Armoured Recce Vehicle
- Thread starter a_majoor
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
RecceDG says:
"Take a Bison. Cover the commander's hatch with a gun mount similar to the M1 commander's hatch, plus maybe a gun shield - so now you have optics, power traverse, power elevation (ok, not on M1, but we could do it) maybe a simple laser rangefinder, ballistic computer, and gun stabilization (the constantly shrinking cost and size of electronics makes this feasible) - but the idea is a gun mount that can be fired either hatches up or hatches down, and can mount 50 cal, Mk19, or C6.
Now put two more of the same mount on the rear of the vehicle, forward of the "air sentry" hatches on the Bison, inside the wheelbase. (My experience with the air sentry hatches on Bison was that they were so far aft of the pitch centre that the vehicle kept trying to flip the air sentry out his hatch - but if you opened the central cargo hatch and worked out of that, the vehicle felt much more stable.)
Give it a 4-man crew - driver, crew commander, and 2 observer/gunners. Leave the internal configuration more or less standard Bison. Simplify the external hull to be just the three weapons stations and nothing else - no cargo hatch, no air sentry hatches, no big storage boxes."
Everything old is new again, it seems! The general configuration you have described isn't terribly unlike the WWII-era M20 Greyhound Armored Utility Car. It was an open-topped, eight-wheeled scout car which had a crew of four. Towards the driver's station, a .50cal HMG
ring was mounted for the crew commander. Offering a modicum of armor protection and high speed, the M20 proved to be an effective scout car, even though it was most frequently used as a command and liaison vehicle. The open top gave the crew excellent all-round visibility - as good as you would find in a jeep, even if in doing so the vehicle was more vulnerable to artillery and air strikes.
If I recall correctly, the Hungarians had the PZSH-IV APC, which was open-topped and could carry an infantry section of six. It was basically a development of the Russian BRDM. The Czechs had the OT-65 FUG, which also had an open top and was effectively a BRDM-2 variant.
The idea of a Bison recce is an interesting one - with proper armour and armament, you effectively have a 'super jeep' or scout car.
"Take a Bison. Cover the commander's hatch with a gun mount similar to the M1 commander's hatch, plus maybe a gun shield - so now you have optics, power traverse, power elevation (ok, not on M1, but we could do it) maybe a simple laser rangefinder, ballistic computer, and gun stabilization (the constantly shrinking cost and size of electronics makes this feasible) - but the idea is a gun mount that can be fired either hatches up or hatches down, and can mount 50 cal, Mk19, or C6.
Now put two more of the same mount on the rear of the vehicle, forward of the "air sentry" hatches on the Bison, inside the wheelbase. (My experience with the air sentry hatches on Bison was that they were so far aft of the pitch centre that the vehicle kept trying to flip the air sentry out his hatch - but if you opened the central cargo hatch and worked out of that, the vehicle felt much more stable.)
Give it a 4-man crew - driver, crew commander, and 2 observer/gunners. Leave the internal configuration more or less standard Bison. Simplify the external hull to be just the three weapons stations and nothing else - no cargo hatch, no air sentry hatches, no big storage boxes."
Everything old is new again, it seems! The general configuration you have described isn't terribly unlike the WWII-era M20 Greyhound Armored Utility Car. It was an open-topped, eight-wheeled scout car which had a crew of four. Towards the driver's station, a .50cal HMG
ring was mounted for the crew commander. Offering a modicum of armor protection and high speed, the M20 proved to be an effective scout car, even though it was most frequently used as a command and liaison vehicle. The open top gave the crew excellent all-round visibility - as good as you would find in a jeep, even if in doing so the vehicle was more vulnerable to artillery and air strikes.
If I recall correctly, the Hungarians had the PZSH-IV APC, which was open-topped and could carry an infantry section of six. It was basically a development of the Russian BRDM. The Czechs had the OT-65 FUG, which also had an open top and was effectively a BRDM-2 variant.
The idea of a Bison recce is an interesting one - with proper armour and armament, you effectively have a 'super jeep' or scout car.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
RecceDG said:
Veddy interesting. Maybe this time we'll see something that is indigenously designed and suited exactly to Canadian requirements, instead of something designed in a foreign country and then called 'Canadian' just because it has a few modifications and additions developed here.
It seems the Canadian aversion to to developing military hardware of indigenous design has a long history, starting first with the ill-starred Ram tank, then the Avro Arrow (an excellent aircraft squashed for political reasons), and the little-known, but emblematic Bobcat APC.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Recce DG's informant makes some interesting points about vehicle anti-ambush procedures and drills, but there is nothing inherently "recce" about this task. American Military Police use an updated version of the venerable V-150 Commando as an escort vehicle (indeed they used tho original V-100 and V-150 in Viet Nam), and truckers in the transport company are known to scrounge armour and weapons, sometimes even converting cargo trucks into "gunships". (I know CF doctrine gives this job to the Recce Squadrons, but this could change due to lessons learned)
The F-150 conversions are a pretty good argument against using such vehicles in the high end of the full spectrum of operations, eventually you will just run out of luck, and you certainly will run out of vehicles due to the maintenance load of refurbishing them after every contact. Enough protection to resist small arms, LMGs and even GPMG fire would make vehicle ambushes more difficult to pull off, forcing them to commit more and more valuable assets to do the same job. A Bison "Gunship" is more useful for this sort of scenario, but to make it a recce vehicle, I will suggest a few small changes:
1. One of the OWS stations should have a powerful sensor system rather than a weapon (The Stryker Recce does this putting an LRAS optical sight in the OWS).
2. The extra room in the back can hold enough stores to make the vehicle and crew self sufficient for 72+ hr. I am in favor of some extra patrolmen who can act as dismounted scouts (see http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36019/post-310895.html#msg310895, as well as the various arguments pro and con in this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35526.0.html). As a BTW, some discussions about the Fennek have also circulated in these threads as well.
The F-150 conversions are a pretty good argument against using such vehicles in the high end of the full spectrum of operations, eventually you will just run out of luck, and you certainly will run out of vehicles due to the maintenance load of refurbishing them after every contact. Enough protection to resist small arms, LMGs and even GPMG fire would make vehicle ambushes more difficult to pull off, forcing them to commit more and more valuable assets to do the same job. A Bison "Gunship" is more useful for this sort of scenario, but to make it a recce vehicle, I will suggest a few small changes:
1. One of the OWS stations should have a powerful sensor system rather than a weapon (The Stryker Recce does this putting an LRAS optical sight in the OWS).
2. The extra room in the back can hold enough stores to make the vehicle and crew self sufficient for 72+ hr. I am in favor of some extra patrolmen who can act as dismounted scouts (see http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36019/post-310895.html#msg310895, as well as the various arguments pro and con in this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35526.0.html). As a BTW, some discussions about the Fennek have also circulated in these threads as well.
...aside from providing convoy escorts being a key recce task in Canadian doctrine...
Bison already *is* a recce vehicle. I did recce in Bison in 1996. A plain-jane Bison makes a perfectly servicable recce vehicle right off the factory floor. If you don't mind soldiers sticking out the cargo hatch, it'll even work as a "gunship" that way. I'd rather have the observers protected, and giving them an optical sight (as part of the weapon station) also helps the *observer* function for recce tasks, but binos would serve as well.
That's kinda the point I'm making here. Produce more Bisons for recce use, and everybody wins. Add the weapons stations I'm talking about - and they need not be all-seeing, all-dancing either; hell, pry the commander's cupolas off all the Lynxes we still have lying around, those would work too.
And as far as extra scouts go, I'm with you for ONE extra scout/observer (that's actually part of this proposal) but no more - a 4-man crew is ideal. No more, or we put big a tail on the squadron.
DG
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Remember, Coyote is not a Recce Veh. It's a Surveillance Veh (Both RMSS and MMSS variants).
As for the Convoy Escort being a recce task. Yes, it's a Tp Task minimal, optimally a Sqn task. The lead elements are moving either in Leap Frog or Caterpillar (Alternating or Consecutive for the new guys) with the crews completely scanning there arcs. Performing a small route recce if you will. The escort commander (usually the Tp Officer) is the convoy commander. The only people whom should do this are either a Recce Tp/Sqn or Recce Pl w/att assets. It's what we do. Yes, the more assets you have the better, but it is a recce task.
As for the Convoy Escort being a recce task. Yes, it's a Tp Task minimal, optimally a Sqn task. The lead elements are moving either in Leap Frog or Caterpillar (Alternating or Consecutive for the new guys) with the crews completely scanning there arcs. Performing a small route recce if you will. The escort commander (usually the Tp Officer) is the convoy commander. The only people whom should do this are either a Recce Tp/Sqn or Recce Pl w/att assets. It's what we do. Yes, the more assets you have the better, but it is a recce task.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
I am not disputing the fact that convoy escort is a recce task in the Canadian Forces, I am simply pointing out it isn't an inherently recce task like a screen and so on. Indeed, given some of the lessons learned for Afghanistan and Iraq, I would argue the need for recce to be out there looking for the bad guys is becoming such a critical need that tying people up in convoy duties is taking away assets from more important duties. If the MP platoon or one platoon in Transport Coy are armed and equipped to perform escorts (using uparmoured HMMVWs and V-150s like the Americans, for example), then there are more recce troops available to do recce.
WRT the Bison as a recce vehicle, it certainly will do out of the box, but a little massaging will go a long way in this case. There is lots of internal volume, so you can scale this up or down in many different ways. Indeed almost everything the squadron and assault troop do can be supported by a fleet of Bisons, including mortar carriers and APCs for the assault troop, Ambulances and MRTs for the echelon, CP and RRB vehicles and so on.
WRT the Bison as a recce vehicle, it certainly will do out of the box, but a little massaging will go a long way in this case. There is lots of internal volume, so you can scale this up or down in many different ways. Indeed almost everything the squadron and assault troop do can be supported by a fleet of Bisons, including mortar carriers and APCs for the assault troop, Ambulances and MRTs for the echelon, CP and RRB vehicles and so on.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
I'm going to have to side with RecceDG and Capt. Rosencrantz on this one. Armd Recce Reservists would be a better choice than MPs or Transport Platoons to do this task. They are currently held back from filling Recce Taskings on Tours right now because they don't have the Qualifications to crew Coyotes. If the Brick was changed to bring in a Recce element to fill the Convoy Escort role, they would be a much better choice.
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
Thank you George. That's all we've been trying to say, albeit obviously not to clearly, all along through these various threads. Light vehicle patrol recce stuff is the Reserve Armour forte. Let us do it. Why waste time training up others to do what we've been doing all along.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
D
We have always been on the same page, just looking at it with different perspectives, at different times. One is looking at current situation, another at possible scenarios, and yet another at changes to equipment, and yet another at the inflexibility of the Brick, etc. Basically all of the same frame of mind, but different points of reference.
We have always been on the same page, just looking at it with different perspectives, at different times. One is looking at current situation, another at possible scenarios, and yet another at changes to equipment, and yet another at the inflexibility of the Brick, etc. Basically all of the same frame of mind, but different points of reference.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Love793
Remember, Coyote is not a Recce Veh. It's a Surveillance Veh (Both RMSS and MMSS variants)
Thought I would jump in based on the remarks made above by Love793. The Coyote was purchased as a Medium Recce Veh replacing the Lynx to provide a number of cababilities, Surveillance being one of them. Thought I would list out the Characteristics as well as the categories of recce, Recce Tasks, and Security Tasks;
Characteristics: Mobility, Firepower, Protection, Sensing, flexibility, and Sustainment. The Coyote provides all of these and then some.
Categories: Combat Recce, Close Recce, Medium Recce, Long range Recce. The Coyote is well suited to conduct Close and Medium Recce tasks and can conduct Combat Recce given the proper assets. Long Range Recce is more suited to SOF organizations altough Medium recce assets using the Surv kit can provide ovewatch at a stand off distance.
Recce Tasks: Route, Area, Point, Zone Recce's, Recce in Force, and NBC Recce. The Coyote has done all but one (Recce in Force)of these tasks in Operations.
Security Tasks: Screen, Guard, Flank, RAS, Traffic Control, Convoy Escort, and NBC Surveillance. The Coyote has done all but one (Guard)of these tasks in Operations.
The Coyote has pretty well done all of the above tasks deployed Operationally including Surveillance. There is not an Army in the World that I am aware of that has anything that comes close to the Capabilities of the Coyote, and most Armies that I have had the opportunity to work with would love to have the Coyote based on the Capabilities it brings to the table. If we look at the size of the Coyote, the Germans for years have conducted Recce using Luchs and Leopard 2, and the Americans in the Cav roll have used M1 and Bradleys for Recce tasks.
Given the Capabilities of the Coyote I would have to say that it is in fact a Reconnaissance vehicle second to none.
Comments
Remember, Coyote is not a Recce Veh. It's a Surveillance Veh (Both RMSS and MMSS variants)
Thought I would jump in based on the remarks made above by Love793. The Coyote was purchased as a Medium Recce Veh replacing the Lynx to provide a number of cababilities, Surveillance being one of them. Thought I would list out the Characteristics as well as the categories of recce, Recce Tasks, and Security Tasks;
Characteristics: Mobility, Firepower, Protection, Sensing, flexibility, and Sustainment. The Coyote provides all of these and then some.
Categories: Combat Recce, Close Recce, Medium Recce, Long range Recce. The Coyote is well suited to conduct Close and Medium Recce tasks and can conduct Combat Recce given the proper assets. Long Range Recce is more suited to SOF organizations altough Medium recce assets using the Surv kit can provide ovewatch at a stand off distance.
Recce Tasks: Route, Area, Point, Zone Recce's, Recce in Force, and NBC Recce. The Coyote has done all but one (Recce in Force)of these tasks in Operations.
Security Tasks: Screen, Guard, Flank, RAS, Traffic Control, Convoy Escort, and NBC Surveillance. The Coyote has done all but one (Guard)of these tasks in Operations.
The Coyote has pretty well done all of the above tasks deployed Operationally including Surveillance. There is not an Army in the World that I am aware of that has anything that comes close to the Capabilities of the Coyote, and most Armies that I have had the opportunity to work with would love to have the Coyote based on the Capabilities it brings to the table. If we look at the size of the Coyote, the Germans for years have conducted Recce using Luchs and Leopard 2, and the Americans in the Cav roll have used M1 and Bradleys for Recce tasks.
Given the Capabilities of the Coyote I would have to say that it is in fact a Reconnaissance vehicle second to none.
Comments
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
HEDGEHOG
You make my blood boil... The Luchs is the only large vehicle in this category that I would consider a Recce Vehicle. I DO NOT consider a Coyote a Recce Vehicle. It is a very fine Surveillance Vehicle.
Points: Turret is too far to the rear. Luchs has the turret forward and can be used effectively. Coyote has turret mounted to the rear, so the whole vehicle must be exposed to use the main gun and sights on things like Blind Corners, Crest Drills (Gotta love being Tracks Up.), etc. Solution - Make the Driver the Crew Commander; then he can see around those corners and over those crests.
Mobility. The Coyote is fast.....if it stays on Roads. Cross country is another story. It bogs easily. It's winch is not capable of pulling it out, and having wheels instead of tracks, self recovery is now very limited.
Firepower. Should only be used as a last resort in Recce, but what does the 25 really defeat? You are only going to pee off all those tanks to your front.
Protection. Works on the "Swiss Cheese Principal". Hopefully the rounds go right through, and don't bounce around inside.
It is a vehicle that fills a few of the roles of our Recce Doctrine and has been pigeon-holed to fit the rest.
Crap. This pi$$es me off.
You make my blood boil... The Luchs is the only large vehicle in this category that I would consider a Recce Vehicle. I DO NOT consider a Coyote a Recce Vehicle. It is a very fine Surveillance Vehicle.
Points: Turret is too far to the rear. Luchs has the turret forward and can be used effectively. Coyote has turret mounted to the rear, so the whole vehicle must be exposed to use the main gun and sights on things like Blind Corners, Crest Drills (Gotta love being Tracks Up.), etc. Solution - Make the Driver the Crew Commander; then he can see around those corners and over those crests.
Mobility. The Coyote is fast.....if it stays on Roads. Cross country is another story. It bogs easily. It's winch is not capable of pulling it out, and having wheels instead of tracks, self recovery is now very limited.
Firepower. Should only be used as a last resort in Recce, but what does the 25 really defeat? You are only going to pee off all those tanks to your front.
Protection. Works on the "Swiss Cheese Principal". Hopefully the rounds go right through, and don't bounce around inside.
It is a vehicle that fills a few of the roles of our Recce Doctrine and has been pigeon-holed to fit the rest.
Crap. This pi$$es me off.
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
HEDGEHOG said:
I think maybe you quoted the characteristics of the Coyote, not recce.
In fact, the existing, (there is no other, as even the new draft is ten years old and not officially released yet), Reconnaissance doctrine is taken from the Reconnaissance Squadron in Battle. Section 203 states:
203. Characteristics
1. Mobility
2. Flexibility
3. Logistic Economy
4. Limitations
a. Lack of Firepower
b. Vulnerability in Close Quarter Fighting
c. Endurance
d. Reserve
Anything else was put in by someone after the advent of the Coyote, I suspect a muscle flexing, feel good exercise. It is not official, nor does it encompass the whole of reconnaissance. It is simply self serving to those that feel the Coyote is the end all to be all.
Bluntly, recce is observing without being seen, or heard. The approach of your 11 ft(?) high, smoke belching, 250 decibel jake brake screaming behemoth, is not conducive keeping a low profile.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
Darn!
I forgot something in Mobility - The Luchs has two drivers, one front and one rear, with the same gears Forward as Reverse. Any Reg Recce Soldier will tell you "You will need 40 acres to turn that Coyote around" or perform a "40 Point Turn" on the road. So in the event that you ever drive down the road and bump the Enemy; you're cooked!
I forgot something in Mobility - The Luchs has two drivers, one front and one rear, with the same gears Forward as Reverse. Any Reg Recce Soldier will tell you "You will need 40 acres to turn that Coyote around" or perform a "40 Point Turn" on the road. So in the event that you ever drive down the road and bump the Enemy; you're cooked!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
George,
in KOSOVO the Italians used Centaro in the Recce Roll which has greater firepower, and protection and is a far better Recce veh than the Luchs and was quieter. The Luchs although a good veh in its time has gone the way of the Dodo and is being replaced by FENNEK which completed its Operational acceptance trials in Afghanistan while I was there and will be used in the Recce roll. I am just wondering why you don't consider the Coyote a good Medium Recce Veh, and what makes it a good surveillance veh. Not being rude here but is this based on experience or what you have told or read about it.
As far as mobility the Coyote in my Opinion has excellent mobility both on and off route. Understanding that ground and experience level of the crew dictates. I would agree that the winch does have its limitations but I have as well as others conducted self recovery with little difficulty.
Firepower: .50 Cal on the Lynx or a 25mm Bushmaster Chain Gun? The Bushmaster allows you to reach out and destroy light Armoured veh's up to T-55/T-62 light Tanks frontally which has been proven in trials as well in Iraq with the LAV 25. Although its one of the smaller Cannons on the market it has quite the punch given the natures of Ammo available for it.
Protection: With the Spall liner and the add on armour package it provides protection against 14.5 and RPG which has been proven and provides excellent mine protection which has been proven.
Your comment about the Turret being to far to the rear is quite interesting. The number of years I have spent in Recce I have always gotten of my veh to check around blind corners be it close or open terrain. The Lynx nor the Cougar allowed you to see around corners because the Weapons System were to far back as well which caused the commander more often than not to dismount.
I would argue that the Coyote fills all of the Medium Recce rolls based on our new doctrine.
Richard
in KOSOVO the Italians used Centaro in the Recce Roll which has greater firepower, and protection and is a far better Recce veh than the Luchs and was quieter. The Luchs although a good veh in its time has gone the way of the Dodo and is being replaced by FENNEK which completed its Operational acceptance trials in Afghanistan while I was there and will be used in the Recce roll. I am just wondering why you don't consider the Coyote a good Medium Recce Veh, and what makes it a good surveillance veh. Not being rude here but is this based on experience or what you have told or read about it.
As far as mobility the Coyote in my Opinion has excellent mobility both on and off route. Understanding that ground and experience level of the crew dictates. I would agree that the winch does have its limitations but I have as well as others conducted self recovery with little difficulty.
Firepower: .50 Cal on the Lynx or a 25mm Bushmaster Chain Gun? The Bushmaster allows you to reach out and destroy light Armoured veh's up to T-55/T-62 light Tanks frontally which has been proven in trials as well in Iraq with the LAV 25. Although its one of the smaller Cannons on the market it has quite the punch given the natures of Ammo available for it.
Protection: With the Spall liner and the add on armour package it provides protection against 14.5 and RPG which has been proven and provides excellent mine protection which has been proven.
Your comment about the Turret being to far to the rear is quite interesting. The number of years I have spent in Recce I have always gotten of my veh to check around blind corners be it close or open terrain. The Lynx nor the Cougar allowed you to see around corners because the Weapons System were to far back as well which caused the commander more often than not to dismount.
I would argue that the Coyote fills all of the Medium Recce rolls based on our new doctrine.
Richard
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
recceguy,
in response to your last post: publication B-GL-394-002/FP-001 Reconnassiance and Surveillance Operations has supercedded B-GL-305-002/FP-001 dated 1979-02-09 and B-GL-305-005/FP-001 dated 1985-09-28.
Recce and Surv Ops as well as the ISTAR publication are a good read.
The Characteristics that you indicated out of Recce Sqn in Battle section 203 where for a Lynx Sqn.
1. Mobility
2. Flexibility
3. Logistic Economy
4. Limitations
a. Lack of Firepower
b. Vulnerability in Close Quarter Fighting
c. Endurance
d. Reserve
Richard
in response to your last post: publication B-GL-394-002/FP-001 Reconnassiance and Surveillance Operations has supercedded B-GL-305-002/FP-001 dated 1979-02-09 and B-GL-305-005/FP-001 dated 1985-09-28.
Recce and Surv Ops as well as the ISTAR publication are a good read.
The Characteristics that you indicated out of Recce Sqn in Battle section 203 where for a Lynx Sqn.
1. Mobility
2. Flexibility
3. Logistic Economy
4. Limitations
a. Lack of Firepower
b. Vulnerability in Close Quarter Fighting
c. Endurance
d. Reserve
Richard
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
Let's see. Our Leos in Kosovo really proved their worth to those who cared, unfortunately the level to which those people were in the hierarchy of the CF was not as high as it should have been. There they proved their worth because they were able to go places that the Leo 2, M 1 and Challengers were too big to go and the Centauros were incapable of going. I am sure we can argue Tracks vs Wheels in another Thread.
Coyote has a first class Surv Suite, and very good Primary, Secondary and Axillary Sights in the Turret. No arguments there, and many other nations envy it. That still does not make it a "good" Recce Veh. If you were able to see around corners from you turret, then you have one heck of a long neck. The Cougar fits into the same boat (sorry) as the Coyote, in that it's turret is at the rear. The Lynx had all crew stations forward or centrally located. A lot more conducive to doing Recce (if only we had a Muffler).
Coyote is noisy. Compare the noise of the Coyote exhaust to that of a LAV. (Don't bother telling me about the Lynx - I know). Compare the noise of the Luchs (especially after they solved the problems with the noisy brakes - I have had six of them come up behind me on Fall Ex as I was walking.)
.50 Cal M2 or 25 mm M245 doesn't matter......you shouldn't use either. (There for "Last Resort") Both are very good guns.
Yes I have been Bogged in Leo 1 and Coyote. Gagetown and Area 8 in Pet.
Add on Armour. Adds Weight. Lowers Cross Country Mobility.
The AVGP and LAV family do have good mine protection, demonstated by Cougars in Somalia. However, I would hope all our vehicles will have this characteristic, not just Recce vehicles. That is what we are doing with the armoured G Wagens and RG-31s. It is not necessarily saying that this makes a Coyote a good Recce Veh.
I do accept the fact that the Coyote can fill some of the tasks of Recce, but to change 'Doctrine' to fit a vehicle is a false premise, and a mistake that will hurt more than improve the role of Recce.
I do not believe in a 'large' vehicle being a Recce vehicle. I do not believe in having any vehicle where the crew is inside a cab, not being able to use their ears or see three hundred and sixty as being any way, shape or form a Recce vehicle.
The Coyote is too big. Not all that great for mobility. Turret too far to the rear. (Armour Bulletin 1990+/-)
Coyote has a first class Surv Suite, and very good Primary, Secondary and Axillary Sights in the Turret. No arguments there, and many other nations envy it. That still does not make it a "good" Recce Veh. If you were able to see around corners from you turret, then you have one heck of a long neck. The Cougar fits into the same boat (sorry) as the Coyote, in that it's turret is at the rear. The Lynx had all crew stations forward or centrally located. A lot more conducive to doing Recce (if only we had a Muffler).
Coyote is noisy. Compare the noise of the Coyote exhaust to that of a LAV. (Don't bother telling me about the Lynx - I know). Compare the noise of the Luchs (especially after they solved the problems with the noisy brakes - I have had six of them come up behind me on Fall Ex as I was walking.)
.50 Cal M2 or 25 mm M245 doesn't matter......you shouldn't use either. (There for "Last Resort") Both are very good guns.
Yes I have been Bogged in Leo 1 and Coyote. Gagetown and Area 8 in Pet.
Add on Armour. Adds Weight. Lowers Cross Country Mobility.
The AVGP and LAV family do have good mine protection, demonstated by Cougars in Somalia. However, I would hope all our vehicles will have this characteristic, not just Recce vehicles. That is what we are doing with the armoured G Wagens and RG-31s. It is not necessarily saying that this makes a Coyote a good Recce Veh.
I do accept the fact that the Coyote can fill some of the tasks of Recce, but to change 'Doctrine' to fit a vehicle is a false premise, and a mistake that will hurt more than improve the role of Recce.
I do not believe in a 'large' vehicle being a Recce vehicle. I do not believe in having any vehicle where the crew is inside a cab, not being able to use their ears or see three hundred and sixty as being any way, shape or form a Recce vehicle.
The Coyote is too big. Not all that great for mobility. Turret too far to the rear. (Armour Bulletin 1990+/-)
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
HEDGEHOG said:recceguy,
in response to your last post: publication B-GL-394-002/FP-001 Reconnassiance and Surveillance Operations has supercedded B-GL-305-002/FP-001 dated 1979-02-09 and B-GL-305-005/FP-001 dated 1985-09-28.
Recce and Surv Ops as well as the ISTAR publication are a good read.
The Characteristics that you indicated out of Recce Sqn in Battle section 203 where for a Lynx Sqn.
1. Mobility
2. Flexibility
3. Logistic Economy
4. Limitations
a. Lack of Firepower
b. Vulnerability in Close Quarter Fighting
c. Endurance
d. Reserve
Richard
My B-GL-394-001/FP-001 RECONNAISSANCE IN BATTLE (Oct 1999) states:
CHARACTERISTICS
1. The characteristics of reconnaissance forces are as follows:
a. Mobility.
b. Firepower.
c. Protection.
d. Sensing
e. Flexibility.
f. Sustainment
3. Limitations. Reconnaissance is not a balanced all arms organisation but if expected to impose sustained delay, to conduct reconnaissance in force or hold ground for any length of time, will require significant augmentation by other arms.
So depending on our sources, we will have different answers. ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
George,
while I was Kosovo the Leopards unfortunately were used more as a rolling road block than anything. A complete Sqn should have been deployed. Its true they spent more time moving than any of the other nations tanks based on size and weight. I agree that the Optics on the Coyote turret and in the surv suite are phenomenal. What I liked about the Lynx is yes it was tracked, small and made for a perfect Close recce veh (I would have given my left n*#* for a muffler that worked).
I do agree that there are issues in regards to the exhaust system on the Coyote and that has been identified and will be fixed during the Mid life upgrade.
The add on Armour package had minimal effect on the performance of the Coyote from my experiences while in Kosovo/Afghanistan as long as you did not turn on the Aircondtioners while on the move. The majority of the crews reported a smoother ride and Little to no change during cross country ops. However braking distances in built up areas were a problem until the crews got use to it.
Agreed that the .50 cal and the 25mm Bushmaster are intended as defencive weapons in the Recce role, however I would rather have a stabilized 25 mm that has some bite.
I agree that some of the Doctrine was changed to fit the Coyote, however given the increased cabability of the Coyote I would have to agree with some but not all of the changes.
I still believe that the Coyote is not too large to conduct Medium recce tasks, and given the type of Operations we have found ourselves in over the last 12-15 years I feel the mobility (I too prefer track) is very good for the size and weight of the Coyote.
George,
there are some things that we agree upon and some that we do not. That is what I like about this Forum. It makes for good arguments and conversation.
Did you serve in Germany and if so what years?
Richard
while I was Kosovo the Leopards unfortunately were used more as a rolling road block than anything. A complete Sqn should have been deployed. Its true they spent more time moving than any of the other nations tanks based on size and weight. I agree that the Optics on the Coyote turret and in the surv suite are phenomenal. What I liked about the Lynx is yes it was tracked, small and made for a perfect Close recce veh (I would have given my left n*#* for a muffler that worked).
I do agree that there are issues in regards to the exhaust system on the Coyote and that has been identified and will be fixed during the Mid life upgrade.
The add on Armour package had minimal effect on the performance of the Coyote from my experiences while in Kosovo/Afghanistan as long as you did not turn on the Aircondtioners while on the move. The majority of the crews reported a smoother ride and Little to no change during cross country ops. However braking distances in built up areas were a problem until the crews got use to it.
Agreed that the .50 cal and the 25mm Bushmaster are intended as defencive weapons in the Recce role, however I would rather have a stabilized 25 mm that has some bite.
I agree that some of the Doctrine was changed to fit the Coyote, however given the increased cabability of the Coyote I would have to agree with some but not all of the changes.
I still believe that the Coyote is not too large to conduct Medium recce tasks, and given the type of Operations we have found ourselves in over the last 12-15 years I feel the mobility (I too prefer track) is very good for the size and weight of the Coyote.
George,
there are some things that we agree upon and some that we do not. That is what I like about this Forum. It makes for good arguments and conversation.
Did you serve in Germany and if so what years?
Richard
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
80 -83 then to C Sqn Gagetown 83 - 85 and the School 85 - 89.
(For more detail, ask Tom Falls or Chris Seefried)
(For more detail, ask Tom Falls or Chris Seefried)
Similar threads
- MikeL
- Mental Health
