• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Infantry Vehicles

KevinB said:
What makes it different from the ISC?
I see seeing conflicting info - as Wiki says it has a raised roofline (a la ASCV) - but then picture show a turret and no external differences from the ISC?
Click to expand...

Main difference between the ISC and the CP is the seating arrangement in the back. The CP has 3 operator seats with a map board on the right side (like the OPV).
 
markppcli said:
So the actually number in a Bn is 36 ISCC (4 per Pl, 12 per Coy) and then (excuse my poor accuracy) 9-12 ish CPs (3 per Coy plus odds and sods).
Click to expand...

So,

We are looking at a Platoon of 4x ISC with 4x3 Crew (Dvr, Gnr, CC) and 4x7 Pax or 12 + 28
Three Platoons in a Coy so 12x ISC with a total of 36 crew and 84 pax.

Meanwhile the Coy HQ (OC, 2iC and LAV Capt) have 3x CP with 3x3 Crew and 3x3 Pax - including people like the CSM, 3 signallers, the Int O or Int Op... So limited ability for the OC to materially influence the fight from his own resources?
 
KevinB said:
Roger
I had assumed the OC, LAV Capt from the Rifle Coy’s had ISC turreted LAV’s as well as 9’er and that Recce Platoon had some as it doesn’t makes sense (to me) to have all Recce vehicles as LRSS (inc Recce Squadrons).

I had also accounted for Cbt Spt Coy, but I’m not sure that’s a thing anymore?
As without Mortars, ADP, and Pioneers, I guess Recce would fall under HQ Coy?
Click to expand...
If I understood things correctly, with the LAVIIIs, the difference between the section LAV and the CP LAV was that the CP had a bigger radio installation facility and had a penthouse frame kit. They were both turreted with the full weapon suite. I understood that was the same after the 6.0 Upping.

The new ACSV version is very different and has no turret and a higher crew compartment. My understanding is that it is for bn and above CPs. I presume the Bn Comd will still have the older turreted LAV CP for his TAC HQ.

Someone more current with the configuration let me know if I'm off.

🍻
 
Kirkhill said:
So,

We are looking at a Platoon of 4x ISC with 4x3 Crew (Dvr, Gnr, CC) and 4x7 Pax or 12 + 28
Three Platoons in a Coy so 12x ISC with a total of 36 crew and 84 pax.
Click to expand...

Something like that

Kirkhill said:
Meanwhile the Coy HQ (OC, 2iC and LAV Capt) have 3x CP with 3x3 Crew and 3x3 Pax - including people like the CSM, 3 signallers, the Int O or Int Op... So limited ability for the OC to materially influence the fight from his own resources?
Click to expand...

I don’t see where you draw that conclusion. The OC commands the company, 2 IC runs the CP and takes responsibility for the Esch, LAV Capt essentially controls movement.

KevinB said:
Roger
I had assumed the OC, LAV Capt from the Rifle Coy’s had ISC turreted LAV’s as well as 9’er and that Recce Platoon had some as it doesn’t makes sense (to me) to have all Recce vehicles as LRSS (inc Recce Squadrons).
Click to expand...
The CP used to mean a LAV 3 with an extra radio hook up in the back and captains chairs / map board. Now they just have the seating configured , which can be swapped if you have the benches and socket set.
Recce is in TAPV / G Rides. Or at least are supposed to be, I don’t think there’s a Recce Platoon out there that isn’t trying to find a way out of them. I’ve heard suggestions ranging from just G Wagons to giving up the 2 ICs LAV for a TAPV to give recce LAVs as “mother ships.”
KevinB said:
I had also accounted for Cbt Spt Coy, but I’m not sure that’s a thing anymore?
As without Mortars, ADP, and Pioneers, I guess Recce would fall under HQ Coy?
Click to expand...

It is: Recce, Snipers, Sigs - and out reserve support pls would fall under them when assigned.
 
Last edited:
FJAG said:
If I understood things correctly, with the LAVIIIs, the difference between the section LAV and the CP LAV was that the CP had a bigger radio installation facility and had a penthouse frame kit. They were both turreted with the full weapon suite. I understood that was the same after the 6.0 Upping.

The new ACSV version is very different and has no turret and a higher crew compartment. My understanding is that it is for bn and above CPs. I presume the Bn Comd will still have the older turreted LAV CP for his TAC HQ.

Someone more current with the configuration let me know if I'm off.

🍻
Click to expand...

The LAV-III ISC to CP differences you list pretty much covers off the rest of the LAV 6.0 ISC to CP differences. The different seatng arrangement is usually the most obvious though.
 
IKnowNothing said:
The patent absurdity of the bold aside, did those wants contribute the decision to stick with the 25mm/ no ATGM and the lack of enabler variants- with the CCV supposed to deliver in that/those roles?
Click to expand...
The lack of support variants was a decision made with the original LAV III purchase. LAV Up just stuck the existing variant types … less the TUA & Nanook RWS variants which allowed sufficient hills for LRSS.
KevinB said:
What makes it different from the ISC?
I see seeing conflicting info - as Wiki says it has a raised roofline (a la ASCV) - but then picture show a turret and no external differences from the ISC?
Click to expand...
The LAV 6 ISC and CP have a common turret and hull. The difference is in a second radio which is amplified, a map board in the back, and one less row of seats for the GIBs. There were a few with big ATHENA screens when LAV III was a new thing, but I never saw the computers installed to do anything with those screens.
 
McG said:
The LAV 6 ISC and CP have a common turret and hull. The difference is in a second radio which is amplified, a map board in the back, and one less row of seats for the GIBs. There were a few with big ATHENA screens when LAV III was a new thing, but I never saw the computers installed to do anything with those screens.
Click to expand...

It's coming down the pipe soon with CP TOPAZ. Going to be even more TacC2IS gear Frankensteined onto both platforms with the upgrade.

Something we in the Sigs community were yelling from thebroof tops when the original LAV 6/TAPV/CCV projects took off.

I brought it up at a Town Hall with Gen Devlin back in 2010? I think, his response was that DLR essentially told him "First we get the boxes, then we put the stuff in them..." which is completely arsed thinking if you ask me. Both need to compliment each other.
 
markppcli said:
I don’t see where you draw that conclusion. The OC commands the company, 2 IC runs the CP and takes responsibility for the Esch, LAV Capt essentially controls movement.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I was casting myself back to when the OC had under command 4 weapons dets (with 4x MGs, 4x CG84s and 4x 60mm mors) and possibly an Observation Det. The OC's group included the 4th Wpns Det and the Obsn Det. This was on top of his three platoons with nine sections.

rmc_wannabe said:
I brought it up at a Town Hall with Gen Devlin back in 2010? I think, his response was that DLR essentially told him "First we get the boxes, then we put the stuff in them..." which is completely arsed thinking if you ask me. Both need to compliment each other.
Click to expand...

Have you ever looked at the Master Spec? All the good stuff is at the back of the book - all the stuff that makes money. The Architect gets the front of the book, Division I, and gets to wrap everybody else's work in a pretty picture and claim credit. All of which gives clients the false belief that the first person they should hire is the person who draws a pretty picture of the envelope into which they will then try to stuff their business.

The answers, as always, are in the back of the book.
 
Kirkhill said:
I'm afraid I was casting myself back to when the OC had under command 4 weapons dets (with 4x MGs, 4x CG84s and 4x 60mm mors) and possibly an Observation Det. The OC's group included the 4th Wpns Det and the Obsn Det. This was on top of his three platoons with nine sections.
Click to expand...
There’s still the weapons dets, and the relationship of who controls them is unchanged, so again I don’t see your point. Given that the “oc’s resources” are the company.
 
Spencer100 said:
Ask yourself why?

When you get to the answer and apply it to all of Ottawa everything starts to make sense. Not in a good way but that something different.
Click to expand...
Ottawa? So take common sense, logical reasoning and timely efficiency and do the exact opposite? Is that not the Ottawa approach?
 
ArmyRick said:
Ottawa? So take common sense, logical reasoning and timely efficiency and do the exact opposite? Is that not the Ottawa approach?
Click to expand...
Plus political malfeasance. I would love to know Roman Shimorov's connections to the Liberal party.

And most importantly and this is my belief than the PM's overall goal of the "Post Nation State" is driving the bus. They view the CAF as a something to be minimized for that goal. It saves money for the Big Picture items. Voters don't really care. If we don't have anything one asks of anything. Culturally the Military's mind set is alien to them. Etc.
 
Spencer100 said:
Ask yourself why?

When you get to the answer and apply it to all of Ottawa everything starts to make sense. Not in a good way but that something different.
Click to expand...

February 4 2022 - Canada starts "unfunded" donation of military assistance to Ukraine

April 7 2022 - Canada announces a 500 MCAD "slush fund" for military assistance to Ukraine
May 8 2022 - "The Prime Minister announced that the additional $500 million for further military aid to Ukraine announced in Budget 2022 has begun to roll out with approximately $50 million commitment to provide high-resolution satellite imagery, an additional 18 drone cameras and ammunition."

November 14 2022 - Canada announces an additional 500 MCAD "slush fund" for military assistance to Ukraine
Nov 14 2022 - At the G20 Summit in Bali, Indonesia, the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, announced that Canada will provide $500 million in additional military assistance for Ukraine, to assist the Armed Forces of Ukraine in defending their country against Russia’s brutal and unjustifiable invasion. This commitment builds on the $500 million in military aid for Ukraine announced in Budget 2022 and will go toward military, surveillance, and communications equipment, fuel, and medical supplies.

Lesson 1 - slices up to 500 MCAD are discretionary
Lesson 2 - Treasury Board is willing to take the Ukrainian General Staff at their word and buy what it requested at speed.
Lesson 3 - Real world costing is possible.

Canadian military support to Ukraine - Canada.ca

We continue to actively look at what more we can do to support Ukraine. Minister Anand remains in close contact with Ukrainian officials through the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, and on a bilateral basis.
www.canada.ca www.canada.ca
 
Spencer100 said:
Ask yourself why?

When you get to the answer and apply it to all of Ottawa everything starts to make sense. Not in a good way but that something different.
Click to expand...
JT will likely claim Ukraine assistance as part of our 2% commitment. :rolleyes:
 
Dana381 said:
JT will likely claim Ukraine assistance as part of our 2% commitment. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Some of it specifically falls within the NATO definition of "defence expenditure", and a lot of it could be shoehorned in. Just as other member countries will tally their Ukraine expenses using that metric, so should Canada.

What that 2% NATO commitment includes

"NATO defines defence expenditure as payments made by a national government specifically to meet the needs of its armed forces, those of Allies or of the Alliance. A major component of defence expenditure is payments for Armed Forces financed from within the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget. Armed Forces include Land, Maritime and Air forces as well as Joint formations such as Administration and Command, Special Operations Forces, Medical Service, Logistic Command, Space Command, Cyber Command, etc. They might also include "Other Forces" like Ministry of Interior troops, national police forces, gendarmerie, carabinieri, coast guards etc. In such cases, expenditure is included only in proportion to the forces that are trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force. Also, expenditure on Other Forces financed through the budgets of ministries other than MoD is included in defence expenditure.

Pension payments made directly by the government to retired military and civilian employees of military departments is included regardless of whether these payments are made from the budget of the MoD or other ministries.

Expenditure for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations (paid by MoD or other ministries), the destruction of weapons, equipment and ammunition, contributions to eligible NATO managed trust funds, and the costs associated with inspection and control of equipment destruction are included in defence expenditure.

Research and development (R&D) costs are included in defence expenditure. R&D costs also include expenditure for those projects that do not successfully lead to production of equipment.

Expenditure for the military component of mixed civilian-military activities is included, but only when the military component can be specifically accounted for or estimated.

Expenditure on NATO common infrastructure is included in the total defence expenditure of each Ally only to the extent of that nation's net contribution. War damage payments and spending on civil defence are both excluded from the NATO definition of defence expenditure."
 
I question have been wondering what is the difference in basic armor between the Bradley and the Lav 6? What is the difference with add on armor? We have talked about how the Bradly is a IFV and the Lav is a APC. How we deploy the LAV as a IFV. Truly besides tracks what makes a Bradly that much more protected?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
British infantry small arms
Replies
8
Views
11K
onecat
onecat
R
  • Locked
British infantry small arms
Replies
2
Views
8K
Pikache
Pikache
foxtwo
Bolt Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Replies
13
Views
15K
TheShepherd
T
B
Should Canada adopt the LAV III (AKA: Stryker) as its primary armoured vehicle family?
36 37 38
Replies
749
Views
468K
a_majoor
a_majoor
Back
Top