Should Canada adopt the LAV III (AKA: Stryker) as its primary armoured vehicle family?

[Franko]

Don't think so I've never made those e-mails public, deleted them long ago
They sure gave me an "interesting " look at how that gentleman's mind works.

Must have been someone else from TN then. He did post them for all to see and made a site dedicated to the death nil of the Gavin.

Can't remember the site for the life of me though.

Regards

 

[George Wallace]

TankNet has this:

Sparky found me which has a lot of details and goes on to track many of Sparky's endeavours.

His (Fitz) Website is M113 Armored Personnel Carrier – DON’T CALL IT THE GAVIN is the one that Sparky found.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Sparky must have set some sort of record for being bounced banned and otherwise told to get lost  by more on line forums then any other person in history .It's kind of like watching a train wreak .You don't want to look but you just can't help yourself.
I was amused to see how his view on Canadian troops did a 180 degree turn . To think all we had to to do in order to become superior troops in his vaunted opinion was readopt the M113 GAVIN!
Perhaps we should continue this topic in CAPS,  in his honor of course!

 

[Rayman]

Probably out of line but they call themselves the 1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne). For some reason the first part sounds like a desk job then they add airborne on the end. Are they even a real military unit? Anyways I like the part where he crosses out the Engineers findings with his own opinions. The report is probably more in his favour than anything and he blows it to crap talking about the M-113 with Band Tracks.

One thing that does bug me is everywhere I go from that site they always seem to put an emphasis on "The Canadian built..." It almost seems like some of them are taking a knock at it being built in Canada or the fact its built by us Canadians. Like its trying to make it seem like it would be better if it were built in the U.S. or us Canadians don't do as good a job as the U.S. could. 

 

[a_majoor]

Back to more practical matters: spent some non quality time watching CTV Newsnet and listening to the commentators declaring the LAV II is "top heavy" in response to the accident which claimed two lives. While I have no more details than anyone else, the inference that I got was the vehicle dropped a wheel into a hidden ditch or gully due to the muddy conditions, something which will flip or tip almost any vehicle that I know of (from personal experience with a car, BTW).

I had a recent visit to the GDLS plant, and there is work on various beefed up RWS to provide the firepower of the current Delco turret; the LAV 3.5 (for want of a better name, sounds better than "Gavin" anyway  ) could possibly go into battle packing a 25mm and GPMG coax with much less weight and a lower profile in addition to various other improvements based on experience and lessons learned. (Sorry, no hover feature yet....). Future Canadian LAV's may resemble US Strykers with spaced armour and no turret, although I suspect the basic shape may be submerged by various sensor systems and antenna as well. It seems to me the primary issue with product improvements of the LAV will be to find ways to reduce ground pressure, otherwise mobility will suffer.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Top heavy beats the last time some media type decried the LAV for this supposed problem, the technical term used was I believe "tippy"? :

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As vehicle weight climbs, I guess the next question is: Will every vehicle require the same turret or RWS? Could you have a mix of turret and RWS MG in troop/platoon?

 

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

Why not?  Other militaries do it.  The US Army's Cav Sqns used to be an excellent example of this - 2 or 3 air troops (Coy size elms) - mix of OH 58D Kiowa and Apache, coupled with a ground troop (Coy size elm) of HMMVW mounted scouts, mix of .50, 40mm AGL and TOW mounted on their vehs, with ability to act mounted and dismounted flexibly and deal, integrally to the platoon, with a wide range of targets.

 

[ArmyRick]

I am willing to bet in the near future, that RWS (like the German's Puma) will ditch 40mm Mk19 and 50 cal and they will have more impressive weapons such as 30mm chain guns. Have a look at the German Puma IFV, its RWS is fairly small (compared to a similar armed 2 man turret on say the Ulan IFV).

 

[tomahawk6]

Probably out of line but they call themselves the 1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne). For some reason the first part sounds like a desk job then they add airborne on the end. Are they even a real military unit? Anyways I like the part where he crosses out the Engineers findings with his own opinions. The report is probably more in his favour than anything and he blows it to crap talking about the M-113 with Band Tracks.

One thing that does bug me is everywhere I go from that site they always seem to put an emphasis on "The Canadian built..." It almost seems like some of them are taking a knock at it being built in Canada or the fact its built by us Canadians. Like its trying to make it seem like it would be better if it were built in the U.S. or us Canadians don't do as good a job as the U.S. could. 

I dont think its a knock per se. The Leo is German bult. Abrams in US bult and so on. The US Army historically has selected tracks over wheeled vehicles as being the best for the varied types of terrain the US Army would operate in.There was alot of institutional resistance from the armor officers when Shinseki forced the Stryker into service over the strong objections of the armor community. The Stryker's combat performance has silenced the critics.Getting the Stryker to the fight has been the only drawback - it goes to theater by water just like the MBT's and Bradley's.

The Vietnam era air cav squadron assigned to the 1st Cavalry Division as CSA stated was a unique organization. The division's air cav squadron was the 1/9 Cav and was responsible for half the enemy killed by the division, an amazing statistic. More so considering that each of its air cav troops had just one infantry platoon which was supported by the troop's 6-8 UH-1D/H aircraft, 8-9  Cobras and 8-9 OH-6's.My first troop assignment in the Army we still used Vietnam tactics. A pink team consisting of a LOH and 1-2 Cobras would seek contact with the enemy.Then a platoon that was orbiting the AO would be vectored in to fix the enemy. Then the gunships went to work and if the enemy force was sizeable then an infantry company or battalion would be airlifted in to destroy the enemy force.

 

[McG]

As seen in Canadian Defence review, GDLS Canada introduces the new LAV H:

 

[a_majoor]

Another picture I lifted from the CASR site; not sure if it is still there, but shows what a hypothetical LAV 3.5/LAV H might look like.

 

[Mortar guy]

Wow. Putting the feed chutes on that bad boy would be a biatch!

 

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

I can feel my fingers sliced up already just thinking about it!

 

[tomahawk6]

Saw this engineer varient of the Stryker online.

 

[NL_engineer]

As seen in Canadian Defence review, GDLS Canada introduces the new LAV H:

Does it come with a remote weapon system,  like the RG31?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Does it come with a remote weapon system,  like the RP31?

What the heck is an RP31?  Think you mean RG-31 and if they do put a RWS system on the LAV 3.5/H I hope they put something more powerful that a C-6 :-\

Saw this engineer varient of the Stryker online.

Seen a few LAV III ENGR varients (I guess that's what they are called) in Gagetown last summer, to me it just seems wrong to have a dozer blade on a LAV.

 

[NL_engineer]

What the heck is an RP31?  Think you mean RG-31 and if they do put a RWS system on the LAV 3.5/H I hope they put something more powerful that a C-6 :-\

a typo

 

[McG]

Does it come with a remote weapon system,  like the RG31?

It is the next generation of LAV, so it could come in all the variety that already exist (turret, RWS, low profile turret, external gun, TUA, etc).

... and if they do put a RWS system on the LAV 3.5/H

LAV 3.5 is the term often used to describe the Stryker suspension.  We already have 3.5 in the LAV Engr & some FOO vehicles.  The LAVH is the generation beyond Stryker & allows the vehicle to carry a significantly heavier load (for armour or whatever).

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Learn something new everyday, thx MCG