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

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

TangoTwoBravo

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
73
Points
530
MCG said:
For real.  I have even seen a TAPV based firebase for a BG deliberate attack.

We'd need to know more about the situation - was it a 3rd Battalion dismounted attack against a dismounted but dug-in enemy? Then a TAPV firebase with C16s could actually be a fairly good idea. I recall being on exchange with the USMC and the Heavy Guns Platoon was usually a firebase with HMMVW-mounted Mk19s and 50 cals.

Heck, if I was a tank squadron Battle Captain commanding a Firebase for a BG attack I would actually find some value from attached TAPVs with C16s to provide suppression while my tanks deal with hard targets.

Now, trying to fight other vehicles with it is an entirely different story!



 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
58
Points
530
It was a mechanized BG and the enemy position was fighting with Stryker TOW and Stryker MGS.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
457
Points
880
MCG said:
It was a mechanized BG and the enemy position was fighting with Stryker TOW and Stryker MGS.

Seriously? That is an excellent way to lose a lot of TAPVs, quickly.
 

TangoTwoBravo

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
73
Points
530
MCG said:
It was a mechanized BG and the enemy position was fighting with Stryker TOW and Stryker MGS.

Was anything else in the firebase? Were there Leopards in the BG attack somewhere?

I'm grasping at straws now...

Still, TAPV is not a terrible way to get a C16 around. It can contribute to the fight. Just not every fight...
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,079
Points
910
Tango2Bravo said:
Was anything else in the firebase? Were there Leopards in the BG attack somewhere?

I'm grasping at straws now...

Still, TAPV is not a terrible way to get a C16 around. It can contribute to the fight. Just not every fight...

Good point. It would have been useful at Isandlwana  :nod:
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
457
Points
880
Tango2Bravo said:
Was anything else in the firebase? Were there Leopards in the BG attack somewhere?

I'm grasping at straws now...

Still, TAPV is not a terrible way to get a C16 around. It can contribute to the fight. Just not every fight...

I completely agree. C16 can be a very effective suppression weapon against dismounted infantry. Against dug in armour?
 

GK .Dundas

Full Member
Reaction score
2
Points
180
Let's be brutally honest for a moment.
The TAPV was not purchased to do Recce it was bought because it's the most likely vehicle to survive the most massive IED blast because the gutless wonders who make up our political leadership are Sh*t scared  of ANY casualties and an equally gutless number of senior officers who seemed to be preoccupied with their future employment prospects and their pensions.
Now if we'd been looking for a wheeled armored vehicle to fulfill the recce/ light cavalry role it would probably look like a Fennek or a VBL but not a TAPV.
Mind you as someone mentioned earlier it does make a marvelous C16 carrier ...........Let that sink in for a moment. Does that mean we have just purchased several hundred Artillery Tractors for... a 40 mm......grenade launcher?

 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
84
Points
530
GK .Dundas said:
Let's be brutally honest for a moment.
The TAPV was not purchased to do Recce it was bought because it's the most likely vehicle to survive the most massive IED blast because the gutless wonders who make up our political leadership are Sh*t scared  of ANY casualties and an equally gutless number of senior officers who seemed to be preoccupied with their future employment prospects and their pensions.
Now if we'd been looking for a wheeled armored vehicle to fulfill the recce/ light cavalry role it would probably look like a Fennek or a VBL but not a TAPV.
Mind you as someone mentioned earlier it does make a marvelous C16 carrier ...........Let that sink in for a moment. Does that mean we have just purchased several hundred Artillery Tractors for... a 40 mm......grenade launcher?

There is a family resemblance....

1024px-The_British_Army_in_the_United_Kingdom_1939-45_H20971.jpg


08-18-armored.jpg


 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
84
Points
530
15-0183-tapv-3-en-fr-150.jpg


Curious layout....

Is it just me or does that seem to be the most inefficient use of space possible?

What happens if the VC took over the Gunner's duties?  Could the space in the rear be reconfigured?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
181
Points
680
GK .Dundas said:
Let's be brutally honest for a moment.
The TAPV was not purchased to do Recce it was bought because it's the most likely vehicle to survive the most massive IED blast because the gutless wonders who make up our political leadership are **** scared  of ANY casualties and an equally gutless number of senior officers who seemed to be preoccupied with their future employment prospects and their pensions.

Casualties are our greatest strategic liability on any mission.  Our soldiers inside that vehicle are a larger investment in time and money then the vehicle itself.  I have no problems with the prioritization of armoured protection.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
383
Points
880
Underway said:
Casualties are our greatest strategic liability on any mission.  Our soldiers inside that vehicle are a larger investment in time and money then the vehicle itself.  I have no problems with the prioritization of armoured protection.

Problem is the lives that may get saved against IEDs may be lost when it's employed out of it's capabilities. Like a firebase. 

TAPV will have a max effective range of 2000meters.  A BMP2-M with Kornets has a 5500 meter range (or 8000m/10'000m range with the EM) and those missiles can take out our tanks.
If LAV3s are working in the firebase with TAPVs they'll loose at least 1000 meters of range.
 

TangoTwoBravo

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
73
Points
530
Jarnhamar said:
Problem is the lives that may get saved against IEDs may be lost when it's employed out of it's capabilities. Like a firebase. 

TAPV will have a max effective range of 2000meters.  A BMP2-M with Kornets has a 5500 meter range (or 8000m/10'000m range with the EM) and those missiles can take out our tanks.
If LAV3s are working in the firebase with TAPVs they'll loose at least 1000 meters of range.

While I agree that the TAPV can get into trouble if employed outside its capabilities, I disagree that a firebase task is necessarily out of those capabilities. Nothing is going to outrange the threat long-range missiles, so I am not sure what the point you are making is. In any case, the TAPV in a firebase is not there to hunt BMP2s or knock out tanks. There are other systems to do that. 

I would also have serious questions about the utility of a LAV3 in a firebase 3000 from the objective they are supposed to be suppressing.

Picture yourself as the CO of an infantry battalion conducting a dismounted attack against an enemy force of company size that does not have AFVs either. Are you going to refuse the use of eight or so TAPVs with C16s in a firebase at 1500m? Even a mechanized attack could benefit from the firepower of those C16s, but of course the TAPVs should not be there alone. If we are launching the assault then the tanks that became the firebase should have already killed the visible enemy armour. The tanks being joined by TAPVs with C16s to help provide the suppression effect during the assault would not be a bad thing. 


I am not saying that the TAPV is a front-line AFV. I am saying that we should be careful about dismissing things that we hear about devoid of context.


 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
383
Points
880
I think we're the only country that still imagines enemy light infantry digging positions in the open without AFV support.

I mentioned the Kornet because we're all about fighting Russians people with eastern bloc hardware and I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) a BG (as per the point that started this convo) is going to square off against enough guys with some serious kit and not just some light infantry sans support.

Would I say no to TAPVs? No idea. I'd guess ammo for them would be a problem in the firebase? There's not a terrible amount of room inside them.
We could always drop a TOW2 system on it and double the range but ammo storage would be an even bigger issue.
I'm not very impressed with the AGLS. I think someone decided we WILL use 40mm AGLS and now we're making it fit.
Edit: but I'm open to being totally wrong with my opinion.
I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing your experience or anything, it's a lot more than mine in this area of course.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
181
Points
680
This might be off topic slightly, but is it just me or is armoured recce different now from our current doctrine and we just haven't acknowledge it.  With modern IR airborne sensors on cheap UAV's, and surveillance packages that can look 10's of km away isn't the idea of a light armoured vehicle that sneaks and hides kinda dead in many ways?  US uses Bradleys for armoured recce, UK uses the new Ajax, Australia is buying the Boxer...  their doctrine is different granted.

Now I'm not arguing pros and cons of TAPV in the recce game, but the increase in armour from traditional light assets seems to follow the general trend in recce vehicles over the "English speaking" world at the very least.  Is our doctrine totally out of touch?  Is it kept alive because we can't be bothered to spend money on proper armoured recce equipment? Are the people here arguing about old ways of doing things that have less and less value?
 

GK .Dundas

Full Member
Reaction score
2
Points
180
Underway said:
This might be off topic slightly, but is it just me or is armoured recce different now from our current doctrine and we just haven't acknowledge it.  With modern IR airborne sensors on cheap UAV's, and surveillance packages that can look 10's of km away isn't the idea of a light armoured vehicle that sneaks and hides kinda dead in many ways?  US uses Bradleys for armoured recce, UK uses the new Ajax, Australia is buying the Boxer...  their doctrine is different granted.

Now I'm not arguing pros and cons of TAPV in the recce game, but the increase in armour from traditional light assets seems to follow the general trend in recce vehicles over the "English speaking" world at the very least.  Is our doctrine totally out of touch?  Is it kept alive because we can't be bothered to spend money on proper armoured recce equipment? Are the people here arguing about old ways of doing things that have less and less value?
I have to admit to a certain amount of confusion, myself. We really don't seem to purchase vehicles to fit with whatever doctrine we're using and then kind of force fit the vehicle into the doctrine. We certainly did with the Coyote and the TAPV seems similar.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,079
Points
910
Underway said:
Casualties are our greatest strategic liability on any mission outside of a general war scenario that does not require a strategically decisive engagement with a peer, near peer, foe to be successful

FTFY :)
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
27
Points
430
Would TAPV roll over in similar situation? https://youtu.be/U3D_C-s5iQQ
 
Top