Infantry Vehicles

[Colin Parkinson]

The Falklands is likley the closest example to the problems we would see in a Arctic fight. There is really not much of our ground fleet that would be usable in that type of fight.
A place like New Guinea with a repeat of the Kokoda trail type fight is also a very realistic example of what could be faced in any of the larger tropical Islands.
The ATV, Supa Cat (or similar) will work to a degree in either place. A Viking optimized for the Arctic, likley won't work well in the tropics and vis versa. I think we should opt for them or similar for the Arctic fight as there are a lot of force trained and equipped for the tropical fight, but fewer for the colder regions. An arctic trained force would also quickly adapt to a mountain fight as well.
I remember the Galore Creek project in Northern BC, only accessible at the time by helicopter. 175 man camp, food and supplies brought in by 212/214's, work and personal generally moved by 206's and a S61 brought fuel in. Later a Mi26 was used to fly in bridging and heavy equipment. It was 74km from the nearest road. They managed to do it for a year at peak size, but it was eye watering expensive and they did not need to worry about water.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The Falklands is likley the closest example to the problems we would see in a Arctic fight. There is really not much of our ground fleet that would be usable in that type of fight.
A place like New Guinea with a repeat of the Kokoda trail type fight is also a very realistic example of what could be faced in any of the larger tropical Islands.
The ATV, Supa Cat (or similar) will work to a degree in either place. A Viking optimized for the Arctic, likley won't work well in the tropics and vis versa. I think we should opt for them or similar for the Arctic fight as there are a lot of force trained and equipped for the tropical fight, but fewer for the colder regions. An arctic trained force would also quickly adapt to a mountain fight as well.
I remember the Galore Creek project in Northern BC, only accessible at the time by helicopter. 175 man camp, food and supplies brought in by 212/214's, work and personal generally moved by 206's and a S61 brought fuel in. Later a Mi26 was used to fly in bridging and heavy equipment. It was 74km from the nearest road. They managed to do it for a year at peak size, but it was eye watering expensive and they did not need to worry about water.

The biggest learning from the Falklands War, I believe, was that we pay lip service to logistics in peacetime so that everyone suffers more in wartime, which always does wonders for the quality of post-campaign literature

 

[ArmyRick]

The biggest learning from the Falklands War, I believe, was that we pay lip service to logistics in peacetime so that everyone suffers more in wartime, which always does wonders for the quality of post-campaign literature

Do you think the UK learned those lessons or have they forgetten them?

 

[Furniture]

The biggest learning from the Falklands War, I believe, was that we pay lip service to logistics in peacetime so that everyone suffers more in wartime, which always does wonders for the quality of post-campaign literature

Support isn't sexy... Until you desperately need it.

A fleet of logistics vehicles will never look as cool as a fleet of tanks and IFVs.

 

[AmmoTech90]

For the "Light Force" transport is best supplied by vehicles like these

I'm sorry, but those are widely different vehicles. You want a mixed fleet of 4 vehicles for transporting a single unit's infantry?
1. Purpose built armoured vehicle.
2. Armoured pickup.
3. Unarmoured pickup and lightly sprung trailer.
4. Rear wheel drive cube van.

What happened to simplicity?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Do you think the UK learned those lessons or have they forgetten them?

As I was in their Army during the Falklands, and for several years afterwards, I think they 'sort of' picked up some hard won lessons but mainly just went back to the 'same old, same old' afterwards. The Central Front dominated most things in the UK at that time so the war was seen by alot of people as a side show aberration, and we had won, so why change.

There were temporary 'forlorn hope' efforts to introduce more robust logistics capabilities to our brigades, especially on the medical front, and things the Argies had used to good effect against us like the .50 cal and LLAD weapon systems, but they soon withered. Resistance was strong in some quarters, for example, despite the fact that their crappy boots had caused numerous trench foot injuries they didn't get a proper combat boot until the early 2000s. They had marginal combat clothing and modern body armour and tac vest type gear too until the mid-2000s.

The biggest changes I saw, admittedly from my parochial view as an Infanteer, included things like:

- Lengthening their Officer training from 6 months to 9 months. 2Lts who went strait from Sandhurst to Mt Tumbledown etc definitely struggled, so they had to make sure an Officer leaving training could lead a Platoon, or whatever, without having to wait for the Pl Comd's course at Warminster a year or so after joining Battalion.

- Making the Pl Comd's Course far more taxing. I was on the second course following the war and they had completely restructured it to include such activities as a 9-10 hour long on your belly company group fight through, with artillery and armoured support. These changes had been implemented following loud complaints by some of my regimental colleagues, and other Falklands War veterans, who had attended the previous course.

- More emphasis on an all arms approach in general and running more complex, physically arduous exercises, with commensurate improvements to various staff level courses I think

- More emphasis on battle fitness for all arms and services

Overall, I think the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq had a much bigger effect, mainly because they went on for years and the public outcry that their usual 'muddling through' approach, and crappy kit, was killing people unnecessarily. That, and the 'suggestions' of their US ally with whom they had to cooperate closely.

 

[ArmyRick]

As I was in their Army during the Falklands, and for several years afterwards, I think they 'sort of' picked up some hard won lessons but mainly just went back to the 'same old, same old' afterwards. The Central Front dominated most things in the UK at that time so the war was seen by alot of people as a side show aberration, and we had won, so why change.

There were temporary 'forlorn hope' efforts to introduce more robust logistics capabilities to our brigades, especially on the medical front, and things the Argies had used to good effect against us like the .50 cal and LLAD weapon systems, but they soon withered. Resistance was strong in some quarters, for example, despite the fact that their crappy boots had caused numerous trench foot injuries they didn't get a proper combat boot until the early 2000s. They had marginal combat clothing and modern body armour and tac vest type gear too until the mid-2000s.

The biggest changes I saw, admittedly from my parochial view as an Infanteer, included things like:

- Lengthening their Officer training from 6 months to 9 months. 2Lts who went strait from Sandhurst to Mt Tumbledown etc definitely struggled, so they had to make sure an Officer leaving training could lead a Platoon, or whatever, without having to wait for the Pl Comd's course at Warminster a year or so after joining Battalion.

- Making the Pl Comd's Course far more taxing. I was on the second course following the war and they had completely restructured it to include such activities as a 9-10 hour long on your belly company group fight through, with artillery and armoured support. These changes had been implemented following loud complaints by some of my regimental colleagues, and other Falklands War veterans, who had attended the previous course.

- More emphasis on an all arms approach in general and running more complex, physically arduous exercises, with commensurate improvements to various staff level courses I think

- More emphasis on battle fitness for all arms and services

Overall, I think the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq had a much bigger effect, mainly because they went on for years and the public outcry that their usual 'muddling through' approach, and crappy kit, was killing people unnecessarily. That, and the 'suggestions' of their US ally with whom they had to cooperate closely.

Gotcha. It seems as though we are not the only army to not learn or forget hard learned lessons

 

[WLSC]

Fair.

We agree on having more Chinooks. I also agree that the Griffs are limited but I think we can ask more of them than we are.

Yes ATVs are not the solution for moving the force BUT ATVs (and even UGVs) should be in our inventory of available assets for issuance to units task with heliportable missions. Not particularly air assault but just even logistic moves.

The Jeep makes a useful Cavalry surrogate IMO but it isn't a suitable logistics vehicle. Each driver (worse if you assume a crew of two) will only trasnport 2 or 3 soldiers and their kit. We end up with the same problem we have with the Griffon.

For the "Light Force" transport is best supplied by vehicles like these

With a specialty fleet of

We talk about the US Heavy Divisions and their Abn and Air Assault Divisions but the majority of their army is made up of Infantry Brigade Combat Teams, both in the Reserve and the Active force. Almost all Divisions have some helicopter support. Two of them have nothing but helicopter support.

ABCTs have armoured vehicles to operate on the ground.

All other BCTs are IBCTs that have HMMWVs and Light Trucks to move them around. Or in 6 cases Strykers and in Alaska the Bvs.

Those vehicles don't have to be section vehicles. They could be held in the Bn Transport Platoon or the Brigade Transport Coy.

No vehicle is good for everything. It’s either good at one or two things or bad in all. That’s why we need a fleet that covers a lot of task. When we talk about Light fleet, I think of a DOS with each crew member. We need autonomy not a vehicle that forces us to go back to Ech A after each mission/task. That’s my big concerns with UTV.

I’m guilty of being a SFA/Jeep fan. So yes my exemple turn around the Jeep platform. What I’m thinking is this: Jeep J8 - Wikipedia

 

[ArmyRick]

As long as we caution ourselves and not pimp these Non-AFV (hint, hint) with tons of machine guns and AT weapons, then try to fight them as ultra-light IFVs.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm sorry, but those are widely different vehicles. You want a mixed fleet of 4 vehicles for transporting a single unit's infantry?
1. Purpose built armoured vehicle.
2. Armoured pickup.
3. Unarmoured pickup and lightly sprung trailer.
4. Rear wheel drive cube van.

What happened to simplicity?

From my standpoint all those vehicles are the same, or could be the same. 4x4. Same power pack and drive train. Same frame. Different body styles. The least important part is the body style.

 

[GR66]

The Falklands is likley the closest example to the problems we would see in a Arctic fight. There is really not much of our ground fleet that would be usable in that type of fight.
A place like New Guinea with a repeat of the Kokoda trail type fight is also a very realistic example of what could be faced in any of the larger tropical Islands.
The ATV, Supa Cat (or similar) will work to a degree in either place. A Viking optimized for the Arctic, likley won't work well in the tropics and vis versa. I think we should opt for them or similar for the Arctic fight as there are a lot of force trained and equipped for the tropical fight, but fewer for the colder regions. An arctic trained force would also quickly adapt to a mountain fight as well.
I remember the Galore Creek project in Northern BC, only accessible at the time by helicopter. 175 man camp, food and supplies brought in by 212/214's, work and personal generally moved by 206's and a S61 brought fuel in. Later a Mi26 was used to fly in bridging and heavy equipment. It was 74km from the nearest road. They managed to do it for a year at peak size, but it was eye watering expensive and they did not need to worry about water.

Personally I'm a big fan of the BvS10/Bronco type ATTC for the Light force.

• Tracked
• Low ground pressure
• Amphibious
• Large cargo capacity
• Can carry a full-sized Infantry Section with enablers
• Multiple variants available (APC, Logistics, Ambulance, Mortar Carrier, etc.)
• Air Transportable by C-130

I'm not sure if it's accurate that they wouldn't be very good for a tropical fight. Bronco is made & used by Singapore which is obviously in the tropics and their website says it was tested in the UAE and is good in temperatures from -49 deg to 49 deg C. Brits used the Warthog in Afghanistan.

As a non-scary looking "snow mobile" type vehicle it's probably a pretty easy political sell and could likely be built in Canada under license. Could combine with additional orders for the RCMP, Environment Canada, etc. for use in the North as well for greater economy of scale.

I even wonder if the chassis/powertrain of the front section could be converted into a light Recce vehicle something like the Wiesel. And as an added bonus for @Kirkhill I recall reading somewhere in the ST Engineering promotional materials that for the Bronco they were working on a system where the front and rear sections could be separated with the rear section operated remotely from the front section.

 

[Kirkhill]

Volvo FMX 4×4 Rigid

Volvo trucks, equipped with cross-country cruise control and automatic traction control. Fully adaptable to your assignment.

www.volvodefense.com

This Volvo is probably more in the LVM (Light) range than a LUV vehicle but I show it here as an example of a single Cab, Chassis and Drivetrain arrangement that can be exploited in various forms.

I also show it because of the seating arrangement shown in the back of the truck. Each passenger in the Cargo Area sits on a proper secure seat with independent rollover protection. The seating assembly seems to be a slide in and lock down type of pallet.

So if we are doing more of these

And are contemplating these

Then this is not a stretch

And for seating?

the outward facing seats, especially with the ISV variant have a lot to recommend themselves. The inward facing, fold up seats may be better for a hard shell utility TCV.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Personally I'm a big fan of the BvS10/Bronco type ATTC for the Light force.

• Tracked
• Low ground pressure
• Amphibious
• Large cargo capacity
• Can carry a full-sized Infantry Section with enablers
• Multiple variants available (APC, Logistics, Ambulance, Mortar Carrier, etc.)
• Air Transportable by C-130

I'm not sure if it's accurate that they wouldn't be very good for a tropical fight. Bronco is made & used by Singapore which is obviously in the tropics and their website says it was tested in the UAE and is good in temperatures from -49 deg to 49 deg C. Brits used the Warthog in Afghanistan.

As a non-scary looking "snow mobile" type vehicle it's probably a pretty easy political sell and could likely be built in Canada under license. Could combine with additional orders for the RCMP, Environment Canada, etc. for use in the North as well for greater economy of scale.

I even wonder if the chassis/powertrain of the front section could be converted into a light Recce vehicle something like the Wiesel. And as an added bonus for @Kirkhill I recall reading somewhere in the ST Engineering promotional materials that for the Bronco they were working on a system where the front and rear sections could be separated with the rear section operated remotely from the front section.

More that a vehicle optimized for arctic, would not be optimized for tropical/hot country use. You would likley need to refit the vehicles for either. Including heater to AC, removal of some insulation. All the greases and oils need to be changed, fuel system cleaned out, etc

 

[ArmyRick]

Volvo FMX 4×4 Rigid

Volvo trucks, equipped with cross-country cruise control and automatic traction control. Fully adaptable to your assignment.

www.volvodefense.com

This Volvo is probably more in the LVM (Light) range than a LUV vehicle but I show it here as an example of a single Cab, Chassis and Drivetrain arrangement that can be exploited in various forms.

I also show it because of the seating arrangement shown in the back of the truck. Each passenger in the Cargo Area sits on a proper secure seat with independent rollover protection. The seating assembly seems to be a slide in and lock down type of pallet.

So if we are doing more of these

And are contemplating these

Then this is not a stretch

And for seating?

the outward facing seats, especially with the ISV variant have a lot to recommend themselves. The inward facing, fold up seats may be better for a hard shell utility TCV.

Your starting to show vehicle "add-on creep" for lack of a better word. Add a little armour...Add an RWS...Add an AT Missile...Improve ground clearances...Upgrade powertrain... Add more armour....etc

 

[daftandbarmy]

Your starting to show vehicle "add-on creep" for lack of a better word. Add a little armour...Add an RWS...Add an AT Missile...Improve ground clearances...Upgrade powertrain... Add more armour....etc

Or just use a standard civilian pattern pickup truck, like this successful anti-tank team.

Seriously, we don't need to overthink, or overpay for, this stuff:

"Literally a few seconds and the head flew away": how Ukrainian anti-tankers work near Donetsk​

 

[Kirkhill]

Or just use a standard civilian pattern pickup truck, like this successful anti-tank team.

Seriously, we don't need to overthink, or overpay for, this stuff:

"Literally a few seconds and the head flew away": how Ukrainian anti-tankers work near Donetsk​

Work with what's available?

And what's available is pretty flexible.

 

[Kirkhill]

Related?

Ukrainian infantry platoon, with 1x 60mm mortar (hand held), 1x Mk19 and a handheld UAV calling the shots, holds the Bakhmut asphalt plant against a Russian company for three days.

Don't need many vehicles for that.

 

[Kirkhill]

Your starting to show vehicle "add-on creep" for lack of a better word. Add a little armour...Add an RWS...Add an AT Missile...Improve ground clearances...Upgrade powertrain... Add more armour....etc

Moving from what do I need to what do I want.

 

[Spencer100]

Volvo FMX 4×4 Rigid

Volvo trucks, equipped with cross-country cruise control and automatic traction control. Fully adaptable to your assignment.

www.volvodefense.com

This Volvo is probably more in the LVM (Light) range than a LUV vehicle but I show it here as an example of a single Cab, Chassis and Drivetrain arrangement that can be exploited in various forms.

I also show it because of the seating arrangement shown in the back of the truck. Each passenger in the Cargo Area sits on a proper secure seat with independent rollover protection. The seating assembly seems to be a slide in and lock down type of pallet.

So if we are doing more of these

And are contemplating these

Then this is not a stretch

And for seating?

the outward facing seats, especially with the ISV variant have a lot to recommend themselves. The inward facing, fold up seats may be better for a hard shell utility TCV.

Think this Brightdrop got to use what we have.


Plus we the Canadian taxpayer did give GM a billion to build it last year.......

and none of those evil carbons exhausted....well not at the vehicle

 

[daftandbarmy]

Gotcha. It seems as though we are not the only army to not learn or forget hard learned lessons

To be fair, 90% of what was already being taught, and exercised, before the war stood them in good stead at very short notice in an extremely risky endeavour. That goes for Army, Navy and Air elements.

If nothing else, that gives confidence in the way that most Western, professional armed forces (including Canada's) train for war during peacetime.