Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle - RG-31, LAV Coyote, and (partial) G-Wagon Replacement

[Jarnhamar]

This is some what true, how ever in the reserves usually the only optics we have are Binos and Mk I eyeballs so the need to get closer is there. I found with the Coyote serv gear it order to use it effectively you need to be a good ways away.  This was do to noise from the gear, the engine of the Vehicle to keep it powered, and tear down time. You also have the problem of light reflecting of the optics and the camming of the gear is tricky as well, more so the mast than the remote. By being that far away you can be limited to how much of the objective you can see.

Fair enough. The "amateur's get close" was originally pointed out to me by a friend in the jtf  ( I should have put that in quotations originally too. )

They're obviously going to have a few more options than the reserves.

 

[George Wallace]

The further away you are, the more obstructions you will have interfering with what you are observing.  I take it your "jtf" friend was more likely alluding to sneaking in and actually touching, rather than close enough to observe.

 

[Franko]

By being that far away you can be limited to how much of the objective you can see.

But that can be mitigated by co ord with other patrols to ensure you attain at least 90% coverage if it's a pri 1 NAI.

 

[Tank Troll]

But that can be mitigated by co ord with other patrols to ensure you attain at least 90% coverage if it's a pri 1 NAI.

Yes it can.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The further away you are, the more obstructions you will have interfering with what you are observing.  I take it your "jtf" friend was more likely alluding to sneaking in and actually touching, rather than close enough to observe.

Why did you put quotations around jtf?

He was referring to using optics and electronics to remain as far away from target as possible while observing.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

He was referring to using optics and electronics to remain as far away from target as possible while observing.

Not all recce troops, especially Reserve ones, have the luxury of those high speed pieces of equipment, short of the Mk1 eyeball and our usual crappy issue binos. A lot of us would give a left nut to have the shopping capabilities that the JTF does, however, we're just regular old troops that have to use what we've got.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It's too bad the armored reserves don't get better equipment, I find they can be way more utilized than they are.  Give them some decent optics and they can be a very low profile very far seeing group that has intimate familiarity with local areas.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's too bad the armored reserves don't get better equipment, I find they can be way more utilized than they are.  Give them some decent optics and they can be a very low profile very far seeing group that has intimate familiarity with local areas.

It's not so much us, but the others, especially Infantry. They don't have a schmick about how easy we can make their job for them. When we show up, no one knows how to utilize us or what we do. Most times they just send us off and tell us to keep busy with whatever it is we do and make sure we're back at endex. We don't even get built into the battle plan.

 

[Tank Troll]

Or they send us off to sit in an OP for the whole EX, usually some postion were you can get a vehicle close to, let  alone set up a proper OP Base. The other fun one is Convoy escort with 1 maybe 2 patrols and 15 to 20 trucks.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We did one ex against the US Rangers, the BCR's had Lynx's for the ex and setup in a defensive position with 105mm, Lynx, 105, Lynx. The BCR's had NVG on the Lynx's and we pretty much wiped out the Rangers as they tried to attack us.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We did one ex against the US Rangers, the BCR's had Lynx's for the ex and setup in a defensive position with 105mm, Lynx, 105, Lynx. The BCR's had NVG on the Lynx's and we pretty much wiped out the Rangers as they tried to attack us.

Sorry Colin, but you'll have to date that as someone may think you're talking about something that's happened in the last 20 years.

That was then, this is now.

Those were completely different times and not even relevent to today's situation.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Here is an interesting article from Eeben Barlow, its a little old (2009) but still relevant to this discussion.

http://eebenbarlowsmilitaryandsecurityblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/is-ifv-mpvmrap-or-visa-versa.html

IS AN IFV AN MPV/MRAP OR VISA VERSA?

I have noticed a disturbing trend in today’s counter insurgency (COIN) orientated conflicts – IFV’s are being deployed as MPVs/MRAPs and visa versa. Whereas this is not only a serious deployment error, it poses a grave danger to the lives of the occupants of the IFVs and MPVs/MRAPs.

 

[cupper]

It's not so much us, but the others, especially Infantry. They don't have a schmick about how easy we can make their job for them. When we show up, no one knows how to utilize us or what we do. Most times they just send us off and tell us to keep busy with whatever it is we do and make sure we're back at endex. We don't even get built into the battle plan.

So how do you change the mindset, or educate the higher echelons?

I know that some of the functions of various unit types are covered as part of the JLC/CLC courses I took way back when (80's). It covered the role of various units (Armd, Atry, Recce, Infantry, Service Support), how they function, etc. It was used more as topics for the Instructional Technique module, but each student had to take one unity type and develop and teach.

I assume that something like this would also be covered in the various Officer courses.

But how do you implement such, when higher levels would tend to ignore what they were taught earlier? 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So how do you change the mindset, or educate the higher echelons?

I know that some of the functions of various unit types are covered as part of the JLC/CLC courses I took way back when (80's). It covered the role of various units (Armd, Atry, Recce, Infantry, Service Support), how they function, etc. It was used more as topics for the Instructional Technique module, but each student had to take one unity type and develop and teach.

I assume that something like this would also be covered in the various Officer courses.

But how do you implement such, when higher levels would tend to ignore what they were taught earlier?

It gets stressed time and again.

Unfortunately, you can lead a horse to water............................

But I don't want to create a tangent. Let's just say we reiterate it all the time, get eye rolls and move on.

 

[George Wallace]

Serious question, so other than Coyote, what is TAPV replacing?  We have (or had) ~200 Coyotes, still have the majority of LAVs, and now ~100 CCV.  So 400 TAPVs replacing 200 Coyotes?  Or are TAPV also supposed to fill a G-Wagon role?

Along with the previous speculation, one will/must remember that the Coyotes were clawed back from the Infantry Recce Platoons and sent to the Armour Units.  Even with those Coyotes, the Armour units did not have enough to fully equip their Sqns.  So, just stating 400 replacing 200 may not be the proper perspective to be looking at these numbers.

Perhaps, not having done any number crunching of ORBATS, this will also equip the INF Recce Platoons as well.  Again, just speculation.

 

[Tank Troll]

Some are going to the Reserves as well.............aleast that's what we were told.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

And; according to the distribution list (proposed) that I saw, the Infantry are most definitely getting them. So, the ATC's, Infantry and Armour will all be using them.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We've been told a few will be pooled at Meaford for our use. Won't be any held at home by Res units here.

Back to the old CBO Cougar fiasco likely. That and because of the distance, Meaford doesn't work for us.

 

[George Wallace]

We've been told a few will be pooled at Meaford for our use. Won't be any held at home by Res units here.

Back to the old CBO Cougar fiasco likely. That and because of the distance, Meaford doesn't work for us.

Ah!  Meaford.  Where the Civies have no problems driving the SMPs and AFVs, but military have to jump through all kinds of hoops, checks and balances, and stacks of paperwork to draw a vehicle.  Wonderful system.

 

[McG]

Some are going to the Reserves as well.............aleast that's what we were told.

When the TAPV project was quite young (and even before it existed), the then Army Comd was very clear in his position - the Army would not invest anything in armoured fighting vehicles for the Reserves.  I would question who ever told you the Reserves would be getting TAPV - I don't imagine things have changed that much.