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

[Lance Wiebe]

Did any of you engineer types catch the engineer variant of the LAV III that they had in Gagetown?  I almost hurt myself laughing.

First, when it tried to doze, it couldn't steer.  Not enough weight on the front end.

Second, when they tried a mineplow, once the tines went in, it was stuck.  Couldn't go backwards or forwards.

The eggheads admitted that "some more work had to be done".

If the powers that be keep pushing this "all-wheeled" army, we're all going to be hurting.....

 

[SprCForr]

Stay with the established mix in a Regt. Simply replace all the MLVW SEV's with the LAV. Leave the 113's where they are. We did fine with the mix (wh/tr) before and it will allow us to maintain flexibility in force compositions.

 

[McG]

Stay with the established mix in a Regt. Simply replace all the MLVW SEV's with the LAV. Leave the 113's where they are. We did fine with the mix (wh/tr) before and it will allow us to maintain flexibility in force compositions.

The MLVW SEV has already been removed from regular force service.

 

[Infanteer]

Just because the M113 and its varients are tracked doesn't mean they should be excluded from any planning for a Medium Brigade design.  I think the purpose with going with the wheeled LAV is that they provide a light alternative to a monster Bradley or Warrior.
The hard experience of members here shows that a light tracked vehicle is still required today.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[SprCForr]

MLVW's gone? Excellent (Imagine that said ala Mr. Burns lol) So what are the WH Tp's using in the interim? Any idea on when the LAV will hit the Regiments? The pro's and con's mentioned above are interesting WRT the LAV III (It was just a wet dream when I retired). The LAV (despite it's cons) is still head and shoulders above that ML. That being said it still increases an average Fd Sect's effectiveness in the field. I can't help but to think that Drew Nelligan would call it "spiffydoodle". I agree totally about the blade, it should be ditched. One of the concerns mentioned was about the turning radius. What is it? I gotta get my butt over the Garrison Edmonton and see the unit.

 

[armybuck041]

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.

Interesting observations Yardape...

I would like to start out by saying that I hate the 1m Turret as well, but it is a heck of an improvement over the old .50 Cal in a Flex Mount. Your's and McG's idea of having a PWS mounted on the Backbone Vehicle of the Reg Force Combat Engineer is rediculous... I havn't checked your profile to see who you work with but i'm assuming you are either an Infanteer or a Zipperhead.... That being said, imagine your Coyote or LAV III Turretless?
Would you want a primary vehicle Wpn System that could not be uploaded, cleared of any stoppages or be maintained from under armour? Neither do we..
You also have to remember that we are not Infantry and have drastically different requirements from our Vehicles and their Wpns platforms. I love the the Thermal Sights employed in the LAV III/Coyote, but lets be honest here for a minute, the Wpn systems employed within the MTVE do not justify the need for Thermal Sights like the 25mm Cannon equipped vehicles that we support. Remember the long term plan is a C-6 Coax and a 40mm Grenade Launcher.... Both are limited well within this side of 1400m and are primarly defensive Wpns. Secondly, given the choice between II or Thermal... I'd take II for the simple fact that it is almost always effective compared to the Thermal Clutter issues associated with the the latter.

WRT the 501's.... It is my understanding that these are being issued according to vehicle employment. I can assure that all of the mounting systems are included in our MTVE. I cannot speak for other types of "TLAV"s.

I know the old adage that soldiers ***** and I have done my fair share of bitching over the years, but when the time comes when you realize that your finally getting a half decent piece of hardware, you need to pipe down, be happy and soldier on with it. I listened to soldiers in one of the RCR Battalions that were gripping about all sorts of little "issues" with their newly aquired LAV III's not even a year after ditching the M113's and Grizzlies.... How soon one forgets.... We should be truly proud to have gotten a replacement years before the Sea King is due to be mothballed. What makes me kinda chuckle is that to the best of my knowledge, neither one of you will ever have to truly soldier out of one of these new Tracks. So why strike it down as being flawed so soon?  

Finally, aside from all of this Arm Chair General stuff..... The most important thing to anyone who is really required to soldier with one of these machines will be happy to know that the Crew Compartment Heater is a drastic improvement over the old cremate 'n fumigate or piss diesel n' cold air heat can. As far as i'm concerned this will have the greatest impact on a Sections' morale regardless of what wpn system and sight is mounted on top.  

Mr McG... enjoy all those driven hard and put away wet MLVW "Special Equipement Vehicles"... Better you than me    
Yard Ape... keep your tow cable handy, cause sooner or later my MTVE complete with 1m Turret may have to drag your 8x8 rubber tire'd tank out of the muck   :dontpanic:
          
Cheers...

 

[armybuck041]

MLVW's gone? Excellent (Imagine that said ala Mr. Burns lol) So what are the WH Tp's using in the interim? Any idea on when the LAV will hit the Regiments? The pro's and con's mentioned above are interesting WRT the LAV III (It was just a wet dream when I retired). The LAV (despite it's cons) is still head and shoulders above that ML. That being said it still increases an average Fd Sect's effectiveness in the field. I can't help but to think that Drew Nelligan would call it "spiffydoodle". I agree totally about the blade, it should be ditched. One of the concerns mentioned was about the turning radius. What is it? I gotta get my butt over the Garrison Edmonton and see the unit.

The WH Tp's are now temporarily using M113's that were given up by the Pnr Pl's and through Regt Veh Re-Org's. I have no idea when we are supposed to take delivery of the new Pnr LAV III's but I would imagine we will end up going back to the 1 Tracked Sqn and 1 Wheeled Sqn when the arrive.
The MLVW SEV was and is a POS Veh for a Cbt Engr.... Don't get me wrong, but aside from being able to sleep the entire Sect within the Veh, it has no advantages over an APC. They are equally slow off pavement but lack the armour to allow them to be used as a mobile bunker for demolition tasks. Talk about long Demo Cables or Crazy Walk Time "Batman". It is a rear ech veh end of story. As you can see I have no love for those things
As for the Turning radius of the LAV III, I don't have the exact figures, but it is much better than the MLVW SEV. Regardless, In order to put it in perspective you have to try to imagine is putting in a standard 3 lines of cut, crater group with 3 holes per line on a road with 1m deep verges. These are situations where the APC is a champ.
The LAV Dozer Blade.... i'm left totally speechless on the thinking behind that.

 

[meaf0rdm0]

i was just wondering if the new M113A5 i think is it comparable to a LAV for a SEV or is all the equipment slow it down to much

 

[Tpr.Orange]

I think the one of the main reasons behind the decision to go from tracked to wheeled was specifically because of the timing it took to change out a track as opposed to a wheel. But deffinatley all the equipment slows the vehicle down.

 

[McG]

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.

Well, this is no longer correct.  The MTVE has been labeled an interim vehicle and will be retired once the LAV III Engr gets into service.  (Not to mention that now a quarter of a CER will be light)

We've been told that they will never be used outside of the country in the short time they have left.

 

[McG]

i was just wondering if the new M113A5 i think is it comparable to a LAV for a SEV or is all the equipment slow it down to much

Less space restrictions, the MTVE is more capable than the LAV for carrying the auger, dozer blade, and hydraulic tools.  The LAV has been having problems where all the additional parts were making the vehicle too heavy for itself. 

 

[JackD]

Hi! Seems a true waste of money to develop something like this mtvl and then discard it.. and you say as well that the LAV engineers vehicle is top-heavy and too heavy.... What would you consider to be 1: "crucial" in a sapper's section vehicle, 2:"good to have" in an sapper's vehicle, 3; "nice to have" and "unnecessary" in a sapper section vehicle. - as essential - besides basics like a good heater and perhaps plug-ins for a ventilator fan, would you say a winch  (with inside and outside control); attachment pins in the front for a hoist and for a push bar for bridge launching or for mine rollers; storage boxes for ...?; aA pintle for hauling a trailer; outside electrical sockets for flood lamp or other uses; socket plug-ins for detonator cable - with corresponding inside one for the detonator box; socket plug-ins for sensor feeds -such as mine detectors (the ILDS) or remote controlled vehicles; a 110 volt converter; a field telephone connection?  What do you all think is appropriate for these categories? And what would you say is appropriate in these categories for the recce sargeant's vehicle - a laser rangefinder perhaps; storage for an inflatable boat?

 

[McG]

JackD,
Most of the items you've identified (less a good winch) are not particularly heavy.  The LAV III Engr ran into problems when one tires to mount the winch, the crane/auger, the blade, and the hydraulic tools.  The last solution I saw was that these components would be modular, and would be added/removed to the vehicle as task or mission dictated.

The recce sgt could get everything he needs into a LAV III ISC or M113A3 w/RWS.

 

[JackD]

ahhh - now that makes more sense - err is there a" hydraulic fence post pounder attachment"? I can remember the massive wire obstacles that were in vogue in the Waincons of the late 70's. it seemed to me then that a" hydraulic fence post pounder/ come camouflet (sp?) tube pounder" would have been a most useful device. I presume then, if this is going to modular then the storeman position would be returned to the troop - along with his/her very useful truck and trailer so as to hold these modular components...

 

[PIPER DOOON]

Lot of info....

About 5 years ago we were asked what should be taken off the LAV 111 Eng Variant inorder to lower the gross weight. I think without a doubt the one thing everyone said was "get rid of the blade" I assume that hasn't happened.

I've also heard the MTVE out performed the LAV in mobility especially when things get wet. I seem to remember in Arkansaw the engineers in the M113's playing Battlegroup recovery for pretty much everything else. Track when in the mud.

Has a desision been made to actually deploy the MTVE on any Operation?

One thing Has been proven though....The M113 is not to be mistaken for a Submarine.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

The T-LAV family (MTVL(and all variants) and the M113-A3) where originally designed to be able to keep up with the LAV III's. But after working with the T-LAV's this summer, a number of flaws were identified. The most notable is the track problem which should (as of Sept.) should be sorted out by the end of the year. The other problem that was identified over the summer was the engine/transmission combination, we (T&E) went through 15 powerpacks in the span of 4 months.

IMHO yes the MTVL's are the right vehicle for us sappers in the a LAV Bde.

 

[McG]

About 5 years ago we were asked what should be taken off the LAV 111 Eng Variant inorder to lower the gross weight. I think without a doubt the one thing everyone said was "get rid of the blade" I assume that hasn't happened.

I have not heard anything official on this, but I have noted that the Pearson dozer blade has been replaced by the Pearson surface mine plow in all new CF photos of the Engr variant.

Has a desision been made to actually deploy the MTVE on any Operation?

Last I heard through my CoC, a decision has been made that it will never deploy on operations.

 

[McG]

Last I heard through my CoC, a decision has been made that it will never deploy on operations.

In light of recent reversals on tanks and the TLAV, has anyone heard if this has also changed?

 

[FEEOP042]

Yes they are going we just sent are TVAL's and are MTVL are getting ready. My 2 cents on the MTVL and the LAV 3 for the Engr's is that they should not have any turrets. Reason is that now we have to have a gunner and a Crew Comdr sent on another crse. And more weight to the veh. They should only have remote firing stations on them. More room inside and less roll overs. The MTVL's can only shoot to the front and to the sides. Well that is all for now.

 

[Spr.Earl]

Yes they are going we just sent are TVAL's and are MTVL are getting ready. My 2 cents on the MTVL and the LAV 3 for the Engr's is that they should not have any turrets. Reason is that now we have to have a gunner and a Crew Comdr sent on another crse. And more weight to the veh. They should only have remote firing stations on them. More room inside and less roll overs. The MTVL's can only shoot to the front and to the sides. Well that is all for now.

Yes some machine gun's aboard ,.50 and a 7.62  but aren't we supposed to have full support when we do our job?
But I still think we still need some track vs Lav.