• 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
8,294
Points
1,140
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.
You need a Navy that can move things.
Moving Medium and Heavy kit is truly a role for Sea Lift

Also due to the RCAF exceptionally meager holdings y ou need some sort of Domestic CRAF




How many penetrations?
Zero, AK-47's and SKS are not going to wreck a Bison
-unlike the two RCMP Suburbans that looked like Swiss cheese - and the members would have been dead if they had not been wearing armor and got out of them quickly, and the vegetation provided a lot of cover from view - and some cover from fire.

Given the CAF is divesting or has divested the LAV II platform - it is time to move on.
I don't truly get it, as I think at least retaining the ones that where still serviceable made sense, but the CAF often does things that boggle folks brains. They probably should have hidden them across Canada in Res Armories or RCMP Detachments...
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,583
Points
1,060
Kev,

The issue is: what can be done with what we have?

I would never want to intensionally inject additional AC than needed -- the C-17 is faster, a much smoother and comfortable ride than Herc.

Frankly a smoother ride is well down the priority list for me.


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.

As as for getting there in time - everything takes time. You can be 5 minutes late even if you can lift the entire 82nd in C17s, C141s and C5s. I would start my planning on the basis of what the majority of my capability is and for Canada that means the Hercs. The C17s are great adjuncts to that force. They add to the Herc force capabilities.


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.

As to raiding? You can raid on foot. You can raid on horseback or dog sled. The key to the raid is surprise. I have to believe an enemy force would be surprised to be raided by a force delivered and supported by dog-sled.

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.

The LIGHT Armoured Vehicle did serve well in Mogadishu. As it served the USMC well. It served better than the Medium and Heavy vehicles that weren't there.

And yes, heavier means fewer casualties. But heavier also means fewer effects.

Or do you mean that in an urban setting you would prefer a Bv206 to a LAV 6.0?


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.

I agree that the Hercs are Theater Support Vehicles. Canada is a Theater. Especially given the new US definition of a Theater based on the range of the Medium Range Missile

Within the U.S. Department of Defense, a medium-range missile is defined by having a maximum range of between 1,000 and 3,000 kilometres (620 and 1,860 mi).

That same Theater could extend, on the Northern Flanks from the Bering Sea to the Kola Inlet.

2,747 km
Distance from Resolute to Nome
3,458 km
Distance from Resolute to Bodø Municipality

C130J

Capacity
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 362 kn (417 mph, 670 km/h)
  • Cruise speed: 348 kn (400 mph, 644 km/h)
  • Range: 1,800 nmi (2,100 mi, 3,300 km) at max normal payload (34,000 lb (15,422 kg))
  • Service ceiling: 28,000 ft (8,500 m) with 42,000 lb (19,051 kg) payload
  • Absolute ceiling: 40,386 ft (12,310 m)[149]


I also agree that the C17 needs to be husbanded. Ideally it moves equipment forward to a Forward Operating Location. It could be used in extremis for a Tactical Air Landing Operation but why would you?

Why wouldn't you use it to bring forward lots of gear that can be stowed in Hercs and use the Hercs for the rough strip, tactical, air-drop stuff?

The LAV 6.0 can't be lifted by a Herc. The LAV II can. So can the Bv206, Toyota's, Dagors, MRZRs and Argos. As can the troops.
The C17 can bring forwards CH-146s that can also lift troops, supplies, weapons and Argos.
The C17 can also bring forwards UAVs, as can Hercs, Chinooks, Griffons, LAV IIs, MRZRs, Argos and individual soldiers.

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.

I agree with you on the Argo. But the CQ also carries ammunition and weapons not currently required for the mission. (Weapons Det Weapons in the Arms Locker) With the Argo the CQ could be carrying the C16 or auto cannons to provide this type of support to the Light Infantry

wcxtygxe4yn31.jpg

I agree with you on the Light Force being vehicle agnostic. And I think the Argo doesn't detract from that. The Argo can be deployed by the same means that deploys the infantry. It can go MOST places the infantry can go. When the Infantry reaches a place the Argo can't follow it has at very least increased their range, their speed, their endurance and their available support - both service and combat.


The Arctic is easy to say Snowmobile and BV206 type vehicles - and easy to send Light Forces too.

The Canadian Arctic as standin for Mars.

1653501020655.png

1653501060454.png

But we also have to deal with this


and this

1653501373852.png

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.

I would reverse that. Light Forces can add vehicles to enhance their mobility so that they can be pressed into service when there aren't specialized forces available to manage the task.

Light, Medium, Heavy - agreed. Horses for courses.

But I would suggest that the LIght Force, well supported by Engineers to dig them in, Artillery to support them and a Red Ball Express to supply them is the match for any medium or heavy force put against them.

With a plan, equipment and practice.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,294
Points
1,140
Kev,

The issue is: what can be done with what we have?
Get more ;)

Frankly a smoother ride is well down the priority list for me.
Ack - but being able to take off from say Trenton - and jump into say Venezuela in a few hours without needing to swap airframes is a valuable asset.
As as for getting there in time - everything takes time. You can be 5 minutes late even if you can lift the entire 82nd in C17s, C141s and C5s. I would start my planning on the basis of what the majority of my capability is and for Canada that means the Hercs. The C17s are great adjuncts to that force. They add to the Herc force capabilities.
Hercs are for short leg missions ideally, I've flown all over in them and C-17's and anything over 4 hours gets really tedious in a Herc.

As to raiding? You can raid on foot. You can raid on horseback or dog sled. The key to the raid is surprise. I have to believe an enemy force would be surprised to be raided by a force delivered and supported by dog-sled.
My point was the ballistic protection for those raids -- in Iraq there was always small arms fire, IED's etc -- and going from a protected site to the mission area meant moving through hostile territory that was impassible via foot.
Speed can make for surprise - as while they may know you left to go someplace - they don't necessarily know the location of the hit.

The LIGHT Armoured Vehicle did serve well in Mogadishu. As it served the USMC well. It served better than the Medium and Heavy vehicles that weren't there.

And yes, heavier means fewer casualties. But heavier also means fewer effects.
Heavier means more time to arrive - USMC LAV's had departed before BHD, it was 10th Mnt 113's and the Pakistani tanks that made it to the crash sites after TF Ranger in the Soft Skin Hummers got degraded.
Or do you mean that in an urban setting you would prefer a Bv206 to a LAV 6.0?
Wheels suffer a lot of damage from rubble - and the ability of tracks to pivot turn (not the articulated BV206 though) makes then more nimble in the rubble -- so neither of the above would be answer ;)

I also agree that the C17 needs to be husbanded. Ideally it moves equipment forward to a Forward Operating Location. It could be used in extremis for a Tactical Air Landing Operation but why would you?
Speed of mission
Why wouldn't you use it to bring forward lots of gear that can be stowed in Hercs and use the Hercs for the rough strip, tactical, air-drop stuff?
Ideally yes - but in my example above - I was looking at a Rapid deployment situation.
The LAV 6.0 can't be lifted by a Herc. The LAV II can. So can the Bv206, Toyota's, Dagors, MRZRs and Argos. As can the troops.
The C17 can bring forwards CH-146s that can also lift troops, supplies, weapons and Argos.
The C17 can also bring forwards UAVs, as can Hercs, Chinooks, Griffons, LAV IIs, MRZRs, Argos and individual soldiers.
Quite honestly getting a Bison in a Herc isn't the easiest task. Vehicles I like for Herc transport are ATV's and HiLux Low Vis stuff - easy out -- and easy back in.

Canada does not have the Air Movement capability to move signifiant equipment - either they need to take forever doing it yourself, or ship it and wait, or fly with us.
I agree with you on the Argo. But the CQ also carries ammunition and weapons not currently required for the mission. (Weapons Det Weapons in the Arms Locker) With the Argo the CQ could be carrying the C16 or auto cannons to provide this type of support to the Light Infantry

View attachment 70986

I agree with you on the Light Force being vehicle agnostic. And I think the Argo doesn't detract from that. The Argo can be deployed by the same means that deploys the infantry. It can go MOST places the infantry can go. When the Infantry reaches a place the Argo can't follow it has at very least increased their range, their speed, their endurance and their available support - both service and combat.
I think the Argo, ATV etc need to be viewed as enablers that are nice to have -- but cannot be counted on.

The Canadian Arctic as standin for Mars.

View attachment 70987

View attachment 70988

But we also have to deal with this


and this

View attachment 70989



I would reverse that. Light Forces can add vehicles to enhance their mobility so that they can be pressed into service when there aren't specialized forces available to manage the task.
Ideally you would have a dedicate force for that - but you can cheat it with Armored Movement Companies to move (and sometime support) LI entities with those items.
Light, Medium, Heavy - agreed. Horses for courses.

But I would suggest that the LIght Force, well supported by Engineers to dig them in, Artillery to support them and a Red Ball Express to supply them is the match for any medium or heavy force put against them.

With a plan, equipment and practice.
No disagreement here.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,583
Points
1,060
Get more ;)


Ack - but being able to take off from say Trenton - and jump into say Venezuela in a few hours without needing to swap airframes is a valuable asset.

Hercs are for short leg missions ideally, I've flown all over in them and C-17's and anything over 4 hours gets really tedious in a Herc.


My point was the ballistic protection for those raids -- in Iraq there was always small arms fire, IED's etc -- and going from a protected site to the mission area meant moving through hostile territory that was impassible via foot.
Speed can make for surprise - as while they may know you left to go someplace - they don't necessarily know the location of the hit.


Heavier means more time to arrive - USMC LAV's had departed before BHD, it was 10th Mnt 113's and the Pakistani tanks that made it to the crash sites after TF Ranger in the Soft Skin Hummers got degraded.

Wheels suffer a lot of damage from rubble - and the ability of tracks to pivot turn (not the articulated BV206 though) makes then more nimble in the rubble -- so neither of the above would be answer ;)


Speed of mission

Ideally yes - but in my example above - I was looking at a Rapid deployment situation.

Quite honestly getting a Bison in a Herc isn't the easiest task. Vehicles I like for Herc transport are ATV's and HiLux Low Vis stuff - easy out -- and easy back in.

Canada does not have the Air Movement capability to move signifiant equipment - either they need to take forever doing it yourself, or ship it and wait, or fly with us.

I think the Argo, ATV etc need to be viewed as enablers that are nice to have -- but cannot be counted on.


Ideally you would have a dedicate force for that - but you can cheat it with Armored Movement Companies to move (and sometime support) LI entities with those items.

No disagreement here.


We may wish for another budget, another bureaucracy and another government but that ain't reality. We have been allowed to buy:

5 CC-150s
5 CC-177s
17 CC-130s
16 CH-147s
85 CH-146s


37(-4) M777s
82 MBTs with AEVs and ARVs
616 LAV 6s
360 ACSVs

We still have 199 Bisons in inventory with some in use.
We may still have some M113 variants kicking around
We have a diminishing packet of Bv206s

We have a motley collection of logistics vehicles in various states of repair.

We have a diminishing fleet of broken down 105mm howitzers
We have a diminishing fleet of 81mm mortars
We have 304 C16 40mm GMGs
We have (sometimes maybe) 12.7 mm HMGs
We have purchased 1146 replacement C6s of which 347 have been found to be unacceptable.

We have M72s and rely on 84mm CG84s for AT work and a small number of TOW tripods.

The only breaks we catch are when we find something that is produced by Quebec or Ontario companies.

As far as I am concerned those are left and right of arc.

Beyond that we have authority to hire 23,000 regulars and 19,000 part-timers.

Edit: And the first job is - Defence of Canada. Not Save America.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,583
Points
1,060
WRT Mogadishu and 10th Mtn's M113s...
You may want to recognize Malaysia's Condors

A relief convoy with elements from the Task Force 2–14 Infantry, 10th Mountain Division, accompanied by Malaysian and Frontier Force Regiment of Pakistani U.N. forces, arrived at the first crash site at around 02:00. No contingency planning or coordination with U.N. forces had been arranged prior to the operation; consequently, the recovery of the surrounded American troops was significantly complicated and delayed. Determined to protect all of the rescue convoy's members, General Garrison made sure that the convoy would roll out in force.[citation needed]

When the convoy finally pushed into the city, it consisted of more than 100 U.N. vehicles including Malaysian forces' German-made Condor APCs, four Pakistani tanks (M48s), American HMMWVs and several M939 five-ton flatbed trucks.

1653508028297.png

Mass12.4 metric tons[1]
Length6.13 m[1]
Width2.47 m[1]
Height2.18 m[1]
Crew2+12

Main
armament
20 mm cannon
Secondary
armament
7.62 mm
EngineMercedes Benz OM352A / 6 cylinder
diesel engine[1]
168 hp (125 kW)
SuspensionPortal axle with coil spring and shock-absorbers[1]
Operational
range
900 km[1]
Maximum speed95 km/h[1]

I suspect the when they say a crew of 2+12 they are talking about Malaysians. (And no disrepect there - any more than I would disrespect a Gurkha)
 

markppcli

Sr. Member
Reaction score
546
Points
860
For those asking why the Bisons are being retired it’s pretty simple: they’re absolutely fucked by now and even full parts replacements aren’t going to fix that kind of rust out.
 

IKnowNothing

Member
Reaction score
155
Points
530
Given the CAF is divesting or has divested the LAV II platform - it is time to move on.
In the immediate sense yes. But in the immediate sense we don't have a designated Medium Bde to use the hand selected medium vehicle and have 600+ LAV 6 that CAF insists are heavy, 500 TAPV that CAF.. , and no additions in sight. The immediate sense doesn't seem particularly relevant

So yeah, time to move on from the LAV II. But not necessarily time to move on from the idea that the LAV 8 should be a LAV II/III weight vehicle with 30-40 years of systems and materials development to make it a much better overall vehicle.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,583
Points
1,060
17 Jan 2019
Military.com | By Matthew Cox

General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada has been awarded a $37.2 million contract to upgrade the Marine Corps' fleet of light armored vehicles.

The Jan. 4 contract, which was awarded through Army Contracting Command in Warren, Michigan, procured 60 hardware kits for the Light Armored Vehicle Reset Program, an effort to extend the service life of the LAV into the 2030s, according to a Marine Corps news release.



Active light armored reconnaissance battalions will be the first units to receive the upgraded vehicles, which will be known as LAV A3s, the release states.

The Marines originally fielded the LAV in 1983 and relied on the system's speed, maneuverability and firepower for security, command and control, reconnaissance and assault missions.

The reset effort will include improvements to the LAV's powerpack to improve reliability, cooling capacity and diagnostics, with the added benefit of better fuel economy, the release states.

It will add a new drivetrain to improve towing capability, a steering dampener to improve road feel and usability, and a digitized drivers' instrument panel, according to the release.

"The Marine Corps is committed to ensuring this platform remains viable into the 2030s," Steve Myers, LAV program manager, said in the release.

The hardware kits will be installed at Marine Corps depots, with initial operational capability targeted for the second quarter of fiscal 2021, the release states.

In February 2006, General Dynamics Land Systems received a $128 million increment of a $257 million contract for the Light Armored Vehicle A2 for the Marine Corps, according to a GDLS press release.

The LAV A2 variants were an improved version of the original Marine LAV. The eight-wheeled amphibious armored vehicle -- which offered improved suspension and enhanced armor protection -- came in armored personnel, anti-tank, command and control, logistic, and mortar variants.


Even if they only have the VIN.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,294
Points
1,140

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,428
Points
1,160
For those asking why the Bisons are being retired it’s pretty simple: they’re absolutely fucked by now and even full parts replacements aren’t going to fix that kind of rust out.

Upside?

New tank targets! ;)
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,583
Points
1,060
They are effective new vehicles just being pitched as a life extension.
So as not to need a new program, and competition.

It’s kind of what the CA did with the LAV various ‘upgrades’.

Which is why I said all we need is the VINs to "renew" our fleet.
 

markppcli

Sr. Member
Reaction score
546
Points
860
In the immediate sense yes. But in the immediate sense we don't have a designated Medium Bde to use the hand selected medium vehicle and have 600+ LAV 6 that CAF insists are heavy, 500 TAPV that CAF.. , and no additions in sight.

We have two: 2 and 5 CMBGs have pushed their tanks to 1 CMBG, and are medium forces based around the LAV 6. Admittedly it’s a tough call as it straddles that line a bit but hey, it’s what we have.

So yeah, time to move on from the LAV II. But not necessarily time to move on from the idea that the LAV 8 should be a LAV II/III weight vehicle with 30-40 years of systems and materials development to make it a much better overall vehicle.

The “LAV II” - or the Coyote and Bison as it’s known in service, was light because it was built decades ago when we didn’t considered certain things to be requirements. RWS, V Shaped Hulls, blast seating, ect all add weight. Additionally the Bison and Coyote were built to avoid contact, and could afford to have lighter armour as a consequence of that. A medium weight force where the IFV / APCs will be the primary combat vehicle likely doesn’t have that luxury.
 
Reaction score
157
Points
530
This looks like a BV 206 knockoff, and quite handy ;)


Wildfire fighting all-terrain prototype arrives in the North Okanagan​


The firefighter and fire-engine designer is B.C. based Tony Jumeau, who was eager to step in to help design the unique machine.

“One of the things that I saw personally was a lot of trucks getting stuck in soft surface type areas. I knew there was definitely a home for track vehicles,” said Jumeau.

The ATV has several unique features, including how it is powered.

“It’s a diesel engine made into a generator. That generator charges a battery and that’s what we use for sending the power to the electric motors in each track system,” said Paldy.

According to engineers, the electric motors give the vehicle the torque it needs to climb steep hills.


These are cheaper copies of Foremost / Nodwell equipment. Foremost have been building and customizing this type of equipment for heavy industrial use since the early '60s. Compare the tracks. All rubber tracks will wear and rip much much sooner than the Foremost tracks and you have to replace the whole track. The Foremost tracks can be repaired in the field by replacing cleats or splicing the rubberized track by splicing it like a conveyor belt.
 
Last edited:

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,294
Points
1,140
We have two: 2 and 5 CMBGs have pushed their tanks to 1 CMBG, and are medium forces based around the LAV 6. Admittedly it’s a tough call as it straddles that line a bit but hey, it’s what we have.
I’m hoping that effort shows the CA that a tracked ISV/IFV is needed in that role. I’m just saying that from a perspective of seeing the difference in mobility from wheeled and tracked systems.

The “LAV II” - or the Coyote and Bison as it’s known in service, was light because it was built decades ago when we didn’t considered certain things to be requirements. RWS, V Shaped Hulls, blast seating, ect all add weight. Additionally the Bison and Coyote were built to avoid contact, and could afford to have lighter armour as a consequence of that. A medium weight force where the IFV / APCs will be the primary combat vehicle likely doesn’t have that luxury.
The LAV 2 was an interesting improvement over the AVGP series. It had a somewhat V shaped hull (as did the AVGP), but the layout was significantly better as they provided side seats and removed the center fuel tank as the seat in the Grizzly.

They offered some protection increases over the AVGP, but realistically that was for small arms sub HMG.

I’m not a fan of medium forces as I don’t truly see the role other than transporting troops. Which admittedly can be done by Transport entities.
I’m really not a fan of the Canadian Hybrid that pretends Medium wheeled systems are heavy.
 

markppcli

Sr. Member
Reaction score
546
Points
860
I really need to get a good source on the RHA values on Pumas / Bradley’s / and LAV 6.0s as I’m at an academic disadvantage here without being able to compare.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,294
Points
1,140
I really need to get a good source on the RHA values on Pumas / Bradley’s / and LAV 6.0s as I’m at an academic disadvantage here without being able to compare.
You should be able to get the LAV easily. You will probably need someone in one of the Vehicle shops to talk to a LO.
Bradley 2A4 armor is fairly tight ‘No For’ but I’m sure it’s available through the System.

Because most of the add on armor is hybrid composite, the armor values and plate angles won’t tell the entire story.
 

markppcli

Sr. Member
Reaction score
546
Points
860
The only source I’ve really bothered with on the LAV is it’s pans; but they just rate what it’ll take not it’s actual RHA equivalent. Maybe I’ll browse janes or something one of these days. Either way taking 30mm on the front axis is about as protected as any IFV so I don’t know what the heavy definition ought to be
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
4,119
Points
1,160
We have two: 2 and 5 CMBGs have pushed their tanks to 1 CMBG, and are medium forces based around the LAV 6. Admittedly it’s a tough call as it straddles that line a bit but hey, it’s what we have.

Not quite. The Army order moves the tanks "out west" but the CA and the RCAC haven't decided what that means in terms of Regimental and bde allocation.
 
Top