Should Canada adopt the LAV III (AKA: Stryker) as its primary armoured vehicle family?
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Soldier and operational feedback can lead to great gains if the basic vehicle is adaptable enough (and it seems the LAV is).
Maybe we should be gathering this information and planning the "LAV 3.5" upgrade program now, so when we get deployed into a hot spot, the vehicles are already prepared, rather than hope crack teams of soldiers and mechanics can arc weld mods onto the vehicles into the night as they roll onto the dock from Canada.
Maybe we should be gathering this information and planning the "LAV 3.5" upgrade program now, so when we get deployed into a hot spot, the vehicles are already prepared, rather than hope crack teams of soldiers and mechanics can arc weld mods onto the vehicles into the night as they roll onto the dock from Canada.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I'm still not sold on the idea of wheeled armour. I say give the tankers back their tanks. Give the mech boys something with tracks. Didn't we learn anything from the French in Indo-China? I've heard more negative feedback from troops in Iraq on the Stryker than positive on some other websites I hang out in.
devil39
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 39
- Points
- 330
paracowboy said:
What they are talking about here is Stryker Inf, not our Son of Pumpkin Launcher known as MGS. Basically a LAV III without the turret.
It is a great infantry chassis. Our LAV III is better I would say.
I would take a LAV III with "run flats" over a M113 any day. Sheer fire power and turret optics make the comparison simple.
Stryker MGS (105mm) has not yet seen the light of day in the US Army and probably never will. Hopefully it won't in our Army either. Best to spend our money on the Future Combat System (FCS) vice the temporary solution (MGS) for the Interim Army.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
devil,
I know. But, I've heard nothing good from unofficial sources. And, oddly enough, :
nothing bad from official sources. Tires are for 'peace-keeping'. Tracks are for fighting. And I used to find it extremely comforting to hear and feel a Leopard rumbling up on an objective. Or running behind one, knowing that I was invulnerable, and all I had to do was pop some rounds into the occasional trench and count body parts.
Now, I sit and watch wheeled vehicles get towed out of marshes by M113s.
I know. But, I've heard nothing good from unofficial sources. And, oddly enough, :
nothing bad from official sources. Tires are for 'peace-keeping'. Tracks are for fighting. And I used to find it extremely comforting to hear and feel a Leopard rumbling up on an objective. Or running behind one, knowing that I was invulnerable, and all I had to do was pop some rounds into the occasional trench and count body parts.Now, I sit and watch wheeled vehicles get towed out of marshes by M113s.
devil39
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 39
- Points
- 330
paracowboy,
True enough...but wheels and the speed of LAV III gives us tactical and potentially operational speed of manoeuvre and surprise. I was 1 PPCLI (Grizzly), 3 PPCLI (light) and 2 PPCLI (M113 and LAV 3... and eventually light). I have always hated track because it was so slow.... despite its superior tactical mobility.....
We can more than make up for the loss of track tactical mobility with the LAV 3 speed and firepower.... and we have proved it in Gagetown on numerous combat team commanders courses.
MGS will not replace Tanks.. and we all know that..... the capabiltiy gap that MGS will fill is still not determined.
I would take a LAV 3 over a M113 any day. If someone offered me MGS I would ask why?
True enough...but wheels and the speed of LAV III gives us tactical and potentially operational speed of manoeuvre and surprise. I was 1 PPCLI (Grizzly), 3 PPCLI (light) and 2 PPCLI (M113 and LAV 3... and eventually light). I have always hated track because it was so slow.... despite its superior tactical mobility.....
We can more than make up for the loss of track tactical mobility with the LAV 3 speed and firepower.... and we have proved it in Gagetown on numerous combat team commanders courses.
MGS will not replace Tanks.. and we all know that..... the capabiltiy gap that MGS will fill is still not determined.
I would take a LAV 3 over a M113 any day. If someone offered me MGS I would ask why?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
devil,
I fear the idea of our vehicles being roadbound. It limits our areas of exploitation too greatly. Further, it renders them more vulnerable to mines, IEDs, ATGMs, etc. Greater speed doesn't help, if all the roads are blocked. And wheeled armour is less useful in FIBUA. (Excuse me, OBUA, or whatever it's being called this wek.) A track can roll right over most roadblocks, and what it can't, it can do a 180 on it's own axis and get outta there. As opposed to a thousand point turn.
But, then, I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. Never having been mechanized except for some tours, I'm not going to pretend to be the Armour guru. Maybe some sort of compromise is possible. There has to be tracked vehicles that can really motor out there. Or wheeled vehs that don't bog down on astro-turf.
I fear the idea of our vehicles being roadbound. It limits our areas of exploitation too greatly. Further, it renders them more vulnerable to mines, IEDs, ATGMs, etc. Greater speed doesn't help, if all the roads are blocked. And wheeled armour is less useful in FIBUA. (Excuse me, OBUA, or whatever it's being called this wek.) A track can roll right over most roadblocks, and what it can't, it can do a 180 on it's own axis and get outta there. As opposed to a thousand point turn.
But, then, I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. Never having been mechanized except for some tours, I'm not going to pretend to be the Armour guru. Maybe some sort of compromise is possible. There has to be tracked vehicles that can really motor out there. Or wheeled vehs that don't bog down on astro-turf.
devil39
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 39
- Points
- 330
paracowboy,
I know where you are coming from. I have found LAV III to be very good in difficult terrain... not as good as track. But the mobility of LAV III, with an experienced driver, is far above that of the Grizzly or Bison. You can not even compare LAV 3 to those older chassis.
LAV III is not roadbound.... and despite what you might hear in 3 PPCLI, we probably could have used some on OP APOLLO (I know... I was there).
I know where you are coming from. I have found LAV III to be very good in difficult terrain... not as good as track. But the mobility of LAV III, with an experienced driver, is far above that of the Grizzly or Bison. You can not even compare LAV 3 to those older chassis.
LAV III is not roadbound.... and despite what you might hear in 3 PPCLI, we probably could have used some on OP APOLLO (I know... I was there).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
fair 'nuff.devil39 said:
How 'bout tires? I've heard reports from Iraq that the tires are getting chewed up like mad. How does that impact the CSS capability to sustain? I don't know how often tanks and the M113 threw track. Having to constantly replace tires is going to drastically increase the footprint, isn't it? Would it make just as big a strain on the logistics fellas if they were tracked vehs?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Both of you have very good points. But I think it has been stated around here before that both have their advantageous under certain conditions. Wheels definitely are better for getting "too" a trouble spot as they are quicker, have a better chance of making a slow escape from a mine roll over, and are better as a patrol vehicle. This is very true in Iraq where the needed CSS to maintain the tracked vehicles far outstrips the wheeled CSS (although both are in the crazy range).
While track can be far better when in contact with the enemy. It gives you the maneuver capability that wheels do not and allows for heavier gun platforms.
What it comes down to is both money and politics as you both know. Our government does not want to spend the money on tracks, nor does it want our forces to have the "big" guns to make us look like an aggressor as opposed to the false sales job of us as "peacekeepers" with wheels and pop guns.
While track can be far better when in contact with the enemy. It gives you the maneuver capability that wheels do not and allows for heavier gun platforms.
What it comes down to is both money and politics as you both know. Our government does not want to spend the money on tracks, nor does it want our forces to have the "big" guns to make us look like an aggressor as opposed to the false sales job of us as "peacekeepers" with wheels and pop guns.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
When it comes to armoured vehicles, I'm maybe an above average layman.
But I've been looking around, and it seems to me that the Stryker seems to have developed some major problems of its own, while getting rid of some advantages in comparison to a LAV-III, i.e. the 25-mm cannon is traded for a 0.5 calibre machine gun.
I found this on the web.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2003_rpt/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf
The author points out, IN THE MOST IN YOUR FACE LANGUAGE IMAGINABLE, the deficiencies of the Stryker. Makes sense since he was writing it for a politician.
He has some good points. What does the Stryker bring to the table that a Bradley or Abrams doesn't, especially in the urban fighting they're seeing in Iraq, with RPGs all-around.
Of course, if the other choice was driving around in a hummer, I think I would be grateful for a Strkyer.
But I've been looking around, and it seems to me that the Stryker seems to have developed some major problems of its own, while getting rid of some advantages in comparison to a LAV-III, i.e. the 25-mm cannon is traded for a 0.5 calibre machine gun.
I found this on the web.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2003_rpt/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf
The author points out, IN THE MOST IN YOUR FACE LANGUAGE IMAGINABLE, the deficiencies of the Stryker. Makes sense since he was writing it for a politician.
He has some good points. What does the Stryker bring to the table that a Bradley or Abrams doesn't, especially in the urban fighting they're seeing in Iraq, with RPGs all-around.
Of course, if the other choice was driving around in a hummer, I think I would be grateful for a Strkyer.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 188
- Points
- 710
oyaguy
Stryker is a whole family of vehicles, not one. It is not a replacement for the Bradley or Abrams, so I miss your point there. It is a vehicle designed to transport troops; so more of a replacement for the M 113. Having a quick look at the link you provided, I was amused at the picture on the very first page of a destroyed vehicle in Somalia. A poor example. The LAV and Stryker are much newer designs and would probably fair better. So far, in Iraq, they have done their job, even when hit by RPG and destroyed they have protected their crew. Naturally these vehicles are going to go through growing pains. I imagine if we were to have had these forums back in the 1960's, similar complaints would have been raised about the M113s being employed in Vietnam.
Back to your link; there are some glaring biases in it. Crew comfort, being too cramped in the back? It is a huge improvement over the M113 and even Bradley in this matter. It's armour is fairly well designed and sloped; or would you rather be in an 'armoured shoebox' like a M113 or Bradley? The Stryker is new, and the Americans are constantly developing better ways to employ it. It will fill a niche.
I am not a LAV or Stryker advocate. I don't like the direction that our military is headed by going all wheeled, but we do not have the Budget, nor the large military, that the US has, so we do not have the luxury of having both to any large degree. My greatest fear is the skill sets we are losing in the Armour Corps, which cascade down to the Cbt Team.
Stryker is a whole family of vehicles, not one. It is not a replacement for the Bradley or Abrams, so I miss your point there. It is a vehicle designed to transport troops; so more of a replacement for the M 113. Having a quick look at the link you provided, I was amused at the picture on the very first page of a destroyed vehicle in Somalia. A poor example. The LAV and Stryker are much newer designs and would probably fair better. So far, in Iraq, they have done their job, even when hit by RPG and destroyed they have protected their crew. Naturally these vehicles are going to go through growing pains. I imagine if we were to have had these forums back in the 1960's, similar complaints would have been raised about the M113s being employed in Vietnam.
Back to your link; there are some glaring biases in it. Crew comfort, being too cramped in the back? It is a huge improvement over the M113 and even Bradley in this matter. It's armour is fairly well designed and sloped; or would you rather be in an 'armoured shoebox' like a M113 or Bradley? The Stryker is new, and the Americans are constantly developing better ways to employ it. It will fill a niche.
I am not a LAV or Stryker advocate. I don't like the direction that our military is headed by going all wheeled, but we do not have the Budget, nor the large military, that the US has, so we do not have the luxury of having both to any large degree. My greatest fear is the skill sets we are losing in the Armour Corps, which cascade down to the Cbt Team.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Just keep in mind, that this is Stryker, not the Stryker MGS that we're about to spend a fortune on. I doubt there's much wrong with the Stryker APC, watching how our LAV IIIs are working out.
Cheers,
TR
Cheers,
TR
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,419
- Points
- 1,010
To understand things better, the stryker family of vehicles were chosen for a reason. Within a theater of Ops, they act kind of like fast moving and light hitting cavalry. they are also used for presence patrolling and QRF duties (fast and easier on gas)
The US Army now has Heavy Brigade Combat Teams (for really slugging it out) with bradley and abrams, Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (Medium, its more fire power than a light bde and faster on roads and moderate cross country terrain) and they also have Infantry Brigade combat teams. A Brigade Combat team is a new US army idea they are implementing (we have used it for a long time) where a brigade has all its own assetts (in the CF this was never really an option, since our entire army basically can form a small division).
The US will also have aviation brigades, fires brigades (arty), etc, etc.
As far keeping M113, no thanks. I have lots of expirience with M113s and beleive me, across country they couldn't keep up with our leopards and weren't as mobile either.
If we were going to get into this business, we should have purchased Bradleys long time ago, but we did not.
The US will eventually replace Heavy and stryker with FCS planned Manned Ground vehicle (go to http://www.army.mil/fcs/ for more info).
The stryker has a place and so does heavy armor.
The US Army now has Heavy Brigade Combat Teams (for really slugging it out) with bradley and abrams, Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (Medium, its more fire power than a light bde and faster on roads and moderate cross country terrain) and they also have Infantry Brigade combat teams. A Brigade Combat team is a new US army idea they are implementing (we have used it for a long time) where a brigade has all its own assetts (in the CF this was never really an option, since our entire army basically can form a small division).
The US will also have aviation brigades, fires brigades (arty), etc, etc.
As far keeping M113, no thanks. I have lots of expirience with M113s and beleive me, across country they couldn't keep up with our leopards and weren't as mobile either.
If we were going to get into this business, we should have purchased Bradleys long time ago, but we did not.
The US will eventually replace Heavy and stryker with FCS planned Manned Ground vehicle (go to http://www.army.mil/fcs/ for more info).
The stryker has a place and so does heavy armor.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I remain unconvinced that real armour is unable to fill the role that is currently occupied by wheeled vehs. It is far easier to turn a warfighting piece of equipment into a 'peacekeeping' veh, than vice versa. Just as with troops. And I will always see wheeled vehs as designed for 'peacekeeping'.
Glad I walk everywhere.
Glad I walk everywhere.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
It doesn't matter what we know to be true about one system or another. It all comes down to cold hard cash and political will, both of which we are short on.
And as always, it is GW who hits the scary nail on the head. The skills that are being lost will not be easily regained, and will ONLY be regained and paid for with the blood of our sons and daughters. Thus we have learned nothing from those who have gone before.
As for the US FC systems. I find them rather scary in that they are so heavily dependant on technology to see them through. Have we not learned from past exercises with them that our abilities to fight even when we lose our "technology" has proven to be more valuable then having a lot of lights and switch's to play with? Our strengths were always that we knew how to fight without them, but used them to augment our capabilities. I find our turning to heavy reliance on them to be a shame and something that may prove as costly as our loss of past skills.
And as always, it is GW who hits the scary nail on the head. The skills that are being lost will not be easily regained, and will ONLY be regained and paid for with the blood of our sons and daughters. Thus we have learned nothing from those who have gone before.
As for the US FC systems. I find them rather scary in that they are so heavily dependant on technology to see them through. Have we not learned from past exercises with them that our abilities to fight even when we lose our "technology" has proven to be more valuable then having a lot of lights and switch's to play with? Our strengths were always that we knew how to fight without them, but used them to augment our capabilities. I find our turning to heavy reliance on them to be a shame and something that may prove as costly as our loss of past skills.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
An example of how our forces have lost experience by not having a capability for even a short 'interim' period is our subs... Lack of practising the skills has lead to one tragedy just trying to get the boats home. Now we are just starting to redeploy again. Talking to a former naval officer, the navy will have to relearn a lot of lessons the hard way to catch up to where they were just 5 years ago. Even a 'training veh' such as cougar or MGS will allow a much shorter catch up time for our tankers... yeah, it sucks, but as was mentioned, without the cash and the lobby power, that is what we are going to get, for now. Hope for the future???
B
BITTER PPLCI CPL
Guest
Paracowboy; now you know how I see our so called Airborne capability, I see it too in a certain way, a waste of $$$ 
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,158
- Points
- 1,160
BITTER PPCLI CPL,
Are you saying that the LAV III was a waste of money, or that a purpose built peacekeeping vehicle would be a waste of money?
All,
This is not an airborne thread. If you want to argue BITTER PPCLI CPL's view on that, you can do it here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33797.0.html
Are you saying that the LAV III was a waste of money, or that a purpose built peacekeeping vehicle would be a waste of money?
All,
This is not an airborne thread. If you want to argue BITTER PPCLI CPL's view on that, you can do it here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33797.0.html
Similar threads
