Infantry Vehicles

[PrairieFella]

There was a series videos from the CA showing 3 VP driving them around Edmonton. The project is specifically for the fly over LIB so it makes sense to concentrate them with those units. The rest of the light forces mobility project will be different.

Are you tracking anything on the Canadian LFE (if that's the right name) procurement project? Should be something similar to these if I'm not mistaken right?

Also, question for the floor not just mark, have there been any attempts to strap weapons to these things Iltis style? I'm curious if the bungee-corded machine gun makes a comeback haha.

 

[dapaterson]

Are you tracking anything on the Canadian LFE (if that's the right name) procurement project? Should be something similar to these if I'm not mistaken right?

Also, question for the floor not just mark, have there been any attempts to strap weapons to these things Iltis style? I'm curious if the bungee-corded machine gun makes a comeback haha.

As I recall, the UoR was prioritized as the same staff are working LFE.

 

[KevinB]

Also, question for the floor not just mark, have there been any attempts to strap weapons to these things Iltis style? I'm curious if the bungee-corded machine gun makes a comeback haha.

Down here some units have put various medium and heavy pintle mounts onto them - to various degrees of success in my understanding.
The roll cage frame can support a M240/C6 type GPMG - but that is about it - as soon as you try to add a M2 or Mk19, bad things occur, as those really need to be mounted to the vehicle frame and not the 'roll cage'.

Various units with them are trying various things - the ones that seem to succeed know it isn't a fighting platform, but a mobility and logistics support tool - so for some very limited missions, it may be a practical fire support vehicle - but for most missions it isn't.

 

[PrairieFella]

Various units with them are trying various things - the ones that seem to succeed know it isn't a fighting platform, but a mobility and logistics support tool - so for some very limited missions, it may be a practical fire support vehicle - but for most missions it isn't.

Well put. A fool would try to use this truck as a firing platform on the regular, but that said a GPMG would be more than adequate for any accidental contacts or emergency AD scenarios.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Down here some units have put various medium and heavy pintle mounts onto them - to various degrees of success in my understanding.
The roll cage frame can support a M240/C6 type GPMG - but that is about it - as soon as you try to add a M2 or Mk19, bad things occur, as those really need to be mounted to the vehicle frame and not the 'roll cage'.

Various units with them are trying various things - the ones that seem to succeed know it isn't a fighting platform, but a mobility and logistics support tool - so for some very limited missions, it may be a practical fire support vehicle - but for most missions it isn't.

Maybe they need a retro solution of some sort

 

[PrairieFella]

Maybe they need a retro solution of some sort

View attachment 88468

Cool as shit haha

 

[markppcli]

Are you tracking anything on the Canadian LFE (if that's the right name) procurement project? Should be something similar to these if I'm not mistaken right?

Also, question for the floor not just mark, have there been any attempts to strap weapons to these things Iltis style? I'm curious if the bungee-corded machine gun makes a comeback haha.

There’s weapons mounts, pintle type things, for the sides I’m informed, I haven’t seen images of them in Canadian service though. It’s a debate if that’s going to encourage them to be seen as a fighting platform which they are objectively not.

 

[dapaterson]

There’s weapons mounts, pintle type things, for the sides I’m informed, I haven’t seen images of them in Canadian service though. It’s a debate if that’s going to encourage them to be seen as a fighting platform which they are objectively not.

Plot twist: mount a C9 and call it the tank replacement.

 

[markppcli]

Plot twist: mount a C9 and call it the tank replacement.

Tank trainer in the finest of CAF procurement traditions

 

[PrairieFella]

Tank trainer in the finest of CAF procurement traditions

They're already pulling that with Polaris Ranger 1000s...pintle mount sold separately. Can't have shit in the Armoured Corps

 

[markppcli]

They're already pulling that with Polaris Ranger 1000s...pintle mount sold separately. Can't have shit in the Armoured Corps

The ATVs are rented and leased aren’t they? I’d imagine that’s units just doing what they can in short term solutions, we did it for an exercise last year as well.

 

[PrairieFella]

The ATVs are rented and leased aren’t they? I’d imagine that’s units just doing what they can in short term solutions, we did it for an exercise last year as well.

Allegedly bought. From what I've been told. Our holdover until the LUV Tier 1 is announced.

 

[markppcli]

Interesting, I’m sure I could convince some
COs to pool their TAPVs for you….

 

[ueo]

Currently non of the weapons add ons are very practical - as In addition to all the exposed cabling, and limit of the 30 rd magazine it is a bit of a bandwidth and battery hog. All it basically does is give you the ability to say #1 Rifleman take a bound - and it not be a person you are exposing.
So while it offers a number of niche capabilities, it also is a logistics burden at this point.

The Q-UGV is a neat item by itself - but most of the bolt on weapon ideas aren't even a Beta test as far as practicality goes.
The cart is getting put ahead of the horse on a lot of these projects.

Or the horses ass!

 

[PrairieFella]

Interesting, I’m sure I could convince some
COs to pool their TAPVs for you….

How positively evil of you.

In all seriousness, that's been tried and no COs were interested. C'est la vie.

 

[markppcli]

How positively evil of you.

In all seriousness, that's been tried and no COs were interested. C'est la vie.

I think there’s probably an element of them simply not being able to. Of course what exactly the dozen odd TAPVs each artillery regiment is supposed to have are for is a question for the ages.

 

[FJAG]

I think there’s probably an element of them simply not being able to. Of course what exactly the dozen odd TAPVs each artillery regiment is supposed to have are for is a question for the ages.

The vehicle establishment for artillery regiments has been an inadequate moving target since the M109 massacre and the withdrawal of their M113 series fleets. I have no idea what the TAPVs were really sent there for but I could see them fill the role of battery/troop recce and troop sergeant majors' vehicles quite well. Maybe the odd rover here and there. They are too small for detachment vehicles, CPs, FOOs or FSCCs.

I find the state of things a bit unsettling. We used to have role for every vehicle with a tac/call sign on it to let you know exactly what its role was and thereby designating who was responsible for its upkeep and who would man it.

 

[KevinB]

The turret

BAE has two turreted versions of AMPV at AUSA, a manned two person and an unmanned

 

[OldSolduer]

The vehicle establishment for artillery regiments has been an inadequate moving target since the M109 massacre and the withdrawal of their M113 series fleets.

I always thought the destruction of the M109s were a terrible mistake - and it was.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I always thought the destruction of the M109s were a terrible mistake - and it was.

It was worse than wrong , it was stupid.