LAV III Recce Vehicles

[TangoTwoBravo]

TAPV emphasizes blast protection (IEDs) - it was acquired due to Afghanistan. Their was plenty of debate about priorities (mobility vs protection etc) at the RCAC working groups I attended. Again, it was originally hoped to put the surveillance suite on the the TAPV. As an aside, the Fennek was used as an example of what TAPV could be like. I haven't worked with TAPV, so we'll have to see how the mobility aspect works out.

There is tremendous variation in Recce vehicles, perhaps more so than in other types of vehicles. Based on our situation, I would have preferred all LAV. We were dreaming of the CV90 as a Recce veh for heavy forces when the CCV project was alive... At the end of the day the professionals get on with the job with the tools at hand. Following up on RoyalDrew's comments, I imagine some commanders will consider grouping their LAVs together - we'll have to see.

I've attended Recce courses in the US Army and worked with their scout and cavalry elements. They do not see their scouts as expendable. They sneak and peek with M3 Bradley's, dismounting at danger areas etc. My wartime experience is in COIN, but I have plenty of exercise experience in conventional force on force Recce. Coyotes and LAVs can absolutely conduct Recce.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

One of the advantages the M38's had aside from being small and therefore harder to see and hit, is that you could drive them up to a spot where you could observe the enemy without being detected, fix the grid reference, then quickly double back a tactical bound or two and then call in a fire mission.

???

Doesn't that mean you aren't maintaining contact and therefore not able to confirm enemy disposition, not to mention you aren't able to send corrections if needed?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

So the Germans and Dutch have got it wrong then?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fennek

No, the Fennek has at least some form of protection.  The M38 is an open top jeep, very different.

 

[Loachman]

But we still put troops out on foot...

 

[George Wallace]

No, the Fennek has at least some form of protection.  The M38 is an open top jeep, very different.

Just an example of misunderstanding what the requirements are.  Not denigrate one vehicle over another, or suggest one vehicle over another, but a good Recce Vehicle will have as a minimum the commander "out of the vehicle" in that (s)he is not enclosed totally in a "cab", but able to see and HEAR (most important) what is going on outside.  The commander, as a minimum number of crew, must be able to HEAR what is going on around them outside of the vehicle.  You can not do that inside of an enclosed vehicle. 

You need to be able to use all your senses in Recce.  To take away your sense of hearing will denigrate your capabilities.

(This has been hashed over in other discussions on what Armour Recce does and needs.)

 

[George Wallace]

But we still put troops out on foot...

40 km behind enemy lines is a long and time consuming hump.  ;D

 

[Loachman]

Yes.

The choice is between slow and tired troops, or fast and less-fatigued ones. The level of protection is the same.

If armour reduces effectiveness for the sake of physical protection, then protection is really illusory.

 

[blackberet17]

Armour should not reduce effectiveness...if the right vehicle is determined for the task assigned.

Based solely on what I have seen and heard of the TAPV, it is NOT a Armd Recce veh. It has too high a profile and too small a view port, is too large for urban ops (which Armd Recce doesn't really like to do anyway, i.e. moving through built-up areas), and the CComd's senses, as argued by GW, are limited - again partly due to such a small view port (which is larger in a frigging G-Wag by comparison!), but also because of the hatch above the Comd...it's right in front of the RWS loc, and is supposedly to remain shut the majority of the time...if it hasn't been welded shut already...because of the blast protection blah blah etc.

So...there HAS to be a veh out there which allows for the sneak and peek recce, while offering a (to-be-quantified/acceptable) level of crew blast protection, which can be fast and quiet.

I readily admit. I'm not up on veh specs and the technical side of things. Tell me the platform(s) I have to work with, and I'll go do my job.

 

[McG]

Does the TAPV not have hatches that allow both crew comd and driver to operate heads up?  The hatches are certainly in the photos, and I have seen other images of US variants being operated this way.

 

[Eland2]

We are talking about a vehicle that is as old as my father, not really relevant on today's battlefield, I dare say.  I hate to say this but any vehicle we buy has to first and foremost, be survivable.  An M38 is nowhere near the type of vehicle we need and you may as well order mor body bags if you send guys out on patrol in one.  We had how many LAV's destroyed overseas?  Some people died but imagine if all those guys were in an M38. 

Sorry but conducting reconnaissance on today's battlefield in an M38 is a stupid idea.

I never meant to suggest that M38 jeeps would make acceptable recce vehicles. I was pointing out the fact that they had speed and small size in their favour against the backdrop that reflected all of their other flaws.

There is no question that M38 jeeps are totally inadequate as serious recce vehicles, especially in today's environment of increased and progressively more lethal threats. Even when the M38's were used by Canadian reserve recce units from the 1950s until the mid-1990s, they were inadequate for the job. They were the end result of a succession of governments that were too cheap to provide reserve units with equipment that was genuinely suited to the job they were expected to do.

The expectation was that Canada would never have to make much of a contribution in the next major war, as the Americans would pretty well do it all for us. Accordingly, the choice to not make proper investments in military hardware for reserve units was made.

It is really a stroke of great fortune that as a country, Canada never had to engage in the kind of serious combat that would have required it to draw heavily on its reserve forces in the time period I mention. I say this because had the opposite been true, the end result would have been that Canada would not have been able to make proper use of already underprepared and underequipped reserve units, or it would have ended up consigning soldiers in large numbers to almost certain death and defeat.

We have already seen what happens when soft-skinned, open-top (or even hardtop) jeeps get deployed to places like the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. They usually get shot up pretty good, as do their crews, or they get blown up by IEDs.

Any vehicle can be used to do recce taskings. However, one must be aware of their inherent limitations before deploying them, and be prepared to accept the consequences if the vehicles used lack sufficient firepower, armour protection, and cross-country mobility to really do the job right. No one vehicle will ever offer the perfect solution, anyway.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

But we still put troops out on foot...

Agreed, but that doesn't mean while they are moving from Point A to Point B, they shouldn't have some form of protection.  the South Africans were the ones who first made extensive use of MRAPs in the 1980s fighting guerrillas in South West Africa.  Some of their reconnaissance units used the very sort of MRAPs we are righting off as "No use to us!"

Our problem is we don't obey the rules of the road when it comes to employing MRAPs and treat MRAPs like IFVs or vice-versa. 

When it comes to Armoured Recce, the days of sneaking and peeking are over as far as I am concerned.  Especially with the advanced optics and weapons available on today's IFV's, Tanks and the big one we are forgetting, Helicopters.  The optics are what I am most concerned with and after that, firepower.  If you want to sneak around, awesome, but you better carry a big boom stick while you do that sneaking. 

We need to remember that the enemy gets a vote as well.  The Americans and Brits went into Iraq and the Ghan with unarmoured Humvee's and Land Rovers, there is a reason they quickly started bolting plates on and up armouring their vehicles.  Driving around in an M38 Jeep on exercise is one thing, doing it in a far away land where you don't know the territory and your enemy does is totally different. 

That was against an asymmetric threat, now take that M38 Jeep and put it up against a LAV III with a 200rd per min stabilized 25mm chain gun with thermal imaging and see how well it fares.  My thinking is we need to revisit our doctrine, not the type of vehicles we are buying.

In summation, if you don't have a big gun and good optics, you are no use to me as Armoured Recce.  If I wanted someone to go out and drive around in a jeep doing Recce, I'd get an Infantry Recce Pl to do it.

 

[blacktriangle]

Agreed, but that doesn't mean while they are moving from Point A to Point B, they shouldn't have some form of protection.  the South Africans were the ones who first made extensive use of MRAPs in the 1980s fighting guerrillas in South West Africa.  Some of their reconnaissance units used the very sort of MRAPs we are righting off as "No use to us!"

Our problem is we don't obey the rules of the road when it comes to employing MRAPs and treat MRAPs like IFVs or vice-versa. 

When it comes to Armoured Recce, the days of sneaking and peeking are over as far as I am concerned.  Especially with the advanced optics and weapons available on today's IFV's, Tanks and the big one we are forgetting, Helicopters.  The optics are what I am most concerned with and after that, firepower.  If you want to sneak around, awesome, but you better carry a big boom stick while you do that sneaking. 

We need to remember that the enemy gets a vote as well.  The Americans and Brits went into Iraq and the Ghan with unarmoured Humvee's and Land Rovers, there is a reason they quickly started bolting plates on and up armouring their vehicles.  Driving around in an M38 Jeep on exercise is one thing, doing it in a far away land where you don't know the territory and your enemy does is totally different. 

That was against an asymmetric threat, now take that M38 Jeep and put it up against a LAV III with a 200rd per min stabilized 25mm chain gun with thermal imaging and see how well it fares.  My thinking is we need to revisit our doctrine, not the type of vehicles we are buying.

In summation, if you don't have a big gun and good optics, you are no use to me as Armoured Recce.  If I wanted someone to go out and drive around in a jeep doing Recce, I'd get an Infantry Recce Pl to do it.

Good post. I am still waiting for recent examples to be put forth that show the value of "sneak and peak" outside of SOF and Recce Pl/Snipers. And for those that will pull the "radio is the main weapon of Armd Recce" - don't forget that against a foe with advanced capabilities, radio waves speak louder than diesel engines. I hope you don't plan on setting up an OP for any extended period - you will find rounds falling on you, or bad guys knocking.

Too bad they can't scrape up enough LAV III to completely fill out Armd Recce. To me, patrols consisting of 1 x LAV III with surv suite, and a second LAV (perhaps with a couple dismounts in the back) seems far more flexible than a mixed patrol. I also see logistical disadvantages of the mixed concept.

But as T2B says, we get what we get and have to figure out how to make it work.

 

[George Wallace]

Agreed, but that doesn't mean while they are moving from Point A to Point B, they shouldn't have some form of protection.  the South Africans were the ones who first made extensive use of MRAPs in the 1980s fighting guerrillas in South West Africa.  Some of their reconnaissance units used the very sort of MRAPs we are righting off as "No use to us!"

Our problem is we don't obey the rules of the road when it comes to employing MRAPs and treat MRAPs like IFVs or vice-versa. 

When it comes to Armoured Recce, the days of sneaking and peeking are over as far as I am concerned.  Especially with the advanced optics and weapons available on today's IFV's, Tanks and the big one we are forgetting, Helicopters.  The optics are what I am most concerned with and after that, firepower.  If you want to sneak around, awesome, but you better carry a big boom stick while you do that sneaking. 

We need to remember that the enemy gets a vote as well.  The Americans and Brits went into Iraq and the Ghan with unarmoured Humvee's and Land Rovers, there is a reason they quickly started bolting plates on and up armouring their vehicles.  Driving around in an M38 Jeep on exercise is one thing, doing it in a far away land where you don't know the territory and your enemy does is totally different. 

That was against an asymmetric threat, now take that M38 Jeep and put it up against a LAV III with a 200rd per min stabilized 25mm chain gun with thermal imaging and see how well it fares.  My thinking is we need to revisit our doctrine, not the type of vehicles we are buying.

In summation, if you don't have a big gun and good optics, you are no use to me as Armoured Recce.  If I wanted someone to go out and drive around in a jeep doing Recce, I'd get an Infantry Recce Pl to do it.

Well.....We could go the way the Germans did.  They retired their Luchs in their Reconnaissance Regiments and replaced them with Leopard 1's, cascaded down as the Armour Regiments were equipped with Leopard 2.

 

[Infanteer]

I think I've seen this argument....

http://army.ca/forums/threads/35526.0.html

 

[Eye In The Sky]

When it comes to Armoured Recce, the days of sneaking and peeking are over as far as I am concerned.  Especially with the advanced optics and weapons available on today's IFV's, Tanks and the big one we are forgetting, Helicopters.  The optics are what I am most concerned with and after that, firepower.  If you want to sneak around, awesome, but you better carry a big boom stick while you do that sneaking.

Optics (eg IR) are a game changer.  Also, in addition to what most people think of when they think "optics" (thermal, IR, EO, etc) I will throw in imaging radars.  They can see you from a great distance, thru weather, etc.  Even though it's not passive, if you can't reach out and touch it there isn't much you can do about it.  Fuse that data into a weapons system/operator...

If a sensor operator can see a person on IR at night wayyy wayyy up there, they sure can see your AFV.  And they can.  Be careful lighting that smoke in your dismounted OP.

 

[a_majoor]

Just a side note, came across some pictures of the German "Luchs" 8X8 recce vehicle of the cold war era. The only reason it could do recce, despite being about as big as a LAVIII was it's 8X8 independent suspension, 8X8 steering (all the wheels steered!) and mid engine configuration with the radio operator/aux driver in the rear able to drive the vehicle out of trouble in a pinch.

The turret was well forward, so the commander could get firepower going right away if he saw something, rather than back about 2/3 of the way as george points out on a LAV:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

and can swim as well

 

[dogger1936]

Give me a toyota helix and a pair of Binos and I'd be a happy recce soldier in Astan. Recce can be done from any Vehicle' and contrary to popular belief we do dismount as required to complete the job. My favorite vehicle I have done recce with was a route recce mounted in a leo 2. Best recce vehicle ever.

 

[MilEME09]

Give me a toyota helix and a pair of Binos and I'd be a happy recce soldier in Astan. Recce can be done from any Vehicle' and contrary to popular belief we do dismount as required to complete the job. My favorite vehicle I have done recce with was a route recce mounted in a leo 2. Best recce vehicle ever.

Well thats putting the Armoured in armoured recce

 

[dogger1936]

Well thats putting the Armoured in armoured recce

Meanwhile recce Sqn was dismounted doing infantry stuff. Employment of armd recce in the battlefield was near non existent as they were employed as a battalion up in Argandab. Many times we asked for their over-watch capabilities etc but they could never supply a patrol due to their commitments.A valuable commanders asset was lost on our tour due to a manpower issue (not enough infantry to cover the north) in my humble opinion. Having said that we came under heavy contact that route recce (Taliban road) and had the firepower to destroy and carry on with the task.