• 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

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,369
Points
890
Is it a bad thing that, even without clicking on the link, I know what it is and can see Rowan Atkinson, Hugh Laurie et al in my mind's eye?
 

cupper

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
dapaterson said:
Is it a bad thing that, even without clicking on the link, I know what it is and can see Rowan Atkinson, Hugh Laurie et al in my mind's eye?

If you stay in long enough, you can become the very model of a modern Major General.  [:D
 

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
55
Points
530
Oldgateboatdriver said:
You mean Ma...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--HR7PWfp0&list=RDh--HR7PWfp0&index=1

"With this pricked thumb,
Something wicked this way comes."
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
246
Points
680
Well, it is what you get for asking for a "double, double", not of the Timmie's type, but of toil and trouble!

(Also, my Shakespeare is a little rusty, but I think it's in the plural. My recollection is:

By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes:
Open locks;
Whoever knocks!"

But I could be wrong)
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
731
Points
1,060
In the name of merciful heaven.  I feel inadequate.  I was only born in Britain.  ;D

 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
704
Points
940
Any one else notice we keep getting bigger with vehicles, our MSVS's are as big as the HL's and yet are a ML replacement, TAPV is bigger then the Coyote, I'm all for protection but whats the point if you are the biggest target on the block.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
MilEME09 said:
Any one else notice we keep getting bigger with vehicles, our MSVS's are as big as the HL's and yet are a ML replacement, TAPV is bigger then the Coyote, I'm all for protection but whats the point if you are the biggest target on the block.

They are also losing cross-country capabilities......As if wars are fought on hard standing........ ::)
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
393
Points
910
MilEME09 said:
Any one else notice we keep getting bigger with vehicles, our MSVS's are as big as the HL's and yet are a ML replacement, TAPV is bigger then the Coyote, I'm all for protection but whats the point if you are the biggest target on the block. 

On the flip side...protection is important too.  Most weapons and sensor (in the air, at least) will see your heat signature regardless of your size.  If I can't see your heat signature, I have a shot as seeing you on a few different RADAR modes if there is an undercast layer, etc.  Rare to find a battlespace with no airborne ISR operating over it.  The ability for things like Reapers to loiter for a longggggggggg time, locate/track/classify/designate/target an AFV is only improving.  Cross-cueing between various assets is fairly lethal for ground targets as well.

I'm not that up to snuff on ground based *anti-AFV* man portable system anymore, but surely there are thermal/IR SSMs there days that the protection is designed to increase survivability from these days, not to mention VBIEDs which are pretty common on the battlefields of today as well.

Case in point...2 examples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEjL8nnu5j8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33Am3GE3a1I
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
731
Points
1,060
But can you really armour-plate yourself to invulnerability?  Or is it really just matter of choosing between piling on the armour so that you can get closer to the objective before having to dismount and, ont the other hand, not being able being able to get close to the objective because you are so big you can be seen at long ranges and so heavy you can't navigate the terrain?

I am not convinced that there is any vehicle out there that can survive for long against top-attack weapons of any caliber launched by any platform.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
393
Points
910
That's the real crappy end of the crap stick, isn't it?  Deciding what threat to worry about, knowing you can't defeat them all, or even some of them.  If there is the ability to kill MBTs, well...how do you decide between level of protection against speed/mobility?  Are you even trying to protect against the air threat, or just the ground stuff (below .50cal rounds, fragmentation from arty, etc)?
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
731
Points
1,060
Eye In The Sky said:
That's the real crappy end of the crap stick, isn't it?  Deciding what threat to worry about, knowing you can't defeat them all, or even some of them.  If there is the ability to kill MBTs, well...how do you decide between level of protection against speed/mobility?  Are you even trying to protect against the air threat, or just the ground stuff (below .50cal rounds, fragmentation from arty, etc)?

It is often argued that the machine-gun killed the old cavalry but the old cavalry, which relied on mass and required concentration to deliver effect had already proved itself vulnerable to English archers, Spanish musketeers and British Shrapnel (from 1804).  The internal combustion engine gave the concept a new lease on life because more horses could be harnessed to carry the plate for one Knight - but at a heck of a capital cost.

Now the capital cost keeps going up, resulting in fewer targets (sorry, vehicles) with a tendency to try and put more people under cover (thereby concentrating forces while they are ineffective).

The historical solution to the problem has been dispersal while increasing lethality by concentrating effective fires.

The Agincourt bowmen gave way to the Spanish Tercio which gave way to the
lines of Gustav Adolph and Maurice of Nassau which gave way to Wellingtons two rank firing lines which gave way to Craufurd's rifles.  And the artillery evolved to the netted system of fires from distributed firing points we have today.

The secret to winning, in my humble opinion, is The Shell Game - only you increase the number of shells and peas and make the peas more lethal.  Or putting it another way - firepower and mobility over protection and increase the numbers available (possible by reducing the costs of the vehicles).
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
704
Points
940
So role how we did in WWII with shermans, the concept i mean, mass produce tons of vehicles which may not have the best protection, but gets the job done.
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
57
Points
480
MilEME09 said:
So role how we did in WWII with shermans, the concept i mean, mass produce tons of vehicles which may not have the best protection, but gets the job done.

In my opinion the Allies made a major error in sealing the Sherman design so they fought the rest of the war with a tank that was successful in 1942, but was outmatched by improved German models of the Mk IV as well as Panthers and Tigers by 1944. Reflect on how Normandy could have gone if our tanks had guns equivalent to the 76s on the Mk IVs and Panthers, let along the 88s on the Tigers.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
393
Points
910
Chris Pook said:
The secret to winning, in my humble opinion, is The Shell Game - only you increase the number of shells and peas and make the peas more lethal.  Or putting it another way - firepower and mobility over protection and increase the numbers available (possible by reducing the costs of the vehicles).

And there are some new kinds of peas out there now that can disrupt, and other peas that can kill...

Mini-versions of systems like this could very well be the cam and concealment of the future.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
704
Points
940
Old Sweat said:
In my opinion the Allies made a major error in sealing the Sherman design so they fought the rest of the war with a tank that was successful in 1942, but was outmatched by improved German models of the Mk IV as well as Panthers and Tigers by 1944. Reflect on how Normandy could have gone if our tanks had guns equivalent to the 76s on the Mk IVs and Panthers, let along the 88s on the Tigers.

Which is why we never deployed the Ram II to Europe, while the 6 pdr gun wasn't bad, it wasn't good either, Canadian forces experimented with a 25 pdr AT gun in 1942 but the british told us it was a dumb idea and a waste of resources, in hind site a 25 pdr AT gun would of dealt with most axis armour for the rest of the war. I do agree with you though, serious political infighting delayed Pershing from getting to europe, ditto for delays in the centurion program.
 
Top