Infantry Vehicles

[suffolkowner]

That's why I say 200. Ideal? No. Ideally we have a need for twice that. Realistic? Somewhat. Either way our Leos are reaching end of life and desperately need replacement. Not refit. Replacement.

some are going through a light refit?

 

[Kirkhill]

 

[PrairieFella]

some are going through a light refit?

Some have had multiple. We have such a Hodge Podge of 2A4, 2A6, 2A4M, etc that we realistically have two actual squadrons. The rest are busted or obsolete.

 

[suffolkowner]

Some have had multiple. We have such a Hodge Podge of 2A4, 2A6, 2A4M, etc that we realistically have two actual squadrons. The rest are busted or obsolete.

No rush I guess its not like there's a major land war going on or anything

 

[dapaterson]

Buying military equipment during a major land war has a negative effect on your purchasing power. Who knew?

 

[suffolkowner]

Buying military equipment during a major land war has a negative effect on your purchasing power. Who knew?

doesnt look like there's going to be a great leopard sell off in the near future though does it?

 

[dapaterson]

Leo 2A4 parts are all but impossible to get right now.

 

[PrairieFella]

doesnt look like there's going to be a great leopard sell off in the near future though does it?

I'm team Leo 100% and the new marks that just got announced look wicked but in terms of logistics, there's pads full of perfectly good M1A2 that I'm sure Congress would approve selling to us, probably at a discount.

 

[KevinB]

I'm team Leo 100% and the new marks that just got announced look wicked but in terms of logistics, there's pads full of perfectly good M1A2 that I'm sure Congress would approve selling to us, probably at a discount.

To me the M1A2sepIV is probably the simplest option for Canada, ideally with the M1A3 to follow when available.
There are equal pads of A2/3 Bradleys - that could be upgraded to A4 and provide a decent IFV (yeah I'd prefer CV-90 or newer, but the ability to get parts anywhere really helps).

 

[PrairieFella]

To me the M1A2sepIV is probably the simplest option for Canada, ideally with the M1A3 to follow when available.
There are equal pads of A2/3 Bradleys - that could be upgraded to A4 and provide a decent IFV (yeah I'd prefer CV-90 or newer, but the ability to get parts anywhere really helps).

We should pass on the Bradley imo, the 25mm is rapidly becoming a legacy gun and the juice probably ain't worth the squeeze putting in a new turret. Best to see where the MICV goes and let the US pay for the development haha.

 

[KevinB]

We should pass on the Bradley imo, the 25mm is rapidly becoming a legacy gun and the juice probably ain't worth the squeeze putting in a new turret. Best to see where the MICV goes and let the US pay for the development haha.

I’m talking about an interim discount vehicle.
The US Army is still divesting older Bradley’s

I would agree that OMFV XM30 is likely the future option for that — but I’m unsure if a larger land war Europe will wait that long.

 

[dapaterson]

Right now I'd rather see the CAF pay for a bunch of older Bradleys and ship them directly to UKR where there's immediate need.

 

[PrairieFella]

Right now I'd rather see the CAF pay for a bunch of older Bradleys and ship them directly to UKR where there's immediate need.

The way the world is going, we'll have an immediate need soon. Support Ukraine yes, but rearming the CAF needs priority rn.

 

[markppcli]

Honestly the whole tracks tho g is much ado about nothing. Would they be preferable ? Probably. Are they critical? No. Most users of the LAV don’t have massive issues.

Similarly calling it a PMV is silly, that’s something we’d reserve for the Dingo or Bushmaster.

 

[markppcli]

To me the M1A2sepIV is probably the simplest option for Canada, ideally with the M1A3 to follow when available.
There are equal pads of A2/3 Bradleys - that could be upgraded to A4 and provide a decent IFV (yeah I'd prefer CV-90 or newer, but the ability to get parts anywhere really helps).

My tank preferences start at M1A2s and goes to K2 then Leo for cost and supply.

 

[markppcli]

"Cavalry" means more than "recce". I envision at least one infantry company per unit; I'd probably start gaming the missions and tasks with a square unit of two armour squadrons and two infantry companies. The point is combined arms, not "enabling".

Not for nothing but that’s not how US Army Cavalry Bns are organized, that’s the organization of a CAB… well actually it’s not but it’s close enough. Armoured Cavalry Sqns are 3 Cav Troops in Bradley’s with scouts as dismounts and mortars and a tank troop. Troops being companies. The Bradley troops are a much much smaller organization in terms of dismounts that a rifle company and have a different mission.

 

[KevinB]

Honestly the whole tracks tho g is much ado about nothing. Would they be preferable ? Probably. Are they critical? No. Most users of the LAV don’t have massive issues.

Similarly calling it a PMV is silly, that’s something we’d reserve for the Dingo or Bushmaster.

The LAV cannot conduct integral Inf/Armor operations over a lot of terrain with the same mobility as a modern MBT.

I’ve seen LAV-25’s hung up on rubble, and LAV III’s stuck in fields and trenches. Stuff a Tank or tracked vehicle doesn’t have issues with.

Do track have issues, yes, but if you want an assault vehicle - I would definitely prefer tracks to wheels.


There are many roles that I think the LAV does quite well - but a combined arms IFV isn’t one I would pick.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Not for nothing but that’s not how US Army Cavalry Bns are organized, that’s the organization of a CAB… well actually it’s not but it’s close enough. Armoured Cavalry Sqns are 3 Cav Troops in Bradley’s with scouts as dismounts and mortars and a tank troop. Troops being companies. The Bradley troops are a much much smaller organization in terms of dismounts that a rifle company and have a different mission.

Hm. I suppose if I were so bold as to assert my ideas are better than theirs, I could hear your laughter through my ethernet cable if I held it to my ear.

 

[markppcli]

Hm. I suppose if I were so bold as to assert my ideas are better than theirs, I could hear your laughter through my ethernet cable if I held it to my ear.

I was more just being pedantic about your statement implying that they employed combined infantry and armour companies.

I think CABs work, but I don’t know that are inherently superior to single arm Bns and task organized forces.

 

[KevinB]

I was more just being pedantic about your statement implying that they employed combined infantry and armour companies.

I think CABs work, but I don’t know that are inherently superior to single arm Bns and task organized forces.

CAB's work because it creates a permanent team that is used to joint Inf/Armor operations.
They don't work so well when you undo the link. But they also work due to our throughput scale of soldiers and material - I am not sure if the training system of the CA could keep up both individual and collective skills changing to a CAB organization without further changing the readiness management method -- I also don't think the LAV 6.0 is a good vehicle for a CAB.