• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Infantry Vehicles

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,238
Points
1,140
C-17 cargo compartment is 88 feet (27 m) long, 18 feet (5.5 m) wide and ceiling (door height being the major issue) is 12 feet 4 inches (3.76 m) high, max cargo weight is 170t.

Note I haven't tried any of the below - just going off paper specs.

You can fit 4 CV90 MkIV nut to butt with a tad bit a spare room (21ft 5" long, 10ft wide, and 8 ft 2" tall and 37 t weight) .
You can fit 3 x LAV 6.0 (length 7.62m, width 2.78m, and height of 3.16m 29 t weight)
You might theoretically be able to get 8 Bison at two abreast (21ft long, 8ft 5" wide, and 8ft 5" tall, with a 13 t weight)
- but there isn't much side room - to spare - so I think 7 would be the realistic max - as the rear one needs to enter the cargo door - and I don't think you could Austin Powers a 99 point turn to get two abreast at the back.



FWIW you can fit 30 A-GMV's in a C-17 by stacking, other items like this have been stacked using aluminum ramps and braces before in C5A and C-17's, but for a rapid drive in, drive out, you are limited to 15.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
C-17 cargo compartment is 88 feet (27 m) long, 18 feet (5.5 m) wide and ceiling (door height being the major issue) is 12 feet 4 inches (3.76 m) high, max cargo weight is 170t.

Note I haven't tried any of the below - just going off paper specs.

You can fit 4 CV90 MkIV nut to butt with a tad bit a spare room (21ft 5" long, 10ft wide, and 8 ft 2" tall and 37 t weight) .
You can fit 3 x LAV 6.0 (length 7.62m, width 2.78m, and height of 3.16m 29 t weight)
You might theoretically be able to get 8 Bison at two abreast (21ft long, 8ft 5" wide, and 8ft 5" tall, with a 13 t weight)
- but there isn't much side room - to spare - so I think 7 would be the realistic max - as the rear one needs to enter the cargo door - and I don't think you could Austin Powers a 99 point turn to get two abreast at the back.



FWIW you can fit 30 A-GMV's in a C-17 by stacking, other items like this have been stacked using aluminum ramps and braces before in C5A and C-17's, but for a rapid drive in, drive out, you are limited to 15.
I'm certainly not a Load Tech but the highest # of LAV they put in an aircraft I think is two, mainly because of weight balance/stability. Same reason they don't take two Leo's at the same time.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,238
Points
1,140
I'm certainly not a Load Tech but the highest # of LAV they put in an aircraft I think is two, mainly because of weight balance/stability. Same reason they don't take two Leo's at the same time.
Pilots and loadies don’t want to chip the paint. ;)
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,532
Points
1,060
This is the table that I came up with

Left Hand Columns are the vehicles and their specs. - kg and meters
Upper Rows are the aircraft and their cargo specs - kg and meters
CC177, CC130 and CH-147 are cabin dimensions
CH-147 and CH-146 are hook ratings.

The figures in the table are the number of vehicles within the aircraft by weight, length, width and height.
So, in the CC177 you can fit 3.6 Namers lengthwise (3), 1.4 by width (1) and 1.9 by height (1).
That suggests that CC177 has the ability to carry 3x1x1 or 3 Namers in the cargo bay.

But

3x Namers = 3x 60,000 kg = 180,000 kg.

That actual load capacity of the C17 (CC177) is 77,519 kg
Load: 102 troops/paratroops; 36 litter and 54 ambulatory patients and attendants; 170,900 pounds (77,519 kilograms) of cargo (18 pallet positions)

So 1 C17 = 1 Namer, 1 Lynx, 2 CV90s, 2 LAV 6.0s or 6 LAV II (Bison)
1 C17 also = 1 CH-147 or 3 CH-146

Of course that doesn't tell the whole story because if you get your 60 tonne Namer on board, and you still have 17 tonnes of weight allowance (equivalent to a CC-130 Herc's payload) and acres of deck space then you can fill the extra space with Toyotas and Argos. Or ammunition.

CC177CC130JCH-147CH-146
WeightLengthWidthHeightW/HtWeightLengthWidthHeightWeightLengthWidthHeightWeightLengthWidthHeightWeightLengthWidthHeight
77,51926.85.53.819,05112.53.12.711,0009.29642.2861.98122,000NANANA
Namer60,0007.53.82.01.91.33.61.41.90.31.70.81.40.21.20.61.00.0NANANA
Lynx50,0007.73.63.31.11.63.51.51.10.41.60.80.80.21.20.60.60.0NANANA
CV9037,0006.63.12.71.12.14.11.81.40.51.91.01.00.31.40.70.70.1NANANA
LAV 6.029,0007.62.83.20.92.73.52.01.20.71.61.10.90.41.20.80.60.1NANANA
LAVII (Bison)13,0006.52.62.61.06.04.12.11.41.51.91.21.10.81.40.90.80.2NANANA
BvS 108,5008.02.32.51.09.13.42.31.52.21.61.31.11.31.21.00.80.2NANANA
Bv2064,5006.91.92.40.817.23.92.91.64.21.81.61.12.41.31.20.80.4NANANA
MSVS-SMP10.43.23.50.92.61.71.11.21.00.80.90.70.6NANANA
MSVS-MilCOTS9.62.43.20.82.82.31.21.31.30.91.00.90.6NANANA
MLVW7,8006.72.42.90.89.94.02.31.32.41.91.30.91.41.41.00.70.3NANANA
Milverado3,0006.02.01.91.125.84.52.71.96.42.11.51.43.71.51.11.00.7NANANA
JLTV6,4006.22.52.61.012.14.32.21.43.02.01.21.11.71.50.90.80.3NANANA
Toyota3,8005.61.81.90.920.44.83.01.95.02.21.71.42.91.71.31.00.5NANANA
Dagor2,0004.51.91.81.038.85.92.92.09.52.81.61.55.52.11.21.11.0NANANA
MRZR9003.61.51.51.086.17.53.62.521.23.52.01.812.22.61.51.32.2NANANA
Argo1,2003.01.51.31.164.68.93.72.915.94.12.12.19.23.11.61.51.7NANANA
Sherp2,4004.02.62.80.932.36.72.11.37.93.11.21.04.62.30.90.70.8NANANA
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,238
Points
1,140
Probably a good reason not to trust me.
Admittedly the Pam I scribed data out of says 170t

I should follow my own distrust and verify policy more often.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,532
Points
1,060
This is the table that I came up with

Left Hand Columns are the vehicles and their specs. - kg and meters
Upper Rows are the aircraft and their cargo specs - kg and meters
CC177, CC130 and CH-147 are cabin dimensions
CH-147 and CH-146 are hook ratings.

The figures in the table are the number of vehicles within the aircraft by weight, length, width and height.
So, in the CC177 you can fit 3.6 Namers lengthwise (3), 1.4 by width (1) and 1.9 by height (1).
That suggests that CC177 has the ability to carry 3x1x1 or 3 Namers in the cargo bay.

But

3x Namers = 3x 60,000 kg = 180,000 kg.

That actual load capacity of the C17 (CC177) is 77,519 kg


So 1 C17 = 1 Namer, 1 Lynx, 2 CV90s, 2 LAV 6.0s or 6 LAV II (Bison)
1 C17 also = 1 CH-147 or 3 CH-146

Of course that doesn't tell the whole story because if you get your 60 tonne Namer on board, and you still have 17 tonnes of weight allowance (equivalent to a CC-130 Herc's payload) and acres of deck space then you can fill the extra space with Toyotas and Argos. Or ammunition.

CC177CC130JCH-147CH-146
WeightLengthWidthHeightW/HtWeightLengthWidthHeightWeightLengthWidthHeightWeightLengthWidthHeightWeightLengthWidthHeight
77,51926.85.53.819,05112.53.12.711,0009.29642.2861.98122,000NANANA
Namer60,0007.53.82.01.91.33.61.41.90.31.70.81.40.21.20.61.00.0NANANA
Lynx50,0007.73.63.31.11.63.51.51.10.41.60.80.80.21.20.60.60.0NANANA
CV9037,0006.63.12.71.12.14.11.81.40.51.91.01.00.31.40.70.70.1NANANA
LAV 6.029,0007.62.83.20.92.73.52.01.20.71.61.10.90.41.20.80.60.1NANANA
LAVII (Bison)13,0006.52.62.61.06.04.12.11.41.51.91.21.10.81.40.90.80.2NANANA
BvS 108,5008.02.32.51.09.13.42.31.52.21.61.31.11.31.21.00.80.2NANANA
Bv2064,5006.91.92.40.817.23.92.91.64.21.81.61.12.41.31.20.80.4NANANA
MSVS-SMP10.43.23.50.92.61.71.11.21.00.80.90.70.6NANANA
MSVS-MilCOTS9.62.43.20.82.82.31.21.31.30.91.00.90.6NANANA
MLVW7,8006.72.42.90.89.94.02.31.32.41.91.30.91.41.41.00.70.3NANANA
Milverado3,0006.02.01.91.125.84.52.71.96.42.11.51.43.71.51.11.00.7NANANA
JLTV6,4006.22.52.61.012.14.32.21.43.02.01.21.11.71.50.90.80.3NANANA
Toyota3,8005.61.81.90.920.44.83.01.95.02.21.71.42.91.71.31.00.5NANANA
Dagor2,0004.51.91.81.038.85.92.92.09.52.81.61.55.52.11.21.11.0NANANA
MRZR9003.61.51.51.086.17.53.62.521.23.52.01.812.22.61.51.32.2NANANA
Argo1,2003.01.51.31.164.68.93.72.915.94.12.12.19.23.11.61.51.7NANANA
Sherp2,4004.02.62.80.932.36.72.11.37.93.11.21.04.62.30.90.70.8NANANA

When you look at that table you can see one of the reasons I prefer the LAV II over the LAV 6.0. At least in terms of a transport capacity for a Quick Reaction Force.

One C17 can deliver 6 LAV IIs but only 2 LAV 6's.

6 LAV IIs provide transport for 48 troops.
2 LAV 6s provide transport for 14 troops.

5 C17 lifts would deliver 30 LAV IIs
5 C17 lifts would deliver 10 LAV 6s

30 LAV IIs would transport a Bn HQ, a Rifle Coy and most, if not all, of the Support Coy.
10 LAV 6s would be a Coy (-)

Edit:

Consider a QRF with 4 Rifle Coys, a Support Coy and 30 LAV IIs and you have a 3 Coy perimeter with Heavy Support Weapons and a Mobile Coy with Recce for patrols and local quick reaction.

Not LAV 6.0s , CV90s or Namers, but better than ISVs. And you could still deliver lots of MRZRs and Argos by C130s and Helicopters.
 
Last edited:

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,238
Points
1,140
When you look at that table you can see one of the reasons I prefer the LAV II over the LAV 6.0. At least in terms of a transport capacity for a Quick Reaction Force.

One C17 can deliver 6 LAV IIs but only 2 LAV 6's.

6 LAV IIs provide transport for 48 troops.
2 LAV 6s provide transport for 14 troops.

5 C17 lifts would deliver 30 LAV IIs
5 C17 lifts would deliver 10 LAV 6s
The added protection of the LAV 6.0 and the turret make the trade more worthwhile if you think you will have opposition.

However for some operations you may want a Mix.

If you are limited to 5 C-17 some something like a NEO in a semi-permissive but destabilizing rapidly third world country.
1 C-17 for Paratroops to seize/secure the airhead
1 C-17 for 6x LAVII for the SOF extraction team and LI Outer Cordon Team
2xC-17 for the 4x LAV 6 QRF
1 C-17 on standby


The Bison/LAV II is a moderately protected A to B vehicle, it isn't a fighting vehicle, it's best teeth are a bunch of nasty folks in air sentry hatches ready to do ill to anyone that tries.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,532
Points
1,060
While the 1995 Gustafsen Lake standoff might seem like an odd event to do a case study on in 2021, this conflict between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Ts'peten Defenders connects deeply to Canada’s colonial past. It also reflects the current, ongoing violence faced by land and water protectors across the country, as well as Indigenous defenders in other countries fighting against Canadian petro projects and extractionist industries. Twenty-six years after the initial conflict, Canada is overdue to examine how the RCMP, B.C. and federal government escalated their response so disproportionately that they involved four hundred tactical officers who fired a total of 77,000 rounds of live ammunition at, planted landmines around, and brought bodybags for each of the 18 Ts'peten Defenders.

In early September, the RCMP brought nine armoured personnel carriers (APCs) to the site, along with four hundred tactical assault team members, five helicopters, and two surveillance planes. By September 15, 1995, the then-Attorney General of B.C. faxed the Solicitor General of Canada requesting additional sniper rifles for the standoff. By the end of the 31-day standoff between the Defenders and the RCMP, the police had fired up to 77,000 rounds of ammunition. There were 18 Ts'peten Defenders at the occupation.

The APCs were Bisons.

Effectively, at Gustafsen Lake, to manage a defensive force of 18 armed civilians, the RCMP created an Ad Hoc Light Infantry Battle Group with a Light Armoured Coy (-) and with helicopter and surveillance air assets.

And fired 77,000 rounds of Small Arms Ammunition.

Some people might have thought that was a job for a Canadian Army Irmmediate Reaction Unit. But I guess the 1980 Oka Incident was too fresh?

The Government of Canada did what it is doing for Ukraine. It donated the APCs to the RCMP who were under contract to the Provincial Government of BC. Acting on similar terms as the OPP at Ipperwash that same year. Or the OPP at Caledonia in 2005 and the SQ at Oka in 1980.


 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,532
Points
1,060
The added protection of the LAV 6.0 and the turret make the trade more worthwhile if you think you will have opposition.

However for some operations you may want a Mix.

If you are limited to 5 C-17 some something like a NEO in a semi-permissive but destabilizing rapidly third world country.
1 C-17 for Paratroops to seize/secure the airhead
1 C-17 for 6x LAVII for the SOF extraction team and LI Outer Cordon Team
2xC-17 for the 4x LAV 6 QRF
1 C-17 on standby


The Bison/LAV II is a moderately protected A to B vehicle, it isn't a fighting vehicle, it's best teeth are a bunch of nasty folks in air sentry hatches ready to do ill to anyone that tries.

Why waste C17s on Paratroops? We have the Hercs for that. If the range is longer fly the troops forward in comfort in CC-150s to an airhead and transfer them to the Hercs for the drop.

So 4 C17s available (agree with keeping one in reserve) - so up to 24 LAV IIs as TCVs or 8 LAV 6.0s.

LAV II Bisons enhance the QRF mobility. LAV 6.0s enhance firepower.

I agree with your definition of the Bison as a moderately protected A/B vehicle. It is not a fighting vehicle. But neither is the Bv206, Bv206s or the BvS10. Or the ISV, the JLTV, the Dagor or the MRZR. And yet forces equipped with those vehicles are expected to fight. They just stand off from the enemy a little further than the Stryker guys (still an A/B vehicle) and a little further yet than the Bradley/CV90/Lynx/Namer guys.

We have 17 C130s in addition to the 5 C17s.

One C130 can carry 8 Argos (16 if double stacked non-tactical) or 6 MRZRs (12 double stacked).

MRZRs would be a useful recce and patrols vehicle for any light force.

The Argo makes a useful carrier vehicle for any footborne force - carrying water, food, ammunition, casualties, communications, ISR gear and heavy weapons - up to and including emplaceable auto-cannons . The fact that it is optionally manned increases its versatility as an aid to the foot borne rifle company.

1653492580757.png
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,365
Points
1,160
Why waste C17s on Paratroops? We have the Hercs for that. If the range is longer fly the troops forward in comfort in CC-150s to an airhead and transfer them to the Hercs for the drop.

So 4 C17s available (agree with keeping one in reserve) - so up to 24 LAV IIs as TCVs or 8 LAV 6.0s.

LAV II Bisons enhance the QRF mobility. LAV 6.0s enhance firepower.

I agree with your definition of the Bison as a moderately protected A/B vehicle. It is not a fighting vehicle. But neither is the Bv206, Bv206s or the BvS10. Or the ISV, the JLTV, the Dagor or the MRZR. And yet forces equipped with those vehicles are expected to fight. They just stand off from the enemy a little further than the Stryker guys (still an A/B vehicle) and a little further yet than the Bradley/CV90/Lynx/Namer guys.

We have 17 C130s in addition to the 5 C17s.

One C130 can carry 8 Argos (16 if double stacked non-tactical) or 6 MRZRs (12 double stacked).

MRZRs would be a useful recce and patrols vehicle for any light force.

The Argo makes a useful carrier vehicle for any footborne force - carrying water, food, ammunition, casualties, communications, ISR gear and heavy weapons - up to and including emplaceable auto-cannons . The fact that it is optionally manned increases its versatility as an aid to the foot borne rifle company.

View attachment 70982

I once watched the 82nd Airborne Division drop onto Salisbury Plain.... from Kentucky.

I once accompanied the 5th SF Group on a drop into an exercise in Oahu... from Abbotsford via Northern California.

There's definitely a role for heavy lift jets in the Airborne world ;)
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,238
Points
1,140
The APCs were Bisons.

Effectively, at Gustafsen Lake, to manage a defensive force of 18 armed civilians, the RCMP created an Ad Hoc Light Infantry Battle Group with a Light Armoured Coy (-) and with helicopter and surveillance air assets.

And fired 77,000 rounds of Small Arms Ammunition.

Some people might have thought that was a job for a Canadian Army Irmmediate Reaction Unit. But I guess the 1980 Oka Incident was too fresh?

The Government of Canada did what it is doing for Ukraine. It donated the APCs to the RCMP who were under contract to the Provincial Government of BC. Acting on similar terms as the OPP at Ipperwash that same year. Or the OPP at Caledonia in 2005 and the SQ at Oka in 1980.


The Bisons where also shot at extensively by the Natives -- who probably fired way more than 77k rounds of ammo.
1 Bison had over 400 impact marks after one minor engagement.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,238
Points
1,140
Why waste C17s on Paratroops? We have the Hercs for that. If the range is longer fly the troops forward in comfort in CC-150s to an airhead and transfer them to the Hercs for the drop.
I would never want to intensionally inject additional AC than needed -- the C-17 is faster, a much smoother and comfortable ride than Herc.
My assumption was Hercules cannot be guaranteed to get there in time, and there may not be a passenger plane capable airport with the desired level of secrecy available to use as an airhead.


So 4 C17s available (agree with keeping one in reserve) - so up to 24 LAV IIs as TCVs or 8 LAV 6.0s.

LAV II Bisons enhance the QRF mobility. LAV 6.0s enhance firepower.

I agree with your definition of the Bison as a moderately protected A/B vehicle. It is not a fighting vehicle. But neither is the Bv206, Bv206s or the BvS10. Or the ISV, the JLTV, the Dagor or the MRZR. And yet forces equipped with those vehicles are expected to fight. They just stand off from the enemy a little further than the Stryker guys (still an A/B vehicle) and a little further yet than the Bradley/CV90/Lynx/Namer guys.
You can do a raid in the Stryker, they worked really well in Iraq for JSOC.
You can also do raids in a JLTV (albeit more vehicles required) - the softer skin vehicles are simply Admin vehicles.
If we look at someplace like Mogadishu Somalia, the LAV II/Bison is a pretty decent APC for that - whereas the light vehicles are just going to be bullet magnets without any protection. Honestly for that sort of situation the CV90 would be my preferred QRF, as I find tracks more reliable in urban settings.


We have 17 C130s in addition to the 5 C17s.

One C130 can carry 8 Argos (16 if double stacked non-tactical) or 6 MRZRs (12 double stacked).
I view the Herc as a Theater support bird, not a major equipment provider.
C-17's are major capital items - so you don't want to risk them direct to theatre unless it is imperative.

MRZRs would be a useful recce and patrols vehicle for any light force.

The Argo makes a useful carrier vehicle for any footborne force - carrying water, food, ammunition, casualties, communications, ISR gear and heavy weapons - up to and including emplaceable auto-cannons . The fact that it is optionally manned increases its versatility as an aid to the foot borne rifle company.

View attachment 70982
I see the OMV Argo as more of a QM tool - to bring supplies up, casualties back in a lot of areas.
I think Light Infantry has to be vehicle agnostic at the Coy level, with the expectation that whatever relevant vehicles will be provided/requisitioned as needed - Aircraft, Helicopter, APC, ISV, Snowmobile, Bicycle whatever.
Furthermore when assigning vehicles to a Light Entity, one should be asking critical questions to why that vehicle - and if a Medium or Heavy Force is a better option.

The Arctic is easy to say Snowmobile and BV206 type vehicles - and easy to send Light Forces too.
But often it seems vehicle's get added to Light Forces to enhance their mobility when they are attempting to be pressed into service that really isn't designed for a Light Force.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,532
Points
1,060
I once watched the 82nd Airborne Division drop onto Salisbury Plain.... from Kentucky.

I once accompanied the 5th SF Group on a drop into an exercise in Oahu... from Abbotsford via Northern California.

There's definitely a role for heavy lift jets in the Airborne world ;)

I don't doubt that D&B. But this, as you pointed out, is Canaada. With limitations.

We have 5x CC150s, 5x C17s and 17x C130Js.

What can we do with what we have?

Further to the A/B nature of the LAV Bison - I would note that the USMC used the A/B vehicle to considerable effect in a variety of theatres from 1983 - as of 2023 it will have served its purpose in the face of the enemy for exactly 40 years. And it looks to continue for at least some portion of the USMC for a bit longer yet.

1653497241916.png


And the 82nd adopted the USMC LAV for their purposes. An improvement over HMMWVs.

 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,532
Points
1,060
The Bisons where also shot at extensively by the Natives -- who probably fired way more than 77k rounds of ammo.
1 Bison had over 400 impact marks after one minor engagement.

How many penetrations?
 
Top