Armoured RECCE

[Colin Parkinson]

Time for a little thread necromancy.

Question for any old timer blackhatters, what was the rationale for the Coyotes to be immediately raked in by the Regs when they were also supposed to go to the Reserves as well? From what I've read and heard, a very limited number of Coyotes did make it to some armoury floors but we're immediately taken away,why did this happen?

I think Seaforth had some for a short while, I remember them passing us on the way down to Yakima as we trundled along in our Deuces.

 

[PrairieFella]

I think Seaforth had some for a short while, I remember them passing us on the way down to Yakima as we trundled along in our Deuces.

Coyotes or Bisons?

 

[KevinB]

Time for a little thread necromancy.

Question for any old timer blackhatters, what was the rationale for the Coyotes to be immediately raked in by the Regs when they were also supposed to go to the Reserves as well? From what I've read and heard, a very limited number of Coyotes did make it to some armoury floors but we're immediately taken away,why did this happen?

Same reason the Infantry Res lost Grizzlies.
The CA never bought enough of anything to properly equip the Army. There were barely enough to equip the Reg Force units.

The PRes fleets for AVGP danced between unit holdings and area control (for theoretical pooled usage). But as soon as Reg Force numbered dwindled, they got appropriated.

The issue will continue into perpetuity unless the CA acquires enough equipment for all of the CA, ( as well as operational spares, true war stock in long term storage, and training fleet systems).

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Time for a little thread necromancy.

Question for any old timer blackhatters, what was the rationale for the Coyotes to be immediately raked in by the Regs when they were also supposed to go to the Reserves as well? From what I've read and heard, a very limited number of Coyotes did make it to some armoury floors but we're immediately taken away,why did this happen?

I was ARes when the Coyote started to be fielded and was Reg F at the RCD in 97. The Coyotes were never intended for the ARes. Some ARes received Coyote quals as part of regional initiatives, but this was not part of the fielding.

The three Reg F Recce Sqns received a mix of Coyote Mast, Coyote Tripod and Coyotes without the Surv gear. The Reg F Mech Battalions also received the Tripod variant in their Recce Platoons. These were taken into the Reg F Armour units in 2003/4 as part of that whole Advancing with Purpose schmozle.

Bisons were purchased for the militia to keep the then GM Diesel factory open after the USMC LAV 25 build wrapped-up. Those Bison were then taken into the Reg F as Bosnia became a thing as they were very useful. As an RCAC ARes guy at the time we did appreciate having access to Bisons to fill out our Sqns on exercises, but it was a rather short-lived thing. Keep in mind the absolute lack of any gunnery.

Anyhoo.

 

[FJAG]

Bisons were purchased for the militia to keep the then GM Diesel factory open after the USMC LAV 25 build wrapped-up. Those Bison were then taken into the Reg F as Bosnia became a thing as they were very useful.

The same happened for the artillery. In the tours to Bosnia where 105mm LG1s were deployed, the Bison became the armoured gun tractor/detachment personnel vehicle.

Up until then the standard gun tractor for the 105s was the MLVW with no armoured vehicle for the crew. Surprisingly that was also the configuration for gun crews on the two Kabul rotations where guns were deployed - just MLVWs on the principle that the guns would never leave the FOB and would dig in - digging in in Kabul is another story in and of itself.

In Kandahar the detachment vehicle ultimately settled on the TLAV. In Canada - nope - nada - nothing. Quite frankly I don't even know what they do in Latvia for a detachment vehicle. @markppcli - any thoughts?

 

[KevinB]

The same happened for the artillery. In the tours to Bosnia where 105mm LG1s were deployed, the Bison became the armoured gun tractor/detachment personnel vehicle.

Up until then the standard gun tractor for the 105s was the MLVW with no armoured vehicle for the crew. Surprisingly that was also the configuration for gun crews on the two Kabul rotations where guns were deployed - just MLVWs on the principle that the guns would never leave the FOB and would dig in - digging in in Kabul is another story in and of itself.

In Kandahar the detachment vehicle ultimately settled on the TLAV. In Canada - nope - nada - nothing. Quite frankly I don't even know what they do in Latvia for a detachment vehicle. @markppcli - any thoughts?

FWIW the US Army uses Hummers and MTV’s to tow M777’s and M119’s
Escort duties are done by the M117 (US version of the TAPV).

 

[OldSolduer]

The same happened for the artillery. In the tours to Bosnia where 105mm LG1s were deployed, the Bison became the armoured gun tractor/detachment personnel vehicle.

Up until then the standard gun tractor for the 105s was the MLVW with no armoured vehicle for the crew. Surprisingly that was also the configuration for gun crews on the two Kabul rotations where guns were deployed - just MLVWs on the principle that the guns would never leave the FOB and would dig in - digging in in Kabul is another story in and of itself.

In Kandahar the detachment vehicle ultimately settled on the TLAV. In Canada - nope - nada - nothing. Quite frankly I don't even know what they do in Latvia for a detachment vehicle. @markppcli - any thoughts?

We have to be one of the most penny pinching armies in the world.

Sometimes I do wonder how we ever succeed in spite of ourselves.

 

[markppcli]

The same happened for the artillery. In the tours to Bosnia where 105mm LG1s were deployed, the Bison became the armoured gun tractor/detachment personnel vehicle.

Up until then the standard gun tractor for the 105s was the MLVW with no armoured vehicle for the crew. Surprisingly that was also the configuration for gun crews on the two Kabul rotations where guns were deployed - just MLVWs on the principle that the guns would never leave the FOB and would dig in - digging in in Kabul is another story in and of itself.

In Kandahar the detachment vehicle ultimately settled on the TLAV. In Canada - nope - nada - nothing. Quite frankly I don't even know what they do in Latvia for a detachment vehicle. @markppcli - any thoughts?

TAPV, until the ACSVs come online here.

Edit: correction they just use MSVS. Miscommunication error on my part.

 

[PrairieFella]

TAPV, until the ACSVs come online here.

How hasVOR affected that? Is there any runners left? LUVWs if none run?

 

[markppcli]

How hasVOR affected that? Is there any runners left? LUVWs if none run?

In Latvia we have enough working. We have way motor TAPV than LUVW. I’ll have to check with the guys as I’m on HLTA and I don’t really spend much time in the guns but the M777s are getting towed by a MAC as far as I’m aware. We still need one for the ammo. As I write this I realize I probably owe @FJAG a more well researched answer.

Edit: see above it’s just MSVSs. TAPVs are around and functional here though. Certainly more so than the LUVW.

 

[PrairieFella]

In Latvia we have enough working. We have way motor TAPV than LUVW. I’ll have to check with the guys as I’m on HLTA and I don’t really spend much time in the guns but the M777s are getting towed by a MAC as far as I’m aware. We still need one for the ammo. As I write this I realize I probably owe @FJAG a more well researched answer.

Edit: see above it’s just MSVSs. TAPVs are around and functional here though. Certainly more so than the LUVW.

Good to hear they sorted out VOR over there at least. Thanks for the info, enjoy HLTA.

 

[FJAG]

In Latvia we have enough working. We have way motor TAPV than LUVW. I’ll have to check with the guys as I’m on HLTA and I don’t really spend much time in the guns but the M777s are getting towed by a MAC as far as I’m aware. We still need one for the ammo. As I write this I realize I probably owe @FJAG a more well researched answer.

Edit: see above it’s just MSVSs. TAPVs are around and functional here though. Certainly more so than the LUVW.

Yeah. The MSVS is actually an SMP-SEV . We bought enough for all the M777s. I believe it has a data link that ties to the DGMS on the gun but not a lot more. Before that it was HLVWs as the gun tractor and ammo hauler. They only have room for three of the crew in the cab and I think generally they don't have armoured cabs.

 

[KevinB]

Yeah. The MSVS is actually an SMP-SEV . We bought enough for all the M777s. I believe it has a data link that ties to the DGMS on the gun but not a lot more. Before that it was HLVWs as the gun tractor and ammo hauler. They only have room for three of the crew in the cab and I think generally they don't have armoured cabs.

I believe there is a UA Kit the CA got for some of them that is for the cab, threat dependent.

Not wanting to swerve heavily into the Artillery topic, but I think the issue is fairly relevant to Armour and Infantry systems as well so here goes.

I’m of the opinion that the light towed guns don’t need armored gun tractors.
The goal of the light formations is mobility/rapid deployment - or when faced in situations that don’t allow for that - then you need to dig in.

If in a COIN type environment, the guns get escorted by LAV or TAPV (and you can toss the crew in a ASCV whatever) while the gun is driven somewhere by the MSVS (why is that giant thing a gun tractor?).
Or flown somewhere by a Hook.
Or towed by a BV if in the Arctic (and hopefully you have a ski kit for them too)

In a LSCO, they are going to need to dig in for protection, not drive around on the open. This is also why I’m a fan of tracked SPA for mech/armored formations. Rockets in less fussy about as they are DIV and higher assets - and the longer ranges mean they aren’t going to be used inside CB range, and the only potential small arms threats are from enemy SOF or ‘friendly’ ND’s.

You need to tailor your force structure to the requirements of the role they face.
You are aren’t going to put infantry or armoured troops in GWagons to assault as a combined arms unit, (well I hope you won’t), that’s what MBT’s and TRACKED IFV’s are for.

 

[PrairieFella]

You need to tailor your force structure to the requirements of the role they face.
You are aren’t going to put infantry or armoured troops in GWagons to assault as a combined arms unit, (well I hope you won’t), that’s what MBT’s and TRACKED IFV’s are for.

This is especially acute in the RCAC, we don't seem to know what we want to be. For example, during the cav concept swap a lot of recce skills were lost and we were told they weren't coming back, lo and behold, we're reteaching a lot of the those lost armoured recce skills again as the need never went away but the training time did. The RCAC needs a complete force structure review to go with our new doctrine that just came out (with more coming) so we can figure out what we actually need and want and what kit is required to do so. The situation right now is frankly unbearable and is crushing morale in the Armoured Corps, Reg and Reserve.