 DND eyes 20 armoured vehicles OTTAWA — The Defence Department wants to buy at least 20 tracked armoured vehicles within the next two years to relieve pressure on the army, whose fleet has been pounded by the war in Afghanistan.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
.......that will give our forces 21 in total!!!!.....Yeah!!!!
First, they never got rid of the armoured regiments. The only one they got rid of was the reg force component of the 8th Hussars. There have always been the other three reg force regiments: Royal Canadian Dragoons in Petawawa (my regiment), Lord Strathcona's Horse in Edmonsuck, and the 12 RBC in Valcartier. There is also an assorted number of reserve armoured regiments throughout the country, I believe 17, but I'm not 100 percent sure.
Next thing I didn't liek seeing was the comment about the infantry having the LAV and the armoured regiment having more than just tanks. Two beefs with this, first oen being that not every armoured regiment has tanks, in the original setup we were supposed to, but due to government cuts only one regiment is considered a tank regiment now. More on that later.
If the infantry have LAVs an we have tracked vehicles, the infantry have better capabilities on roa while we'd be better offroad. But that means we would both be unable to support eachother mst effectively in our respective superior operational environments because one would invariably get ahead of the other. That would be bad. We should aim for as equal capabilities as possible, meaning mostly tracked vehicles army wide or mostly wheeled vehicles army wide.
As for the manpower issue, because of afghanistan we have lost some numbers, but based on the conventional war setup of an armoured regiment, we have more than enough pers. in each regiment for the manning list to be 100% plus spares.
Conventional setup of an armoured regiment is 3 tank squadrons at 4 troops of 4 tanks each plus the assorted vehicles in the Squadron Headquarters and Administration troops (total of around 20 tanks), and 1 Recce squadron at 3 troops of 8 vehicles, plus one SHQ troop and an Admin troop, for a total of approximately 24 recce vehicles and assorted other vehices in the SHQ and Admin.
This gives any given regiment 60 tanks to provide fire support for and 24 recce vehicles to provide the eyes for an infantry regiment (which has 3 battalions each, see where the 3s come in handy?)
The of course there is HQ Squadron, RHQ Squadron, etc. And all they deal with is administration maintinence, leadership of regiment, etc.
We currently don't have enough tanks for each regiment to have 3 tank squadrons (180 tanks plus spares), and the 204 coyotes (our recce vehicles) were originally purchased to provide 51 coyotes for each of the 4 regiments. The Mulrooney government had planned a purchase of approximately 400 Leo2A4s back int he late 80s and early 90s to give each regiment 100 tanks, which is the same has what we have functioning right now for all three regiments. Hence why only one regiment is actually a tank regiment, and all the spare Coyotes were alloted to the other two regiments to turn them into soley recce regiments, which is why we have nw run out of coyotes, cause all the spare ones were used before the war.
Moving on, the CV 90 would make an outstanding Heavy recce platform that could also be complimented by a light recce platform such as Humvees or Fenneks. Superior to the coyote in every respect save for highway speed, except we never use highways.
I don't know enough about the infantry to comment on its usability as a mounted infantry platform, but based on what I have been taught a traditional infantry section size is, it is my personal believe that with the turret, the CV90 would simply be too small, and it would have to be removed to make room.
What I would suggest we do is what we did with the LAVs, get GM defense to buy the rights to the vehicle design, and tweak it to suit our own needs so that we have an adequate vehicle for both the armoured regiments and the infantry regiments that are similar enough that similar parts, knowledge or use, etc. can be achived. Perferably like the Bison/Coyote combo, both LAV 25s, one with a turret for armoured recce, one without for infantry transport.
I'd post more, but I'm having technical difficulties. I can only post in the comment boxes for news articles, but can't log into the actual forums (I get a 404 error for the log-in page). Could someone flag a mod for me to get that sorted. I hope I wasn't booted off the forums, I never recieved an email if I was. o.o
Anyways I don't think they will operate with the LAV's. What's left of the LAV's I suspect will go back to Canada as these vehicles are apparently more suited to the Afghanistan conditions.
It won't replace the LAV in general but it should and probally will replace it in Afghanistan. No problem regarding mechanics and man power.
Heres a video of it also.
Anyways, the AVGPs were pretty much a bust, and it didn't take long for most of the vehicles to get regulated to the reserve forces. The Bison was supposed to be an improvement from the troop carrier called the Grizzly, and it was. It is still used today. Then we removed the amphibious capability, which was a maintinence nightmare, stuck a gun on top losing easy herc ransportability, but with these we lost the biggest advantages behind having wheeled Light Armoured Vehicle.
Now with the LAV H we will have a low-moderately armoured vehicle that isn't amphibious, isn't transportable by herc at all, will still suck at repelling anything nasty, and will tip over even easier at speeds over 80kph. Better to go for a vehicle that is slightly slower, much better armoured, better firepower, better off and on road mobility. Tracks rule in an urban environment. If you don't believe me, try driving your pickup truck or hatchback over a 3 foot high jersey barrier. LAVs can't, but this can. Same applied for any urban obstacle or war-produced debris in urban areas.
CV-90 rocks. Should buy it or get our domestic manufacturers to produce a vehicle based off of but btter than it to fill all our light combats arms needs.
Stokes, Guy_Fawkes, if you haven't got the knowledge behind the subject, don't talk about it.
First, they never got rid of the armoured regiments. The only one they got rid of was the reg force component of the 8th Hussars. There have always been the other three reg force regiments: Royal Canadian Dragoons in Petawawa (my regiment), Lord Strathcona's Horse in Edmonsuck, and the 12 RBC in Valcartier. There is also an assorted number of reserve armoured regiments throughout the country, I believe 17, but I'm not 100 percent sure.
Next thing I didn't liek seeing was the comment about the infantry having the LAV and the armoured regiment having more than just tanks. Two beefs with this, first oen being that not every armoured regiment has tanks, in the original setup we were supposed to, but due to government cuts only one regiment is considered a tank regiment now. More on that later.
If the infantry have LAVs an we have tracked vehicles, the infantry have better capabilities on roa while we'd be better offroad. But that means we would both be unable to support eachother mst effectively in our respective superior operational environments because one would invariably get ahead of the other. That would be bad. We should aim for as equal capabilities as possible, meaning mostly tracked vehicles army wide or mostly wheeled vehicles army wide.
As for the manpower issue, because of afghanistan we have lost some numbers, but based on the conventional war setup of an armoured regiment, we have more than enough pers. in each regiment for the manning list to be 100% plus spares.
Conventional setup of an armoured regiment is 3 tank squadrons at 4 troops of 4 tanks each plus the assorted vehicles in the Squadron Headquarters and Administration troops (total of around 20 tanks), and 1 Recce squadron at 3 troops of 8 vehicles, plus one SHQ troop and an Admin troop, for a total of approximately 24 recce vehicles and assorted other vehices in the SHQ and Admin.
This gives any given regiment 60 tanks to provide fire support for and 24 recce vehicles to provide the eyes for an infantry regiment (which has 3 battalions each, see where the 3s come in handy?)
The of course there is HQ Squadron, RHQ Squadron, etc. And all they deal with is administration maintinence, leadership of regiment, etc.
We currently don't have enough tanks for each regiment to have 3 tank squadrons (180 tanks plus spares), and the 204 coyotes (our recce vehicles) were originally purchased to provide 51 coyotes for each of the 4 regiments. The Mulrooney government had planned a purchase of approximately 400 Leo2A4s back int he late 80s and early 90s to give each regiment 100 tanks, which is the same has what we have functioning right now for all three regiments. Hence why only one regiment is actually a tank regiment, and all the spare Coyotes were alloted to the other two regiments to turn them into soley recce regiments, which is why we have nw run out of coyotes, cause all the spare ones were used before the war.
Moving on, the CV 90 would make an outstanding Heavy recce platform that could also be complimented by a light recce platform such as Humvees or Fenneks. Superior to the coyote in every respect save for highway speed, except we never use highways.
I don't know enough about the infantry to comment on its usability as a mounted infantry platform, but based on what I have been taught a traditional infantry section size is, it is my personal believe that with the turret, the CV90 would simply be too small, and it would have to be removed to make room.
What I would suggest we do is what we did with the LAVs, get GM defense to buy the rights to the vehicle design, and tweak it to suit our own needs so that we have an adequate vehicle for both the armoured regiments and the infantry regiments that are similar enough that similar parts, knowledge or use, etc. can be achived. Perferably like the Bison/Coyote combo, both LAV 25s, one with a turret for armoured recce, one without for infantry transport.
I'd post more, but I'm having technical difficulties. I can only post in the comment boxes for news articles, but can't log into the actual forums (I get a 404 error for the log-in page). Could someone flag a mod for me to get that sorted. I hope I wasn't booted off the forums, I never recieved an email if I was. o.o
What about the EMEs you will need to service the vehicles, the you fisters might have enough pers but I dont see the mechanics ranks swelling.
I dunno about elsewhere in brigade support, but i've never heard complaints in the hangers about a lack of mechs, granted I wasn't around for the good old days when each squadron had it's own maintinence troop.
Not the one I was looking for, but Im sure you have seen worse...
And I don't care about what the EME types do with the circut boards, even the "new" ones fail to work anyways, all the buzzers and warning lights still go off for no good reason whatsoever. Kind of a bitch when you are trying to run a silent op and suddently the chem detector goes off because someone used bug spray. Wasn't the mosquitos we had to orry about after that. -.-