Capabilities of Armour as seen by the Inexperienced

[plattypuss]

First of all I have to say Tanks rule however I have to admit the following comment will not make it seem that I am a Track supporter.  In the debate of what ground a tank cannot go in but a LAV III can I submit the following:

While teaching a DP1 Armour crewman course in Meaford, I remember travelling to London with the course for some professional development.  As part of that trip we visited the plant where the LAV III was being built (of course at that time it was mortar carriers for the Saudis) and as part of that visit they played the propaganda video for the LAV III which insisted that the LAV was just as, if not more, mobile than the Leopard.  I of course did not believe a minute of the propaganda video, I do however remember my astonishment/disbelief when they attempted to drive a tank into a boggy marsh - everyone knows where bull-rushes grow, tankers don't go - of course it got stuck.  Apparently due to the ability to de-pressurise the tires, the LAV III was able to make it through the same swampy ground without getting stuck.  Of course there are many possible variables which could have been at work here ie the LAV III was being driven in front of a blue screen which they later super-imposed the swampy terrain on, or the swamp was drained and allowed to dry for several months before attempting to drive the LAV III through but I don't think that was the case.

So I would submit to you, that is the only piece of terrain where a LAV may go but not a tank (who would want to anyways?)  It would be interesting to hear if any of the army.ca members were involved in that trial so many years ago (George?), if the conditions were fair and if I am remembering correctly that video footage.  I wonder if anybody would try that today?

 

[TCBF]

Originally, LAVs could swim.  That was their greatest advantage in tavtical mobility.

 

[17thRecceSgt]

Lehner,

To echo a few other people, if you aren't an expert or atleast have experience in the subject...hard to argue with some of the folks WRT their comments and knowledge, they are SMEs.  If you aren't familiar with that term, I believe there is a Glossary of sorts on the website you can look up military terms.

I have never done tanks, so I have no TI on that subject BUT I have been doing recce in jeeps (Ilits), LAVs (Bison) and Light Track (M113s) and...I can ASSURE you...there are/were places you would just not even think of trying to go that the Leo's made easy work of.  While the Bison was more able than the Iltis was, for cross country nothing I have ever been in touched a tracked veh, even just the M113 APC.  I spent a summer teaching AVGP/LAV dvr courses in Gagetown...again...there were places we got stuck that a tank or track not.  Now, a BISON doesn't even has a high of Bridge Class at the LAV III...so I can't image it would have went were our Bison's could not. 

Just my own experiences. But once you get a wheeled veh stuck and someone pulls up in a little ol APC and pulls you out...which happened to me a few times on ARCON '96 when our Recce Sqn was Bison mounted...well...hard to argue about which has more capability where it counts.

I would love to see a LAV tryin' to keep up to a Leo off the MSR in say the Lawfield.  Been there.  Done that.  That was tryin' to break contact with an aggresive TC after me.  I lost. 

I don't tell pilots how helicopters fly because I read about how they work somewhere. 



My 2 cents.

 

[Eland]

Franko

Well said

I am guilty of being drawn into this. I should have recognized from the start where it was going......

Well I guess it kept me busy for a few posts and in the process taught me that time on tanks, and the "art" of manouvering one, is something the public does not fully understand. And since very few have taken almost 50 tons of metal and driven it like a BMW it is impossible to relate.

I was there when we took delivery of the first Leo C1 in Lahr and then watched two decades later as they were "mothballed"  My career started on tanks and I will always have an issue with negative comments about them, especially from people who base their opinion on facts gleaned from "the military channel" or magazines like "Lay Z Boy Commando" 

Hey, I spent two years in a reserve armoured recce unit (back in the days when the Cougars were 'semi-new') and even *I* know the limitations wheeled vehicles have relative to tracked ones in rough terrain. I'm way too old now to be a tanker, but if I were not, I know I'd far sooner be sitting in the gunner's or TC's seat than in the back of a jeep, or in the turret of a lightly armoured Cougar. In a tank of relatively recent vintage, you are basically invulnerable to small arms fire and cannons up to 75mm, whereas even HMG AP rounds could kill a Cougar, and virtually vapourize a jeep. To say nothing of the superior mobility you are afforded, as well as firepower.

No doubt that tanks are not suitable for our Afghan deployment, but that doesn't mean Canada shouldn't have them. There remains the possibility that someday we will need them... and not have them until it's too late. The 'three-block' wars we're trying to fight now
will not always be part of the threat profile.

 

[Kirkhill]

The 'three-block' wars we're trying to fight now
will not always be part of the threat profile.

I beg to differ.  The problem we are currently having is, IMHO, largely due to forgetting that all war is a "three block war".  All war is about hearts and minds.  All war is about convincing the other guy to stop fighting because, just like ants, you can't kill them all.  Tackling the enemy means being nice to his wife and kids, policing the ground that surrounds them as well as taking a big hammer to those that won't listen.  All war is ultimately a "hearts and minds" campaign.

Now if you want to argue that Canada needs tanks, big guns, bombers or even nukes to handle those folks in Block 3.......

The CF needs to be able to do the humanitarian thing, the constabulary thing and the war-fighting thing.  IMHO. ;D

Cheers.

 

[TCBF]

"I can't believe I was bored enough to read this whole thread.....Jeez, I gotta get backin."

- It won't make any difference - I'm in and I still read it.

Tom

 

[Recce41]

TCBF
I second it. Just trying to get by until back out DSing the 6B. DSing HAHA. It's great, no assessments for me. It's just the mentoring thing now.
As for Lehner, I think he should stick to what he knows. (                            ) all.  :evil: :tank:

 

[Centurian1985]

After reading all of this I still havent heard what evidence there is to support wheeled being overall better than tracks (as some have claimed).  Having worked in both at one time or other, I'll take the tanks anyday for cross-country and open road travel. 

However, when faced with specific missions and geographic context, THEN wheeled vehicles are of greater advantage than tracked.  I think wheeled vehicles are an advantage in the following situations:

Traveling where you dont want to tear up nice asphalt (peeves off local city officials, in every country).
Traveling on thin mountain roads with soft shoulders (tanks weigh far too much in these cases).
Traveling quietly while on mobile recce (muffler anyone?).
Traveling through low growth and wooded areas (without leaving a 10 foot swath you can see from aerial platforms). 
Traveling on open roads is faster in wheeled vehicles and gets greater range using less fuel (ding-ding, fill 'er up!).

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Found this article, and thought it may be pertinent to the discusion:

Taliban seek armour busters

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- Frustrated by their inability to punch through the reinforced plating on Canadian fighting vehicles, the Taliban are scouring the black market for bigger and better weapons to take on Canadian armour, coalition and Afghan security sources say.

Being able to destroy even one light armoured vehicle - a Bison armoured troop carrier or Coyote reconnaissance vehicle - would be a significant moral victory in the eyes of insurgents, a senior coalition source told The Canadian Press.

"They want to take out one really bad," said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "To them it would be a huge victory because they haven't been able to do that to this point."

A handful of LAV-IIIs have been attacked with rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs, suffering relatively minor damage like blown tires. But none has been seriously disabled with a major loss of life.

Four Canadian soldiers did died recently in an insurgent attack, but they were travelling in a relatively lightly armed Mercedes G-Wagon.
http://edmsun.canoe.ca/News/World/2006/05/08/1569410-sun.html

So wheels can't be all bad.  Of course, 'Stan is fairly dry, so if we ever have a traditional "cross country" war, our lack of tread may bite us in the ass. 
Back on Phase training at the "Center of Excellence" our troops had four vehicles:  three Cougars and an M113.  The M113 generally tic tac'd along the width of the trace, pulling out Cougars. 

This article is a heads up (albeit, probably not necessary) to you guys over there.  Don't be the felafel's in the cap of some shit bag who comes up with some bizarre improvised explosive just to be the new coolest martyr on the block.