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

Infantry Vehicles

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,182
Points
1,140
The C5 wasn’t mobile - it was absolutely impossible to use in a ‘light role’ and requires a tripod. The C6/MAG-58/M240/L7A2 etc on the other hand is decently effective off the bipod in the light role - and quite effective in the SF kit.

Any CarlG sight won’t really work for a Mortar or MG, the C2 let’s you record targets and aim like an Artillery piece for indirect (or at least non directly observed) fire.

WRT your throw back to the Grizzly - the turret was abysmal, and the M2 and C5 (or later C6 coax) wasn’t nearly up to to a M2 in a tripod w/ T&E or a C6 in an SF kit
Plus when you look at the LAV to the AVGP it becomes a joke as the stabilized system on the LAV with the FCS makes the AVGP look like a kids toy.
The entire AVGP fiasco was a clown show and should be just quietly forgotten with a note never to try something as dumb ever again.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,516
Points
1,060
The C5 wasn’t mobile - it was absolutely impossible to use in a ‘light role’ and requires a tripod. The C6/MAG-58/M240/L7A2 etc on the other hand is decently effective off the bipod in the light role - and quite effective in the SF kit.

No argument - The Vickers was a better gun than the Browning. If you are going to have to lug that much weight it might as well be useful.

Or you could put wheels on it


Any CarlG sight won’t really work for a Mortar or MG, the C2 let’s you record targets and aim like an Artillery piece for indirect (or at least non directly observed) fire.

Thanks for that. Just thinking that, if it existed, a sight that combined the ballistics computations of the Aimpoint FCS13 with the registration of the C2 would be interesting. If its one or the other I would stick with the C2.

WRT your throw back to the Grizzly - the turret was abysmal, and the M2 and C5 (or later C6 coax) wasn’t nearly up to to a M2 in a tripod w/ T&E or a C6 in an SF kit
Plus when you look at the LAV to the AVGP it becomes a joke as the stabilized system on the LAV with the FCS makes the AVGP look like a kids toy.
The entire AVGP fiasco was a clown show and should be just quietly forgotten with a note never to try something as dumb ever again.

Hey. Where did I, on this thread, mention anything about the Grizzly? ;)

I won't argue any of your points. The LAV is a much superior piece of kit for what the Canadian Army wants it to do. The AVGP was adequate for what Pierre Senior wanted it to do - keep the FLQ off the streets.

Having said that - babies and bathwater.

The Swiss modified their AVGP 6x6s in the early 2000s. They took the old turrets off them and replaced them with a proper RWS

1653164477020.png


Now the question is - That? (at 9800 kg kerb weight and amphibious)

Or This? (14,500 kg kerb weight and not amphibious)

1653165012556.png

Or even this? (at 6400 kg kerb weight and not amphibious).

1653165230586.png

But we are getting off track now. :LOL:
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,182
Points
1,140
Amphibious isn’t a word I’d use for the AVGP.
The 6x6 AVGP hull is a bad medium system. The armor is severely lacking and the mobility off road is worse than JLTV - which is not my cup of tea for the most part either.

It’s a peace keeping vehicle at best.

Too heavy for light forces and not enough protection for medium forces.

I don’t put a great deal of stock into amphibious capabilities beyond light forces because even if you can cross in a medium type vehicle you have no tanks…
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,516
Points
1,060
Amphibious isn’t a word I’d use for the AVGP.
The 6x6 AVGP hull is a bad medium system. The armor is severely lacking and the mobility off road is worse than JLTV - which is not my cup of tea for the most part either.

It’s a peace keeping vehicle at best.

Too heavy for light forces and not enough protection for medium forces.

I don’t put a great deal of stock into amphibious capabilities beyond light forces because even if you can cross in a medium type vehicle you have no tanks…


Marine - we're not talking about launching over the horizon. We're talking about crossing the Otonabee and the Bow without having to call in the Engineers with their pontoons and medium girder bridges. :giggle:
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,182
Points
1,140
Marine - we're not talking about launching over the horizon. We're talking about crossing the Otonabee and the Bow without having to call in the Engineers with their pontoons and medium girder bridges. :giggle:

Why?
As both @Infanteer and I have pointed out having part of a force Amphibious does you no good.

If you are serious about this for DomOps - the BV206, and Argo type vehicles are a much better choice. For Canada’s terrain the AVGP offers nothing the current LAV doesn’t do better (and keep in mind I’m not the biggest LAV fan).

For opposed crossing aspect you need a AVLB and for larger crossings than that span - I’d start recommending that folks look into semi-autonomous bridge constructors. Systems that can position spans in place without exposed humans.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,516
Points
1,060
Why do we need a 30 tonne vehicle when a Jeep will do?

We have armoured vehicles for moving the high priced help around the precincts of parliament. We have bought 500 18 tonne TAPVs to no known purpose.

I am suggesting that, within our midst we have a company capable of producing 4x4 and 6x6 7 tonne armoured hatchbacks with can mount an RWS, carry a load of 1 or 2 tonnes and seat, at a squeeze 6 riders in the back - 4 comfortably. And it won't get stopped by an overflowing crick.

It will move at 70 mph on the highways and do 50 on the gravel. It will manage a bit of off-road work and do better with the winch installed.

In short, for Militia country it would do fine as a runabout instead of those god-awful TAPVs and cost a lot less than those monstrosities the regs drive around in.

You get trained drivers and ccs and gunners out of the deal. They could be serviced by any local diesel mechanic. And they might come in handy at the next Hell's Angels shindig if they show up with Russian guests. Or at the next bank robbery or flood.

They would work fine in the 30% of Canada that is serviced by roads. And they would offer more protection than a Jeep or a G-Wagen.



In the other 70% of the country - see my comments under the Force 2025 thread related to the USMC LAV replacement and moving people in the other 70% of Canada where there are no roads. You will find the Bv206 there in that list. And you could have Foremost take a look at them to see what improvements to the design they might be able to suggest.

And lets not forget.... lots of helicopters. With Argos. :D
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,182
Points
1,140
Honestly I think you are wasting money with a AVGP.
It can’t be deployed anywhere but a hundred kilometers off the TransCanada - which you have the 1 Million LAV Army for - that can also deploy. Planning them for the reserves just is going to result in rusting hulls sitting around an Armory.
Putting a high end RWS in them makes them an expensive simulator. The AVGP isn’t a LAV and it’s driver requirements are much different.

Your better suited to a JLTV with a RWS where that crew can actually deploy for convoy security etc.

It’s a little off topic for the section and platoon organization as well.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,182
Points
1,140
We still use C2 sights. The value of indirect gomg fire is something I will forever be in doubt of however.



So my question is then does every section need it’s 84 and GPMG? Or should they be available but not always employed weapons? If we use that 7 man limit, which I’m in favour of, then we’ve taken 4 for the support side of the section and have three for an assault. I get where you coming from about the numbers on the assault not needing to be quite as big as we think but is that sufficient ?
For a Mech Section you should be able to count of the LAV for support for most of the time - which reduces the need for a significant support side in that situation.

The lack of the Light Infantry to have a 25mm and C6 Coax in support is one of the reasons I don’t like a symmetrical orbat for LI and MI forces.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,516
Points
1,060
Honestly I think you are wasting money with a AVGP.
It can’t be deployed anywhere but a hundred kilometers off the TransCanada - which you have the 1 Million LAV Army for - that can also deploy. Planning them for the reserves just is going to result in rusting hulls sitting around an Armory.
Putting a high end RWS in them makes them an expensive simulator. The AVGP isn’t a LAV and it’s driver requirements are much different.

Your better suited to a JLTV with a RWS where that crew can actually deploy for convoy security etc.

It’s a little off topic for the section and platoon organization as well.

Why would it be any more restricted in its deployment than a JLTV?
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,190
Points
1,010
There is a role for amphibious equipment if you really need to force a crossing site. But if you're fighting at that level, you have corps or army amphibious equipment units, not every-vehicle-a-swimmer.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,700
Points
1,040
The 6x6 AVGP hull is a bad medium system. The armor is severely lacking and the mobility off road is worse than JLTV - which is not my cup of tea for the most part either.

It’s a peace keeping vehicle at best.
You have to remember the context of the AVGP. It basically started as a wet dream in the late 1960s as a patrol vehicle for the Cyprus-like 1960s version of peacekeeping missions. In fact the Cadillac-Gage V100 was the initial winner and cabinet approved the purchase of some 120 of those.

Then when Pierre Trudeau's 1971 White paper questioned the value of the main battle tank (remember we had Centurions in Canada working with 3/4 ton equipped infantry) some bright spark in FMC HQ decided this was the moment. We had two air-portable brigades (Combat Groups) in Canada and the aim then became to make them deployable on both peacekeeping missions and in a reconnaissance role as reinforcements to Europe's central front.

We began looking at things like Scorpion and Fox and the Cadillac-Gage V 150 and a whole bunch of other stuff in that class and eventually settled on the Mowag Piranha. At no time did anyone in the CA at the time consider these things anything but patrol/recce vehicles although, with time, they turned into a training vehicle for mechanized warfare. We eventually bought some 491 in three variants (enough to equip the two brigades) and along the way created a wheeled armoured vehicle manufacturing capability in Canada.

As I said above, the key is context. I've frequently contended that the concept of an agile, all-singing, all-dancing, scalable medium force capable of going light and with the right augmentation, heavy, is a self induced illusion. As always, one needs to first determine a given forces' purpose and then equip it accordingly.

Are you kidding me?

In the defence, the ability to put registered, plunging machine gun fire on to potential assembly areas or into defiles is invaluable.

Has everyone in the Army completely forgotten how machine guns are supposed to be employed?
My second-last Reg F exercise (just before RV-81) was an artillery practice camp in which we did a 3-day live-fire local defence exercise where we dug in 3 RCHA's M109 batteries and dismounted all the GPMGs, HMGs and CarlGs and dug them in as well incorporating every aspect of mutual support, defilade siting, enfilade fire, interlocking fire, indirect plunging fire, etc etc we could glean from the manuals. Let's just say that 13 x .50s, 6 x GPMGs, 4 x CGs and a dozen M72s can create quite a stir in a quarter grid square. Unfortunately that was the only such exercise we did in 12 years.

🍻
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,516
Points
1,060
I have to back up KevinB here. AVGP belong in a museum.

I agree.

But...

I think that there is room to take the small, armoured, light vehicle as originally conceived and update it to something that is more like the 4x4/6x6 Mowag Piranha than an armoured pick up truck.

I am thinking more along the lines of :

Dingo
Ferret
Fox
Scorpion
Scimitar
Spartan
BRDM
VBL
Puma (Italian)


1653234088868.png 1653234105113.png

Specifications
Production history
Service history
TypeArmoured personnel carrier
Place of originItaly
In service2001–present
Used byOperators
Designed1988
ManufacturerIveco-Oto Melara
Produced2001–2004
No. built250 6×6 and 330 4×4
Mass8.2/7 t
Length5.07/4.76 m
Width2.09 m
Height1.67 m
Crew2+4/2+2 passengers

Main
armament
7.62mm, 12.7mm MG or Remote Weapon System
Secondary
armament
Smoke-grenade launchers
EngineIVECO 4-cylinder turbo-charged diesel
160 hp (118 kW)
Power/weight22.8 (4×4) hp/tonne
Transmission5-speed automatic 6×6/4×4
Operational
range
700 km (435 mi)
Maximum speed110 km/h


I'm not suggesting to resurrect the Grizzly. I am suggesting that the original Piranha concept was not widely off the mark as a light armoured vehicle suitable for patrols, LOC and C&R roles. And that a modernized version, with modern design elements and materials, while still starying within the 7 tonne Chinook lift limits of the JLTV would be a useful vehicle.


1653234336900.png 1653234444357.png

And as Kevin has previously suggested by the time you get up to the 18 tonne, very tall TAPV and the 30 tonne LAV 6 then you might as well go all in and go full tracked.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,182
Points
1,140
Other than SOF I wouldn’t consider Hook lift for a vehicle in Canada, you don’t have enough to move a Light BN let alone any vehicles.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,516
Points
1,060
Other than SOF I wouldn’t consider Hook lift for a vehicle in Canada, you don’t have enough to move a Light BN let alone any vehicles.

Since 1946 the accepted standard unit of force for the defence of Canada has been the Company. And the target has been "SOF" types and small arms.

I don't envisage a need to lift a Battalion, much less a Brigade in a single lift. I do envisage lifting a Light Company with a couple of Command Vehicles and a couple for the CQ in the first lift. An hour later additional assets could be lift to an out-of-contact Form Up Position.

How much lift do you need for a Light Company and 4 Argos operating 30 minutes from a Hercules supported rough strip?
 

IKnowNothing

Member
Reaction score
138
Points
530
Re: the vehicle tangent, agreed that AVGP isn't it, but if we do end up going Heavy/Medium/Light, the next iteration of the Medium vehicle should be brought back into the Bison/Lav3 weight band, with serious thought given to the right mix of turrets/RWS.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,700
Points
1,040
And that a modernized version, with modern design elements and materials, while still starying within the 7 tonne Chinook lift limits of the JLTV would be a useful vehicle.
I think the weight limit is an issue. We have much better, more efficient engines now than when the AVGP came out so you can get more performance out with a smaller engine and power train, but armour is still armour at that scale.

We've been on a trend now for several years to uparmour everything so as to provide more protection and each time we do we find yet another offensive weapon that can take on the new armour so, once again, we push up the protection. Here's an article reaching back to 2018 which considers the trend unsustainable.

I really don't care about whether a vehicle looks like an armoured pickup truck or a Piranha, if weight (7 tons) and size (fits in a Chinook) is the issue, then there is only so much you can do with a vehicle as to its pax carrying capacity and level of armour protection.

I still prefer a VBL to a TAPV as a scout car any day of the week. It's a third of a TAPV's weight (4 v 14-18 tons) and slightly more than one half its height (1.7 to 3.2 metres). Does one really need those three extra people for a "patrol" vehicle?

1653235987202.jpeg

When it comes to the question of carrying an infantry section, then weight and size for Heli lift become mute. We really do have to face the issue of whether the section fights the vehicle or not. Something like the Italian Puma is not a section carrier. It is closer to TAPV in its passenger configuration which begs the question of what is it used for? As far as I know the Puma is being phased out for the armoured truck-like VTLM Lince which is classified as an infantry mobility vehicle for patrolling, reconnaissance and security duties and it looks like the Italians confine them to the Alpini and Paratroop regiments. I would want to know a whole lot more about how those units use these vehicles on a regular basis before making any value judgement about a vehicle with such a limited. Personally I see a very limited use for a vehicle that carries only three or four dismounts.

🍻
 
Top