Canada's tanks

[Kirkhill]

The Commander is in the turret. No one is sitting behind the driver. It ammunition loading area and some minor gear space that it is.

But otherwise I agree

The AVGP and the Bison both had the CC immediately behind the driver... IIRC.

It made a mess of dismount drills because the CC couldn't wear his webbing and squeeze into his seat. And he had to swap out his helmet for his headset.

 

[Kirkhill]

Driver and CC are both to the left of the engine and forwards of the firewall in both the Grizzly, top and the Bison, bottom.



And here is the ass-end backwards AVGP known as the TAPV.

 

[KevinB]

Agreed, on AVGP and Bison, I was being a pendant on “LAV” for the LAV III and 6.0

 

[McG]

ACSV will also have that layout. The few turretless variants of LAV III & LAV 6 all had the CC back in the troop compartment.

 

[Dana381]

Military exemptions for emissions standards are linked to the requirement to use NATO fuels and fuels that can be bought closer to potential international theatres. A tier 4 engine won’t appreciate high sulphur fuels that are common in some developing countries, and it really won’t like aircraft fuel. But the day someone figures out how to build a tier 4 multi-fuel engine, we can expect those waivers to stop.

The Mack brochures list most models as U.S. and Euro 3-5 and JP8 capable. I remember the MSVS SMP was also the same. The ones that aren't listed that way are the Cummins powered ones.
https://mackdefense.wpenginepowered...s/2023/02/MackDefenseFleetPortfolio2023-1.pdf

I don't know what they are doing about the high sulfur fuels.

 

[FJAG]

Just for the edification of someone who has never been inside a TAPV, what is that box in the left rear of the crew compartment that prevents adding two more dismounts? The whole layout seems to me like a large vehicle with a lot of wasted space that could have been used for multiple specialty configurations up to and including a section carrier.

 

[Maxman1]

That's the engine.

 

[FJAG]

That's the engine.

I meant that little box just to the left of the guy sitting in the rear. Are you saying that a part of the engine needs to protrude into the crew compartment? That's just sloppy engineering.

I've looked at these photos of the interior and to me the whole thing just reeks of an abandonment of both function and form. As I said, I haven't actually been inside one but when I compare it to how we maximized every cubic inch of the M113s. It just strikes me that with a bit of thought, the TAPV could be a valuable vehicle for many purposes (except maybe recce )

 

[Brad Sallows]

It’s also maintaining a strategic industrial base for the United States as a country.

Precisely. Too many people make value judgements based only on the one thing they are looking at, a view which is often limited by their scope of responsibility. "This is costing me and I don't receive a benefit" doesn't mean there is no benefit worth the cost.

 

[Happy Guy]

I meant that little box just to the left of the guy sitting in the rear. Are you saying that a part of the engine needs to protrude into the crew compartment? That's just sloppy engineering.

I've looked at these photos of the interior and to me the whole thing just reeks of an abandonment of both function and form. As I said, I haven't actually been inside one but when I compare it to how we maximized every cubic inch of the M113s. It just strikes me that with a bit of thought, the TAPV could be a valuable vehicle for many purposes (except maybe recce )

Please remember that the nice clean interior doesn't show the pers kit, ammo and other things that will stored inside.
In addition, this veh will likely be in service for the next 20-30 years so there will other modifications will be added in time in the interior and exterior.

Like all vehs, the design is a compromise between mobility, firepower and armour (defence) - in short, no one will be happy.

Cheers

 

[markppcli]

Please remember that the nice clean interior doesn't show the pers kit, ammo and other things that will stored inside.
In addition, this veh will likely be in service for the next 20-30 years so there will other modifications will be added in time in the interior and exterior.

Like all vehs, the design is a compromise between mobility, firepower and armour (defence) - in short, no one will be happy.

Cheers

“The design is a compromise” is probably the most accurate statement about the TAPV.

Any criticism of that vehicle is in my opinion very. Warranted. The crew compartment doesn’t hold enough people to make it a sectio. Carrier because of the extension, it’s too big for recce, doesn’t have the fire power or armou to be a DFS option, and frankly we don’t have enough parts to keep them running. It’s a joke and I constantly wonder how it’s not been made into a massive black eye for procurement.

 

[FJAG]

“The design is a compromise” is probably the most accurate statement about the TAPV.

Any criticism of that vehicle is in my opinion very. Warranted. The crew compartment doesn’t hold enough people to make it a sectio. Carrier because of the extension, it’s too big for recce, doesn’t have the fire power or armou to be a DFS option, and frankly we don’t have enough parts to keep them running. It’s a joke and I constantly wonder how it’s not been made into a massive black eye for procurement.

Parts is not a problem with the vehicle. It's a procurement and sustainment issue unless there are certain parts that have a high, unreasonable failure rate.

I can think of dozens of roles that the TAPV fits into as the need for hardened CS and CSS vehicles increases. The fact that it hasn't been rerolled to its highest and best use and replaced as a vehicle where it is failing is an army not vehicle issue.

 

[Kirkhill]

I meant that little box just to the left of the guy sitting in the rear. Are you saying that a part of the engine needs to protrude into the crew compartment? That's just sloppy engineering.

I've looked at these photos of the interior and to me the whole thing just reeks of an abandonment of both function and form. As I said, I haven't actually been inside one but when I compare it to how we maximized every cubic inch of the M113s. It just strikes me that with a bit of thought, the TAPV could be a valuable vehicle for many purposes (except maybe recce )

TAPV / Stryker ICV

18,482 kg / 16,470 kg
6.31 m / 6.95 m
2.75 m / 2.72 m
3.225 m / 2.64 m
272 kW / 260 kW

How much cheaper would it have been to just buy 500 Double V Hull Strykers configured like the Bison? I don't see many tactical advantages, or logistical advantages, of the TAPV over the Stryker/LAVIII.

Stryker ICV / ACSV (estimated from LAV 6 info available)

16,470 kg / 20,700 kg
6.95 m / 7.8 m
2.72 m / 3.3 m
2.64 m / 3.3 m
260 kW / 338 kW

Then, to complete the cycle

Bison 2 (ACSV) / Bison (LAV II)

20,700 kg / 13,000 kg
7.8 m / 6.5 m
3.3 m / 2.6 m
3.3 m / 2.6 m
338 kW / 206 kW

Did we really gain that much with TAPVs that couldn't have been met by buying more of the original Bisons which were smaller, lighter, more generally functional and amphibious ( ).

 

[Kirkhill]

Parts is not a problem with the vehicle. It's a procurement and sustainment issue unless there are certain parts that have a high, unreasonable failure rate.

I can think of dozens of roles that the TAPV fits into as the need for hardened CS and CSS vehicles increases. The fact that it hasn't been rerolled to its highest and best use and replaced as a vehicle where it is failing is an army not vehicle issue.

As I have suggested before, the first three simple fixes -

Lower the ride height back to at least the ASV level
Remove the spare wheel and that silly crane from the roof and mount the spare on the front panel
Remove the RWS / Replace it with a lighter 7.62mm one for CUAS and self protection.

Then you can use it as an armoured jeep for the CS and CSS types.

 

[McG]

Dan Ross did not like LAV. He blamed GDLS for design flaws in LAV III that DND project staff boasted of having suggested.

As ADM(Mat) at the start of the TAPV project, Dan Ross would have stood in the way of any effort to institutionalize the RG-31 with a sole sources LAV variant.

 

[dapaterson]

Dan Ross thought he was responsible for requirements and managed to be so, unfortunately.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I too can see several roles for TAPV, none of which were the assorted and ever-changing reasons it was purchased for . Or the roles it's now being used for.
I suspect it had more to do with the unofficial military policy of zero casualty combat operations.
Yes , yes I know that's not possible .
IEDs were the flavor of the decade hence the sexy acronym. IED sounds so much cooler the booby traps.
I once jokingly described the TAPV as being designed with IEDs in the megaton range
I suspect that if we could have been able to build such a vehicle we probably would have given it a try .
Personally I'm convinced that the TAPV is an almost complete waste of money.
On the other hand you could use it for driver training.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The fact that it hasn't been rerolled to its highest and best use and replaced as a vehicle where it is failing is an army not vehicle issue.

I thought they were very easy to roll.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I thought they were very easy to roll.

It's a feature, not a bug

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

Maybe it is time to go back in time where you purchased your own equipment for your military duties, instead buying your own side arm and sword, you buy your own IFV or tank and bring it to work when required? No one agrees what is the best or the worse.

Top lists or videos, cannot decide. M1A family of tanks or the Leo 2 is alway the number 1 tank, depending who made the list. US made list always has the M1 listed as #1 and the Leo 2 as #2 and the European list has the Leo 2 as #1, and the M1 as #2

Canadians will never have a fighting force and the equipment needed till we are in a shooting war and been there at least 6 months to a year then new better kit will just show up and then be sold off and or warehoused till when the need is over. The warehouse equipment will be rusted, out of service and no use to anyone for anything but Gate guards.

If we do have it, never be enough to actually do the job properly, we will always the have the army of highly skilled people but always lack the equipment to do it better, safer and faster