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

Informing the Army’s Future Structure

Did you notice that you didn't even mention Anti-Tanks?

Not a criticism, just an apt reflection of our current (navel gazing) approach ;)
In my defense mortars have been an instrumental part of the infantry battalion for over 100 years now and the CAF can always handwave the lack of anti-tank at every level by pointing to the Carl G and M72s being employed in platoons. Ya know real tank killers/s
 
Further to @IKnowNothing and the question of what to do with the TAPVs

The Ukrainians were gifted the UK's surplus Saxon. Like the TAPV it is a 4x4 armoured box that nobody wanted. But the Ukrainians have found homes for them.


This is what the Saxon was intended for. To deliver a section and their kit from Britain to the German front over highways that were at risk of shell fire and bomb blast.

1663339067200.png

This is how the Ukrainians have been using them

While arguably obsolete the Ukrainians themselves reportedly felt they were fairly decent vehicles with the armour providing the expected level of protection. Ukrainian National Guard testing in February 2015 showed that the armour could withstand B-32 7.62x54mmR API. There was a well reported accident involving a pair of Saxons with on overturning and another hitting the central barrier on a motorway in March 2015. Its clear that the Ukrainians thought at the time they were cost-effective, capable vehicles which they wisely didn’t push into close combat roles.

The majority, however appear to have been rerolled as command or MEDEVAC vehicles and were reportedly initially assigned to 25th Airborne Brigade, 79th, 81st and 95th Airmobile and 36th Naval Infantry Brigades. Though it is unclear if or when they were reassigned from these units. They saw action in Donbas for the first time in June 2015.

a member of the 81st airmobile brigade said: “it’s a really beautiful vehicle and the armour is good. for evacuating personnel the APC is great.”


Related vehicles that the Ukraine is receiving and asking for are the German Dingo, the Australian Bushmaster and the British Foxhound/Ocelot

1663339741127.png1663339670498.png1663339814008.png

The role of the Bushmaster is to provide protected mobility transport (or protected troop lift capability), with infantry dismounting from the vehicle before going into action.

1663339895645.png

Looking at that picture, and comparing it to the relatable vehicles it strikes me that the TAPV suffers from the same problem as this.

1663340131075.png

Ask any legitimate off-roader about common mistakes people make with their trucks, and right at the top of the list is big body and suspension lifts. It ruins handling, it moves the vehicle center of gravity dangerously high, it overstresses driveline components, and frankly, it gives the impression that the driver is, shall we say, overcompensating for something? Ferrari owners know what I’m talking about here.

 
Further to - The TAPV might want to get rid of all the top-hamper as well.

Move the Spare Tire and ditch the Crane.
Remove the RWS or at least find a lighter one

Rework the interior so that the (IMO surplus to requirement) gunner doesn't occupy the entire space.

If it is just a transport vehicle the VC could operate the RWS from his seat beside the driver.
 
Further to - The TAPV might want to get rid of all the top-hamper as well.

Move the Spare Tire and ditch the Crane.
Remove the RWS or at least find a lighter one

Rework the interior so that the (IMO surplus to requirement) gunner doesn't occupy the entire space.

If it is just a transport vehicle the VC could operate the RWS from his seat beside the driver.
All of that is exactly what I was thinking when I read your post above. I'd put the gunner up front as well and who says the vehicle commander has to sit up front. He could do the job from a smaller tighter seat close to the two front seats leaving more room in the space in the back for extra folks or gear and would allow him better control of the dismounts in the rear and provide him with an easier exit with them.

Kind of makes you wonder why the folks at Textron didn't come up with all of that in the first place when they were designing the details of this thing.

I'm a firm believer in making the most of what you have. A little kit bashing can pay big dividends.

🍻
 
The biggest problems with the TAPV all seems to stem from the COC's obsession with defeating IEDs into as near as one can tell, the megaton range.
The reason a lot of P.res people seem to be still thrilled with them is that ,one : they're brand new and two: they're honest to god armoured vehicles. And they don't see much of either...even less so then the regulars.
 
Last edited:
Further to @IKnowNothing and the question of what to do with the TAPVs

The Ukrainians were gifted the UK's surplus Saxon. Like the TAPV it is a 4x4 armoured box that nobody wanted. But the Ukrainians have found homes for them.


This is what the Saxon was intended for. To deliver a section and their kit from Britain to the German front over highways that were at risk of shell fire and bomb blast.

View attachment 73575

Saxon was designed for the Territorial Army 'follow on reinforcement' of BAOR, after the Russkis crossed the border and the Reserves were officially mobilized.

See? The British give their Reserves cheap POS kit too! ;)
 
All of that is exactly what I was thinking when I read your post above. I'd put the gunner up front as well and who says the vehicle commander has to sit up front. He could do the job from a smaller tighter seat close to the two front seats leaving more room in the space in the back for extra folks or gear and would allow him better control of the dismounts in the rear and provide him with an easier exit with them.

Kind of makes you wonder why the folks at Textron didn't come up with all of that in the first place when they were designing the details of this thing.

I'm a firm believer in making the most of what you have. A little kit bashing can pay big dividends.

🍻


Agree entirely with repositioning the VC/Gnr/Dr.

As to blaming Textron - you might want to consider the OFSVs and OOSVs that had to be redesigned after Coast Guard committee got done with adding labs and staterooms. Textron got some help from Rheinmetall.

The Canadian Horse

1663346257565.png
 
All of that is exactly what I was thinking when I read your post above. I'd put the gunner up front as well and who says the vehicle commander has to sit up front. He could do the job from a smaller tighter seat close to the two front seats leaving more room in the space in the back for extra folks or gear and would allow him better control of the dismounts in the rear and provide him with an easier exit with them.

Kind of makes you wonder why the folks at Textron didn't come up with all of that in the first place when they were designing the details of this thing.

I'm a firm believer in making the most of what you have. A little kit bashing can pay big dividends.

🍻
1663347154048.jpeg

Move the Gunner's seat forwards between the front wheels. Have, as you suggest, the gunner and the VC swap places. Remove the RWS controls to the wasted space beside the engine and move the spare into that same space., Or park it on the outside of the rear. Or even on the front face.

1663348288225.png1663348333797.png
 
Like the Bison the TAPV spare tire should be front mounted. That shifts that weight from a problem to a helper. Plus it is less likely to get shrapnel from Arty there, and as mentioned that crane can go away because as I understand it’s simply there for the idiot tire placement.

But yes, best spot for the TAPV is Ukraine, maybe they can sink them in a river as a field expedient bridge.
 
All of that is exactly what I was thinking when I read your post above. I'd put the gunner up front as well and who says the vehicle commander has to sit up front. He could do the job from a smaller tighter seat close to the two front seats leaving more room in the space in the back for extra folks or gear and would allow him better control of the dismounts in the rear and provide him with an easier exit with them.

Kind of makes you wonder why the folks at Textron didn't come up with all of that in the first place when they were designing the details of this thing.

I'm a firm believer in making the most of what you have. A little kit bashing can pay big dividends.

🍻

I don't often comment about current pieces of kit, especially AFVs, since the last time I clanked about as either a driver or crew comd was over forty years ago. However, having on occasion in the intervening years made the error of letting someone else (junior) ride "shotgun" while I rode "bitch*" or back seat, I would posit there is probably both a tactical and hierarchical reason for the comd being there. Though I haven't been in a TAPV, from photos I've viewed it seems that the up front seats have greater field of view than any other position (even if only slightly rear of them). If one were to assign priority to situational awareness, the vehicle commander would likely win out over the gunner. Also by having the comd next to the driver, he is better able to direct him not only by verbal orders but also by gesture (much like the use of the pick handle back those 40 years ago when we traveled with heads out the hatch).


edited to add

*My apologies for the use of this vulgar term, however it may serve to illustrate the "hierarchical" aspect of seating arrangement
 
Last edited:
I don't often comment about current pieces of kit, especially AFVs, since the last time I clanked about as either a driver or crew comd was over forty years ago. However, having on occasion in the intervening years made the error of letting someone else (junior) ride "shotgun" while I rode "bitch" or back seat, I would posit there is probably both a tactical and hierarchical reason for the comd being there. Though I haven't been in a TAPV, from photos I've viewed it seems that the up front seats have greater field of view than any other position (even if only slightly rear of them). If one were to assign priority to situational awareness, the vehicle commander would likely win out over the gunner. Also by having the comd next to the driver, he is better able to direct him not only by verbal orders but also by gesture (much like the use of the pick handle back those 40 years ago when we traveled with heads out the hatch).

All of that problem goes away if the TAPV loses its role as a "Patrol" Vehicle and becomes a Transport Vehicle.

The second seat is filled with the co-driver and the co-driver gets the RWS controls for a simple,, lightweight RWS for local defence. Move the Rheinmetall-Kongsberg RWS to a more suitable vehicle - like, perhaps, the ACSVs?
 
And on the technology front - The Electric Bushmaster


The electric Protected Mobility Vehicle, or ePMV, is quieter than its combustion engine counterparts and it is hoped it can drive for 1000 kilometres before needing to be recharged.

He said the electric version can accelerate faster, generate more torque, is simpler to maintain because it has fewer mechanical moving parts and can export power so the army can run a headquarters or a workshop from the vehicle on the battlefield.

"Electric vehicles tend to have a different heat signature on the battlefield so they wouldn't be quite so hot, because you don't have an engine creating a thermal signature," Colonel Smith said.


BUT....

how does the army charge the vehicles on the battlefield?

"That's part of the journey already," Colonel Smith said.

"We will need to charge the vehicle in the field. Hence, phase two takes us to a self-charging electric vehicle, which gets us around having to provide the electric charging point in the field."

So an electric vehicle with a genny.

Some people might call that a hybrid.
 
I don't often comment about current pieces of kit, especially AFVs, since the last time I clanked about as either a driver or crew comd was over forty years ago. However, having on occasion in the intervening years made the error of letting someone else (junior) ride "shotgun" while I rode "bitch*" or back seat, I would posit there is probably both a tactical and hierarchical reason for the comd being there. Though I haven't been in a TAPV, from photos I've viewed it seems that the up front seats have greater field of view than any other position (even if only slightly rear of them). If one were to assign priority to situational awareness, the vehicle commander would likely win out over the gunner. Also by having the comd next to the driver, he is better able to direct him not only by verbal orders but also by gesture (much like the use of the pick handle back those 40 years ago when we traveled with heads out the hatch).


edited to add

*My apologies for the use of this vulgar term, however it may serve to illustrate the "hierarchical" aspect of seating arrangement

Your intervention kept me thinking .... and brought me to this. The universal, over head pivot arm. Replace the light with the CLU or whatever the HMI is called and place it behind and between the front two seats with the third seat. Then the crew can figure out who sits where and does what job. If the vehicle were stationary then the driver could man the gun and cover the other two while they are dismounted.


1663441622909.png
 
Or better yet something like this HMI that could be passed around from Gnr to VC to Driver. Or maybe you could afford to buy two for each vehicle. One for the VC/Gnr and one for the Gnr/Pax.

1663450680179.png


 
Realistically, could TAPV's with retrofitted weapon systems (the RS6 for example) provide the basis of mixed vehicle medium CAV troops (1x LRSS, 3x TAPV with assortment of scout teams, tank hunter teams, and varied RWS mounts) even as a stop gap for the next decade? Or are they complete duds.
Duds, honestly you can manipulate and exchange systems, swap seats, what ever but your changing the deck chairs in the Titanic. Why that project isn’t used to highlight our procurement failure I don’t know.

That being said they aren’t going anywhere so a role needs to be found for them.
 
TAPV is not a procurement failure. It's a requirements failure.
Or perhaps a misplaced sympathy trying to be magnanimous and failing hard? (RegF brain trust thinking a new non-hand me down to the PRes would ingratiate them)…
 
Back
Top