Infantry Vehicles

[Kirkhill]

I see ATV’s, some Argo type vehicles, Snowmobiles and Bv206 are all that are required for Canadian territory patrolling for the Light Forces.
An ISV type mobility vehicle for the sections (and I’m frankly a big fan of the GMVW Hummer) or the new Army GMV
View attachment 70951
The new A-GMV is slingable under a Blackhawk or internally by a Hook or Herc, and can be jumped out of a Herc etc.

I’m of the opinion that light vehicles need to be viewed more as admin vehicles to provide mobility and logistics support to Light Forces - one needs to accept they aren’t A vehicles and aren’t designed for combat - but can be used for Firebase roles in some conflicts.

In the Canadian context is that any more useful than a LAV? Between cold, wet, snow, ice, bogs, bush, lack of trails let alone roads does that really offer a 70% solution?

On the other hand I could see it as one of the alternatives for Settler/Militia Country but frankly I would sooner be warm and dry in a GWagen or a Milverado. Or even a LAV II

I definitely agree with the ATV/Argo/Bv206 mix and would add the Sherp to the list as well. The Argo and the Sherp can also go the Optionally Manned route.

 

[Kirkhill]

I like the Dagor very much as a patrol vehicle, mortar carrier (with trailer) or ATGM team, in fact anything that employs a small detachment.

I'm somewhat stuck on the concept that I want my rifle sections transportable in one vehicle. In large part this is a command and control issue, in another its the additional burden of double the number of vehicles and people lost to driver/maintainer duties rather than rifles on the ground. I know that's arguable as there are some benefits to smaller and more vehicles as well, but that's the side of the argument I've settled into and I'm at the stage where I'm more swayed by confirmation bias rather than opposing viewpoints. Sometimes you just don't need to reinvent the wheel.

One of the other advantages of more small vehicles is you get more crew served support weapons. Consider the small vehicle as an MG det or Gun group. You're not losing a bayonet as the driver, You're gaining a very strong MG assistant that can carry a tripod, spares, tools and half a tonne of ammunition .... as well as the gunner and the gun.

I too like the MRZR and the Dagor - but only as an alternative to the LAV II - Bv206 - Argo - Sherp equipment. And i would add some RHIBs to the transport mix as well. CB90s is a step too far. Maybe we could talk the Navy into manning them.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The issue I see with Medium Bde's is what does one expect of them.
If you also expect to be able to use them in high intensity conflicts - even if only as rear area security, convoy escort etc = they still need weapons and protection.
Thus weight of the medium force expands.

What's the expectation from SBCT's currently? That's a sub 20 tonne chassis. A little more creativity with the RWS and it's easy to create the ability to punch up when the situation requires it. But realistically, the point is that if we have the heavy, the high intensity conflict will be their tasking, and the medium should be optimized for other needs.

Heavy- NATO
Medium- UN/COIN, etc
Light- Domestic + Flexible QRF

 

[KevinB]

In the Canadian context is that any more useful than a LAV?

Get a decent UH and it would be
A LUV *(Light Utility Vehicle) can be discarded (left at the rear) much easier than a LAV can.

Between cold, wet, snow, ice, bogs, bush, lack of trails let alone roads does that really offer a 70% solution?

No one vehicle will offer everything off-road the lighter 4x4 are generally more nimble than a LAV - and can be recovered much easier.

On the other hand I could see it as one of the alternatives for Settler/Militia Country but frankly I would sooner be warm and dry in a GWagen or a Milverado. Or even a LAV II

You can out a tarp on the top of the GMV's I've done it in the SOF GMV Hummers, but its an A-B vehicle for certain conditions, the GWagon is heavy and top heavy - its abysmal off road.

I definitely agree with the ATV/Argo/Bv206 mix and would add the Sherp to the list as well. The Argo and the Sherp can also go the Optionally Manned route.

Driving an ATV for a bit is exhausting over broken terrain (less so than walking) you can tow an ATV with the GMV

 

[KevinB]

What's the expectation from SBCT's currently? That's a sub 20 tonne chassis. A little more creativity with the RWS and it's easy to create the ability to punch up when the situation requires it.

The Stykers are considerably more than that - when you add the Add On Armor, the armor glass and the RPG cage - they no longer fit in a Herc, and are much closer to a LAVIII with turret weight at that point.

But realistically, the point is that if we have the heavy, the high intensity conflict will be their tasking, and the medium should be optimized for other needs.

Heavy- NATO
Medium- UN/COIN, etc
Light- Domestic + Flexible QRF

I agree with Heavy to NATO, but Medium and Light Forces can play their part too -- the first troops headed to Germany/Poland was the XVIII Airborne - mostly the 82nd Abn, because they can get there fast.

You might not use the Medium forces to spearhead an attack, but in a break through they can use their road mobility to create havoc in the enemy rear and envelope an enemy force between them and the heavy force grinding forward.

Asymetrical Forces allow you flexibility of options.

 

[Kirkhill]

Get a decent UH and it would be

Have you got shares in Sikorsky or something?

A LUV *(Light Utility Vehicle) can be discarded (left at the rear) much easier than a LAV can.

True that!

No one vehicle will offer everything off-road the lighter 4x4 are generally more nimble than a LAV - and can be recovered much easier.

I kind of like the optionally manned Argos as a CQ vehicle for light infantry battalions - it takes a load off, can keep up with troops on foot and can be lifted by a Griffon.

For C&R then your 4 wheelers could be useful, as long as the ground is hard and the snow isn't too deep.

You can out a tarp on the top of the GMV's I've done it in the SOF GMV Hummers, but its an A-B vehicle for certain conditions, the GWagon is heavy and top heavy - its abysmal off road.

How far off road does a 4 wheeler have to go in the three months of hard sledding? At least the Milverado can get your snowmobiles to a drop off point.

Driving an ATV for a bit is exhausting over broken terrain (less so than walking) you can tow an ATV with the GMV

Or a Milverado.

 

[KevinB]

Have you got shares in Sikorsky or something?

My wife works for RMS LocMart

I kind of like the optionally manned Argos as a CQ vehicle for light infantry battalions - it takes a load off, can keep up with troops on foot and can be lifted by a Griffon.

I want the CQ to have a vehicle - probably more than 1 option too.

For C&R then your 4 wheelers could be useful, as long as the ground is hard and the snow isn't too deep.

I see the Bv206 in that sort of territory.

How far off road does a 4 wheeler have to go in the three months of hard sledding? At least the Milverado can get your snowmobiles to a drop off point.



Or a Milverado.

I think you could build a decent option for an ISV out of the Milverado - I don't think it currently is a good system for a long line of reasons.

 

[daftandbarmy]

This looks like a BV 206 knockoff, and quite handy

Wildfire fighting all-terrain prototype arrives in the North Okanagan​

The firefighter and fire-engine designer is B.C. based Tony Jumeau, who was eager to step in to help design the unique machine.

“One of the things that I saw personally was a lot of trucks getting stuck in soft surface type areas. I knew there was definitely a home for track vehicles,” said Jumeau.

The ATV has several unique features, including how it is powered.

“It’s a diesel engine made into a generator. That generator charges a battery and that’s what we use for sending the power to the electric motors in each track system,” said Paldy.

According to engineers, the electric motors give the vehicle the torque it needs to climb steep hills.

Wildfire-fighting all-terrain prototype arrives in North Okanagan | Globalnews.ca

This type of all-terrain vehicle and water-carrying machine is already in use by the Canadian military and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

globalnews.ca

 

[KevinB]

This looks like a BV 206 knockoff, and quite handy

Wildfire fighting all-terrain prototype arrives in the North Okanagan​

The firefighter and fire-engine designer is B.C. based Tony Jumeau, who was eager to step in to help design the unique machine.

“One of the things that I saw personally was a lot of trucks getting stuck in soft surface type areas. I knew there was definitely a home for track vehicles,” said Jumeau.

The ATV has several unique features, including how it is powered.

“It’s a diesel engine made into a generator. That generator charges a battery and that’s what we use for sending the power to the electric motors in each track system,” said Paldy.

According to engineers, the electric motors give the vehicle the torque it needs to climb steep hills.

Wildfire-fighting all-terrain prototype arrives in North Okanagan | Globalnews.ca

This type of all-terrain vehicle and water-carrying machine is already in use by the Canadian military and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

globalnews.ca

I think the flame-thrower attachment was the best part
But I was thinking of using it on Russians in a trench...

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think the flame-thrower attachment was the best part
But I was thinking of using it on Russians in a trench...

 

[FJAG]

What's the expectation from SBCT's currently?

Here's an article about the ongoing Stryker upgrade program which clocks in at just under US$1 billion and is expected to carry n until 2007.

Army Begins Fielding Upgraded Third-Generation Strykers

Army Begins Fielding Upgraded Third-Generation Strykers

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

There are 9 x Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (7 Active Army and 2 National Guard) and I'm not aware of any plan to grow that force.

 

[markppcli]

Future- that word for word, Lynx with the remote Lance fits the bill
Current- Lav 6 as it stands, with a small number (CS direct fire platoon) returreted with RT60 or Cockerill C3035/40

Future- Modernized Stryker with suite of RWS/Remote Turrets. In my opinion that medium force should be in the 20 tonne range and have a lot more strategic mobility

Current- TAPV, some with upgraded weapons. Not ideal, but the start of a fundamental shift in how we see and use the "Medium" in a full spectrum force (more below)

Yup

Going back to changing the way we see Medium. The Mastiff tops out at 22 tonnes- that doesn't belong anywhere near the discussion of a light brigade. The British use them transport for "Heavy Protect Mobility" Units, which seem like their version of the Styker teams, which seems like exactly the niche / chasm that the future medium Bde should be filling out.

Edit: I think the attempt to justify the entire force going medium required going medium+, which has evolved into heavy-. If we have a real heavy component the need for the all singing all dancing 28 tonne turreted "L"AV goes away.

Not to be pedantic but I believe current nomenclature is “light mechanized.” The mastiff is light in that it’s not something you bring anywhere near the fight; it serves the same function as a VAB.

Infantry

The Infantry is at the core of the Army’s Ground Close Combat capability and is the bedrock upon which the broader utility for warfighting, stabilisation, capacity building, assurance and national resilience tasks is founded.

www.army.mod.uk

There’s a break down. You’ll note that mastiff is actually considered mechanized, with foxhound going to the light mechanized. No doubt this will change with the arrival of Boxer… which is what the Germans give their light infantry but I digress.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Not to be pedantic but I believe current nomenclature is “light mechanized.” The mastiff is light in that it’s not something you bring anywhere near the fight; it serves the same function as a VAB.

Infantry

The Infantry is at the core of the Army’s Ground Close Combat capability and is the bedrock upon which the broader utility for warfighting, stabilisation, capacity building, assurance and national resilience tasks is founded.

www.army.mod.uk

There’s a break down. You’ll note that mastiff is actually considered mechanized, with foxhound going to the light mechanized. No doubt this will change with the arrival of Boxer… which is what the Germans give their light infantry but I digress.

Seems like there's contradiction in their more public facing and technical naming.
British Army - The Infantry - Heavy Protected Mobility Battalion - Armed Forces - a5a04

 

[markppcli]

Old vs new; mechanized used to mean fv432 and those are all retired. Or so I’d imagine.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Seems like there's contradiction in their more public facing and technical naming.
British Army - The Infantry - Heavy Protected Mobility Battalion - Armed Forces - a5a04

The (derided) Saxon was introduced, I believe, for a similar purpose: moving Infantry around the battlefield within indirect fire range of the enemy.

Basically, reducing casualties from small arms, blast and fragments on the move up and back from the FEBA.

It seems the Ukrainians like them though:

​

“Useless” Saxon Vehicles Surprisingly Useful In Ukraine. Kiev Benefits From The “Cost-Effect” Ratio​

When assessing the Saxon vehicles, one should note that they were not going to replace the BTRs or BMPs – this was not the main goal of acquisition. The newly procured vehicles were to become a new armoured means of transport, for which the mine-resistance also bears some significant relevance. It is worth to note that Saxon is able to carry up to 8 soldiers in the troop compartment (2+8, 2+10 usually), however the Ukrainian sources suggest that only 6 troops are able to comfortably squeeze in.

null

null

defence24.com

 

[Kirkhill]

The (derided) Saxon was introduced, I believe, for a similar purpose: moving Infantry around the battlefield within indirect fire range of the enemy.

Basically, reducing casualties from small arms, blast and fragments on the move up and back from the FEBA.

It seems the Ukrainians like them though:

​

“Useless” Saxon Vehicles Surprisingly Useful In Ukraine. Kiev Benefits From The “Cost-Effect” Ratio​

When assessing the Saxon vehicles, one should note that they were not going to replace the BTRs or BMPs – this was not the main goal of acquisition. The newly procured vehicles were to become a new armoured means of transport, for which the mine-resistance also bears some significant relevance. It is worth to note that Saxon is able to carry up to 8 soldiers in the troop compartment (2+8, 2+10 usually), however the Ukrainian sources suggest that only 6 troops are able to comfortably squeeze in.

null

null

defence24.com

@daftandbarmy

How was the Saxon crewed? Was it crewed from the Section, or other F-Echelon troops? Or was it driven by Transport Platoon or Loggies? And its MG - was that manned by the crew or the Section?

My understanding is that it was basically an armoured 4 tonner with a 2 man crew, capable of transporting a section of 8 to 10 squaddies over highways, with protection, to the front lines. Was it held as a battalion resource or was it a Service/Transport/Log asset?

Country of origin​	United Kingdom​
Entered service​	1983​
Crew​	2 men​
Personnel​	8 - 10 men​
Dimensions and weight​
Weight​	11.2 t​
Length​	5.35 m​
Width​	2.5 m​
Height​	2.19 m​
Armament​
Machine guns​	1 x 7.62 mm​
Mobility​
Engine​	Perkins 210 Ti diesel​
Engine power​	210 hp​
Maximum road speed​	100 km/h​
Range​	660 km​
Maneuverability​
Gradient​	60%​
Side slope​	30%​
Vertical step​	0.45 m​
Trench​	0.5 m​
Fording​	1 m​

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well here is something to fit our upcoming budgets

 

[Kirkhill]

The Dagor (and it's smaller MRZR cousin) is plagued with issues in actual execution and logistics, a lot of highly spec'd Toyotas are the actual ULCV for the command or they continue to use the armoured GMVs. 3RCR and the DFS cell in CTC have written up some decent literature on what kind of vehicle you need for the LIB (that can also mount the complete ensemble of DFS weapons: HMG, GMG and TOW / ATGM-R), and it resembles something akin to a Flyer-72.

Are you referring to this vehicle? The Jankel Fox?

Combining the most robust, adaptable and reliable chassis with Jankel’s automotive engineering expertise, the FOX fleet is highly adaptive and agile – ideal for transporting, supporting and protecting people whenever and wherever needed.

The reputation and reliability of Toyota, bolstered by Jankel’s standards of safety, performance and quality, brings a fleet of light tactical vehicles that is perfectly adapted to the life it faces.

Site is undergoing maintenance

NP Aerospace Acquires Jankel Armouring Limited Assets NP Aerospace, global vehicle integrator and armour manufacturer, acquired certain assets of Jankel Armouring Limited on 10th June 2024 Jankel Tactical Systems is continuing to operate in North America. For more information Visit the NP...

www.jankel.com

It uses the Toyota Hilux and Land Cruiser as base vehicles to produce a family of solutions equivalent to the family that were built for the Aussies around the G-Wagen.

It’s almost impossible to overstate the durability and flexibility of the 70-series Land Cruiser. The truck even has a war named after it: the Harb Tūtūya, or Great Toyota War. Rebels in Chad used Land Cruisers and Hilux pickup trucks to throw the technologically superior Libyan invaders out on their ears. It was a crushing defeat, with Land Cruisers mounting anti-tank weapons rolling right over the opposition.

Toyota upgrades near-legendary Land Cruiser – but good luck getting your hands on one

If you like the idea of a new Land Cruiser, but aren’t willing to spend a lot of money, then I’m afraid you’re out of luck

www.theglobeandmail.com

The Canadian offer from Toyota

2024 Lexus LX Configure & Price | Lexus Canada

Build your Lexus LX 570 to get price & payment estimates plus options. Lexus LX is equipped with incredibly advanced technology and with seating up to seven.

www.lexus.ca

 

[markppcli]

Are you referring to this vehicle? The Jankel Fox?

Site is undergoing maintenance

NP Aerospace Acquires Jankel Armouring Limited Assets NP Aerospace, global vehicle integrator and armour manufacturer, acquired certain assets of Jankel Armouring Limited on 10th June 2024 Jankel Tactical Systems is continuing to operate in North America. For more information Visit the NP...

www.jankel.com

It uses the Toyota Hilux and Land Cruiser as base vehicles to produce a family of solutions equivalent to the family that were built for the Aussies around the G-Wagen.

Toyota upgrades near-legendary Land Cruiser – but good luck getting your hands on one

If you like the idea of a new Land Cruiser, but aren’t willing to spend a lot of money, then I’m afraid you’re out of luck

www.theglobeandmail.com

The Canadian offer from Toyota

2024 Lexus LX Configure & Price | Lexus Canada

Build your Lexus LX 570 to get price & payment estimates plus options. Lexus LX is equipped with incredibly advanced technology and with seating up to seven.

www.lexus.ca

I apologize for the less than academic source, but Cold War stuff can be hard to find and they have a good list of references so I assume they aren’t far off.

The initial scale of issue of Saxon vehicles was 43 to each Battalion, the Mech (Wh) Bn Type A (43). In this configuration only the 3 Rifle companies were equipped with Saxon each had 13 APCs and 1 Repair and Recovery variant making for a total of 14 Saxon. Additionaly the rifle companies were scaled for 2 3/4 ton Land Rovers, a 3/4 ton ambulance and 1 4t Truck. The rifle Company composition was:

• Company HQ, Company Commander, Company 2IC, Company Seargent Major and a detachment from the Signals platoon providing communications experts. 1 Saxon and 1 3/4 ton Land Rover.
• Rifle Platoons. Each of the 3 Rifle Platoons consisted of 3 sections of 8 and a platoon HQ, each section would deploy a Carl Gustarv AT Weapon, a number of 66mm AT Rockets, 7 SLR and 1 GPMG, they converted in the late 80's to 2 LSW, 6 SA80 and a number of 94mm LAW. Throughout the period the Pl HQ would deploy a 51mm Mortar in addition to thier personal weapons. The platoon was equipped with 4 Saxon.
• Company Aid Post, 3/4 Ton Landrover ambulance with Driver and Medic.
• CQMS Detachment, normally a Land Rover and 4 Ton Truck which provided Resupply together with elements of the battalions A1 Echelon. The CQMS was supported by a small staff of store men and drivers.
• REME Repair and Recovery Detachment. A Single Saxon crewed by REME personel who provided the immidiate repair capability for tasks that could not be handled by the crews.

The Battalion CO was also provided with a Saxon allthough the rest of BG HQ remained in Soft skin vehicles.

(ORBAT - 1980s British BG, NATO Reinforcement Part3, Type A Mech (Wh) and Light)

So the platoons held their Saxons.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks for that Mark

I did a little bit of playing to find out how different vehicles would fit with out available airlift and came up with this

	CC177	CC130J	CH-147	CH-147	CH-146
			Sling	Cabin	Sling
Namer	1	0	0	0	0
Lynx	1	0	0	0	0
CV90	2	0	0	0	0
LAV 6.0	2	0	0	0	0
LAVII (Bison)	5	1	0	0	0
JLTV	8	2	1	0	0
MSVS-SMP	2	0	0	0	0
MSVS-MilCOTS	4	0	0	0	0
MLVW	8	0	1	0	0
Milverado	8	2	3	1	1
Toyota Fox	12	2	2	1	1
BvS 10	6	1	1	0	0
Bv206	6	1	2	0	0
Dagor	20	2	5	2	2
MRZR	42	6	12	2	2
Argo	48	16	9	3	3
Sherp	12	0	4	0	0
CH-146	3	0	1	0	0
CH-147	1	0	0	0	0

By my way of thinking a light force is compatible with the CH-146 and CH-147, the heavy force is in the Namer category. The Medium Force is anything and everything else in between.

The Light Force can rapidly deploy useful numbers of CH-147s and CH-146s along with Argos, MRZRs, Dagors, and surprisingly Toyotas and Milverados.

The Heavy Force would deploy really slowly by air. Even if equipped with LAV 6.0s. 5 C17s would deliver 10 LAV 6.0s in one lift.

Alternately the 5 C17s would deliver 25 LAV IIs in a single lift or 40 JLTVs or 30 Bv206s.

17 C130s would deliver 17 Bv206 or 34 Dagors or 102 MRZRs or 212 Argos.