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

[kmetcalf]

Not to necro but I have a serious question:

How will doctrine (in terms of debus) be altered by having the exit hatches between the front and rear wheels as opposed to on the rear of the vehicle.  Is there an internal gangplank that can be thrown down to assist with exiting the vehicle or are guys jumping out each side with their section to get on line as quickly as possible?  Have tests been conducted with exiting while moving?

I've seen pictures of MRAP (Nyala) in Afghanistan arranged in a circle like a wagon train in the wild west.  A coil would probably allow personnel to exit on the opposite side of the vehicle from the enemy contact.  Still, showing the side of the vehicle like that for too long presents a much bigger target than a frontal advance with troops doing a debus from the rear.

Oh, and is it safe to say this thing will have NBC protection?

 

[George Wallace]

How will doctrine (in terms of debus) be altered by having the exit hatches between the front and rear wheels as opposed to on the rear of the vehicle.  Is there an internal gangplank that can be thrown down to assist with exiting the vehicle or are guys jumping out each side with their section to get on line as quickly as possible?  Have tests been conducted with exiting while moving?

I can see that your only experience here is looking at pictures.  To include a 'center exit', like we would find on a BTR 80, would involve a totally redesigned vehicle.  It would not be possible with the LAV III.  As for exiting the vehicle while moving........well, how about you get a Crewcab and take the doors off, drive across an open field (with or without Tank ruts) at say 30 to 45 km/hr and give your friends the opportunity to jump out the side or back; and tell us how it worked out.  Some of us have a little experience at this and it is not for the faint of heart.

I've seen pictures of MRAP (Nyala) in Afghanistan arranged in a circle like a wagon train in the wild west.  A coil would probably allow personnel to exit on the opposite side of the vehicle from the enemy contact.  Still, showing the side of the vehicle like that for too long presents a much bigger target than a frontal advance with troops doing a debus from the rear.

Pictures.    In most tactical situations, armour vehicles will point their 'best/thickest' armour towards the greatest threat and their 'main guns' outwards, as well for all around defence. 

Oh, and is it safe to say this thing will have NBC protection?

This could likely be a given.  Most armour vehicles today are designed for NBC protection, with filters and overpressure systems.

 

[Franko]

This could likely be a given.  Most armour vehicles today are designed for NBC protection, with filters and overpressure systems.

Funny thing is, it's only the tanks that have an actual system. None of the other platforms have an over pressure system.

Regards

 

[Infanteer]

How will doctrine (in terms of debus) be altered by having the exit hatches between the front and rear wheels as opposed to on the rear of the vehicle.  Is there an internal gangplank that can be thrown down to assist with exiting the vehicle or are guys jumping out each side with their section to get on line as quickly as possible?  Have tests been conducted with exiting while moving?

You didn't think we had doctrine that drove capability development and procurement, did you?  :rofl:

This platform will bring a motorized capability to the Infantry.  It isn't exactly intended to roll in a mechanized battlefield behind tanks to debus assaulting infantry.  Drills will need to be developed for dismounting under contact though, but I could see that being getting out of the side not getting shot at.

 

[Kirkhill]

You didn't think we had doctrine that drove capability development and procurement, did you?  :rofl:

So cynical. So young.  'Tis a terrible thing.  >

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Not to necro but I have a serious question:

How will doctrine (in terms of debus) be altered by having the exit hatches between the front and rear wheels as opposed to on the rear of the vehicle.  Is there an internal gangplank that can be thrown down to assist with exiting the vehicle or are guys jumping out each side with their section to get on line as quickly as possible?  Have tests been conducted with exiting while moving?

I've seen pictures of MRAP (Nyala) in Afghanistan arranged in a circle like a wagon train in the wild west.  A coil would probably allow personnel to exit on the opposite side of the vehicle from the enemy contact.  Still, showing the side of the vehicle like that for too long presents a much bigger target than a frontal advance with troops doing a debus from the rear.

Oh, and is it safe to say this thing will have NBC protection?

Good job chewing on some tactical questions, but do not think of this vehicle replacing the LAV III for the infantry. Think of it replacing the LUVW (GWagon). We had infantry riding around in Iltis and GWagons overseas, and the TAPV will be filling this type of roll. There was no rear ramp on an LUVW - you got out the side through the doors. You didn't jump out of a moving GWagon, nor would you jump out of a moving LAV for that matter!

As Infanteer noted, drills will be developed by troops once these vehicles hit the ground. This will happen at a number of levels from individual soldier drills to company level tactics, techniques and procedures. I suggest that in an ambush situation with small arms pinging off the side that the TAPVs will drive through the kill zone while the RWS machine guns and grenade launchers suppress the enemy. The infantry could get out past the kill zone and return to deal with the enemy (or not). If you can't get through and you have to dismount you are in a bad situation, but the same would hold true in a LAV getting out the back.

 

[GAP]

As Infanteer noted, drills will be developed by troops once these vehicles hit the ground. This will happen at a number of levels from individual soldier drills to company level tactics, techniques and procedures. I suggest that in an ambush situation with small arms pinging off the side that the TAPVs will drive through the kill zone while the RWS machine guns and grenade launchers suppress the enemy. The infantry could get out past the kill zone and return to deal with the enemy (or not). If you can't get through and you have to dismount you are in a bad situation, but the same would hold true in a LAV getting out the back.

As one little bunny who has gone through that situation only in an Amtrac, which opened on the front, you are so right when you say "If you can't get through and you have to dismount you are in a bad situation"

It's all doable, with varying results. That's what the development of doctrine is for......

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I can see that your only experience here is looking at pictures.  To include a 'center exit', like we would find on a BTR 80, would involve a totalls redesigned vehicle.  It would not be possible with the LAV III.  As for exiting the vehicle while moving........well, how about you get a Crewcab and take the doors off, drive across an open field (with or without Tank ruts) at say 30 to 45 km/hr and give your friends the opportunity to jump out the side or back; and tell us how it worked out.  Some of us have a little experience at this and it is not for the faint of heart.


Pictures.    In most tactical situations, armour vehicles will point their 'best/thickest' armour towards the greatest threat and their 'main guns' outwards, as well for all around defence. 

This could likely be a given.  Most armour vehicles today are designed for NBC protection, with filters and overpressure systems.

As I recall, the LAV prototype did have a centre exit, but it was dropped at some point.
http://www.internationalmovie.com/images/vehicles/Armour/info-LAV.jpg

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Good job chewing on some tactical questions, but do not think of this vehicle replacing the LAV III for the infantry. Think of it replacing the LUVW (GWagon). We had infantry riding around in Iltis and GWagons overseas, and the TAPV will be filling this type of roll. There was no rear ramp on an LUVW - you got out the side through the doors. You didn't jump out of a moving GWagon, nor would you jump out of a moving LAV for that matter!

As Infanteer noted, drills will be developed by troops once these vehicles hit the ground. This will happen at a number of levels from individual soldier drills to company level tactics, techniques and procedures. I suggest that in an ambush situation with small arms pinging off the side that the TAPVs will drive through the kill zone while the RWS machine guns and grenade launchers suppress the enemy. The infantry could get out past the kill zone and return to deal with the enemy (or not). If you can't get through and you have to dismount you are in a bad situation, but the same would hold true in a LAV getting out the back.

We don't need to re-write the book on the employment of these vehicles.  Vehicles like this have been used by other armies in combat and the tactics really aren't that difficult to grasp.  A TAPV (MRAP essentially) is not an IFV and should not be used as such.  An IFV is designed to accompany armoured forces and add to a shock-effect of an armoured attack.  IFVs should not be operated in a piece-meal manner against unconventional forces as despite the improved armour they have, especially against Anti-Armour weapons, they are not designed to withstand blasts from mines or IED`s.

The function of the MRAP is to provide transport to troops in areas that have a high probability of ambush from small arms fire, landmines and IED's.  Soldiers should be able to fight from this vehicle, either with their own weapons or, in the case of the TAPV, with crew served weapons. 

The TAPV will be used to transport troops to debussing point where the troops will dismount and advance towards the enemy on foot.  Thus, these vehicles will provide the CF with an important capability which is critically lacking in some of our units, especially when we look at the mobility limitations that our LIB`s currently face.  As well, with the expectation that the type of conflicts the CF can expect to be engaged in for the foreseeable future are low-intensity conflicts against unconventional forces it is only logical that we acquire a vehicle such as the TAPV.

My fear is that we don`t spend the time to develop the doctrine  and we treat these vehicles as just another vehicle to accompany the tanks on the assault.  I`m also afraid that the LIB`s don`t utilize them to their full potential and they end up sitting in the vehicle yard unused.

 

[George Wallace]

As I recall, the LAV prototype did have a centre exit, but it was dropped at some point.
http://www.internationalmovie.com/images/vehicles/Armour/info-LAV.jpg

Those are Striker prototype photos.  You will notice the placement of the turret.  Now the next question is are those actually exits, or just access doors, like on the LAV through which you would reload your ammo?  To me, these doors do not seem to serve as effective exits, other than emergency rollover exits.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Something just doesn't look right about that vehicle, even as a Styker prototype. 

Why the large spacing between the intermediate road wheels?

Also, the underside of the hull doesn't look like a typical LAV/Pirahna type APC.

 

[Kirkhill]

Something just doesn't look right about that vehicle, even as a Styker prototype. 

Why the large spacing between the intermediate road wheels?

Also, the underside of the hull doesn't look like a typical LAV/Pirahna type APC.

The look more like BTR knock-offs than MOWAG products.

 

[ironduke57]

Na not really BTR like, but there is a resemblance to the OT-64.

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

We don't need to re-write the book on the employment of these vehicles. 

My fear is that we don`t spend the time to develop the doctrine  and we treat these vehicles as just another vehicle to accompany the tanks on the assault. 

So which is it? Do we just pick up the book on the doctrine for the employment of these vehicles or do spend the time to develop the doctrine? You seem to be saying both...I was part of a DLCD experiment two years ago in 2 RCR that explored, in part, how to use the TAPV. Simulation has its limits, but based on what I saw I am an confident that good minds will come up with something useful.

I do not think that anyone has suggested using this vehicle as a LAV replacement in combat team quick attacks. Having said that I do not disagree with your points in the middle. Used properly these could make the non-LAV battalions much more flexible. If the infantry end up parking them, though, we'll take more...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The owner claims it's a prototype and the turret appears to be off of a Grizzly. Never seen it up close so I can't say more than what's in the pictures.

 

[McG]

As I recall, the LAV prototype did have a centre exit, but it was dropped at some point.
http://www.internationalmovie.com/images/vehicles/Armour/info-LAV.jpg

Those are Striker prototype photos.  You will notice the placement of the turret. 

How do you figure that?  The Stryker is evolved from the LAV III, and the vehicle in the photos (if actually in the LAV evolutionary chain) predates the LAV III.  It has more in common with AVGP and Bison.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

So which is it? Do we just pick up the book on the doctrine for the employment of these vehicles or do spend the time to develop the doctrine? You seem to be saying both...I was part of a DLCD experiment two years ago in 2 RCR that explored, in part, how to use the TAPV. Simulation has its limits, but based on what I saw I am an confident that good minds will come up with something useful.

I do not think that anyone has suggested using this vehicle as a LAV replacement in combat team quick attacks. Having said that I do not disagree with your points in the middle. Used properly these could make the non-LAV battalions much more flexible. If the infantry end up parking them, though, we'll take more...

I think we need to rationalize what we want these vehicles to do with some sort of Force Employment Concept i.e. how do we see them integrating into the systems we already have.  I know the LIB`s are receiving a large chunk of these vehicles; however, as to how we envision them being employed and supported I haven`t heard anything come down the pipeline other than how many roughly each coy is supposed to receive. 

Inevitably with the LIBs outfitted with a large number of vehicles supply considerations will grow larger, meanwhile PY`s have been cut in all the LIB`s so you are now having to look after more resources with a substantially reduced CSS component.  As always the boys will make it work I just hope someone is actually considering these things, such as the fact that the LIBs only have One Fuel Truck and One Recovery Vehicle (which has limited off-road capability).

As for the actual employment of the vehicles well I think doctrinally we can take a lot from what went down in Afghanistan but also how other armies have used these vehicles.  I am sure there are some big brains working on this though.

 

[Tank Troll]

I think we should mothball it or sell it of to some other chump and try again. One war behind just like always

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And that will never change. Which tells me is you need a mix fleet of wheeled and tracked, with the wheeled being the LAV’s and this vehicle and the tracked being the tanks and CCV (which hopefully will also be tracked) That way we can come to the fight heavy, light or a bit of both.
We aren’t going to get the time to equip ourselves for the next fight and where/when that will be is anyone’s guess.

 

[Kirkhill]

And that will never change. Which tells me is you need a mix fleet of wheeled and tracked, with the wheeled being the LAV’s and this vehicle and the tracked being the tanks and CCV (which hopefully will also be tracked) That way we can come to the fight heavy, light or a bit of both.
We aren’t going to get the time to equip ourselves for the next fight and where/when that will be is anyone’s guess.

Agreed entirely. And we (Canadians broadly and the CF in particular) are just going to have to suck up the logistics bill as a cost of doing business.

The CF is not the only organization in the world, let only the only defence force, small or large, that has to battle with that reality. 

It would be really, really nice if there was a magical Swiss Army Knife that did everything for me  but I have yet to find it.  And those that I have are becoming so big as to be unusable due to their size.