USMC's Loss Army Gains

[Colin Parkinson]

In a perfect world we would have a light brigade based on the LAV with SPG's, SPAAG's, ARV and gun vehicle along with others based on the common chassis. We would not be alone, Spain, Jordon, Japan and Italy

The heavy brigade mostly tracked with Tanks, tracked APC/IFV and 155mm SPG and SPAAG's. Having the two, allows you to mix and match to the mission you be given.

 

[Kirkhill]

Just figured out what I am looking for

Sticking the 105mm gun of the AMX-13/Kurassier on the back of an ROGUE Autonomous JLTV and remote all the sensors and activators. Why that turret? The gun was fed by 2x 6-Shot revolver magazines. No loader required.

I reckon you could get that down to a single driver/operator - as long as you don't plan on fighting tanks on the move.

 

[Kirkhill]

In a perfect world we would have a light brigade based on the LAV with SPG's, SPAAG's, ARV and gun vehicle along with others based on the common chassis. We would not be alone, Spain, Jordon, Japan and Italy

The heavy brigade mostly tracked with Tanks, tracked APC/IFV and 155mm SPG and SPAAG's. Having the two, allows you to mix and match to the mission you be given.

63,000 lbs ain't LIGHT. That is HEAVY. With or without tracks

LIGHT is 6300 lbs or under (much under if possible) I want a 105mm autoloader on a Polaris MRZR (with spades if necessary)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well the "really light" horse has already bolted with the acquisition of the LAV 6.0, so in reality we are really talking about wheeled vs tracked. Wheeled will be good for places like Mali and a big gunned LAV would be highly feared there. You could still used the tracked stuff to secure the regions around large population centres, but for the long distance stuff you want wheeled, along with some very light stuff like the Brits use. Funny enough Hovercraft would work well for good chunks of it as well, both on land and rivers.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ooooh! Christopher Cockerell. It is to faint.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Well the "really light" horse has already bolted with the acquisition of the LAV 6.0, so in reality we are really talking about wheeled vs tracked. Wheeled will be good for places like Mali and a big gunned LAV would be highly feared there. You could still used the tracked stuff to secure the regions around large population centres, but for the long distance stuff you want wheeled, along with some very light stuff like the Brits use. Funny enough Hovercraft would work well for good chunks of it as well, both on land and rivers.

Speaking of Mali:

The AMX-10RCR is an upgraded version of the standard AMX-10RC reconnaissance and anti-tank 6x6 armoured vehicle. The AMX-10RCR is being carried out in the three traditional key areas of armour (or survivability), mobility and firepower, plus digitisation. In December 2000, the French Army awarded a contract to Nexter Systems for the upgrade of 256 AMX-10RC vehicles named AMX-10RCR. Nexter Systems offers a complete set of upgrade kits aimed at improving the operational and maintainability capabilities of AMX-10RCs currently in service with the French Army. When fitted with such kits, the AMX-10RC turns into a reconnaissance and anti-tank vehicle, the tactical capabilities of which keep up those of the most modern armoured vehicles falling within its weight range, able to fit into the system of the futur forces. These modular upgrade kits, which can be integrated into a simple 3rd echelon-like infrastructure, enable customers to upgrade their equipment according to their specific requirements. In 2003, the French Army will take delivery of the first Nexter AMX-10RC (6×6) armoured vehicle that have been upgraded to extend their lives for a further 15 years until the projected Engin Blinde a Roues de Contact (EBRC) enters service. Deliveries of the first upgraded vehicles began in 2005 and the 100th upgraded vehicle was delivered in February 2008. Final deliveries were concluded in 2010. The upgrade will maintain the operational capability of the vehicles until 2020/2025. First operational deployment of the AMX-10RCR was in Cote d’Ivoire with the French Foreign Legion in 2006. The vehicle was also deployed in Afghanistan and Mali for combat missions. . It is also air transportable in a C-130, IL-76 or Boeing 747 aircraft.

AMX-10RCR upgraded reconnaissance anti-tank 6x6 armored vehicle data

AMX-10RCR reconnaissance anti-tank 6x6 wheeled armoured vehicle France technical data fact sheet pictures video

www.armyrecognition.com

 

[blacktriangle]

Speaking of Mali:

The AMX-10RCR is an upgraded version of the standard AMX-10RC reconnaissance and anti-tank 6x6 armoured vehicle. The AMX-10RCR is being carried out in the three traditional key areas of armour (or survivability), mobility and firepower, plus digitisation. In December 2000, the French Army awarded a contract to Nexter Systems for the upgrade of 256 AMX-10RC vehicles named AMX-10RCR. Nexter Systems offers a complete set of upgrade kits aimed at improving the operational and maintainability capabilities of AMX-10RCs currently in service with the French Army. When fitted with such kits, the AMX-10RC turns into a reconnaissance and anti-tank vehicle, the tactical capabilities of which keep up those of the most modern armoured vehicles falling within its weight range, able to fit into the system of the futur forces. These modular upgrade kits, which can be integrated into a simple 3rd echelon-like infrastructure, enable customers to upgrade their equipment according to their specific requirements. In 2003, the French Army will take delivery of the first Nexter AMX-10RC (6×6) armoured vehicle that have been upgraded to extend their lives for a further 15 years until the projected Engin Blinde a Roues de Contact (EBRC) enters service. Deliveries of the first upgraded vehicles began in 2005 and the 100th upgraded vehicle was delivered in February 2008. Final deliveries were concluded in 2010. The upgrade will maintain the operational capability of the vehicles until 2020/2025. First operational deployment of the AMX-10RCR was in Cote d’Ivoire with the French Foreign Legion in 2006. The vehicle was also deployed in Afghanistan and Mali for combat missions. . It is also air transportable in a C-130, IL-76 or Boeing 747 aircraft.

AMX-10RCR upgraded reconnaissance anti-tank 6x6 armored vehicle data

AMX-10RCR reconnaissance anti-tank 6x6 wheeled armoured vehicle France technical data fact sheet pictures video

www.armyrecognition.com

In case anyone is interested:

The EBRC Jaguar (AMX-10RC replacement) packs 40mm cannon and ATGM capability into a 25t package.

 

[Kirkhill]

25t. Improving. Now if you can get it down to 25,000 lb or better then they can be carted around by the Chinooks.

 

[GR66]

In a perfect world we would have a light brigade based on the LAV with SPG's, SPAAG's, ARV and gun vehicle along with others based on the common chassis. We would not be alone, Spain, Jordon, Japan and Italy

The heavy brigade mostly tracked with Tanks, tracked APC/IFV and 155mm SPG and SPAAG's. Having the two, allows you to mix and match to the mission you be given.

I'm glad you noted that you were talking about "a perfect world". Unfortunately we're in Canada though.

We have the LAV 6.0 for our Reg Force. There won't be a Heavy Brigade. We struggle to get basic items like boots, pistol replacements, etc. and with the big purchases of the CSC and fighters combined with the bid budget crunch we're about to face we will not be recapitalizing the Army with tracked IFVs to go along with our LAVs.

In my opinion if we accept that fact we can still make some changes/decisions that will make the Army more effective.

Three LAV Brigades in a single Division as our primary force. Buying Canadian from GDLS for some specialty vehicles would likely be an easier sell to the Government than a completely new vehicle family...and better for logistics too.

LAV-based direct fire support systems (LAV 6.0 with Centuro 2 turret?), LAV-based SHORAD system (same Leonardo RwiP Hellfire/Stinger RWS as the IM-SHORAD?), LAV-based ATGM vehicle (same RwiP RWS as the SHORAD but with Hellfire/TOW or Javelin instead), LAV-based SPG (Denel 105mm demonstrator from a few years back), LAV-based 120mm Mortar Carrier (AMOS or Patria Nemo?).

The above would give a pretty good capability in my mind. It is however missing tanks, which like others I'd prefer not to abandon. We can possibly hope for our existing Leopards to be upgraded (replacement seems less likely to me) but I seriously doubt there will be any willingness to increase the number we have. These could be grouped together in a single Reserve Regiment (with Reg Force maintenance depot maintenance) in case they are needed for a near peer conflict.

It's on the light side that I think there would be more room for more radical innovation. Light vehicles are cheaper and look less "killy" than scary tanks, etc. so might be an easier sell. Presumably for Canada the advantage of Light forces is that they can deploy much faster to theatre than our LAV forces (i.e. by air). So why have minimally armed light infantry battalions that can quickly fly to Latvia/Ukraine/South Korea/South China Seas or wherever there is the need to quickly respond to aggression where they will get overwhelmed by the enemy?

Rethink light to be a force that can quickly deploy and effectively provide the kind of effects that might be needed in the opening phases of a defence while the heavier forces have time to gather. Light Recce to find the enemy and provide targets for allied air forces? Pioneers/Engineers to slow the enemy's advance? EW assets to interfere with their comms/targeting? Counter UAV to strip away their targeting drones? Loitering munitions launchers/NLOS missile carriers to hit their artillery/supply/lead columns? I'm thinking more rapidly deployable skirmishers to harrass the enemy and slow their advance rather than light infantry to try and hold ground.

 

[Loachman]

Speaking of Mali:

The AMX-10RCR

Should that not be "AMX-10TheRCR"?

I'm already showing myself out...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

GR66, I fully agree with your assessment, fleshing out capabilities with the LAV chassis I think is the best "win" that we can get. If we invested heavily in ATGM's new mortar systems and other fancy stuff, then the very light force makes sense, but I fear a repeat of the Iltis with a GPMG bungie corded to it again. I think the army needs to work on selling to the government that cost of each solider is roughly fixed, the value that soldier brings to the field is directly related to equipment and training, so it's not not cost effective to use worn out mortars, MG's and not to have modern ATGM's. It's like trying to run Amazon without boxes.

 

[FJAG]

And one without a cringeworthy name.

The Tac Hel doctrine pre-Griffon was basically the US Army Air Land Battle 2000 doctrine with Canadian terminology.

Buying a piece of kit that does not match real doctrinal needs and then creating "doctrine" to reflect its capabilities and weaknesses is idiocy.

It's a good job that we almost never do that.

Here's an old but a good article by Ian Hope in 2001. He's challenging the Canadian Army's approach to "doctrine" just as we were starting the transformation from the Cold War Army to whatever the heck we consider ourselves to be now. Note that this was in the transition phase just before "Advancing with Purpose" first came out although most of the elements were already pretty much formed. He gives several good examples of what doctrine needs to be and what was appropriate doctrine for the time and place. (As an aside, I never considered "AwP" as a doctrine. It styles itself as a modernization strategy while "Close Engagement: Land Power in an Age of Uncertainty" (which replaces Adaptive Dispersed Operations) is our 'operating concept'. I've been out of the system too long to know if these are actually considered our "doctrine" or not.

This link gets you to the govt web page where you select English or French before taking you to the Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin. The articles starts at page 16.

Information archivée dans le Web | Information Archived on the Web

 

[FJAG]

Just figured out what I am looking for

Sticking the 105mm gun of the AMX-13/Kurassier on the back of an ROGUE Autonomous JLTV and remote all the sensors and activators. Why that turret? The gun was fed by 2x 6-Shot revolver magazines. No loader required.

I reckon you could get that down to a single driver/operator - as long as you don't plan on fighting tanks on the move.

View attachment 65074View attachment 65075View attachment 65076View attachment 65077

Back in the early sixties, before I joined the army, my uncle and I used to do some wargaming. I had some AMX 13s in my inventory. In those days it had a 75mm gun with an autoloader with only 12 rounds in the magazines. They always died very quickly.

 

[Loachman]

He gives several good examples of what doctrine needs to be and what was appropriate doctrine for the time and place.

The last doctrine that I ever looked at was either the Air Command or 1 CAD one entitled "Out of the Sun".

I did not bother to go past the cover. The title told me everything that I needed to know: their sole focus.

I did not ever want sun when I was doing my job. It caused rotor and windscreen glint, and mission success and our lives depended upon not being seen.

I wanted murk, not sun. Low ceiling to keep the von Richthofens away and a few k visibility, and no precipitation.

The first Griffon-era doctrine was asinine. I knew - very well - the guy who had to write it, and felt sorry for him. We frequently referred to the Griffon Doctrine/Reality Line, which just could not be crossed.

 

[Kirkhill]

Back in the early sixties, before I joined the army, my uncle and I used to do some wargaming. I had some AMX 13s in my inventory. In those days it had a 75mm gun with an autoloader with only 12 rounds in the magazines. They always died very quickly.

You don't like my principles? I have other ones.

I wasn't looking at the AMX-13/Kurassier. I was looking at its 105mm (later model than your 75mm toys) and its twin revolver autoloader with 12 ready rounds total. I just wanted the gun and loader on its trunnions mounted in portee configuration on the JLTV (or the Polaris if possible) for remote/autonomous operation. I wasn't bothered that it wouldn't fire on the move nor that it would have zero protection. The main effort is firepower to support the infantry. A field gun if you will.


6pdr (57mm) portee in North Africa 1942


And here is the JLTV Remote/Autonomous





And then I remembered.

105mm with autoloader - 50 ready rounds
Low to the ground
Operable by one man - remotely if necessary
Too heavy - but remove the armour
Can't fire on the move - but I don't care
Needs a different platform and aiming system - need to work on that

But, critically, it is a 105mm rifle with an autoloader with 50 ready rounds that can be mounted on, aimed and fired from a vehicle to effectively eliminate targets.


And while I can concede that a 105mm rifle is not going to do well against an Abrams, Leo or Challenger, how is it going to do against LAVs, IFVs, APCs and MRAPs?

Anyway - The Swedes

Strivsvagn-103 MBT (1956)

Strv-103, the Swedish cold war advanced cold war self propelled gun

tanks-encyclopedia.com

Stridsvagn 103 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Crew of three, one of which faces backwards, all of which can drive the vehicle and operate the gun. And, apparently, in the 1990s, remote operation trials were conducted.

Keep in mind I am not looking at this as a Medium/Heavy Brigade solution. I am looking at something that will add capability to the Light Battalions. Battalions that have already (dare I say it) doctrinally sacrificed protection for mobility. I am sure that any additional firepower they could bring to the fight would be welcome.

And if the enemy does bring tanks to the fray

There are always these



And these




With their 40 km Loitering Missiles.

 

[Kirkhill]

Would I get more takers if we were talking about mounting the L118 light gun on a JLTV (remote/autonomous) and spending money on developing a low cost, light weight autoloader? With a fixed charge?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am a big fan of guns along with missiles, when you run out of missiles, you still have ammunition for the guns and now you have more targets the enemy has to destroy using up their supplies of missiles. Even in the last conflict, most of the damage was done by tubed artillery being directed by drones.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The USMC AAVs are no longer amphibious.

BREAKING: Marines Keeping AAVs Out of the Water Permanently - USNI News

The Marine Corps will keep its fleet of decades-old Amphibious Assault Vehicles out of the water except in emergencies, the service announced on Wednesday. The water ban on the AAVs makes permanent restrictions the Marines placed on the 1970s-era vintage amphibious armored personnel carriers...

news.usni.org

 

[ueo]

Well said. Howsome ever reality (read politics) will be the over arching factor at least IMHO.

 

[dimsum]

The USMC AAVs are no longer amphibious.

Except in emergencies, when they...become amphibious?