Infantry Vehicles

[KevinB]

The reason we bought them was that our infantry were running around in 3/4 trucks and during one exercise in Germany was deemed to have been completely wiped out. That was the reality of the day. At the time the amphibious need was deemed much more important than it is now, likley as much of the infrastructure was not rebuilt or expected to be standing during a full scale war. Plus the choice of APC's in 1965 was very limited, even the Marder had yet to enter service.

I think we can all accept it was the standard of the day.
The standard just was pretty low.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

Just my opinion and nothing more.

The LAV family, the AVGP family and the M113 family are good vehicles until you try and shoehorn every possible variant out of the same box.

In the civilian world, they make a fleet of trucks and each truck does one job. Lets use the a fire truck as an example. They a special truck for the Rescue unit, tanker truck, pumper truck and the big ladder truck. They do not try and make one truck do it all.
The army gets a vehicle and next thing you know they have decided to make that vehicle into everything possible.

The ilitis , recce, tow, ambulance, sigs, MP. Everyone had a version of it and it made no sense.

The M113 has so many rebuilds and models you need an accountant to track them all.

The LAV family is just as bad.
LAV 1 is the AVGP, Cougar, Grizzly, Husky
LAV II

• Bison command post vehicles
• Bison air space coordination centre vehicles ( could some one explain this one to me? I have no clue what that is )
• Bison ambulances
• Bison mobile repair team vehicles
• Bison recovery vehicles
• Bison electronic warfare vehicle
• Mortars​
• Bison reconnaissance vehicles​
• LAV 25​
• Coyote​
• LAV III has another 10 variants and roles
  LAV 6 how many variants does it have?
  
  My point is you cannot make every vehicle do every mission. Sometimes thinking outside of the box requires a new box for that special purpose. It is time to think and make specific role vehicles and not try to make everything thing fit into one vehicle.​

 

[childs56]

Bradley M2/M3 both have a flat bottomed hull. (some newer variants might have a secondary v hull) Built of 7017 aluminum. With various add on spaced armor plate and reactive passive add on armor.

The Lav (6) built with a Aluminum lower(some models)/Steel hull with various armor added. Kevlar spall liner, external add on plates.

If I was to compare base hull to base hull which vehicle is better at ballistics? Both rated for 7.62 russian.

If you add a spaced plate armor to the Lav hull similar to the Bradley does it provide similar, same or better armor overall. (disregard weight and wheels verses tracks).

When you consider the base material of certain vehicles one has to think if they are better or not then another, honestly the base material of the Lav is better protection then the Bradley.
When you add spaced armor, passive, reactive, spall liners etc that makes the biggest difference in protection. The Bradly has the win for this due to they have more horse power and tracks.

This is why I think building a lav 6 Track variant is a good way to go especially for Canada. During GDLS trials they did a few things which are interesting,
one was add a idler gear front and rear each side and install driven road wheels on each axle. Which in a way is genius, another way over kill. Not sure how they modified the transmission or if they even did. I would think it would not be over all that difficult to do.

second they built a hydraulic powered system. ( for the show only) This seems silly at first for lots of reasons. But I wonder if they might be on to something going forward. You could run a battery bank, to power the track motors and say get 20-30 km of silent mode at low speed. Then fire the engine up to go faster and further. (I know reaching pretty far here).

Overall I wonder if Canada was to pursue a tracked version of the Lav if they could build a pretty good machine that could possibly be better armored, better gunned and cross more terrain. Afterall the Bradley is old tech, the Lave is a few years newer tech on some ways. lol

 

[markppcli]

I totally get that -- my point is, for the weight and ability to fit in a Herc, it is a good NEO type transport / people mover for less direct threat areas.

Honestly for getting close contact / ATC stuff the NAMER is more my type of armored infantry carrier

Fully agree I’m a big fan of the Bushmaster / Dingo / Griphon / Cougar type armoured bush that can carry ten plus people in realative safety. Frankly those and like a fennek should have been the result of the TAPV project.

To the point in Bradley vs LAV 6 protection; there’s not a whole lot of difference once the LAV6 is up armoured. I’m not privy to the exactly numbers, which I imagine are held at TS or higher level. If you wanted more definition I’m sure WarThunder forums would have the most accurate data to be completely honest.

 

[KevinB]

Bradley M2A4 with BRA vastly exceeds the LAV6.0 UA for protection.
It’s also 12t heavier.
28.576t for LAV6.0UA vice 36.4t for M2A4 and 6.5t for BRA
The ballistic testing here was secret while the armor stuff and final test report is TS NOFOR ( I suspect it/portions of is shared with some NATO members

Interestingly enough the field results in Ukraine have exceeded testing performance - which general means we overestimated the performance of Russia weapons, on some that didn’t have access to and fired Western systems viewed as a similar threat.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Fully agree I’m a big fan of the Bushmaster / Dingo / Griphon / Cougar type armoured bus that can carry ten plus people in realative safety. Frankly those and like a fennek should have been the result of the TAPV project.

Heh. So 2 of the 3 Commando variants. Not the one we picked.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think we can all accept it was the standard of the day.
The standard just was pretty low.

No. The standard was high for the day. The M113 was a mobile bombproof. It was expected to protect move troops off road and protect them from air bursts and the NBC threat. I can't remember whether the expectation was 24 or 72 hours buttoned up and hooked up to onboard NBC filtration system. To my understanding it was not expected to be driven onto the objective.

That probably resulted from the infantry seeing the tracks and armour and thinking they had been issued a tank.

The enemy responded by finding things that would punch holes in them which required our side to respond with heavier plate which required bigger engines and reduced the internal volume. And then some idiot thought it would be a great idea to stick a turret on top like a cherry on a sundae.

 

[markppcli]

Heh. So 2 of the 3 Commando variants. Not the one we picked.

Uhh no.

 

[Kirkhill]

Just my opinion and nothing more.

The LAV family, the AVGP family and the M113 family are good vehicles until you try and shoehorn every possible variant out of the same box.

In the civilian world, they make a fleet of trucks and each truck does one job. Lets use the a fire truck as an example. They a special truck for the Rescue unit, tanker truck, pumper truck and the big ladder truck. They do not try and make one truck do it all.
The army gets a vehicle and next thing you know they have decided to make that vehicle into everything possible.

The ilitis , recce, tow, ambulance, sigs, MP. Everyone had a version of it and it made no sense.

The M113 has so many rebuilds and models you need an accountant to track them all.

The LAV family is just as bad.
LAV 1 is the AVGP, Cougar, Grizzly, Husky
LAV II

• Bison command post vehicles
• Bison air space coordination centre vehicles ( could some one explain this one to me? I have no clue what that is )
• Bison ambulances
• Bison mobile repair team vehicles
• Bison recovery vehicles
• Bison electronic warfare vehicle
• Mortars​
• Bison reconnaissance vehicles​
• LAV 25​
• Coyote​
• LAV III has another 10 variants and roles
  LAV 6 how many variants does it have?
  
  My point is you cannot make every vehicle do every mission. Sometimes thinking outside of the box requires a new box for that special purpose. It is time to think and make specific role vehicles and not try to make everything thing fit into one vehicle.​

What he said.

Commonality is more important in the drive train and power pack than it is in the hull form and weapons systems.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Uhh no.

"...type armoured bus that can carry 10 plus people in relative safety"

The Commando vanguard and select are both 3+7, could have fit the bill (ish, depending how how important the "plus" is) as such an output from the TAPV project. If we had 500 of those instead of 500 Elites messed up during Canadianization the overall fleet would be in a very different state.

 

[Kirkhill]

The notion of the Stryker/Bison with both tracks and wheels.

Christie developed his tanks in the 1930s to run both with and without tracks.
Somewhere along the way, back in the 90s I have seen the Bison or Grizzly with rubber band tracks wrapped around the rubber tyres and being trialled in snow.
The Swedes, around about the same time was trialling a CV90 development that had a hybrid power pack and electric wheels that could be fitted with either tracks or tyres. That vehicle also used the same drop in module concept eventually adopted for the Boxer.

The engineering has largely been done.

The Hybrid LAV Stryker seems to hold promise - if they can keep the base weight down so that it is compatible with the C130.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sweden's CV90 replacement ca 1996.

Land Systems Hagglunds has delivered SEP demonstrators in both wheeled and tracked versions.

July 18 2004

SEP Modular Armoured Tactical System​

BAE Systems Land Systems Hagglunds has developed the SEP (spitterskyddad enhets platform) modular armoured tactical syst

Crew​

2

Number of Soldiers, APC Role​

12 soldiers

Length​

5.9m

Height, Tracked SEP​

1.9m

Height, Wheeled SEP​

2m

The SEP modular armoured tactical system incorporates an electric transmission system and a family of interchangeable mission modules.
The use of an electric transmission system increases volume and fuel efficiency and reduces environmental impact.
The combination of decoupled suspension and bandtracks provides an internal noise level comparable to that of a civilian vehicle.
The new electric drive SEP vehicle has greatly improved stealth characteristics in terms of low thermal, acoustic, visual and radar signatures.
Batteries are integrated into the electric drive system, which allow the vehicle to be driven silently for several hours with the engines shut down.

The SEP's useable internal volume of 8.7m3 is a substantial increase over a conventionally powered vehicle of a similar length.
The SEP combat weight is 13.5t and the load capacity is up to 6t.

The top speed for the wheeled SEP is 100km/h.

The SEP tracked vehicle is fitted with rubber bandtracks rather than conventional steel link tracks.
The SEP-wheeled vehicle has three axles and is driven through all six wheels.

BAE Systems Land Systems Hagglunds has developed the SEP (spitterskyddad enhets platform) modular armoured tactical system which incorporates an electric transmission system and a family of demountable interchangeable mission modules.
The electric transmission system (the drive shafts have been replaced by cable and the power from the engines is transferred by cable) gives a number of advantages, including volume efficiency, fuel efficiency, reduced life cycle costs, reduced environmental impact and increased stealth characteristics.

The engine is decoupled from the final drives allowing flexibility in the placing of systems in the vehicle and also easily allows two engines to be installed instead of one. Batteries are integrated into the electric drive system, which allow the vehicle to be driven silently for several hours with the engines shut down.
“The modular design allows the SEP vehicle to be configured for 24 different roles.”
The useable internal volume of 8.7m³ is a substantial increase over a conventionally powered vehicle of a similar length. The SEP combat weight is 13.5t and the load capacity is up to 6t.
The top speeds for the wheeled and tracked variants are 100km/h and 85km/h respectively.

SEP modular armoured vehicle programme​

Development work on the SEP began in 1996. The first SEP-track demonstrator was delivered to the Swedish defence material administration Forsvarets Materialverk (FMV) in November 2000 for trials and evaluation and by 2003 the vehicle had covered over 2,000km in various trials.
FMV placed a contract on Hagglunds for the development of the wheeled version of SEP in November 2001 and a wheeled 6×6 variant prototype demonstrator, SEP-wheel, was delivered to FMV in 2003. In 2003, FMV placed a risk reduction contract on Alvis Hagglunds (now BAE Systems, Land Systems Hagglunds) involving the construction of a second tracked SEP testbed vehicle. This vehicle was rolled out in November 2005.

A contract for final development was placed by the FMV in July 2006. A further two tracked and two 6×6 wheeled vehicles were to be built under the contract. An 8×8 wheeled SEP demonstrator was rolled out in February 2007. SEP was planned to enter service in 2014.

SEP programme cancellation​

In February 2008, the Swedish Armed Forces announced the cancellation of the SEP programme. The reasons stated were a ‘lack of an international collaborative partner’ which did not allow the armed forces to continue the project alone. Contracts will therefore not be placed for the next stage of SEP development. BAE Systems is completing the build of four pre-production vehicles (two tracked, two wheeled).
“The top speeds for the wheeled and tracked variants of the SEP vehicle are 100km/h and 85km/h respectively.”
BAE Systems may offer a version of the SEP vehicle, named Thor, for the US Marine Corps Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) requirement. Thor was trialled in the Nevada desert in 2007.
In a parallel programme, Land Systems Hagglunds is also coordinating the industrial efforts of a six-nation, all-electric vehicle project with the participation of Finland, Holland, Italy, Greece, Sweden and Turkey.
In January 2006, BAE Systems was awarded one of the UK Army’s future rapid effect system (FRES) chassis concept (CC) technology demonstration programme (TDP) contracts.
The BAE Systems chassis concept TDP was based on the SEP programme and addressed the suitability of the SEP electric drive system for the FRES missions. An 8×8 demonstrator vehicle, with mechanical rather than electric transmission, was completed. The vehicle was not downselected for the FRES trials programme in July 2007.

Stealth​

The electric drive vehicle has greatly improved stealth characteristics in terms of thermal and acoustic signatures as well as low visual and radar signatures. The continuous rubber band tracks are much quieter and lighter than conventional steel tracks.

SEP-wheeled vehicle​

The SEP-wheeled vehicle has three axles and is driven through all six wheels. The propulsion system is based on two engines with electric transmission. The integrated 100kW maximum power, permanent magnet type electric motors are supplied by magnetic systems technology (UK) and are located in the wheel hubs. The motors are fitted with a two-speed reduction gear.
The wheels are mounted with double cast-steel wishbones with a short torsion bar spring connected to the upper wishbones. The front wheels are steered normally, the centre wheels are not steered and the rear wheels are electronically controlled to provide steering at low to medium speeds and to cut out the rear wheel steering at high road speeds to maintain high-speed stability. The wheels are fitted with 405/70 type R24 tyres.

Tracked SEP​

The tracked vehicles are fitted with rubber bandtracks rather than conventional steel link tracks. The bandtracks are lighter, quieter and have a longer operational life. The noise developed by the running gear is reduced by about 6dB. Bandtracks also have a lower rolling resistance. Band track technology has been used previously by Land Systems Hagglunds on the Bv206 articulated carriers which use short track length bandtracks.
“The tracked vehicles are fitted with rubber bandtracks rather than conventional steel link tracks.”
In the SEP tracked vehicle the suspension is mounted on the underframe and not on the side frames, so the suspension is separated from the hull. A result of using a decoupled suspension and bandtracks is that the internal noise level is as low as 85dB which is sufficiently low to meet civilian vehicle noise requirements.
The decoupled suspension also provides a spaced outer layer which gives improved protection against mines. The SEP vehicle can withstand a 7kg TNT explosion under a track.
The company Ingenieurebureau Deisenroth (IBD), based in Germany, has developed a SEP protection kit that provides protection against advanced mines with explosively formed penetrators.

Missions​

The modular design allows the vehicle to be configured for 24 different roles including: armoured personnel carrier, troop transport, command post, ambulance, anti-tank missile system, anti-aircraft missile system, mortar vehicle, forward observation, NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) decontamination centre, and mine clearing and scattering.
The mission or role-specific modules can be fitted on both the SEP track and SEP wheel vehicle base units. Plug-in building blocks have been used, allowing fast adaptation and quick upgrades as new technologies become available.
The vehicles are capable of operation in a many different types of terrain and in a wide range of climatic conditions.

SEP command and control​

The vehicle uses a new electronic architecture, VETEC, developed by Hagglunds, based on an open scalable, fault-tolerant databus which manages all the on-board systems and the crew interfaces including the weapons systems, battlefield management, defensive aids suite, built-in test, digital radio communications and other mission or role-specific systems.

Crew stations​

The crew stations each occupy 0.35m³ of the available hull space. The crew stations and the SEP man-machine interface were developed under a collaborative venture by Alvis Hagglunds of Sweden and Diehl Gerate of Germany, which was sponsored by the Swedish FMV and the German Federal Office for Defence Technology and Procurement.

Self-protection​

The different zones of the vehicle have different levels of ballistic protection, with the highest level of protection for the personnel compartment.
“The different zones of the vehicle have different levels of ballistic protection.”
The hull is of high hardness steel armour construction rated to protect against shell fragments and rifle rounds. IBD of Germany has developed the SEP add-on armour.
The 1.5t add-on armour includes ceramic tiles and provides protection against 14.5mm armour piercing rounds. Heavier armour provides protection against 30mm armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds.

Engines​

The SEP uses two commercially available diesel engines. The first B-13 tracked testbed vehicle is fitted with two five-cylinder, 2.3l Volkswagen car diesel engines rated at 130kW each. The engines are coupled to ZF generators and are installed in the front of the sponsons on both sides of the crew compartment.
The second B-13 tracked testbed is equipped with the Steyr M16 3.2l, six-cylinder Steyr M16 diesel engine, rated at 130kW, which is also installed on the armoured articulated Bv206S Hagglunds vehicle.
The final drives are connected by a cross-shaft which gives higher power efficiency in turning manoeuvres by transferring the power regenerated at the inner track during a turn to the outer track. The vehicle is fitted with a bandtrack developed and supplied by Soucy International in Canada.
In February 2009, BAE Systems announced a teaming agreement with Kongsberg Devotek of Norway to develop new gears and transmission for the SEP.

The project was defunded in 2008 when the Swedes believed the Russians.

Sweden Ditches SEP Programme - Army Technology

The Swedish Ministry of Defence has abandoned its Splitterskyddad Enhets Platform (SEP) modular armoured tactical system due to lack of funds. The programme, which began in 1996, has seen BAE Systems Land Systems Hägglunds develop four prototype vehicles using a modular design that allo

www.army-technology.com

We really need a Haegglunds factory in Kanada.

 

[Furniture]

I have a genius plan... Why not get the best of both worlds from a LAV 6. We could just swap the rear two wheels on each side of a LAV 6 for short tracks, we could call it a LAV 6.5. Get it?

Like this, with more pew and less Nazi...

 

[Kirkhill]

I have a genius plan... Why not get the best of both worlds from a LAV 6. We could just swap the rear two wheels on each side of a LAV 6 for short tracks, we could call it a LAV 6.5. Get it?

Like this, with more pew and less Nazi...

Horst? Where are you Horst?

 

[markppcli]

"...type armoured bus that can carry 10 plus people in relative safety"

The Commando vanguard and select are both 3+7, could have fit the bill (ish, depending how how important the "plus" is) as such an output from the TAPV project. If we had 500 of those instead of 500 Elites messed up during Canadianization the overall fleet would be in a very different state.

Sorry maybe I wasn’t clear.‘I mean t 10 ish dismounts. Ie a dismounted rifle section complete. Wikipedia quotes a 1987 publication stating 9 passengers but I can’t possibly see how unless the dimensions are radically different.


Oh! I see the confusion. The TAPV is not a variant of the Cadillac Gage Commando, it’s built off its later developed M117, which incidentally has only 5 pers in it. From pictures it appears that early models used the passage beside the engine as crew seating ? I’m not totally sure put I suspect changes in the power pack / soldiers kit have made that functionally impossible now.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

I have a genius plan... Why not get the best of both worlds from a LAV 6. We could just swap the rear two wheels on each side of a LAV 6 for short tracks, we could call it a LAV 6.5. Get it?

Like this, with more pew and less Nazi...

that looks like guys getting ready to do battle on The Rat Patrol. Yes i am old

 

[Kirkhill]

Sorry maybe I wasn’t clear.‘I mean t 10 ish dismounts. Ie a dismounted rifle section complete. Wikipedia quotes a 1987 publication stating 9 passengers but I can’t possibly see how unless the dimensions are radically different.

Contentious comment - Which market? Singapore or Australia? The 95th Percentile is significantly different.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Sorry maybe I wasn’t clear.‘I mean t 10 ish dismounts. Ie a dismounted rifle section complete. Wikipedia quotes a 1987 publication stating 9 passengers but I can’t possibly see how unless the dimensions are radically different.


Oh! I see the confusion. The TAPV is not a variant of the Cadillac Gage Commando, it’s built off its later developed M117, which incidentally has only 5 pers in it. From pictures it appears that early models used the passage beside the engine as crew seating ? I’m not totally sure put I suspect changes in the power pack / soldiers kit have made that functionally impossible now.

I been in a Commando and there is a tight passage, past the engine compartment. Ok for a guy wearing 64 Pat webbing and no body armour.

Also saw this, a Commando hit by a RPG 7 (left rear hull) You can see where the hit cracked the armour the insides were covered in spall damage. All 3 crew members died.

 

[markppcli]

No. The standard was high for the day. The M113 was a mobile bombproof. It was expected to protect move troops off road and protect them from air bursts and the NBC threat. I can't remember whether the expectation was 24 or 72 hours buttoned up and hooked up to onboard NBC filtration system. To my understanding it was not expected to be driven onto the objective.

That probably resulted from the infantry seeing the tracks and armour and thinking they had been issued a tank.

That’s actually not true. If you read the US Army field manual for Mechanized Infantry (1985) it makes it clear that a) they were only to attack dismounted when terrain forced them or enemy AT weapons couldn’t be suppressed and b) the carriers were expected to support by fire in all attacks. 5-20 covers mounted assaults with and without tanks infect.

https://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/FM7-7%2885%29.pdf

So by doctrine, not just by use, it was absolutely intended to be driven at the enemy.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I have a genius plan... Why not get the best of both worlds from a LAV 6. We could just swap the rear two wheels on each side of a LAV 6 for short tracks, we could call it a LAV 6.5. Get it?

Like this, with more pew and less Nazi...

Does it come with snazzy uniforms?