• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Should Canada adopt the LAV III (AKA: Stryker) as its primary armoured vehicle family?

Y

Yard Ape

Guest
I agree Nate. You‘ve got me sold.

. . . Canada should integrate the Armour Regiments with the Inf battalions, using LAV 105s and focusing on combined arms.
However, with the manpower saved in this reorganization, Canada should form a single, small, Armoured Cavalry Regiment-equipped exclusively with MBTs, tracked RECCE, and tracked SP howitzers. this forces main goal would be to retain a core heavy armour formation for the CAF LFs, should the need ever arise to reconstitute a heavy armour capability. A secondary (or primary) purpose for such a unit would be to allow the mainstay light armour brigades to train against heavy armour units, and develop and hone tactics for successfully engaging such. It could act as a regular OPFOR at Shilo or Petawawa, and allied heavy and light armour formations could train against them, for a user fee. This fee would be used to fund the maintenence of the ACR.

Composition could be as follows:

3 squadrons of 36 MBTs (Leo 1C2s for now, perhaps surplus M-1s or Leopard 2s in future)

Each squadron would have a troop of say 12 M-113 equipped for RECCE-with Delco 25TOW turret, or just a simulated weapon-the idea here is training, not actual combat.

Support-use the Taurus, Beaver and Badger LEO variants for comabt service support, engineers, etc.

ID Fire Support-one battalion of the M-109s, sell the rest.

Basically, the CAF ACR would be a slightly scaled down version of the US ACR. It would retain the core heavy armour function of the CAF, 2000-2500 men, it would be available for an emegency, but its main purpose would be to train our reg Brigades in counter heavy armour warfare, and retain a MBT capability.

The real issue behind giving up MBTs is that we some think that once it is gone, it is gone. This is true to a degree. But if we aren‘t going to use MBTs, and can‘t afford a army which will utilize MBTs for its primary mission, then why attempt to retain them in an operational capacity? For the Reg force brigades, go all wheeled, rapid response capability. Give the navy and air force the ability to transport these forces strategically. If money is left, and these missions are covered first, maintain a small cadre of MBT and heavy armour for training/reconstitutive purposes.

:cool: Yard Ape
 

RCA

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1
Points
0
"ID Fire Support-one battalion of the M-109s, sell the rest."

Moving slightly off topic here but I must clear up a misconception.

The strength of the artillery is it‘s ability to mass fires. Each manuver unit should have a dedicated (ie in direct support) Artillery resourse. But the arty commander (be it FOO, BC, CO etc) must have the ablity to bring multi-arty units fire to bear as required. That is why arty batterys/regt are never under command of a supported unit. So when talking arty you must look at the big picture not just a manuver units reqiurement.
 
Y

Yard Ape

Guest
I belive the suggestion recognizes the need for artilery to be controlled at a higher level than the manouver unit. That is why it is only suggested that it be placed there for the recomended Armoured Cavalry Battle Group, which would have no higher peace time formation. This is why it did not suggest a change to the artillery composition of the three CMBG‘s asside from making them wheeled.

The comments were origionaly posted in answer to the question " Should the CF retain MBTs? " and further clarification on the position with respect to artillery was given on the M-109 replacement suggestion.

:cool: Yard Ape
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
108
Points
710
Been reading all the threads. Great ideas, lots of input. Fact- until the sitting government gives up on "Soft Policy" a la Art (hope I win the Nobel Peace Prize) Engleton and they quite trying to increase the budget surplus by cutting back on defence spending, this is all a pipe dream. Walk softly and carry a big stick! We cannot field the regiments possible to sustain a HI conflict with the current recruit policy (whatever the problems, another subject). As per the helicopter fiasco, Kraus-Mafi, who manufactures Leopard, offered the Cdn govn‘t all the new MBT‘s they wanted if we would take their tank to the Gulf and battle prove it. It is the only modern(?) MBT not to be proven in combat. This was not an offer for replacement of existing stock, but as many as we wanted! Typically, as per the offer from the Yanks for a large AC carrier when we scrapped the "Bonnie", the government wouldn‘t pay or supply the pers to man it, ergo no deal. We have, on a number of occasions had the same offer from the yanks( surplus M60‘s, all we wanted, M1A1‘s, all we wanted for a five year maintenence contract, no other cost!) The LAV family provides a platform for MOST needs. As was mentioned earlier, train for the most intense conflict, and all others become training exercises. Each has it‘s own unique variables, and as we are we can‘t be ready for everything. Nothing major will happen as far as expenditures as long as we try to fit the purchases to the budget. The proof is in the pudding. The helicopter replacement program is a fiasco that would cause the fall of any other western nation‘s govm‘t. Bombardier recieves contracts, without bid, to supply vehs and equip that is below original manufactures specs and well above what it would have cost off the shelf for better and more( the CEO happens to be related to the sitting PM). Buy Cdn means put more money in our election war chest and pad my bank account, not what is the best for our troops and our coountry. Western Star recieves a contract for the LSVW after failing all tests, changing the test criteria and then disbanding LETE so the results won‘t be known) just after Kim Campbell retires as Prime Minister. All this aside, if your interested in what the higher up in the Armoured Corps think about the future of the corps, check out the latest RCAC Association Bulletin (vol 9, Apr 2001). There‘s also a good article on the whole new LAV family and an article called "ARMY SELECTS LAV III VARIANTS TO EQUIP NEW INTERM BRIGADES" reprinted from the (US) Armor Magazine. This article also happens to show a 105(LOW VELOCITY!!) pedestal mounted, on a LAV. It only shows it firing over the front, rumour has it that when it was fired at 3 & 9 oclock the cargo tie downs on the veh were used for just that, to tie the veh down. The Cougar no longer has the distinction of having the worst platform rock in NATO! Could we make our own MBT? Should we? Do we have the recruit base to sustain it at present levels of pay, benefits, deployments, etc. Is the Cdn govm‘t interested in soldiers with blue berets that should be seen and not heard? Lots of questions, but no answers within our control. Vent as you will, we can try to change the system from within. We can only plant the seeds, it won‘t happen in our generation, but we can pass the torch to the next generation who feel the call to answer their countries call to arms. Soldier on with what they give you, voice your opinion when you can and hope, hope someone listens before it‘s to late.In every major conflict his country has been in, we‘ve been caught with our pants down, doin the dirty behind the pasture wall. To paraphrase "those who forget the past are destined to relive it (our govm‘t in a nutshell). :mad:
 
Y

Yard Ape

Guest
The LAV trials are underway in Gagetown now. Perhapse now we can get some performance based feedback on this new machine.

:cool: yard Ape
 
Y

Yard Ape

Guest
Well, for those who‘ve looked in the Maple Leaf in the last little while, it has become apparent that the CF does not intend to keep just a few M113s and the new MTVLs in service. With about a dozen new vehicles or new upgrades comming out, we have been commited to a sizable tracked fleet. I think we must accept that this has also been a step backward. The LAV III is capable of filling all the roles the new 113/MTVLs will be filling. Now we are still going to be stuck with a mixture of vehicles operating within every battle group.

LAVIIITypes.jpg
 
R

rceme_rat

Guest
I was very surprised to see that yet another upgrade of the M113 had been approved!

Our vehicle requirements are too small in the aggregate to justify maintaining a large number of different vehicle families. The costs associated with each new vehicle type - in driver and maintenance training, spares logistics, documentation, etc. - are excessive.

The LAV III should be capable of all roles assigned to the M113, with perhaps the exception of ADATS -- a top-heavy application on the 113 that would be equally at risk on the LAV. (It should have been put on a Leo or M109 chassis for the extra stability of the wider track width.)

In an ideal world, I would envision LAV III for all light armour roles. I would go further and suggest that all wheeled support vehicles should have the same track width as the LAV, and should use the same engine to the maximum extent possible. That would leave jeeps, tanks and SP arty left for discussion. E.g. - do we even need jeeps when a wide-wheeled base truck (Humm-Vee, e.g.) would do? Could we adopt a wheeled arty piece on a LAV chassis - could it be 155? Does it have to be 155 in the first place?

Again, it all goes back to defining what we want our army to do for us. A new White Paper - one which we actually intend to implement - would be very useful in steering our future acquisitions.
 
Y

Yard Ape

Guest
If the LAV can even be used as the basis for a bridge layer. There is not very much we would require any other vehicle for . . . excpet, maybe, the fire power that comes from a 120 mm cannon.

10x10-III_01.jpg
 

Korus

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I really don‘t like it when people make ‘essays‘ (for loss of a better word) utterly one-sided... It‘s nice that you can find lots of pictures of destroyed/damaged wheeled armoured vehicles, but unless you represent both sides of the story, the ‘essay‘ is pretty worthless... If you dig enough you can find pictures of tracked vehicles with lost tracks, etc then make a completley one sided website about how tracked vehicles are a mistake...

I could find some pictures of damaged/crashed helicopters and jets, and from that deduce that the CF made a mistake buying aircraft as opposed to ground vehicles.

Not saying I agree or disagree about the lav IIIs, I don‘t really know enough about ‘em to make a worthwhile opinion yet... All I can say is that they look cool.. :)

As an aside, Is/was that guy even in the military? I couldn‘t find any mention on his page, but I may have missed it if it was there...
 
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ladies and Gentlemen,

having looked at the web site listed in previous posting, I find it is from the USA "Military REform" people. The whole thing is full of inaccuracies, half truths and outright lies.

Example being he says the Australian Army has pulled its LAVII (known as ASLAV in Australia) out of East Timor because they were not performing. Thruth being the ASLAVs returned to Australia because of unit rotation (we only have 2 Cav Regt equipped with the vehicles), they were replaced by The Queensland Mounted Infantry, 2 Cav is now back up in ET.

The inference being that Australia flew its M113 force into ET, they all went by sea, the New Zealand regt, the Queen Alexanders Mounted Rifles flew two of its M113‘s into ET on the first day to provide support to NZ tps who had responsibilty for defending the airfield on the initial deployment.

His remarks that the LAVIII is not airportable by C130 is correct when you use the C130-E variant (and not that there is many of them in service), the -H variants onwards can transport all models of the LAVIII save three of the support variants, the fire support vehicle, the NBC, and I forget the third.
The RNZAF has moved their LAVIII‘s by their -H models, which are the very first of the variant to be manufactured back in 1966.

His use of the NZ problems have been taken total out of context, if you place them in the corrrect context of two political parties having a brawl, then you understand the story.

He also talks about the death of a NZ infantryman, and how a LAVIII could not have come to the patrols support. Due to the severe country NO FORM of armoured vehicle could have supported the patrol.

What this chap fails to point out in all of his writings is theFACT that the LAVIIIs are not being used to create armoured formations, but, are being purchased to provide a means of transportation for light infantry brigades.

A means of transportation that allows them to have a firesupport vehicle available for each rifle section (their squad). The same concept has been used by Britain with their Saxon vehicles, Australia with the Bushranger (if it ever works), NZ with the LAVIIIs, South Africa with their Buffels, France with their various types of wheeled vehicles, Germany etc etc.

In Australia, the Army was forced to accept an upgrade of its M113‘s. All we have received is M113‘s that are not as maintenance heavy, and are still expensive to run (fuel, spare parts), and is virtually still the same vehicle we had in South Viet Nam in the 1960‘s!

He quotes the Swiss upgrading their M113s with additional armour, this was correct, what he does not tell you is that the units they went too are local defence units, which have the singular role of defending a specific locality! With the lastest Swiss defence cuts those units are being disbanded.

Yours,
Jock in Sydney
 
H

Harry

Guest
Not trying too stir the pot (too much :rolleyes: ), but if there are any Bird Gunners out there, was not the Merican version of the ADATS that was dropped in 1990‘ish mounted on a LAV platform. Recall it was a toss between the Bradley and LAV and the LAV won. Regardless, the Mericans cancelled the project and we got stuck with an expensive (yet awesome) piece of kit, no other market, limited production line. yadda yadda :( , etc.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
165
Points
680
The US had ADATS mounted on an M60 chassis. Makes one wonder why we didn‘t put ours on a MBT platform in the begining.
 
R

rceme_rat

Guest
Obvious answer, McG -- money.

When it looked like the Leos were to be replaced, one of the projects being tossed about was to use the chassis for ADATS (others were to keep them as is for Hy Recce, and conversions for engineering and maintenance variants). Well, we still have the Leos, and we‘re stuck with ADATS - a resource for an org level we aren‘t even seriously contemplating staffing!
 
Y

Yard Ape

Guest
I‘m surprised that part of the new 113/MTVL pakage did not include a new ADATS platform. I could see the short sighted thinking that would lead the powers that be to the oh-so clever conclusion that an MTVL is a much better plaform for the ADATS.

Why didn‘t we by Leo bodies for the ADATS when we did the C2 upgrade?

There is always an excuse.

:cool: Yard Ape
 

Jungle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
I will support Mr Mackinlay‘s comments regarding use of armd vehs in East Timor. During the INTERFET mission, the Aussies were using ASLAV (our bison) and Kiwis were using M-113‘s. Neither were very effective except on the road network and in the towns. Maybe in some areas of the coastal plains could they be used offroad, then again only in the dry season. :cdn:
 
B

Brock

Guest
Regarding the LAV III and its ability to mount a 155mm howitzer in the self-propell role--it is possible. British Aerospace is working on integrating the UK/US ultra-lightweight 155mm towed howitzer onto the LAV III. The new howitzer in towed form is half the weight of the M198, but fires the same rounds the same distance. The LAV III chassis can handle a 155mm howitzer by using a mounting system similar to the Giat Caesar truck mounted howitzer.(go to www.giat.fr and follow links to products and howitzers, etc...) The LAV III 155mm SPH will not be the same as a M109-type, but will provide considerable capabilites in most war scenarios. However, if the LAV III 155mm SPH proves to costly, a LAV III with a towed 155mm howitzer can do the job. Maybe, not as effective in high intensity fast paced armoured war, but in that case Canada would have to buy new tanks, attack helicopters, tracked IFVs, etc... For all intents and purposes either solution is viable way to replace the current M109A4/A4+.
 
H

Harry

Guest
:boring: Brock, is it me or do I get a sense that you really like the idea of the LAV155, I think it was this time last year when this topic came up and too the best of my knowledge you were a proponent.

Lets look at from a Gunners point of view :rage: . We have a man pad howitzer 105mm now. We need an armored howitzer too support brigade level ops. In the big games that the M-109 was designed too play in, they require, high firing rates, maneuverability and protection for the crew. All it takes is one round of counter-battery :skull: directed fire to take out an exposed crew, no crew, no fire support.

Before some pencil pusher gets the idea that “Hey” the troopies think this would be great, think again. I think it is ridiculous to throw a crew into an armored vehicle, only too have them function exposed whilst performing their job, indirect fire support. All of the variants I have seen too date are of an externally mounted gun with only the vehicle as protection too the front.

I have seen the new mortar support track being worked on by DEW, hmm. We finally deal with the threat too mortar crews by giving them a track and then this topic banter of taking the protection away from gunners by giving them a set of wheels, come now. A Cadillac is a Cadillac is a Cadillac, even stretched, but this is not an armored heavy indirect fire vehicle. Just a gunner taxi with a gun strapped too the outside. :bullet: :boring:
 
B

Brock

Guest
You are indeed correct. I am a proponent of a family of vehicles concept. However, the wheeled LAV III 155 SPH is being designed to operate with a 3 or 4 person crew. Unlike the Giat Caesar the crew does not have to leave the vehicle, they stay in their vehicle nice and comfy and an autoloader does all the "work." Whether or not it will work, only time will tell. I am all for maintaining the capabilities of a high mobility armoured war with main battle tanks, tracked SPH and IFVs, etc....but unless I am dreaming, Canada will never again field such a force without another war on the scale of World War II occurring where the Canadian public and government has to take an interest in the military. I have accepted this fact--I say fact, because evidence against is very weak and for very strong--because I think the CF should get on with soldiering and field the best military we can within a strategy of choice. Fielding a miliary equipped with a mix of vehicles that do not complement each other and designed for different styles of warfare is not helpful to making the Canadian miltary effective. Canada is not the only country that is making hard choices, look at Belgium, Australia, etc... The point is my proposition is to field the best capability we can with the best use of Canadian resources.
 
H

Harry

Guest
Well not too belabor this topic, and do not take this as a challenge.

Our military is indeed facing the same dilemmas as many of our allies and other freedom (and not so democratic loving) nations.

The ray of sunshine in all this is simple. Yes we are getting new armor platforms (LAV), but thank god for the people on the 17 and 18th floor of the palace who found the money too upgrade the tracked fleet.

Some see the tracked fleet as a veritable albatross on our land forces. Take a pause two three, just think if the proverbial hits the fan, we will be one of the nations able to field both light armored and heavy armored elements. We will be able too engage in several types of land force operations concurrently.

As an example, rapid deployable light armor combat teams that can charge into a refugee enclave and hold ground while the heavies (113’s, TUA 113’s, Leopards, 109’s) trundle in. Much the same concept of the Merican Air Mobile, just we don’t have air mobile, but we can substitute a LAV for a Chinook or Stallion in lieu there of.

I am not keen on discussing tactics in this or most any forum not task related. But too reiterate (in my so humble opinion), the continuance of tracks in our land forces should not be seen as, promoted as nor perpetuated too be a shortcoming in defence planning. The track fleet gives us an edge that once gone, we will probably never get back and in today’s real world events, I am glad we have land force (deployable) options. Each fleet (wheeled and tracked) has it’s advantages and when we send troopies off too do their job, lets hope we have the kit for the job. The days of Canadian ingenuity and adaptation make us good, but reality can but a real damper on that real quick if you don’t have the right tool for the job.

UBIQUE
 
Top