Infantry Vehicles

[markppcli]

That is a massive turret/gun. Is the US Army sure that is the way that they want to go on this?

Well the BMP3 / BMD 4 is so effective how could they not

 

[KevinB]

The goal of the 50mm cannon is to provide a number of additional capabilities that the smaller caliber cannons cannot.

Honestly the 40mm CTA turret that was to go on the Warrior would frankly be my favorite as it’s a lot more versatile and compact than the 50mm. But apparently the Army has test again a threat matrix that only works with one particular setup (shocking I know).

 

[GR66]

Here's another one for @Kirkhill and his Light Battalions...

Flyer Defense unveils “The Beast” at AUSA show

The Flyer Defense has unveiled the Flyer 72 Multi-Purpose Mobile Fire Support System, nicknamed “The Beast,” at the largest land warfare show in America. During the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) annual meeting and exposition, the company displayed the specialized configuration of...

defence-blog.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Here's another one for @Kirkhill and his Light Battalions...

Flyer Defense unveils “The Beast” at AUSA show

The Flyer Defense has unveiled the Flyer 72 Multi-Purpose Mobile Fire Support System, nicknamed “The Beast,” at the largest land warfare show in America. During the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) annual meeting and exposition, the company displayed the specialized configuration of...

defence-blog.com

Gee. I dunohhh. That may be too much of a Swiss Army knife even for me.

 

[Kirkhill]

For clarity...

This is too much of a Swiss Army knife for me.

As the man sez - it would make a great boat anchor.

Engineering the World’s Largest Swiss Army Knife the Wenger Giant

The Wenger Giant is the world’s largest Swiss Army knife, has 141 functions into 87 implements. At 9” wide and 32 oz, you could use it as an anchor for a boat.

partsolutions.com

 

[KevinB]

Gee. I dunohhh. That may be too much of a Swiss Army knife even for me.

With room for only 2 personnel as well…

 

[markppcli]

Semi related; Belgium is re arming and equipping its maneuver forces to the interoperable with their chosen big brother in France. While I’m not a fan of the Griphon (to tall for pepper conflict with to small a gun) the concept is sound and the mortar carrier would be nice.

 

[KevinB]

I’m still of the opinion that Canada would be best served by outfitting Bde’s to work inside US Div’s.
1 Abrams/Bradley Bde for Europe (30/70)
2 LAV Bde for Striker interoperability and PSO’s. (70/30) and (30/70)
1 Light/Abn to XVIII Corps for QRF (100/0)
1 Light/Abn for 11th Abn in Alaska (70/30)

 

[FJAG]

I’m still of the opinion that Canada would be best served by outfitting Bde’s to work inside US Div’s.
1 Abrams/Bradley Bde for Europe (30/70)
2 LAV Bde for Striker interoperability and PSO’s. (70/30) and (30/70)
1 Light/Abn to XVIII Corps for QRF (100/0)
1 Light/Abn for 11th Abn in Alaska (70/30)

But think of how much we'd have to spend in order to translate all those FMs into bilingual format.

Seriously, we were always organized to be interoperable in British formations. When we went through the whole Sixties identity crisis thing we went out of our way to be our own man even when it complicated sustainment to a point where we really have a hard time doing it.

I'm still a firm believer that Canada needs one operational, deployable div HQ if for no other reason than to have a foundation around which our staff training takes place and as a core around which a deployable formation can grow. Concurrently we need to be able to integrate into a US Div as well as the various multinational divisions that are springing up around Europe.

That flexibility will require a very robust and adaptable logistics system which we currently seem to pay only peacetime lip service to. The more we can standardize on equipment the more we'll be able to draw on larger theatre level supply and maintenance resources rather than having to reach back to Canada. My guess is that even if part of a multinational division we would be better off if we could draw on American theatre level resources through standardization with them.

 

[Kirkhill]

I’m still of the opinion that Canada would be best served by outfitting Bde’s to work inside US Div’s.
1 Abrams/Bradley Bde for Europe (30/70)
2 LAV Bde for Striker interoperability and PSO’s. (70/30) and (30/70)
1 Light/Abn to XVIII Corps for QRF (100/0)
1 Light/Abn for 11th Abn in Alaska (70/30)

As noted on the future structure thread

1 Division
2 LAV Brigades
Follow the pattern of US 2 Inf Div

Add in the Abn BCT of the 11th Abn Div
It only has two battalions.

 

[KevinB]

As noted on the future structure thread

1 Division
2 LAV Brigades
Follow the pattern of US 2 Inf Div

Add in the Abn BCT of the 11th Abn Div
It only has two battalions.

You still need a Heavy Metal Bde to show the flag in Europe or other area of heavy fighting.

 

[KevinB]

But think of how much we'd have to spend in order to translate all those FMs into bilingual format.

Seriously, we were always organized to be interoperable in British formations. When we went through the whole Sixties identity crisis thing we went out of our way to be our own man even when it complicated sustainment to a point where we really have a hard time doing it.

I'm still a firm believer that Canada needs one operational, deployable div HQ if for no other reason than to have a foundation around which our staff training takes place and as a core around which a deployable formation can grow. Concurrently we need to be able to integrate into a US Div as well as the various multinational divisions that are springing up around Europe.

That flexibility will require a very robust and adaptable logistics system which we currently seem to pay only peacetime lip service to. The more we can standardize on equipment the more we'll be able to draw on larger theatre level supply and maintenance resources rather than having to reach back to Canada. My guess is that even if part of a multinational division we would be better off if we could draw on American theatre level resources through standardization with them.

110%

 

[OldSolduer]

You still need a Heavy Metal Bde to show the flag in Europe or other area of heavy fighting.

Heavy Metal Bde Metallica!!!

 

[daftandbarmy]

Heavy Metal Bde Metallica!!!

I think 'Nuclear Assault' would be more 'on brand'

 

[Kirkhill]

More of a Prism fan myself

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The goal of the 50mm cannon is to provide a number of additional capabilities that the smaller caliber cannons cannot.

Honestly the 40mm CTA turret that was to go on the Warrior would frankly be my favorite as it’s a lot more versatile and compact than the 50mm. But apparently the Army has test again a threat matrix that only works with one particular setup (shocking I know).

Turks offering a 30/90mm armed "Scout Car"

 

[ueo]

You still need a Heavy Metal Bde to show the flag in Europe or other area of heavy fighting.

Lotsa Sherman monuments and AA pieces on display. Russiam model Reduce, recycle etc.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Turks offering a 30/90mm armed "Scout Car"

Looks a bit 'tippy', like the much maligned Fox:

Fox armoured reconnaissance vehicle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Looks a bit 'tippy', like the much maligned Fox:

Fox armoured reconnaissance vehicle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I was thinking the same thing. The video only shows in operating on flat surfaces.

And the thing is that there are several Canadian companies (besides GDLS) that manufacture light armoured vehicles and could probably build something similar here at home.

 

[GR66]

Looks a bit 'tippy', like the much maligned Fox:

Fox armoured reconnaissance vehicle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just throw that turret on a TAPV (Tippy Ass Pathetic Vehicle)