Is the MTVL the right vehicle for Engineers in a LAV Bde?

[McG]

The Mobile Tactical Vehicle Light (MTVL) is a modernized version of the M113 armoured personnel carrier with increased mobility and capacity. It will be used in field engineer, vehicle recovery and general purpose support roles.

While better that the old M113's the MTVL will still lack the speed to keep pace with all LAV unit.  The Engineer SEV, which would be more capable to keep pace w/the LAV, lacks the protection of an armoured vehicle and puts the section members (and therefore the mission) at greater risk.

A much better option would have been to replace both vehicles with a LAV III Engineer, and give the SEVs to the reservists.

 

Engineer MTVL


 

 LAV III Engr

[Edited to fix links to pictures]

 

[Yard Ape]

From what I‘ve seen the LAV III Engineer, being bought by the US, is turretless and has a mine plow on the front. The LAV III Pioneer that we will be getting, I have head, has the same turret as our APC‘s and a dozer blade similar to the Engr M113. Can somebody tell me if i have these descriptions acurate.

We need wheeled engineer support that can keep pace with our LAV formations. Which model would best serve our engineers?

Yard Ape

 

[McG]

The LAV III Pioneer will not have a turret, nor will it be restricted from using the Pearson Mine Plow. The vehicle will have a remote weapon station allowing the crew to fire a machine gun while inside. The mounting system for the mine plow and the dozer blade are the same. If Canada were to buy mine plows, they could be instaled while in the field.

Overall this vehicle will improve upon the capabilities of the MLVW SEV and Engr M113. It maintains all the hydraulic capabilities, is able to drill 3 flights into the ground with the auger, and includes a crane.

Rumor has it that these vehicle will all be going to the Engineers when the Pioneers disapear.

 

[colgan]

McG is this eng lav in the picture a u.s. unit or a canadian test unit ?

 

[McG]

This is a Canadian prototype.

 

[Yard Ape]

what features will the US LAV III Engineer have?

Yard Ape

 

[armybuck041]

I have to chuckle about your idea of giving the current M113A2 SEV to the reserves, and ask do you have any idea how much it costs to run/repair/maint track veh. It is way out of the reserve budget price range.

 

[McG]

Actualy, I was suggesting to give the MLVW SEVs, still used by the Reg force, to the Reserves.  The old 113's can be parked next to the Shermans down range.

MLVW Engr SEV

[Edited to fix link to picture]

 

[armybuck041]

My appologies, yes I whole heartedly agree with you. Actually, while at 2 CER we recieved all the remaining M113‘s in 2 CMBG, after the other lodger unit‘s had theirs replaced by the LAV/Coyote. We were in the process of VMO‘ing our remaining MLVW SEV‘s to the Reserve Unit‘s of LFCA. Look for them at a location near you soon. The other funny thing about the M113, aside from it being horribly outdated is that they actually have that "UN" white one as a monument at the entrance command road in CTC Gagetown. The funny thing is that we are still using the M113A1 at this time!! While in Yugo on my last tour we used the DAREOD M113 quite a bit. It has the "Silver T" Bison engine in it, as well as some other powertrain mods......I must admit we were impressed with it‘s ability to climb hills etc. The only 2 things that really bothered us after trials with the MTLV, was the fact that the fuel cells were in the floor (wouldn‘t want to hit a mine), and it still has that decrepid diesel fired heater that is less reliable than Gagetown weather. It is a pretty quick tracked machine though. No where near as fast as a LAV mind you.......

Which unit are you with "McG"

 

[McG]

I‘m with 31 CER at the moment.

 

[armybuck041]

"Is the MTVL the right vehicle for Engineers in a LAV Bde?"

YES

After spending some time with the new MTVE & TLAV Tp (4 ESR), I am very sold on it. Easy 70km/h, designed by 041‘s for 041‘s, great new compartment heater... list goes on. Feel free to ask questions.

Keep the ground pounders in their LAV‘s. The MTVE fulfills our role quite nicely.

Not all of our work is done in the F Echelon, and this platform allows us to perform Close Support Force Protection and other Mobility Tasks.

Lastly, the MTVE is hands down, far superior in a cross country environment. No discussion required.

My only big beef is that I do not believe that in this day and age the Sect Comd should be operating the vehicle Main Armament. There should have been a separate hatch for the Sect/Crew Comd behind the Driver similar to the old Grizzley. Leave that Caddilac Gage 1m Turret for one of the skinny Cpl‘s to call home.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

How efficient is the LAV plough blade compared to the MTVL? Since most wheeled bulldozers/frontend loaders are articulated, wouldn't the LAV be a poor performer in tight manoeuvring while digging weapon pits, removing obstacles, etc?

 

[McG]

I also gained more exposure to the TLAV through 4 ESR. It and the MTVE are excellent vehicles and will provide an immense capability increase to current M113A2 based Fd Tps. I do not doubt that these vehicles are capable of keeping pace cross country with any vehicle we have (including the Leopards). However, it is recognized that cross country movement is not a strength of a LAV III and commanders at all levels will be taught to exploit its great speed on roads. Here the MTVE will not be able to keep pace.

I have some reservations about the turret. Many MTVL & TLAV will have a remote weapon station and I have wondered if we would be better off with this on the section vehicles. I don't have any experience with the remote weapon stations to base an opinion on, but I do understand that they would have used up less interior space from the vehicle.

The night optics available to driver, gunner, and crew commander make the LAV III functional 24 hrs a day. They also give our forces a significant advantage over any foreseeable enemy. The MTVE has some night vision capabilities in the turret but the lack of a DVA is a critical flaw. Without it MTVE drivers will not be able to follow a supported combat team at night. This can be addressed through an improvement to the vehicles. Until this is done, combat teams supported by MTVE engineers will have to decide if they will accept the risk, of leaving engineers behind, to fight at night.

Despite all of this, I now think that there is a place for the MTVE in a LAV Bde. Its cross country mobility will the key reason. The LAV III that were originally slated for Pioneers will now be coming to the CERs and the regiments will each be half LAV III Engr and half MTVE. I think this will provide the right balance to keep pace with the LAV III combat teams and operate across difficult country.

Colin P,
I have heard many people say good things about the LAV III blade after watching it in action. I am waiting to see it for myself. I don't see a wheeled vehicle being able to perform with the same power as a track. OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS ON THE USE OF DIRECT FIRE SUPPORT VEHICLES, by Major Les Mader, in the Autumn 2003 edition of the Canadian Military Journal referred to a Canadian study that determined no wheeled vehicle would be able to replace tracked armoured vehicles in engineer roles.

Yard Ape,
The Stryker Engineer Squad Vehicle can mount a Pearson Surface Mine plough or pneumatic mine roller.

Stryker ESV

 

[Spr.Earl]

Wheeled Vehicles for the "MINE ROLL" NO!!

For Mine War Fare we must stay to TRACK!!

Why?

Track is versitile with in the Engineer Role!!

Engineer‘s must stay with track!!!

Why?

Track can cover all Terain in most case‘s and now with the new Tech me think‘s we will have no prob.‘s with detection and making ground‘s safe for the displaced to come home after some prodding also.

Engineer‘s must have some Track!!!


UBIQUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[armybuck041]

I also gained more exposure to the TLAV through 4 ESR.

When did you work with them? I just came back to 2 CER after completing a year long stint as 2 Sect Comd with 22 Fd Tp.

I have some reservations about the turret.  Many MTVL & TLAV will have a remote weapon station and I have wondered if we would be better off with this on the section vehicles.

The MTVE will soon be equipped with an Automatic 40mm Grenade Launcher in place of the M2 .50 Cal as soon T&E settles on a design (looks like H&K may get the nod to fill the Cdn Forces Contract). This is a primary wpn that I would take over any remote Wpn Station regardless of the space it takes.  

The night optics available to driver, gunner, and crew commander make the LAV III functional 24 hrs a day.  They also give our forces a significant advantage over any foreseeable enemy.  The MTVE has some night vision capabilities in the turret but the lack of a DVA is a critical flaw.  Without it MTVE drivers will not be able to follow a supported combat team at night. Until this is done, combat teams supported by MTVE engineers will have to decide if they will accept the risk, of leaving engineers behind, to fight at night.

Sorry buds, but we are at no less of an advantage than any Leopard Crews. The MTVE & M113 are equipped with the same AN/PVS 501 "Fish Eye" that can be found in Leopard Tanks, entire Bison Family and both style AVGP‘s (Grizzley & Cougar). Unfortunately, Fd Sect Dvr‘s are rarely given the opportunity to use these NV aids, or more often than not, simply opt not to use it. This is an issue that can be completely resolved in house. I have regularly provided effective 0‘ dark 30 live fire close support to LAV mounted Inf without issue in our current agony wagons. Most of the time we used nothing more than NOD Bino‘s attached to my drivers‘ and my own helmet. The MTVE Turret NVA is a handy improvement.
Secondly, we are tasked with close support for mobility. The primary use of the MTVE wpn systems are for self defence and the limited effective range of the 40mm Grenade and the C-6 do not require the same NV systems that the LAV provide. From my own personal experience as a Cbt Engr, NV equipment is mostly used for battlefield IFF purposes reading C/S boards on the back of Turrets ("Where the **** is I31A"). All in all, you can‘t look a gift horse in the mouth, and the MTVE is very big step forward.

Its cross country mobility will the key reason.  The LAV III that were originally slated for Pioneers will now be coming to the CERs and the regiments will each be half LAV III Engr and half MTVE. I think this will provide the right balance to keep pace with the LAV III combat teams and operate across difficult country.

Agree‘d. As long as the Tank is the backbone of the battle field, we will have no trouble keeping up.  

 

[McG]

armybuck041,
About a year and a half ago I was on a 3 week exercise involving 22 Fd Tp and several courses from CFSME (a few QL3, a QL5, and Ph IV). I spent a few days with your former Tp and got to know the TLAVs a little better (there were no MTVE there at the time).

The 40mm grenade launcher is news to me. However, the RWS would also be able to mount this weapon, a .50 cal, or a GPMG. The manufacture also boasts of the weapon being stabilised and an option to mount Javelin missiles. Night optics would also be improved. All this while still invading less space than the 1 m turret.

We do have a disadvantage in night vision compared to LAV and Leopard C2. Night vision equipment is available to drivers of both these vehicles even when hatches down (ask some of your former AEOs about 501 sights or your LAV drivers about the DVA). On the issue of security, accepting second rate night optics on a weapon system translates into less time to detect and identify threats (or rather, they bad guys get closer before you know it). Optics on turrets and weapons stations are not only for aiming, but they are also a vital part of security through observation.

All in all, ... the MTVE is very big step forward.

Agreed.

 

[30 for 30]

I recently read that Canada‘s newest MTVEs have band tracks. Is this correct? That would certainly address the track road-wear/maintenance problem. While road speed would not match a LAV, the MTVE‘s cross-country mobility and up-armour simplicity makes it a vital piece of kit in our inventory. If I were an Combat Engineer I‘d feel pretty lucky to be among the last in the CF to be using a truly all-terrain combat vehicle.

 

[McG]

I have heard that trials were done with different tracks, but the M113A3 and MTVL still use the same German track that we used on the M113A2.

I've also heard of new speed restrictions because the A3's and MTVLs have been throwing tracks too often.  It seems modifications are required before a slack-track can keep up with the speed of the engine.

 

[armybuck041]

Hmmm,

Allot has happenned since I last posted about this topic.

For one thing, I have completed the LAV III Gunner and Crew Commander Course. I completed the MTVE/TLAV Crew Commander/Turret Course in Gagetown over a year ago.

My education on both vehicles has increased, however my feelings about both of these pieces of kit has not changed.

The LAV III is a very impressive unit, from its Max Speed, Crew Situational Awareness Monitor, 25mm Cannon, and Thermal Imaging.

However its major shortcomings as an Engineer Section Vehicle are many:

It's turning radius is ridiculous..... End of discussion.
The rollover potential is very high. (The leading cause of injury and death in these vehicles)
Cross Country mobility is poor. There are B Vehicles (HLVW) in the CF that have better CC mobility than a LAV III which is plain wrong.

During our last Regt Ex, "Galloping Sapper", 2 CER moved the complete Regt from Kingston to Petawawa, while Bridging all of the major gaps on route. My troop, made up of:
2 x LAV III (Tp Comd and Tp Recce Sgt)
1 x M113A1 (Tp WO/Comd Post)
3 x M113A1 Pioneer Dozer (Sect Veh's)
1 x M113A1 Fitter (Mech Sp Veh)

I am proud to report that within my Tp (5 Tp, 24 Fd Sqn) the only veh which did not complete the move was the Fitter which was a source of amusement for the troops.

During the Ex I was able to utilize the LAV III as a Recce Veh. This is one area where this vehicle excels. It's high rate of speed allows you to get in and out quickly. The wpn system allows you a pretty good degree of protection should you be caught with your pants down. The basic crew of 3 makes completing an MGB Recce fairly quick and easy

However.... I dread the thought of using a LAV III Pnr for installing Crater Groups (Turning Radius), laying Protective Minefields (Cross Country Mobility), Bridge Site Prep (Dozing), Recovering Infantry C/S during the assault.... the list goes on.

Due to the nature of our work, the CSAM system and the Thermal Site are not as important to the Engineer as the Infantry about to dismount on the assault. We are not accepting second rate optics as the best night viewer on the LAV III(unanimously agreed upon by all of the Infantry and Armoured Crews alike) was the Crew Commander Night Site/Viewer, which also happens to be the same primary viewer on the MTVE 1m Turret. Although the Thermal Site is very impressive, it is the Crew Comd viewer that is used to positively ID Targets prior to engagement.

The TLAV/MTVE NV-501 Viewer is perfectly fine for the job we do. I don't understand where you get this idea that we are ineffective at night op's. Because the LAV III is equipped with a NV TV set for the driver to see his path does not render other DVA systems as ineffective. If anything this should be an area to insert jokes about the infantry driving ability  

FYI:

The MTVE does not use the same Track as the M113A1 etc. The M113 uses a staggered track pad setup (PITA for changing pads), with completely different end connectors which are designed for amphibious ops. The operator is required to Torque the End Connectors at regular intervals. The MTVE/TLAV uses a low maintenance Diehl Track, which has the pads all in line making for quick and easy pad replacement. The End Connectors need only be Torqued once when they are initially installed or if a specific portion of the Track is Broken. Otherwise they are Low Maint.

The problem with the MTVE/TLAV throwing tracks is definitely a flaw caused by the lack of return rollers. This was something that was raised when we first took delivery of the APC. In the mean time, it wouldn't kill the drivers to reduce cornering speeds to that of their predecessors, as the only real threat of tossing a track is while negotiating a 90* turn.

FWIW:

Don't get me wrong McG, but I can't understand why you are so in love with the idea of using a LAV III as a Section Vehicle. Spend some time recovering them by the dozen and you may change your mind.   

The LAV III belongs to Recce and the Infantry....

PS:

If I were an Combat Engineer I'd feel pretty lucky to be among the last in the CF to be using a truly all-terrain combat vehicle.

I couldn't have said this better myself.....

 

[Yard Ape]

The LAV III that were originally slated for Pioneers will now be coming to the CERs and the regiments will each be half LAV III Engr and half MTVE.  I think this will provide the right balance to keep pace with the LAV III combat teams and operate across difficult country.

Agree'd. As long as the Tank is the backbone of the battle field, we will have no trouble keeping up. 

You thumper heads are funny.  You both agree yet continue to argue based on a PWS vs the 1 m turret.  In this respect, I have to agree with McG if only because I hate the 1 m turret.  The PWS can mount any weapon we might put in a 1 m turret (and GDLS also makes them with Javelin launchers in addition to the MG/AGL mount).

As far as night vision, if the driver has 501 sights, your good to go.However, all the presentations that I have seen say that the TLAV drivers will not be getting any night vision.  Have I been told wrong, or are the engineers getting something the other TLAVs were never planned to get?  I supppose another plus of the PWS is that it could be plugged into a CSAM monitor.  Maybe it is not as important, but a CSAM monitor would allow additional eyes to monitor for threats while on the move.

On the topic of II vs Thermal.  I have found II better for identifying/discriminating things I find, but I have found thermal better for detecting things (because they glow).  Infantry & Armour must identify targets befor they can engage them (hence the II sight being on the CC's side and it having such high regard in those fields)  I would think thermal would be of more value to engineers because you can detect threats sooner (and is that not more important that being able to identify the treat after it has gotten closer).

In the end, if 1 m turret is not the way to go then pop it off & weld on old crew-comd hatch in its place then plug in a PWS.  Keep the TLAV.