Future Armour

[markppcli]

Even if you do need a heavy there is no reason why it cant have light escorts.

Talk to the Navy.

You mean like the lighter vehicles conducting reconnaissance and carrying the infantry? So in other words…. What we were talking about.

I don’t know where you intend to go with the navy analogy. Modern naval combat is about escorting carriers with air defence and ASW ships. Not really the same as effecting a breach of a defensive position.

@PrairieFella makes a reasonable point about the next gen of MBTs getting lighter, I don’t know that we need heavier recce vehicles and I’m not really a fan of medium cavalry, to me lav’s are light and G Wagon / TAPVs aren’t cavalry vehicles.

 

[PrairieFella]

You mean like the lighter vehicles conducting reconnaissance and carrying the infantry? So in other words…. What we were talking about.

I don’t know where you intend to go with the navy analogy. Modern naval combat is about escorting carriers with air defence and ASW ships. Not really the same as effecting a breach of a defensive position.

@PrairieFella makes a reasonable point about the next gen of MBTs getting lighter, I don’t know that we need heavier recce vehicles and I’m not really a fan of medium cavalry, to me lav’s are light and G Wagon / TAPVs aren’t cavalry vehicles.

RE TAPV and LUVW, they aren't cavalry vehicles in RCAC doctrine. We've been using them as such for lack of platform but they're considered PMV (protected mobility vehicles) for rear area tasks. Med cav would bring some more significant firepower to bear than a LAV (I envision 30mm-40mm with an ATGM system) and is significantly smaller - no need for all that dismount room. Fixing, shaping, raiding, recce by force, delays, etc. That's the role med cav will need to fill. Light Cav has a real hard time with those more kinetic tasks.

 

[markppcli]

RE TAPV and LUVW, they aren't cavalry vehicles in RCAC doctrine. We've been using them as such for lack of platform but they're considered PMV (protected mobility vehicles) for rear area tasks. Med cav would bring some more significant firepower to bear than a LAV (I envision 30mm-40mm with an ATGM system) and is significantly smaller - no need for all that dismount room. Fixing, shaping, raiding, recce by force, delays, etc. That's the role med cav will need to fill. Light Cav has a real hard time with those more kinetic tasks.

Well I mean we can say that, but every light cav Sqn in the country features tapv prominently.

Ref back space - agree it’s not ideal, but having dismounted gobs is never a bad thing for recce, and a common chaos is good for sustainment.

 

[ueo]

Well I mean we can say that, but every light cav Sqn in the country features tapv prominently.

Ref back space - agree it’s not ideal, but having dismounted gobs is never a bad thing for recce, and a common chaos is good for sustainment.

Huh Whaaat?

 

[KevinB]

Huh Whaaat?

I think he got auto wrecked

Should have been GIBs - guys in back
And common chassis

 

[GK .Dundas]

I think he got auto wrecked

Should have been GIBs - guys in back
And common chassis

I don't know, I kind of like common chaos !
It certainly describes our current vehicle park.

 

[markppcli]

Huh Whaaat?

Yeah auto correct turned gibs to gobs and chassis to chaos my bad.

 

[PrairieFella]

Yeah auto correct turned gibs to gobs and chassis to chaos my bad.

I agree gibs are important in non-tank AFVs, however I don't need seats for 8 when I'm crew commanding. What I do need is something shorter and smaller than a Leopard 2 so I can effectively adopt turret down/sights up/hull down positions and jockey effectively. The LAV is is slightly longer and about 0.75 m taller than a Leopard, making it tough to fight the vehicle how we operate. A proper decent speed jockey in a LAV is pretty sketch due to this (nevermind a TAPV).

The 8 PAX doesn't belong in an RCAC F Ech, though it does have a place within the orbat of a Sqn, probably one or two in the SHQ and one or two in assault troops (which should belong to Sqn, not Regt). Those are LAVs we're taking from you guys and from what I've seen in 2VP's lines, the battalions need them desperately.

 

[Kirkhill]

Bradley in US Service - 6 Pax + 1 at a squeeze
CV90 in Swedish and Danish Service - 6 Pax

Swedes and US working with Combined Arms Battalions - mix of Tanks and Infantry on tracks in the same unit.

U.S. Army Combined Arms Battalion (Current)

An overview of the Armored Brigade Combat Teams' maneuver battalions.

www.battleorder.org

Sweden's Armored Forces

New video on Sweden's armor forces.

www.battleorder.org

RCAC Combined Arms - Sorted.

 

[PrairieFella]

Bradley in US Service - 6 Pax + 1 at a squeeze
CV90 in Swedish and Danish Service - 6 Pax

Swedes and US working with Combined Arms Battalions - mix of Tanks and Infantry on tracks in the same unit.

View attachment 87123

U.S. Army Combined Arms Battalion (Current)

An overview of the Armored Brigade Combat Teams' maneuver battalions.

www.battleorder.org

Sweden's Armored Forces

New video on Sweden's armor forces.

www.battleorder.org

RCAC Combined Arms - Sorted.

That does nothing for what I'm concerned about. This is essentially a Canadian BG, cool. I'm talking about the composition of our equivalent of the Armor Company, the Armoured Squadron. The Armoured Squadron doesn't need multiple 8 PAX trucks and the Americans seem to agree, considering they have a single M113A3 and a couple trucks in their company.

I do like that you brought up the CV90 though, it'd be an excellent basis for a Canadian mech brigade. Tank of choice plus CV90 IFVs, CV90 Cav, CV90 Eng, CV90 mortar, CV90 AMB, etc etc etc.

 

[markppcli]

I agree gibs are important in non-tank AFVs, however I don't need seats for 8 when I'm crew commanding. What I do need is something shorter and smaller than a Leopard 2 so I can effectively adopt turret down/sights up/hull down positions and jockey effectively. The LAV is is slightly longer and about 0.75 m taller than a Leopard, making it tough to fight the vehicle how we operate. A proper decent speed jockey in a LAV is pretty sketch due to this (nevermind a TAPV).

LAV is a touch tall, I never had a huge difficulty getting it down the hill and back up for jockeying. Hull downs are a bitch but that was more a factor of its poor depression.

The 8 PAX doesn't belong in an RCAC F Ech, though it does have a place within the orbat of a Sqn, probably one or two in the SHQ and one or two in assault troops (which should belong to Sqn, not Regt). Those are LAVs we're taking from you guys and from what I've seen in 2VP's lines, the battalions need them desperately.

We don’t need more lav’s. The Bns have 50 odd each. 2 VP needs access to second line maintenance … so does 1 RCHa. Seperate issues.


All that being said the lav isn’t an optimal recce platform I agree.

 

[PrairieFella]

LAV is a touch tall, I never had a huge difficulty getting it down the hill and back up for jockeying. Hull downs are a bitch but that was more a factor of its poor depression.

I always feel...tippy I suppose when full sending er a couple hundred metres at a 45 for a jockey in a LAV. Id prefer something with a wider wheelbase (or tracks) and a lower centre of gravity. Probably a hard me problem though haha.

We don’t need more lav’s. The Bns have 50 odd each. 2 VP needs access to second line maintenance … so does 1 RCHa. Seperate issues.

Fair enough. Is the situation improving at all? Last I heard 2VP is down to a handful.

All that being said the lav isn’t an optimal recce platform I agree.

Way too big and with too little tooth for recce by force. Maybe with an ATGM the turret layout would be fine but that's been beat to death here already haha.

All in all it's just poorly optimized for our job. I get common hulls are a good thing and the govt likes the LAV jobs program but man, I can think of a half dozen tracked and a few wheeled vehicles that would be better for what we do.

 

[markppcli]

I always feel...tippy I suppose when full sending er a couple hundred metres at a 45 for a jockey in a LAV. Id prefer something with a wider wheelbase (or tracks) and a lower centre of gravity. Probably a hard me problem though haha.




Fair enough. Is the situation improving at all? Last I heard 2VP is down to a handful.

No idea, ours has gotten better and we’ve finally EMOd a problem child to Edmonton but I’m across the street so

 

[PrairieFella]

One can only dream that Canada would jump in on a div worth of the these bad boys to have an actual armoured div (SPG/SPAA notwithstanding).

Denmark Finalizes Deal for 115 CV90 MkIIIC Combat Vehicles - Defense Security Monitor

The Danish Army has finalized an order for 115 CV90 MkIIIC combat vehicles from BAE Systems Hägglunds in a deal valued at DKK9.975 billion ($1.5 billion). The deal was publicly …

dsm.forecastinternational.com

 

[OldSolduer]

One can only dream that Canada would jump in on a div worth of the these bad boys to have an actual armoured div (SPG/SPAA notwithstanding).

Denmark Finalizes Deal for 115 CV90 MkIIIC Combat Vehicles - Defense Security Monitor

The Danish Army has finalized an order for 115 CV90 MkIIIC combat vehicles from BAE Systems Hägglunds in a deal valued at DKK9.975 billion ($1.5 billion). The deal was publicly …

dsm.forecastinternational.com

What’s the main armament?

 

[PrairieFella]

What’s the main armament?

35mm Bushmaster III. Real beefy round. They also have an ATGM. There is also a 50mm version of the Bushmaster III in development and while the primary focus of the project is for CRAM and AD, there is also a version being developed that can fire sabot and normal HE. In my perfect world you'd add an ATGM to that turret and that's what div recce run by a cavalry regiment would run with conducting recce by force and other Cav tasks.

 

[FJAG]

One can only dream that Canada would jump in on a div worth of the these bad boys to have an actual armoured div (SPG/SPAA notwithstanding).

Denmark Finalizes Deal for 115 CV90 MkIIIC Combat Vehicles - Defense Security Monitor

The Danish Army has finalized an order for 115 CV90 MkIIIC combat vehicles from BAE Systems Hägglunds in a deal valued at DKK9.975 billion ($1.5 billion). The deal was publicly …

dsm.forecastinternational.com

If I'm not mistaken, the Danish/Swedish flyover battlegroup assigned to Canada's MN brigade Latvia is using CV90s.

 

[PrairieFella]

If I'm not mistaken, the Danish/Swedish flyover battlegroup assigned to Canada's MN brigade Latvia is using CV90s.

I believe you're correct. Talk about the interoperability opportunity.

 

[FJAG]

I believe you're correct. Talk about the interoperability opportunity.

Albeit that the Italians , Slovaks, and Spanish in the eFP battlegroup use Freccia, Dardo, BMP 2, and Pizzaro.

I'd hate to be the battlegroup's maintenance officer.

 

[PrairieFella]

Albeit that the Italians , Slovaks, and Spanish in the eFP battlegroup use Freccia, Dardo, BMP 2, and Pizzaro.

I'd hate to be the battlegroup's maintenance officer.

You can probably cut the BMPs, the way things are going I expect Slovakia to turncoat if things pop off haha.