Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 07-31-2019, 02:51 PM   #1201
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Interesting


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nat...232079?cmp=rss


Quote:
NATO warships faced a stiffer-than-usual test of their mettle by Russian forces during two recent exercises in the Black Sea, the Canadian commander of the alliance's task force in the region told CBC News today.


Russian ships pressed closer, while their aircraft swooped lower and generally "made their presence obvious," Commodore Josée Kurtz said in a ship-to-shore telephone interview Wednesday from her new flagship, HMCS Halifax, which recently arrived at a Spanish naval base to relieve HMCS Toronto, her previous command.


"They were willing to test our resolve in passing closer to us," she said, describing NATO naval drills that took place off the coasts Ukraine and Bulgaria earlier this month.
Kurtz's remarks came as Moscow announced, through the TASS news agency, that in early August 100 Russian aircraft will take part in military exercises in and around Crimea — which was seized by Russia from Ukraine in 2014 and remains a source of international tension.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 08:39 AM   #1202
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...inal-estimates


Quote:
The Liberal government is buying new armoured vehicles for the Canadian Forces but the sole source deal will cost taxpayers double what was originally estimated.


Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced Friday that the government would buy 360 combat support Light Armoured Vehicles from General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada, with the project costing $3 billion.


The project was originally announced by the Liberal government with an estimated cost between $500 million and $1.5 billion. The plan was to award the contract in 2023 after a competition.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 08:50 AM   #1203
btimbit
Franchise Player
 
btimbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SW Calgary
Exp:
Default

Sole sourcing jets is bad but lavs is fine
btimbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 09:10 AM   #1204
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
Wait so are these just the Bison from the 90's?

The last story I read it seemed like they were, but I might be wrong.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 09:18 AM   #1205
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

They're the Lav 6.0 I think which is an upgrade on the Lav III which was the Kodiak. The Lav II was the Bison.


With the Lav 6.0 it featured enhanced suspensions, modular construction, which allows for modification by mission (ie ambulance, recovery vehicle etc), enhanced electronics and data connectivity.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 08-20-2019, 09:19 AM   #1206
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
They're the Lav 6.0 I think which is an upgrade on the Lav III which was the Kodiak. The Lav II was the Bison.


With the Lav 6.0 it featured enhanced suspensions, modular construction, which allows for modification by mission (ie ambulance, recovery vehicle etc), enhanced electronics and data connectivity.
So similar, I recall Bison Ambs as well.

I wonder if the IMP heater is still included.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Old 08-20-2019, 09:22 AM   #1207
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

took a ride in a Bison Ambulance once, that wasn't cool man.


The chassis of the Lav III was the chassis used by the Stryker MGS.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 09:34 AM   #1208
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
They're the Lav 6.0 I think which is an upgrade on the Lav III which was the Kodiak. The Lav II was the Bison.


With the Lav 6.0 it featured enhanced suspensions, modular construction, which allows for modification by mission (ie ambulance, recovery vehicle etc), enhanced electronics and data connectivity.
Increasingly underarmed.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 09:44 AM   #1209
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

They're not really meant to be highly armed though. They do have the 25 mm chain gun, and two turret mounted machine guns as well as a pair of grenade launchers for smoke generation.


Their mission is not to really engage armor like an AFV like the Bradley with its Tow Missile system for example. Canada really doesn't have a dedicated AFV. These vehicles are meant to insert troops and provide fire suppression against enemy infantry.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 09:47 AM   #1210
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
They're not really meant to be highly armed though. They do have the 25 mm chain gun, and two turret mounted machine guns as well as a pair of grenade launchers for smoke generation.


Their mission is not to really engage armor like an AFV like the Bradley with its Tow Missile system for example. Canada really doesn't have a dedicated AFV. These vehicles are meant to insert troops and provide fire suppression against enemy infantry.
Yes, in conjunction with the Lep 2s. The 25 mm is nice when you are up against light infantry, but on its own, it isn't good for much else.

Western armies have this strange resistance to up-arming their IFVs with dedicated ATGM launchers. Just bolt a TOW or Javelin onto the turret - even with one or two reloads you have dramatically increased firepower.

The Russians have been doing this for 40 years.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 09:53 AM   #1211
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
Yes, in conjunction with the Lep 2s. The 25 mm is nice when you are up against light infantry, but on its own, it isn't good for much else.

Western armies have this strange resistance to up-arming their IFVs with dedicated ATGM launchers. Just bolt a TOW or Javelin onto the turret - even with one or two reloads you have dramatically increased firepower.

The Russians have been doing this for 40 years.
In the 90's TOW was on M113 on the mechanized battalions.

I mean we had TOW on a UN mission in the 90's.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Old 08-20-2019, 09:54 AM   #1212
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother View Post
In the 90's TOW was on M113 on the mechanized battalions.

I mean we had TOW on a UN mission in the 90's.
Not surprised that we have actually lost capability since the 90s at this point.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 09:55 AM   #1213
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
Not surprised that we have actually lost capability since the 90s at this point.


That photo is even from my tour.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Old 08-20-2019, 09:57 AM   #1214
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother View Post


That photo is even from my tour.
Dual launcher or is that the optics? Did it have to be reloaded externally?

Was it you or something that I read that told me that even having the TOW around ensured that beligerents were just a little bit more docile?
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 10:02 AM   #1215
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
Dual launcher or is that the optics? Did it have to be reloaded externally?
#### knows, I only saw them rolling.

Quote:
Was it you or something that I read that told me that even having the TOW around ensured that beligerents were just a little bit more docile?
Yeah was most likely me.

When we moved south and the war was still kicking the battalion put on a display for each side.

I believe it was an old hull that the engineers packed to make it that much more impressive.

In fairness whoever equipped out battalion deserved a medal. We didn't roll in as a Peacekeeping Unit, we were tooled up for war. We wanted for noting on the ground other than tanks.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Old 08-20-2019, 10:03 AM   #1216
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother View Post
#### knows, I only saw them rolling.



Yeah was most likely me.

When we moved south and the war was still kicking the battalion put on a display for each side.

I believe it was an old hull that the engineers packed to make it that much more impressive.

In fairness whoever equipped out battalion deserved a medal. We didn't roll in as a Peacekeeping Unit, we were tooled up for war. We wanted for noting on the ground other than tanks.
Weren't you supported by Danish Lep 1s?

Yeah, I think that was you. Pretty good story.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 10:05 AM   #1217
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
Weren't you supported by Danish Lep 1s?

Yeah, I think that was you. Pretty good story.
Nope no Armour at all for us. There may have been some UN Armour in and around Bosnia, and there certainly was when it flipped to a Nato mission.


We were the big dick battalion in Croatia and it was ####ing great to be a part of it.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Old 08-20-2019, 01:53 PM   #1218
Baron von Kriterium
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Baron von Kriterium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Honkistani Underground
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
They're not really meant to be highly armed though. They do have the 25 mm chain gun, and two turret mounted machine guns as well as a pair of grenade launchers for smoke generation.


Their mission is not to really engage armor like an AFV like the Bradley with its Tow Missile system for example. Canada really doesn't have a dedicated AFV. These vehicles are meant to insert troops and provide fire suppression against enemy infantry.
This is semantics but, by definition, both the Canadian Army's Leopard and LAV 6 are AFVs. A Bradley, while technically an AFV, is more commonly referred to as an IFV. And, really, a LAV 6 is an IFV, too. When we refer to an AFV, we mean "tank".

The problem with the LAV 6 in its current iteration was how the Army/Infantry employed them. That is to say, they employed them wrong. The Infantry adopted the doctrine of driving right up onto the objective and then dismounting the soldiers. This has long been the DS answer in the "Good Book" at the Infantry School.

The LAV (and Bradley) is quite vulnerable and nowadays you have to assume every enemy combatant has an AT weapon of some type. On a MAPLE RESOLVE exercise a few years ago, some UK troops were the enemy force and basically a section's worth of them decimated a Canadian LAV company using Javelin AT weapons system.

Canadian Infantry officers are now figuring out that you have to dismount your soldiers before they reach the maximum effective range of the most likely enemy direct fire weapons system on the last know point of enemy detection. The LAVs should then roll back to their ZULU harbours to provide support, if required. Note that this was precisely what we did with the M113s.

But a LAV providing direct fires in support of the dismounted infantry is not exactly optimal. I wouldn't feel comfortable in any LAV that is exposed to any type of line of sight. If the plan is to use LAVs in a direct fire support role, they absolutely cannot open fire until dismounted troops are in contact.

In my opinion, the LAV 6 is valuable only prior to an assault and after. It's useless during.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
Baron von Kriterium is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
Old 08-20-2019, 05:03 PM   #1219
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

I remember on a dark and stormy night talking to a Warrant Officer after we'd gotten to play with a LAWS rocket, and a young invincible PrivateCrunch was talking a little to loud about how awesome it was to have a weapon that could kill tanks.


A Laws rocket has an effective range of about 600 feet, and travels at a speed of about 200 m/s.


A tow missile has a range of about 3000 meters and travels at about 300 m/s. Its also optically fired which means you have to guide it into your target.


A main tank gun like the Leopard 2 has a 120 smooth bore gun that has a range of 4000 yards while traveling at 1750 m/s or 5x the speed of sound.


I didn't feel so invincible anymore.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 08-20-2019, 05:19 PM   #1220
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium View Post
This is semantics but, by definition, both the Canadian Army's Leopard and LAV 6 are AFVs. A Bradley, while technically an AFV, is more commonly referred to as an IFV. And, really, a LAV 6 is an IFV, too. When we refer to an AFV, we mean "tank".

The problem with the LAV 6 in its current iteration was how the Army/Infantry employed them. That is to say, they employed them wrong. The Infantry adopted the doctrine of driving right up onto the objective and then dismounting the soldiers. This has long been the DS answer in the "Good Book" at the Infantry School.

The LAV (and Bradley) is quite vulnerable and nowadays you have to assume every enemy combatant has an AT weapon of some type. On a MAPLE RESOLVE exercise a few years ago, some UK troops were the enemy force and basically a section's worth of them decimated a Canadian LAV company using Javelin AT weapons system.

Canadian Infantry officers are now figuring out that you have to dismount your soldiers before they reach the maximum effective range of the most likely enemy direct fire weapons system on the last know point of enemy detection. The LAVs should then roll back to their ZULU harbours to provide support, if required. Note that this was precisely what we did with the M113s.

But a LAV providing direct fires in support of the dismounted infantry is not exactly optimal. I wouldn't feel comfortable in any LAV that is exposed to any type of line of sight. If the plan is to use LAVs in a direct fire support role, they absolutely cannot open fire until dismounted troops are in contact.

In my opinion, the LAV 6 is valuable only prior to an assault and after. It's useless during.

Why is this? It's not like Canada hasn't previous experience with IFVs/APCs. Heck, there's a good case to be made that Canadians invented them out of need when we converted Rams and Priests into Kangaroos during Operation Totalize.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:54 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021