Our 'maybe' new recce vehicle

[DG-41]

OK, so let's say you give me an Armoured Recce Sqn and a (nearly) blank cheque - how would I outfit it?

1) 3 X 8 car troops mounted in some sort of wheeled armoured car, based around the following requirements:

  a) A 4-man crew. Driver, Commande, Observer (aka "dismount boy", the guy that does the dismounted portion of all our obstacle drills) and either Gunner (if the vehicle has a 2-man turret like LAV or a second pintle mount weapon) or "Observer 2" if not.

Why 4 man crews instead of 3 man crews, as is traditional? I've always felt that 3-man crews get stretched a little too thin, especially once we start doing extended OPs or a lot of patrollling. The extra body adds a lot of extra depth and reserve to the Patrol - this is a nod towards a_majoor and friends who think that we could do with a few extra boots on the ground (within limits, I agree - and that limit is 1 extra body per car)

  b) Wheeled, probably 8X8, but smaller than LAV; probably something between Lynx and Bison. I want enough room for 4 guys, their kit, and enough rations/food/water/ammo for at least 48 hours and 96 would be better. Size the vehicle so all that stuff fits inside comfortably. If three of the crew can sleep inside in reasonable comfort with a full load, so much the better.

  c) Armoured against 50 cal AP, 25mm if that can be done without the thing weighing 50 tons, minestrike and RPG resistant. I don't intend to slug out toe-to-toe with much of anything, but I would like to survive first contact if I can

  d) Capable of 120km/h on highways safely, and reasonable cross-country performance. If it can cross the Lawfield Corridor battle run area (as long as I stay out of the swamps) that's good to go.

  e) I want a gun, but I don't want to compromise recce performance to get it (George's point about the location of the Coyote turret is well taken) Ideally I want a 25mm gun like Coyote, but a 50 cal cupola like Lynx (or M60!) would be OK too. I want to be able to fire the gun when hatches down, and I want it to elevate high enough to shoot helicopters. I also have been tossing around the idea of the 7.62 Gatling minigun as the primary self-defense weapon - it's more compact than the 25mm, and that insane ROF is great for those "Oh Shit!" moments where you want a lot of supressing fire RFN.

  f) I want a thermal viewer for at least the commander, and a second viewer that can be used from the back while the vehicle is moving (perhaps that's a job for Observer 2) would be Sweet Crunchy Goodness too. I'm not talking about a mast-mounted affair like Coyote, but something more like a thermal sight for the self defense weapon and a separate thermal periscope (for the commander if we have a gunner, and for the second observer if the commander is the gunner)  Thermal sights/scopes have gotten cheap (hell, I can buy them off the shelf these days) and they are soooo useful.

  g) I want an enhanced optical spotting system with an integrated DIGITAL colour video camera mounted coaxial to all the thermal viewers. Again, this can be made part of the sighting system for the main gun. I want to be able to record what I see and beam it back to higher HQ. The intent here is not to duplicate or replace a full-bore surv. system like Coyote, but rather to augment the Mk 1 eyeball and make use of modern digital imaging.

What I kinda have envisioned is a 3/4 scale Bison with an M60 cupola on the commander's "castle" structure, and maybe a pintle-mounted C6 with a gun shield (per Vietnam M113-basted Cav gunboats) on the rear quarter

2) I WANT ASSAULT TROOP BACK! Put 'em in 4 X plane-Jane vanillia LAVIII, nothing special. Now I have a reserve I can work with, I've got my extra dismounts, and I have some light engineer/pioneer capability.

Give me that, and I'd be one happy camper - plus I'd be able to accomplish all the missions I'm supposed to be able to handle.

DG

 

[Grizzly]

Good list DG-41. Would amphibious capability be worth adding too? Especially if it takes little or no prep time to use? It may not be useful that often, but it does give greater mobility options to the recce unit and reduces the tendency for water obstacles to dictate when you can go. 
Just my 2 cents....

 

[KevinB]

George - the problem is that Armoured Recce is poaching into Urban / Mountainous areas.  The LdSH Recce had a 3VP Recce Pl attached to them (on Roto II) as they need the 031's due to their poaching...

The Armoured Corp is dying (sorry you dont have armoured without TANKS) attempting to poach Inf and Eng recce is what they are doign with the Coyote and other vehicle's.
The Corps either needs tracks -- or get into CAV feetfirst.

 

[Kirkhill]

Somebody else commented " if it hurts, don't  do it".  

If there is no role for light vehicular recce in the town (armoured or otherwise) don't deploy them in the towns.  Deploy heavy armour, infantry patrols or whatever else works.


Conversely, if infantry are sufficiently adaptable that they can augment the light armoured recce types in the open field then outstanding.... fill your boots.

I am not seeing why every dog needs to be put into every fight.

 

[DG-41]

Would amphibious capability be worth adding too?

To be honest, I don't know. I'd want a bilge pump, becasue sometimes large volumes of water find their way inside the vehicle.  > But I'm not sure if actual amphib capability is worth the extra complexity, cost, and weight.

I've never swum a vehicle outside of the "here's how you swim one" vehicle training. I've gotten a few very wet, and I've sunk one, but I've never been on a trace where I've attempted to swim something.

Perhaps that's more a limitation of my own experience and the types of training we set up though. Any of you Old Farts ever swim a Lynx in anger?

DG

 

[couchcommander]

I (for as little as it counts), would get behind what DG-41 is saying for an armoured recce vehicle. He seems to have addressed my primary concerns with "I don't intend to slug out toe-to-toe with much of anything, but I would like to survive first contact if I can".

As well, what has been mentioned, with the infantry recce taking operations in urban areas (transported around in a-majoor type LAV, dismount, go about their business, etc.) and armour trying to stay out of build up areas (and most importantly avoid contact with the population), makes sense (ie if it hurts, don't do it). Once again though, they are still vunerable, however the armouring and vehicle type that DG-41 puts forwards seems to be to be able to afford an adequate level of protection against the road side bombs, mines and such one would find. And, as a_majoor (I think), pointed out no matter how hard you tried you will still find yourself travelling through built up areas, so the level of protection that DG-41 puts forwards seems appropriate in this respect as well (especially if augmented by his assualt troop).

Furthermore, the point that this vehicle is meant to compliment the Coyote, not replace, is fair enough IMO.

 

[George Wallace]

George - the problem is that Armoured Recce is poaching into Urban / Mountainous areas.   The LdSH Recce had a 3VP Recce Pl attached to them (on Roto II) as they need the 031's due to their poaching...

The Armoured Corp is dying (sorry you dont have armoured without TANKS) attempting to poach Inf and Eng recce is what they are doign with the Coyote and other vehicle's.
The Corps either needs tracks -- or get into CAV feetfirst.

Actually Kev, we all know that is not the fault of the Armour Recce guys, nor the Infantry, but of the people who lack the experience in drawing up the "Brick".  Almost every ROTO, if not every ROTO,  has been a bun fight in the manning department.  How many have you seen where feet on the ground were cut so a CWO or Col could be added...back on topic......In Afghanistan we are seeing the requirement more often to blend our assets for a specific task.  This is a good thing and gives us more flexibility and interoperability, plus the familiarity and knowledge of what others in the 'team' do.  It, however, does not mean that we can now have the same vehicle for all to use.  Each will eventually go back to their primary roles.

Moving on to another point.  Recce has lost its' amphibious capability, because we got cheap.  It is a capability that I personally feel it needs, even if it is seldom used.  It gives the Recce guys an additional tool in their survivability on the battlefield.  In Europe (COLD WARRIOR story) the countries are networked with canals and rivers, many with prepared Ford and Swim sites.  If Recce troops were trapped they would often have to swim.  Sometimes, swimming would have been advantageous in the Advance also, in the ability to cross other than where there are bridges.  The Lynx and AVGP could do that.  Now we must hopefully find bridges that are not blown and hopefully not defended and prepped for demolitions (like that will ever happen - the enemy defending a bridge  : ).

Some of the vehicles, suggested so far, will not be able to swim due to their characteristics.  Will they be able to deep ford instead?

 

[DG-41]

But did you ever swim one in anger George?

I'm not trying to prove/disprove that a vehicle must needs be swimmable; I'm genuinely curious.

DG

 

[George Wallace]

But did you ever swim one in anger George?

We did swim in Europe....Not in anger though.   We did lakes and Fast Water Swim Camps.

One Reforger, our OC gained a lot of respect from the Troops when we overheard him respond to the Bde Comd's order to get all the Screen back over a river as the Engineers were going to blow the bridges at a certain time.   His response was:   "Go ahead.   Blow the Bridges.   All my C/Ss are amphibious."   We almost all cheered in our OPs, as we thought we would have to do some swimming.   To our disappointment, we were DSed across all the bridges.      That brought home the necessity of that capability. 

The most recent argument, that Recce will have to find the bridges and shallow fords, so therefore does not need the capability, doesn't fly 100% with me.

 

[DG-41]

Well one reason that I've got a slight leaning towards "not amphib" is that swimming - at least the times that I did it - wasn't just turning on the bilge pump, dropping the trime vane, and then puttering off across the Rhine. There was all this swim preperation waterproofing crap you had to do first before is was *reallly* capable of swimming.

That's OK if you are doing a planned crossing as part of an operation, but it's not something that could be done on the spur of the moment. And recce is all about the spur of the moment.

It certainly won't break my heart if my dream vehicle *is* amphibious, but if it isn't, I'm not sending it back.

DG

 

[George Wallace]

You have lost me.  With the Amphibious capability, even fording is faster.  Don't forget that when we are at "Swim Camps" we are overly Safety Conscious.  Operationally the vehicles will be prepped for Amphib Ops at all times.  Combat Loaded they would not require all those sand bags for ballast and weight distribution.  Drain plugs would be properly installed. 

If you don't have that capability, then you must still spend time preparing for Fording.  If the river/canal is too wide for Bridgelayers (which we soon won't have.) then you must wait for Engineer Bridging or Ferry equip to be moved forward; a much longer process and most likely impossible to do if you are well forward of the FEOT.

 

[a_majoor]

DG-41, I like your description of a patrol vehicle and I think we could get about 80% of the way if we could only hang on to the AVGP Grizzly and put it through an extensive refit. A new drivetrain and suspension will address mobility, noise and logistics (better fuel economy, more reliable parts), the Gage "1 Metre turret" can be replaced with something along the lines you suggest (Urdan makes some very good cupolas, or an OWS), and a second gun/imagery mount can be placed by one of the rear cargo hatches to "check six". Since this is a recce vehicle, the marine drive and bilge pump should be reinstalled.

The crew commander sits far enough forward to do corner drills, and the section compartment in the rear can hold the patrolmen, kit, electronic gear and so on. I will hold out for two patrolmen, for a crew of five (driver, CC, observer/gunner, patrolmen X 2 [secondary duties include manning the rear gun while mounted]). The weapons arrangement is a bit of a lash up and the basic armour protection (7.62mm AP) is minimal, but if we want to spend the time and effort, spall liners, ceramic tiles and a DAS could also be added.

Of course, we also need those AVGP hulls.....

edit: found a picture of the 80% solution on the CASR site:

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Phew.  That was a hard slog catching up on this thread.

I am a bit of a mutant Canadian officer in that I spent some formative time at the US Armor School.  While many Canadians point to the "fighting for information" bit as the big difference there is more than that.  While "Cavalry" might fight for information, the "Scouts" at all levels do not as a rule.  A Scout Platoon for a Task Force (think Battle Group) or a Scout platoon in a Cav Tp did not roll around shooting everything up.  That was done by the tanks or HMMVW AT Platoons in Cav organizations and by Company Teams in the Task Forces.

The big difference, to me, between US Scouts and Canadian Recce at the lowest level was the inclusion of dedicated dismounted scouts in each vehicle.  Five man crews were standard for US Scout vehicles and organizations.  Three crewed the vehicle (whether a M3 Bradely or HMMVW) and two were scouts.  This gave the Scouts a fairly good organic dismounted "sneek and peek" capability without having to denude the vehicle of its crew.  It did make the vehicle bigger.

"Steath" recce is often just "recce by death."  Even small vehicles are seen when they advance.

Where am I going?  Good question.

I would like to have two scouts (we can come up with some nice Canadian name if it bothers us, I guess Mounties is already taken, maybe we call DisMounties) in the back of the Coyote along with a smaller OCS.  I think that it offers alot across the spectrum as a recce vehicle and two dismounts per vehicle would increase that flexibility.  Tracks and amphib are great, but at this point I'll take what I can get.  The Coyote and LAV 25 family seem to be doing well in the theatres that they are sent to (ie the trouble spots in the world).  It wasn't perfect, but no system is (the CV9030 with a mast looks nice...) 

The Bison-style recce vehicle would also be an option.  Still, I like having the turret capabilties (both the optics and the firepower).

If we are going to have a smaller "jeep style" vehicle to patrol areas then I vote for an open top and sides.  Armour the bottom and put armour up to about armpit height around the cab.  Focus on mines and IED with some small arms protection.

I figure, however, that Coyotes can do the same thing (patrol an urban or rural area).  You can still smile and wave from the hatches and with ten men in the Patrol you can stop and get out to talk/patrol alleys/etc and still have fully manned vehicles.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Recce41]

Fellas
We purchased the Recce Ver. of the Mamba. I hope the D&M tech cannot go, to do the training. I put my name in, 2 months in SA the to Astan for 2 months.

 

[George Wallace]

Any good links, Dave?

 

[John Nayduk]

Here's a link I found.
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=16w1ksxjsurw9?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Mamba+APC&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc05a&linktext=Mamba%20APC

 

[a_majoor]

The Mamba is certainly larger and more capable than the Illtis, G-wagon or Duro, but the size and carrying capacity certainly seems to support a different model of recce than "sneak and peek".

 

[KevinB]

http://www.csir.co.za/plsql/ptl0002/PTL0002_PGE082_PROJ?DIVISION_NO=1000024&PROJECT_NO=3610590

 

[Spanky]

Is the Mamba the vehicle that has been chosen or is it still in the selection process?  Is it going to replace the G-wagon C&R or augment?  On operations or nationally as well?
It sounds like it may in general use sooner as opposed to later.  How many are we getting?  Just curious.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Might it be the RG-32 variant of the Mamba, also made by BAE Systems' Alvis OMC in South Africa?
http://www.baesystemsomc.co.za/Default.aspx?tabid=647
Product brochure:  http://www.403.co.za/bae/RG32M.pdf

Looks a little more G-Wagen/patrolesque than the APC version of the Mamba and is 2 metres shorter than the Mamba/RG-31 Nyala which the CFs are currently using.