08-20-2019, 05:44 PM
|
#1221
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Honkistani Underground
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Why is this?
|
Why is what?
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
|
|
|
08-21-2019, 09:58 AM
|
#1222
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium
Why is what?
|
Why are we using the LAVs in such a way that ignores the threat posed by ATGMs?
|
|
|
08-21-2019, 04:24 PM
|
#1223
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Honkistani Underground
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Why are we using the LAVs in such a way that ignores the threat posed by ATGMs?
|
I had a response all typed up and I lost it.
The short and cynical answer is that the Army promotes bureaucrats and not tacticians.
Soldiers are trained to be aggressive and close within the enemy's bayonet range as fast as possible. The Army some time ago decided that crunchies in the back of LAVs could travel with the tanks right up to the objective. This temperament is fine but it has to be controlled. When everyone is moving too fast, this creates a chaotic situation - and chaos disrupts momentum.
That doctrine has stuck to the point it is now dogma. Something bad (eg, losing that Inf Company's LAVs to actual enemies) has to happen before minds will change. I suppose the good news is that I don't see the Army engaging with enemies that can bring a significant threat to LAVs in the foreseeable future anyway.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-21-2019, 04:40 PM
|
#1224
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium
I had a response all typed up and I lost it.
The short and cynical answer is that the Army promotes bureaucrats and not tacticians.
Soldiers are trained to be aggressive and close within the enemy's bayonet range as fast as possible. The Army some time ago decided that crunchies in the back of LAVs could travel with the tanks right up to the objective. This temperament is fine but it has to be controlled. When everyone is moving too fast, this creates a chaotic situation - and chaos disrupts momentum.
That doctrine has stuck to the point it is now dogma. Something bad (eg, losing that Inf Company's LAVs to actual enemies) has to happen before minds will change. I suppose the good news is that I don't see the Army engaging with enemies that can bring a significant threat to LAVs in the foreseeable future anyway.
|
At the end of the day tactically you're right. Canada also doesn't have a great deal of capability in terms of combined arms theory.
If you're going to use LAV's then you'd better have a lot of artillery to keep the enemies heads down and disrupt them. You'd better have air capability to be able to provide battlefield support and tanks to take care of tanks and other armored threats from a distance.
And I agree with what you're saying, I kind of mispoke of the differences between AFV and troop transports.
Its amazing the amount of chaos a small anti-armor missile team can throw out on the battlefield.
Canada right now I believe lacks in strong scouting capabilities. We have the coyote recon vehicles. We lack a strong air borne recon platform though.
I'm not sure what our drone capability is like.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
08-21-2019, 04:55 PM
|
#1225
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium
I had a response all typed up and I lost it.
The short and cynical answer is that the Army promotes bureaucrats and not tacticians.
Soldiers are trained to be aggressive and close within the enemy's bayonet range as fast as possible. The Army some time ago decided that crunchies in the back of LAVs could travel with the tanks right up to the objective. This temperament is fine but it has to be controlled. When everyone is moving too fast, this creates a chaotic situation - and chaos disrupts momentum.
That doctrine has stuck to the point it is now dogma. Something bad (eg, losing that Inf Company's LAVs to actual enemies) has to happen before minds will change. I suppose the good news is that I don't see the Army engaging with enemies that can bring a significant threat to LAVs in the foreseeable future anyway.
|
ATGMs are becoming increasingly prolific on the modern battlefield. Given their widespread use in theatres like Iraq or Syria, it is only a matter of time until we encounter an enemy that has adequate stock of them. Can you imagine if the Taliban had used them at all? Those long exposed roadways...
|
|
|
08-21-2019, 04:57 PM
|
#1226
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
At the end of the day tactically you're right. Canada also doesn't have a great deal of capability in terms of combined arms theory.
If you're going to use LAV's then you'd better have a lot of artillery to keep the enemies heads down and disrupt them. You'd better have air capability to be able to provide battlefield support and tanks to take care of tanks and other armored threats from a distance.
And I agree with what you're saying, I kind of mispoke of the differences between AFV and troop transports.
Its amazing the amount of chaos a small anti-armor missile team can throw out on the battlefield.
Canada right now I believe lacks in strong scouting capabilities. We have the coyote recon vehicles. We lack a strong air borne recon platform though.
I'm not sure what our drone capability is like.
|
Well yeah, Canada has nowhere near the capabilities to take on a "near-peer" opponent and is increasingly limited in a support or coalition role with a well-equipped ally.
Our deployment in Latvia is basically symbolic. I think they have TOW capability, but that must be about in terms of heavy weapons - let alone recon or AA etc...
|
|
|
08-21-2019, 04:59 PM
|
#1227
|
Norm!
|
The biggest hole in our military right now is in theatre air defense. We can't protect our troops from air strikes on our own.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-21-2019, 05:11 PM
|
#1228
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
The biggest hole in our military right now is in theatre air defense. We can't protect our troops from air strikes on our own.
|
Which is a shame because there are a billion systems we could buy off the shelf for cheap.
|
|
|
08-21-2019, 07:49 PM
|
#1229
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Don’t we have the ADATs system?
__________________
"Half the GM's in the league would trade their roster for our roster right now..." Kevin Lowe in 2013
|
|
|
08-21-2019, 07:56 PM
|
#1230
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkov
Don’t we have the ADATs system?
|
Sold it in the early 2000s, and never replaced.
|
|
|
08-21-2019, 08:46 PM
|
#1231
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SW Calgary
|
Was there ever a plan to experiment with the ADATS system on a LAV or is my memory making stuff up?
|
|
|
08-21-2019, 09:48 PM
|
#1232
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by btimbit
Was there ever a plan to experiment with the ADATS system on a LAV or is my memory making stuff up?
|
They explored it and then decided not to do it.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
08-21-2019, 09:53 PM
|
#1233
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SW Calgary
|
Interesting. Are their no plans for an ADATS replacement at all? Just rely on allies in theatre?
Maybe that's a possible use for all the Leopard C2's they couldn't find a buyer for? I'm assuming ze Germans used a leo 1 chassis in an anti air role at some point
Last edited by btimbit; 08-21-2019 at 10:00 PM.
|
|
|
08-22-2019, 10:49 AM
|
#1234
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Honkistani Underground
|
The Canadian military is pursuing a different approach to air defence. We are throwing our efforts at ground-based air defence. By that I mean we are developing systems to guard against rockets, artillery and mortar (RAM) munitions, air-to-surface missiles, and remotely-piloted aircraft systems (drones, if you prefer).
Final delivery: 2029/2030 haha.
This is just one layer of air defence. Canada does not have the means to invest in a multi-tired air defence network, but we can add bits to the entire network. Other nations can take care of the aircraft threats (if any).
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-22-2019, 10:55 AM
|
#1235
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium
The Canadian military is pursuing a different approach to air defence. We are throwing our efforts at ground-based air defence. By that I mean we are developing systems to guard against rockets, artillery and mortar (RAM) munitions, air-to-surface missiles, and remotely-piloted aircraft systems (drones, if you prefer).
Final delivery: 2029/2030 haha.
This is just one layer of air defence. Canada does not have the means to invest in a multi-tired air defence network, but we can add bits to the entire network. Other nations can take care of the aircraft threats (if any).
|
So not even investment in a MANPADS for the infantry?
|
|
|
08-22-2019, 11:07 AM
|
#1236
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by btimbit
Interesting. Are their no plans for an ADATS replacement at all? Just rely on allies in theatre?
Maybe that's a possible use for all the Leopard C2's they couldn't find a buyer for? I'm assuming ze Germans used a leo 1 chassis in an anti air role at some point
|
ADATS was a specific system for air defence and anti-tank used only by Canada and Thailand according to Google. Is the concept of multi-role air/tank defence used by other countries or is that concept unique to ADATS?
|
|
|
08-22-2019, 11:43 AM
|
#1237
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Honkistani Underground
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
So not even investment in a MANPADS for the infantry?
|
Unless it's part of the previously mentioned project, I am not aware of any project.
We haven't had MANPADs since the days of the BLOWPIPE. And even those were only issued to an air defence regiment.
Air defence now = CF-18 and lie on your back and put the MG's bipod on your feet and aim with your legs.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-22-2019, 11:48 AM
|
#1238
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium
Unless it's part of the previously mentioned project, I am not aware of any project.
We haven't had MANPADs since the days of the BLOWPIPE. And even those were only issued to an air defence regiment.
Air defence now = CF-18 and lie on your back and put the MG's bipod on your feet and aim with your legs.
|
Didn't we have Javelin until the early 2000s?
|
|
|
08-22-2019, 12:01 PM
|
#1239
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Honkistani Underground
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Didn't we have Javelin until the early 2000s?
|
Ahh, Maybe. Have you Googled it?
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
|
|
|
08-22-2019, 12:05 PM
|
#1240
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium
Ahh, Maybe. Have you Googled it?
|
No, I just remember seeing Javelin at a Stampede Exhibition when I was a kid.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:01 AM.
|
|