Six Pers Recce AFV Crews (Split from CCV thread)

[dogger1936]

Lets not forget these are IFVs so there is room for additional troops in them. I could see the recce vehicles having 6 man crews to allow for 24 / 7  operations

Why do we require 6 man crews to allow 24/7 operations. My past decade we've been doing it with 4.....you mean to tell me we only had to be in the mud OP until 20h00?

 

[cphansen]

Because everyone needs some downtime to maintain their effeciency. I know anytime I've gone over 48 hours straight in my civilian jobs, I've had to do half of it over again after I've had some sleep. I used to work as a programmer/analyst, project team leader and we had some tight deadlines, so sometimes to meet the deadlines we just kept plugging away and testing non stop for up to 72 hours at a time. I know the quality of my decisions went down after I had worked 48 or more hours without at least 4 hours of sleep.

I also, afterwards, noticed the quality of my team mates work also detoriated and we wanted to do a lot of rewriting, but we met the deadlines.

I suspect this is not an uncommon situation.

As for the 24/7 concept, I was thinking of job changeover i.e. having 3 teams of 2 individuals each, these individuals would be able to fulfill any crew members responsibility. They would be on for 8 hours each but would change responsibilities after 4 hours if the tactical position allows ie Driver A exchanges with loader B while crew commander A exchanges with sensor operator B while team C tries to get some rest, not the easiest thing to do in a vehicule.

 

[George Wallace]

Why do we require 6 man crews to allow 24/7 operations. My past decade we've been doing it with 4.....you mean to tell me we only had to be in the mud OP until 20h00?

I agree.  Been there and done that.

Because everyone needs some downtime to maintain their effeciency.

It has never been a problem with well organized crews and a shift schedule made up by a competent CC.

As for the 24/7 concept, I was thinking of job changeover i.e. having 3 teams of 2 individuals each, these individuals would be able to fulfill any crew members responsibility. They would be on for 8 hours each but would change responsibilities after 4 hours if the tactical position allows ie Driver A exchanges with loader B while crew commander A exchanges with sensor operator B while team C tries to get some rest, not the easiest thing to do in a vehicule.

Again:  It has never been a problem with well organized crews and a shift schedule made up by a competent CC.  Not only that, but there are usually two crews to draw from to lighten the load/shiftwork in static positions.  Having crew members cycle through positions as you suggest is a waste.  In a static posn only the turret crew need to be mounted, with a driver resting in the Dvr's hole if necessary.  If a sensor suite is being used, two crews will have a shift shedule to man it.  All stations do not have to be manned. 

 

[a_majoor]

A larger recce crew might be useful for other reasons, including dismounting troops for sneak and peeks, conversing with the locals or other tasks that are difficult to do while mounted.

On the other hand, a larger crew needs a much larger vehicle to hold the consumables and provide a reasonable amount of living space (packing them in like sardines won't lead to an effective or functional crew).

 

[ArmyRick]

If you look at the US Stryker family, there Recce variant is as large as the other vehicles and armed with a .50 HMG. It does have a 6 man crew (2 crew + 4 dismounts) plus room for a translator or HUMINT operator. Sacrifice small size, gain larger crew.

The British Scimitar on the other hand is a rather small AFV with a good bite (30mm is good) but has no dismounts. I guess it will depend on what type of recce you are performing will dictate what you require.

 

[George Wallace]

If you look at the US Stryker family, there Recce variant is as large as the other vehicles and armed with a .50 HMG. It does have a 6 man crew (2 crew + 4 dismounts) plus room for a translator or HUMINT operator. Sacrifice small size, gain larger crew.

The British Scimitar on the other hand is a rather small AFV with a good bite (30mm is good) but has no dismounts. I guess it will depend on what type of recce you are performing will dictate what you require.

Agreed.  There are different types of Recce, performed by different types of units depending on role and tasks demanded of them.  An Armour Recce unit has no real need for a large number of "dismounts".  An Infantry Recce unit, depending on task and role, may need a "bus" to transport a large number of "dismounts" to a safe base of operations.  Artillery Recce usually work in small parties, and do not need a large number of "dismounts".  Engineer Recce is another story as well.  Each Arm conducts different types of Recces depending on task or role and will require different thought as to what vehicle best suits their needs.  One vehicle is not likely to suit all of their needs.

 

[George Wallace]

A larger recce crew might be useful for other reasons, including dismounting troops for sneak and peeks, conversing with the locals or other tasks that are difficult to do while mounted.

In the days when I was learning to be a Troop Ldr, we had a Seven Car Troop for Route Recces, with a Section of Assault Troop attached to do these things.  They were not mounted in the same type of vehicle (M-113) as the Recce Troop (Lynx), but in a vehicle that was able to manoeuvre and travel as well the Lynx.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

In the days when I was learning to be a Troop Ldr, we had a Seven Car Troop for Route Recces, with a Section of Assault Troop attached to do these things.  They were not mounted in the same type of vehicle (M-113) as the Recce Troop (Lynx), but in a vehicle that was able to manoeuvre and travel as well the Lynx.

In the Canadian recce context, using LAV-25 Coyotes (until replaced by TAPV) you could conceivably mount Assault/Support troop in either LAV-Bison (although most are not in APC mode anymore), LAV-III, or a TLAV and maintain the same tactical mobility as the Coyote.  Once TAPV comes into service, perhaps Assault/Support Troop in the APC version of the TAPV with Recce Troop being in the TAPV-Recce variant.

I preferred doing armoured recce when I was in the Marines using the 7 man recce crew approach:  3 as vehicle crew, and 4 dismounts, however this limits your vehicle size to the larger range, and increases your logistical requirements for food and water.  However, given the likelihood that we will continue to be in low to medium intensity operations that require more manpower to things such as VCPs, local cordon & search, raids, etc. having dismounts as well as crew is particularly useful.  I can also see the opposite side of things, whereby when you're adversary is a heavily armoured, highly mobile and more prone to fight in conventional means, having a leaner, more mobile recce platform whereby most of your tasks are done from the vehicle makes sense as well.

 

[George Wallace]

Matt

The Coyote is not a LAV 25.  It doesn't have a capability to swim like the LAV 25, and the back is full with a Surv Suite, which takes away the option of carrying more dismounts.  With the amount of kit (stoves, lanterns, rations (fresh and hard), POL and pers kit) that we carry in the CF, compared to other nations, we are almost "gypsy caravans", which again cuts down on the amount of room for dismounts.

I look at a Coyote as being a good Surveillance Veh, but a lousy Recce Veh.  It is too big, and doesn't have the capabilities necessary to properly do Recce; or do Recce properly. 

The German Luchs was big, with a good gun, and had a driver front and rear.  It served the Germans well for their type of Recce.  They conducted an aggressive form of Recce that involved engaging and destroying all contacts.  Canada does more of a "Sneak 'N Peek" type of Recce and a large veh like a Luchs or a LAV is not quite what is needed, in my opinion. 

I am not fond of 'wheels' and would prefer tracks.  I am also of the opinion that a Recce veh NEEDS to be capable of swimming when there are no bridges around.  Wheels won't handle steep banks too well. 

Is there an ideal veh?  I suppose it would depend on what philosopy of Recce one follows.  It will mean a lot of trade offs to come to some semblance of agreement.  Right now we seem to be in "Surv Mode" and not true Recce.

 

[dogger1936]

More people equals more movement. 4 per's with 8 in the patrol is plenty to make a OP base and OP. Once a routine is established life is good. I understand troops get bag tired when on ex...however on EX were ALWAYS trying to fit 9 months of war into two weeks; when in reality the tasks would be seperated most of the time.Not constantly rolling into something new every 8 hours.

I agree george we are WAY to far into survaillance cause it's "cool kit". Recce aboard the coyote is best done with the gun/binos...and the surv stow stowed.

 

[ArmyRick]

I wonder if the Coyote mast and remote surveillance thingy are going to soon be obsolete. Seriously with micro-UAVs popping up, what would you rather have? A nice tall mast or a camera that can fly around and spy for you?

This might free up future TAPV or whatever vehicle we get for actual recce sneak and peak (Which still has a role IMO)

Just a grunt who reads too much perspective. Arm Recce guys, thoughts on this?

 

[Franko]

I wonder if the Coyote mast and remote surveillance thingy are going to soon be obsolete. Seriously with micro-UAVs popping up, what would you rather have? A nice tall mast or a camera that can fly around and spy for you?

This might free up future TAPV or whatever vehicle we get for actual recce sneak and peak (Which still has a role IMO)

Just a grunt who reads too much perspective. Arm Recce guys, thoughts on this?

Sensors will always play a role, even in the Armd Recce world. UAVs can only see so much and the ground role will fill the gap to provide a complete picture.

Regards

 

[George Wallace]

I wonder if the Coyote mast and remote surveillance thingy are going to soon be obsolete. Seriously with micro-UAVs popping up, what would you rather have? A nice tall mast or a camera that can fly around and spy for you?

This might free up future TAPV or whatever vehicle we get for actual recce sneak and peak (Which still has a role IMO)

Just a grunt who reads too much perspective. Arm Recce guys, thoughts on this?

A Surv Suite in an OP for a continuous coverage of an area will not disappear.  A UAV has a limited loiter time, is affected by weather fronts (Yes, weather does also affect a Surv Suite, but you still have the Mk1 eyeball and M2 ears as redundancy.), only has a limited time of coverage on a tgt, still has to be directed to a tgt, etc.  One will not do the job of the other.  Both will compliment each other.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I like the idea of two crewmen in the vehicle who are dedicated to dismounted reconnaissance work, giving a Patrol four crewmen who can operate dismounted while leaving the vehicles fully operational. The Scout Platoons in the US Cavalry Troops I trained for some thirteen years ago were organized as such. I don't see the LAV as being too big for recce. The US guys were using Bradleys.

I encourage my troops to dismount at danger areas and when defining an objective. The current Coyote Patrol with two "GIBs" has some dismounted capability, but generally one of the crew commanders has to go with the patrol. I'd rather have four dismounts with one being a MCpl (who could also be a crew commander qualified guy to replace the Patrol Commander if the boss goes on foot). The dismounts could double as "Surv Ops", so a five-man crew with ten in the Patrol would work. I'm not sure that the new surveillance suite control station will look like, but it should be smaller than the current one.  Fitting two guys in the back of a LAV with that gear shouldn't be an issue.

 

[McG]

I like the idea of two crewmen in the vehicle who are dedicated to dismounted reconnaissance work...

So, is a 3 crew + 2 GIB a reasonable compromise vehicle (vice the 3 +3) or does it bring all of the bulk without enough of the dissmountable benefit?

 

[George Wallace]

So, is a 3 crew + 2 GIB a reasonable compromise vehicle (vice the 3 +3) or does it bring all of the bulk without enough of the dissmountable benefit?

It would depend on what Doctrine may say in the future.  Currently, I would think that the 3 + 2 GIB would work, as for the most part their role is to dismount and clear Blind Corners, Obstacles such as Bridges, improvised Road Blocks, etc. along a Route Recce; all relatively close enough to be covered by the veh crew.  If a larger Recce Ptl would be required for a foot recce over a long distance, then the Ptl would have two vehs in a Hide, giving four to seven pers to mount a foot ptl, and three, or so, to man the Ptl Base.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I like 3+2 to give two fully crewed vehicles along with four dismounts. The US Scout Platoons with Bradleys still performed stealthy reconnaissance. The vehicles were bigger, but the four dimounts meant that the M3s could stop short of a crest or danger area in full defilade and push out a foot patrol.

The LAV III is a big vehicle, but I'd use it happily for reconnaissance if we were manned for two dismounts in each vehicle (heck even without the extra dismount).  Giving them a revised Assault Trooper qualification would also be a bonus. I'd also use the new TLAVs but without the weird turret.

On the issue of Mast vs Remote vs Vehicle vs Mud OP I prefer to leave the choice to the Patrol Commander.  All methods have their advantages and disadvantages, and we train Patrol Commanders to conduct an estimate to pick the most appropriate.  In all cases two more guys in the patrol gives some improved local security which can be vital in less symetric environments.

 

[dogger1936]

Giving them a revised Assault Trooper qualification would also be a bonus. I'd also use the new TLAVs but without the weird turret.

On the issue of Mast vs Remote vs Vehicle vs Mud OP I prefer to leave the choice to the Patrol Commander.  All methods have their advantages and disadvantages, and we train Patrol Commanders to conduct an estimate to pick the most appropriate.  In all cases two more guys in the patrol gives some improved local security which can be vital in less symetric environments.

Security is a big part of my plan hence why  I'm usually  prone to use a mounted OP. Got the guns...man them!!
(Ever see a patrol commander set up the remote.....on a withdrawl  :nod

Assault trooper (now called armoured support trooper) is best kept as it's own.


I'm still not coinvinced we require extra dismounts in our current role. Sounds like were trying to be our own mini battle group in each C/S. Dismounts,armd, and support troopers all in one package.

I'm also a fan of the TLAV for Recce. Best thing we have to do the  job.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

In certain circumstances using a mounted OP can mean that you are less secure, especially if the nature of the target means you have to be close. Depending on the nature of the conflict and the mission you might just use the remote and keep the vehicles in a piece of inaccessible low-ground until the enemy has moved past you. The point, though, is that the Patrol Commander should have options.

Putting four dismounts (or scouts or what have you) in the Patrol is not making them a battlegroup.  It does give the Patrol, however, the ability to conduct meaningful dismounted work (not just OPs) without impairing the ability of the vehicles to manoeuvre.