often than do those in armoured recce. Again simply differences in approaches. Perhaps we have to agree to disagree on this point. However, for Bn recce, I would have to argue (and this is the consent of all pers in my pl at the moment) that the CC should be in the passenger seat rather than in the gunner's seat.
As far as having a four man crew in a recce vehicle, I completely agree as well. In fact, hopefully the vehicle that will be used to replace the 'interim' LUVW C&R will have at the very least the following characteristics:
1. Mine resistant
2. Small arms resistant
3. Capacity for removable roof
4. Multiple weapons mounts capable of mounting LMG, MMG, HMG, AGL, AT missiles/rockets such as the Javelin or ALAAWS
5. Easily dismountable
6. High top speed, acceleration and stealthy profile, so that it can keep up with a LAV III advance
7. Thermal observation capability usable on the move (such as the hunter-killer system on M1A2s)
8. Minimum of two VHF radio mounts with compatibilty to HF and UHF radios
9. GPS, and all the other gucci-kit compatible.
10. Crew capacity of 4 with ability to carry Close Target Recce and OP mission essential kit with typical mission endurance of 4-7 days.
11. Good fields of vision and arcs of fire from the vehicle
Of course, these are just a few of the elements that leap to mind at the moment, and some are ambitious, but they are definite requirements for the next generation recce vehicles.
You have underlined a very important difference in how infantry and armoured recce function, which may be one of the sources of difference in opinions here. Bde/Armoured recce (as I am coming to find out) functions in a different manner than does Bn/Inf recce.
In the armoured corps, I have found (from my recent and still limited experience with Bde recce) that the CC/GIB relation is different from that of the infantry in many subtle ways.
Operating from the top of the Coyotes has led many in the infantry to dismount much less often than we used to while working in jeeps. The CC in the infantry recce also dismounts much more often than do those in armoured recce. Again simply differences in approaches. Perhaps we have to agree to disagree on this point. However, for Bn recce, I would have to argue (and this is the consent of all pers in my pl at the moment) that the CC should be in the passenger seat rather than in the gunner's seat.
As far as having a four man crew in a recce vehicle, I completely agree as well. In fact, hopefully the vehicle that will be used to replace the 'interim' LUVW C&R will have at the very least the following characteristics:
1. Mine resistant
2. Small arms resistant
3. Capacity for removable roof
4. Multiple weapons mounts capable of mounting LMG, MMG, HMG, AGL, AT missiles/rockets such as the Javelin or ALAAWS
5. Easily dismountable
6. High top speed, acceleration and stealthy profile, so that it can keep up with a LAV III advance
7. Thermal observation capability usable on the move (such as the hunter-killer system on M1A2s)
8. Minimum of two VHF radio mounts with compatibilty to HF and UHF radios
9. GPS, and all the other gucci-kit compatible.
10. Crew capacity of 4 with ability to carry Close Target Recce and OP mission essential kit with typical mission endurance of 4-7 days.
11. Good fields of vision and arcs of fire from the vehicle
Of course, these are just a few of the elements that leap to mind at the moment, and some are ambitious, but they are definite requirements for the next generation recce vehicles.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
I am going to have to agree with the Sir on this one, the CC should be up front doing his job of leading, if he is busy trying to say observe arcs or fight the vehicle his attention is not on the job of leading the det/section/Pl, which of course should be his first priority. Let the gunner do his job and gun, I'am 100% sure from an Inf stan point that any soldier that is in recce has the thought process and experince to know when and when not to shoot, yes he cannot decided on his own when to pull the trigger but he certainly can say say "Holy crap Mcpl/Sgt/Sir that guy there is shooting at us/going to shoot at us/is a possible threat I'am going to engage. the switched on Cpl/Pte will identify and call out his traget long before the CC will even know whats up, which in my oppion that is what should happen. Let the CC do his thing and make the tactical calls and direct the driver/section/Pl while the gunner does his job of surpressing and eliminating the threats, that our job not the CC's.
My two cents mind you but I am sure that anyone on my recce Pl would agree with me on this.
My two cents mind you but I am sure that anyone on my recce Pl would agree with me on this.
- Reaction score
- 6,334
- Points
- 1,160
Like R22eRKodiak said, there are fundamental differences in the way you guys do Bn recce and the way we do Bde and Div recce. I'm going to say from the sounds of it, some of the tasks are also different and may require different styles. We're flexible. I've commanded from both the front and rear seat in Iltis, depending on the situation. Also, contrary to popular belief, us Black Hatters do cut the vehicle off our asses and get out on foot on numerous occasions ;D
R22eRKodiak,
To your wish list, I would also add Multi Barrelled Grenade Dischargers. Don't want to be fumbling in the glove box for a single PainsWessex when the big suprise happens
R22eRKodiak,
To your wish list, I would also add Multi Barrelled Grenade Dischargers. Don't want to be fumbling in the glove box for a single PainsWessex when the big suprise happens
R
R22eRKodiak
Guest
Recceguy,
Amen to that! Right now, we're trying to figure out how many grenades we can tape to the front dash, hide in the glovebox and squeeze into the rifle racks of the LUVW. Although the pucker factor you get from trying to launch a smoke (or frag, i'd imagine) from the inside of an enclosed vehicle definitely makes life interesting, it doesn't do you too much good when the damn thing goes off inside the truck rather than outside! :'(
Amen to that! Right now, we're trying to figure out how many grenades we can tape to the front dash, hide in the glovebox and squeeze into the rifle racks of the LUVW. Although the pucker factor you get from trying to launch a smoke (or frag, i'd imagine) from the inside of an enclosed vehicle definitely makes life interesting, it doesn't do you too much good when the damn thing goes off inside the truck rather than outside! :'(
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Hi..
Me again:
I am aware that the way an Inf recce unit and a Cav recce unit do their thing is different. I will make one more point (perhaps more)..
When we did recce from jeeps everyon in the car was sitting at the same level. Therefore when you moved up on a piece of ground the CC would be able to see before the vehicle (or most of it) broke the crest.
If the CC is in a closed in vehicle and is sitting in the front then the first set of eyeballs over the crest are the GIBs. That is why it is important (in my opinion) for the GIB to be the G i/c.
The fundamental difference in the way we are looking at this seems to be that the Cav method has the crew commander as the first/main/lead/most experienced set of eyes in the truck. The other crewman (the observor) is a younger, less experienced soldier who provides the second set of eyeballs, a radio watch and a guy to run up ahead and check out the bridge etc.
Saying that being up top with an MG to worry about etc would inhibit the CCs ability to provide leadership flies in the face of a good many years of practice. By the way, it wasn't that many years ago that Inf recce and Armoured recce were both using Lynxs. As I recall the CC had to man a .50 cal, read a map, maintain comms, look for the enemy, watch the ground, guide the driver and keep track of where the other callsign was. Now we think that he suddenly can't handle that? Lets put it another way..does an Inf sect comdr carry a map, compass/gps, use a pers weapon and use his eyes? So why would a CC not be able to do the same while mounted.
By the way, R22eRKodiak..the vehicle you are describing could very well be the Italian "Puma" (except for the removable roof thing). It is an armoured 6 wheeled vehicle with room for a bunch of kit and several dismounts. It can be fitted with several different weapons system. I want one.
Striving hard to stimulate discussion, start arguments and drive people to drink.
CAV
Me again:
I am aware that the way an Inf recce unit and a Cav recce unit do their thing is different. I will make one more point (perhaps more)..
When we did recce from jeeps everyon in the car was sitting at the same level. Therefore when you moved up on a piece of ground the CC would be able to see before the vehicle (or most of it) broke the crest.
If the CC is in a closed in vehicle and is sitting in the front then the first set of eyeballs over the crest are the GIBs. That is why it is important (in my opinion) for the GIB to be the G i/c.
The fundamental difference in the way we are looking at this seems to be that the Cav method has the crew commander as the first/main/lead/most experienced set of eyes in the truck. The other crewman (the observor) is a younger, less experienced soldier who provides the second set of eyeballs, a radio watch and a guy to run up ahead and check out the bridge etc.
Saying that being up top with an MG to worry about etc would inhibit the CCs ability to provide leadership flies in the face of a good many years of practice. By the way, it wasn't that many years ago that Inf recce and Armoured recce were both using Lynxs. As I recall the CC had to man a .50 cal, read a map, maintain comms, look for the enemy, watch the ground, guide the driver and keep track of where the other callsign was. Now we think that he suddenly can't handle that? Lets put it another way..does an Inf sect comdr carry a map, compass/gps, use a pers weapon and use his eyes? So why would a CC not be able to do the same while mounted.
By the way, R22eRKodiak..the vehicle you are describing could very well be the Italian "Puma" (except for the removable roof thing). It is an armoured 6 wheeled vehicle with room for a bunch of kit and several dismounts. It can be fitted with several different weapons system. I want one.
Striving hard to stimulate discussion, start arguments and drive people to drink.
CAV
R
R22eRKodiak
Guest
D00G,
I agree that it was exactly this way with the Lynx. However, in the Lynx we were still trying to fight the Soviet army with a relatively straight forward approach to warfare. Although our doctrine has not yet adapted to the new realities that we face, I believe that we can afford to be proactive in our thinking not only in the kit we acquire, but also in our TTPs. Given the increasing likelihood of urban operations and non-linear threat dispositions (e.g. no 'front lines'), I don't believe that we can afford to have the momentary lapses in local consciousness that we occasionally have as commanders as our attention shifts between various tasks. I know that the books say that we should be 100% aware of our surroundings regardless of what we are doing. Whoever wrote that was thinking of an ideal world where supermen run around. I don't care who you are, if you believe that you can do all of these jobs without a loss off effectiveness in one, you are not being honest with yourself (I am not pointing fingers at anyone in particular here, please don't misconstrue these words). Even the best trained soldiers in the world can do so much at a time, even when they are fresh. When you've been going nonstop for 96 hours, have missed 3/4 of you meals and have been rained on since the ex/war started, you probably won't be effective at anything, so why try to pile more onto someone when there is a team that can share the burden and be more effective in the long run. It is simple, logical, and most effective use of the personnel resources at our disposal. As commanders, if we are not careful, we have the tendency to discount the potential and abilities of our soldiers and wish to do everything ourselves. This is a great way to function at only 75 or 50% (or less) of your potential capabilities. That is my take on it, although, others may be convinced that they can do the job better the other (or another) way. In that case, I'd say the best way to figure it out is to have us try both, potentially competitively, and see who does best. However, the concensus so far from those of us who have tried it is that the way I propose is the more effective of the two. Again, infanteers' opinions, so you tankers can all tell us to pound salt and do things your way! ;D
I have to admit that there is a tradeoff when it comes to using terrain masking and proper turret/hull down positions. This may call upon the gunner to have more responsibility in the control of the vehicle. In reality, it wouldn't be much different from when they adopt hull down positions with the Coyote. This maneuver is done under their control, so I see no reason for which they couldn't take the preliminary step that is usually reserved to the CC. Maybe again, a hybrid solution is to be envisioned. Perhaps the CC should be the gunner, but the overall commander (det/section/pl) should be in the navigator seat, allowing him to concentrate on the bigger picture. This would be exactly the same way that 1RCR is controling their LAVs in battle, which has turned out to be very effective. Again, this calls for more responsibility from more junior soldiers. This is fine by me, as we have world class soldiers that should be challenged in order to further develop their skills. In reality, there is nothing magical or complex about any of these tasks, and although there is a great responsibility inherent in the control of a combat vehicle, our soldiers (ptes and cpls), though most are young, are grown men and should be treated as such. After all, officers, many of them younger than their troopers, can effectively control these same vehicles in combat. Of course, you cannot place just anyone in these positions, but that is why you know your troopers, and you select the switched on ones to do the job. It could be a simple, normal progression, allowing you to identify those with leadership potential and giving them more challenges on the way to becoming section 2ICs and commanders. I am definitely in favour of this type of approach, as it is going to be close to what I'll be doing with my crew.
If we don't work in this way, then the veh comd (in the navigator's seat) will have to dismount more often, which in itself would add to security, while slowing the rate of advance. Not necessarily a bad tradeoff, given the abiltiy of our enemies to spot us before we see them.
This would also be something that could be rectified by the addition of a hunter killer system as on the M1A2. Maybe if it was mounted on a small mast, perhaps overlooking the gunner, locked onto the turret ring, so as to never restrict arcs of fire, this could be done remotely by the CC in the navigator's seat. Worth a try.
I'm afraid I don't know what the Puma is. Doesn't appear to be in any of my AFV manuals. The only 2 Pumas I can find are:
1. a Chopper
2. a German WW II wheeled fighting vehicle
If you have a link or pic to one I'd be happy to know.
Right now, we are looking more at vehicles that are like hummers. Something like the MOWAG Eagle series. A little smaller, easier on the supply chain, better stealth profile, etc. Doesn't rule out the 'Puma', or lookalikes, but from what I understand from your description, it sounds similar to the Coyote which we got rid of because it is more of a surveillance vehicle than a recce vehicle.
I agree that it was exactly this way with the Lynx. However, in the Lynx we were still trying to fight the Soviet army with a relatively straight forward approach to warfare. Although our doctrine has not yet adapted to the new realities that we face, I believe that we can afford to be proactive in our thinking not only in the kit we acquire, but also in our TTPs. Given the increasing likelihood of urban operations and non-linear threat dispositions (e.g. no 'front lines'), I don't believe that we can afford to have the momentary lapses in local consciousness that we occasionally have as commanders as our attention shifts between various tasks. I know that the books say that we should be 100% aware of our surroundings regardless of what we are doing. Whoever wrote that was thinking of an ideal world where supermen run around. I don't care who you are, if you believe that you can do all of these jobs without a loss off effectiveness in one, you are not being honest with yourself (I am not pointing fingers at anyone in particular here, please don't misconstrue these words). Even the best trained soldiers in the world can do so much at a time, even when they are fresh. When you've been going nonstop for 96 hours, have missed 3/4 of you meals and have been rained on since the ex/war started, you probably won't be effective at anything, so why try to pile more onto someone when there is a team that can share the burden and be more effective in the long run. It is simple, logical, and most effective use of the personnel resources at our disposal. As commanders, if we are not careful, we have the tendency to discount the potential and abilities of our soldiers and wish to do everything ourselves. This is a great way to function at only 75 or 50% (or less) of your potential capabilities. That is my take on it, although, others may be convinced that they can do the job better the other (or another) way. In that case, I'd say the best way to figure it out is to have us try both, potentially competitively, and see who does best. However, the concensus so far from those of us who have tried it is that the way I propose is the more effective of the two. Again, infanteers' opinions, so you tankers can all tell us to pound salt and do things your way! ;D
I have to admit that there is a tradeoff when it comes to using terrain masking and proper turret/hull down positions. This may call upon the gunner to have more responsibility in the control of the vehicle. In reality, it wouldn't be much different from when they adopt hull down positions with the Coyote. This maneuver is done under their control, so I see no reason for which they couldn't take the preliminary step that is usually reserved to the CC. Maybe again, a hybrid solution is to be envisioned. Perhaps the CC should be the gunner, but the overall commander (det/section/pl) should be in the navigator seat, allowing him to concentrate on the bigger picture. This would be exactly the same way that 1RCR is controling their LAVs in battle, which has turned out to be very effective. Again, this calls for more responsibility from more junior soldiers. This is fine by me, as we have world class soldiers that should be challenged in order to further develop their skills. In reality, there is nothing magical or complex about any of these tasks, and although there is a great responsibility inherent in the control of a combat vehicle, our soldiers (ptes and cpls), though most are young, are grown men and should be treated as such. After all, officers, many of them younger than their troopers, can effectively control these same vehicles in combat. Of course, you cannot place just anyone in these positions, but that is why you know your troopers, and you select the switched on ones to do the job. It could be a simple, normal progression, allowing you to identify those with leadership potential and giving them more challenges on the way to becoming section 2ICs and commanders. I am definitely in favour of this type of approach, as it is going to be close to what I'll be doing with my crew.
If we don't work in this way, then the veh comd (in the navigator's seat) will have to dismount more often, which in itself would add to security, while slowing the rate of advance. Not necessarily a bad tradeoff, given the abiltiy of our enemies to spot us before we see them.
This would also be something that could be rectified by the addition of a hunter killer system as on the M1A2. Maybe if it was mounted on a small mast, perhaps overlooking the gunner, locked onto the turret ring, so as to never restrict arcs of fire, this could be done remotely by the CC in the navigator's seat. Worth a try.
I'm afraid I don't know what the Puma is. Doesn't appear to be in any of my AFV manuals. The only 2 Pumas I can find are:
1. a Chopper
2. a German WW II wheeled fighting vehicle
If you have a link or pic to one I'd be happy to know.
Right now, we are looking more at vehicles that are like hummers. Something like the MOWAG Eagle series. A little smaller, easier on the supply chain, better stealth profile, etc. Doesn't rule out the 'Puma', or lookalikes, but from what I understand from your description, it sounds similar to the Coyote which we got rid of because it is more of a surveillance vehicle than a recce vehicle.
1
12alfa
Guest
Can't let go of that "CAV" thing can ya?
The Puma is not quite what we need, rather I think the Dutch and Germans have what we could use, the Fennek
look here.....
http://www.primeportal.net/apc/fennek.htm
No open top, but this is not really needed, protection is my prime concern.
The Puma is not quite what we need, rather I think the Dutch and Germans have what we could use, the Fennek
look here.....
http://www.primeportal.net/apc/fennek.htm
No open top, but this is not really needed, protection is my prime concern.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 208
- Points
- 710
Reading this so far has definitely shown the differences in philosophies between Infantry and Armour in reference to Mounted Recce. Gents, you have no perfect solution. Fennek is more of an Adm Veh in my opinion, designed mostly to protect the echelons and work in the Rear Area. I doubt it would make a good Recce Vehicle for the same reasons I don't like to see the CC sit in the front of the GWagon or in any enclosed space for that matter. Vision is important for him to do his job, but equally important is the ability for him to use his ears, which he can't do inside a cab.
Another point, especially for Recce guys, is how often do you pick out the enemy by the glare off their Binos or the "Rommels" who like to wear their goggles on top of their helmets instead of covering their eyes? How does that humongous windshield differ in any way from that?
Recce is a dangerous job. Life expectancies are measured in seconds, not days or years. In some cases, less protection will be your best protection. Too much comfort inside an enclosed vehicle could be a bad thing.
Ferrets, Foxes, Lynxs, Luchs, etc were designed for Recce. Bare assed jeeps without windshields and roll bars are easy to hide and use and also worked well as Recce vehicles. I think that you guys are getting too wound up around the axles about "Protection" to safely do the job.
As for gunners in the Coyote doing part of the Crew Commanding, I would be against it in action, but encourage it in Training. The Comd must maintain full control of his vehicle, but at the same time ensure that his crew are furthering their training and experience. There will be times that the "Gunner Take Over" will come into play. There will be times that the Comd will have to dismount, Bridge classifications come to mind, and times that the GIB will do.
I've rambled a bit, but hope that a few pertinent points were covered.
GW
Another point, especially for Recce guys, is how often do you pick out the enemy by the glare off their Binos or the "Rommels" who like to wear their goggles on top of their helmets instead of covering their eyes? How does that humongous windshield differ in any way from that?
Recce is a dangerous job. Life expectancies are measured in seconds, not days or years. In some cases, less protection will be your best protection. Too much comfort inside an enclosed vehicle could be a bad thing.
Ferrets, Foxes, Lynxs, Luchs, etc were designed for Recce. Bare assed jeeps without windshields and roll bars are easy to hide and use and also worked well as Recce vehicles. I think that you guys are getting too wound up around the axles about "Protection" to safely do the job.
As for gunners in the Coyote doing part of the Crew Commanding, I would be against it in action, but encourage it in Training. The Comd must maintain full control of his vehicle, but at the same time ensure that his crew are furthering their training and experience. There will be times that the "Gunner Take Over" will come into play. There will be times that the Comd will have to dismount, Bridge classifications come to mind, and times that the GIB will do.
I've rambled a bit, but hope that a few pertinent points were covered.
GW
1
12alfa
Guest
Fennek.......
OBSERVATION
The reconnaissance vehicle's observation system is the Rheinmetall Defence Electronics (formerly STN Atlas Elektronik) BAA which comprises a thermal imager, a CCD day vision camera and a laser rangefinder and is installed in a sensor head mounted on an extendable mast. The sensor head can be controlled in azimuth and elevation and raised to a height of 3.29m above ground i.e. 1.5m above the vehicle roof. For observation from a concealed position, the sensor head can be tripod-mounted at an exposed location for remote operation up to 40m from the vehicle.
The sensor head is operated by means of the control unit in the vehicle or via the removed control unit from the concealed position. A hybrid navigation system consisting of an inertial unit and global positioning system (GPS) permits accurate determination of the vehicle position and the north direction. Determination of target coordinates is achieved using the system's laser rangefinder and azimuth and elevation measuring equipment, together with the navigation system.
The forward position of the driver's seat gives the driver a field of view greater than 180 ° through the windscreen and side windows. The rearview camera mounted at the back of the vehicle and a monitor integrated in the driver's instrument panel allow rapid evasive manoeuvres to be carried out. The driver can use the cable winch to recover his own or another vehicle.
SELF-PROTECTION
The vehicle has add-on all-round protection against 7.62mm AP rounds. Add-on armour protection can be selected to suit mission requirements. The crew compartment is protected against anti-personnel mines. Nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) warfare protection is integrated in the crew compartment air-conditioning system. The infrared signature is minimised through special exhaust ducting. The powerpack compartment is fitted with a fire extinguishing and warning system, which can be automatically or manually triggered.
-Not a recce veh...................ok.
OBSERVATION
The reconnaissance vehicle's observation system is the Rheinmetall Defence Electronics (formerly STN Atlas Elektronik) BAA which comprises a thermal imager, a CCD day vision camera and a laser rangefinder and is installed in a sensor head mounted on an extendable mast. The sensor head can be controlled in azimuth and elevation and raised to a height of 3.29m above ground i.e. 1.5m above the vehicle roof. For observation from a concealed position, the sensor head can be tripod-mounted at an exposed location for remote operation up to 40m from the vehicle.
The sensor head is operated by means of the control unit in the vehicle or via the removed control unit from the concealed position. A hybrid navigation system consisting of an inertial unit and global positioning system (GPS) permits accurate determination of the vehicle position and the north direction. Determination of target coordinates is achieved using the system's laser rangefinder and azimuth and elevation measuring equipment, together with the navigation system.
The forward position of the driver's seat gives the driver a field of view greater than 180 ° through the windscreen and side windows. The rearview camera mounted at the back of the vehicle and a monitor integrated in the driver's instrument panel allow rapid evasive manoeuvres to be carried out. The driver can use the cable winch to recover his own or another vehicle.
SELF-PROTECTION
The vehicle has add-on all-round protection against 7.62mm AP rounds. Add-on armour protection can be selected to suit mission requirements. The crew compartment is protected against anti-personnel mines. Nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) warfare protection is integrated in the crew compartment air-conditioning system. The infrared signature is minimised through special exhaust ducting. The powerpack compartment is fitted with a fire extinguishing and warning system, which can be automatically or manually triggered.
-Not a recce veh...................ok.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 208
- Points
- 710
12Alfa said:
Exactly. A Surveillance Vehicle.
GW
Similar threads
