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

[McG]

yes, but it would be nice to see all tracks confined to one brigade or standing battle group. Instead they will be spread across all the brigades and mixed in with the wheeled fleets. As a homogenious unit, tracks would be an asset. As a component of a wheeled LAV formation, I see them as a hinderance. How can a batle group take advantage of the LAV‘s speed it the Engineers cannot keep pace to open the route? How long will they continue to shoot it the MTVL stores vehicle cannot bring up resupply as fast as they advance?

 

[Yard Ape]

I came across this image of a Pirannah mounted ADATS and was reminded of the conversation here. The location atributes this vehicle to the Swiss, and also showed the Canadian 113 mounted model and a US Bradley mounted ADATS. I thought that this LAV variety looked a lot more sable than ours (at least from this picture). Consitering that the ADATS can also perform the duties given to the US LOSAT system, should we not look at transfering this onto the LAV III?

 

[Yard Ape]

It has often been stated on this board that what works for Americans cannot neccesarily be made to work for Canadians. This fact is the result of the vastly different size of our armies and resources available to each. However, with the Interm Armor Brigades that the US is forming, I belive that they are being desinged to fill a role that the Canadian army has been striving for since it first aquired the AVGP.

Read:Brigade Combat teams

I think many of the suggestions it makes for the Americans apply even more so to us.

Yard Ape

 

[Coniar]

Well after reading all the posts in this thread (theres alot), each one seemed to have an entirley different opinion My personal opinion based on my limited military knowledge and all the info I took in well reading this thread is that there should be a mix of both.

The LAV III is a great fire support fast-attack and APC type veichle but is incapable acting like a tank. For training puroses the 2 need to be split up minimizing costs, In combat they need to be used together in a round about way. Get rid of all tracked veichles that are not MBT‘s have 1 Bde of Modern MBT‘s and 2 of LAV III.
In combat have the numerous LAV‘s hurry ahead skrimishing and gaining ground, If heavy enemy resistance is encountered or the LAV forces have to retreat because of unmanigable #‘s of enemy armor they only retreat as far as the MBT‘s behind them. Then they either advance on the enemy with the MBT‘s or take defensive positions and wait for the enemy if they are belived to be in pursuit. In this way ground is taken and held costs are kept to a minimum. The key though is having MBT‘s capale of dealing with enemy strong points and other MBT‘s the LAV III have to be capable of taking care of similar vechles and ground forces. The LAV speed is not lost and ground can be taken and held with the superior fire-power of the MBT‘s
With 360 LAV III on order and an option for 291 more for a grand total of 651 enough to replace all existing Cougars Grizzly‘s and Bison (662 in total). Sounds like enough for 2 Bde‘s

Now that Ive said all that everyone can shoot it full of holes :mg:

Coniar

 

[Yard Ape]

The Infantry and the Armour compliment each other. That means the most effective fighting formations will, to some extent, have both. LAV III based Infantry battle groups with wheeled cavalry and fire support meet that requirment. However, that still leaves Tanks without complimentary tracked Infantry.
The system breaks down even farther when you try to form a Combat team as we know it today.

Yard Ape

 

[Coniar]

Ok newbie Questions
what does Foo mean???
How many Infantry does a LAV carry (I think its 10 with full equitment but I cant rememmber)
Is that chart in actual proportions??? (Like would there really be 12 tank troops?)

And that is an exellent chart
Thanks

Coniar

 

[McG]

Originally posted by Coniar:
[qb]what does Foo mean???[/qb]

Forward Observetion Officer. Its the Arty guy everyone loves to have around, because he tells the bombs where to fall.

How many Infantry does a LAV carry

1 Section (2 crew, 7 dismounts, and commander)

Is that chart in actual proportions??? (Like would there really be 12 tank troops?)

4 Tanks to a Troop. 12 tanks would almost be a Squadron. I would caution that much of that chart looks fictional (Including some of the kit).

 

[Coniar]

Thanks for the awnsers, Im still trying to learn all the slang. This forum makes a lot more sense if you know what a FOO or ADAT means...

Coniar

 

[Long in the tooth]

If you‘ve ever worked in a Bn Maint Pl you know that these guys make the Bn run. I agree that tanks may be best in some (fewer and fewer) situations, but as the saying goes, "the good is the enemy of the best". Especially at half price. Let‘s go with a sturdy, mobile common chasis.
The Germans lost the War in the East not due to major battles (Kursk excepted) but because they were inexorably ground down. The plethora of guns, turrets and chassis left the poor buggers in the mobile field repair shops behind the eight ball compared with the Russians and their T34/76s and 85s.
120 smooth bores will always be the weapon of choice for black hatters; lower velocity HEAT/HEP ammo is used as well....

 

[Jason Jarvis]

Sorry to beat this horse again, but I‘ve gone searching through the archives and haven‘t found an answer.

Question: When was it decided to adopt the LAV III and why was it chosen? Were there trials with other IFVs?

No need to start this discussion all over again -- which was really excellent, BTW -- I‘m just hoping someone can send me reference link or something.

I can‘t wait to read analysis of the performance of tracked vs. wheeled IFVs in Iraq. I wonder if it‘ll make anybody reconsider earlier decisions?

Thanks.

 

[SNoseworthy]

I can‘t answer your question on why we selected it, however, the contract for the LAV III was awarded in 1996.

 

[McInnes]

I‘ve noticed that the US Army is going with the GM Stryker family, while the Canadian Army has gone with the LAVIIIs. The US marines have gone with the LAV Is and i believe they are planning to buy LAVIIIs. I was just wondering if anyone how the Strykers compared with the LAVs and if anyone knew any pros and cons of the two families of vehicles.

 

[gate_guard]

As far as I know, the LAV 3 and the Stryker are the same vehicle. The LAV 3 is an infantry fighting vehicle while the Stryker (american) comes in the same IFV variants as well as a turretless 105mm variant for close fire support and anti-tank. So regarding your question of performance, well, they‘re the same vehicle platform overall. I think you mean the U.S. LAV 25 when you say LAV I which is essentially our Coyote (which has major recce upgrades).

 

[McInnes]

well, i came up with my question while surfing the General Motors Defence section. It lists the LavIII and the Stryker Family as different. I didnt see too many difference so i was just wondering. And if they were essentially the same, why would the US go a different route. Anyways, thank you for the clari.

 

[gate_guard]

I could only guess as to why the Americans want to call their LAV 3 the Stryker instead. Usually, though, countries using the same vehicle will make any number of modifications to it to suit their own needs and roles. Take our Coyote and the US LAV 25. Essentially the same vehicle but when the Canadians got hold of the vehicle platform they modified the exterior (not sure about specs such as armour but the Canadian turret is larger) and added surveillance gear to fit the role it‘s in now, armoured recce.

 

[McG]

The US selected the LAV III as the vehicle for its interim medium brigade groups. They also decided to buy the vehicle under the name Stryker (in the tradition of naming vehicles after war generals & heroes). It is basicly the same vehicle. The US APC will not have a turret or 25 mm cannon. Instead, it will have a remote weapon station capable of mounting a .50 Cal or grenade launcher.

gate_guard,
Technically, the AVGP is a LAV I and the Coyote is a LAV II. I believe the US Marines‘ LAV-25 is LAV I and the Bison is LAV II. The Stryker is a LAV III. (the I, II, and III refer to the generation of the vehicle). We do own more than one LAV, but we only refer to the LAV III as "LAV".

Have a look through the Mowag photo album.

 

[Rick Goebel]

Despite automotive similarities, the Stryker infantry carrier and the LAV III are quite different vehicles.

The LAV III has a turret with a stabilized 25mm gun. The ten-man load includes a driver, commander and dedicated gunner, leaving only seven dismounts. This vehicle is clearly intended as a fighting vehicle which can carry infantry.

The Stryker has only a remote weapon station with either a .50 MG or a 40mm automatic grenade launcher. While I cannot say for certain that the weapons are not stabilized, nothing I have seen indicates that they are. The eleven man load includes a driver, a commander/gunner and nine dismounts. This vehicle is clearly intended as an infantry carrier that can provide some fire support to the dismounted infantry.

The differences between weapons, the mounting of the weapons, the number of people who can dismount and the lack of a dedicated gunner in the Stryker are significant.

 

[dalredane]

Just wodering what some of the actual future users of this vehicle think of its potential:

- capabilities
- relevance
- as well as the loss of the Leopard capability


Thanks

 

[Spr.Earl]

Oooop‘s sorry dalredane I should have posted the link here DoH!
All your info is on the link I posted about the Stryker.

http://www.army.mil/features/stryker/

 

[Bert]

Since WW2, the technology of war has changed and the tools evolve. Given what has been learned from a Canadian point of view, the MBT would be nice to have but it cannot be afforded. The question really is if the Stryker is the best bang for the buck. The choice of a valid replacement should not be made politically but for functionality and performance.

If I am not mistaken, the last use of MBTs and heavy armour was in the Korean War. In the cold war, Canada kept heavy armour in Europe to help counterbalance Soviet forces on the other side of the iron curtain. Given a conventional engagment, the war would be fought there by air forces and army (infantry, paras, and armour). The MBT would be crucial at that time.
A tactical nuke would make the battlefield empty of all.

Today, the technology of war has changed and the
MBT‘s viability is questionable. Look at what the Americans did to Iraqi armour in both Gulf conflicts. Look at what Israel did to Eqypt, Syria, and Jordan during their conflicts. The MBT is a sitting duck without air support and intelligence. The American Apaches, Commanches, A-10s, and communication systems co-ordinated together were responsible for the devastation of Iraqi armour. Guarenteed every serious military in the world has taken notes.

On the other hand, if a area of land has to be taken quickly, armour for speed and support and infantry are needed to take and hold it. The American forces in Iraq did well with this.

The question for Canada is where do we fit and what can we honestly do? What is the best replacement for armour?

The engagements Canada could face in the future
wouldn‘t be a conventional attack on our soil. It is police actions in other parts of the world and perhaps assisting in engagments on the scale of Korea of the early 1950s. Easily transportable effective armour, support systems, and transport are the issues.

I‘d like to see another White Paper by the government since as they want to radically change the force structure of the army. The flowery crap made available to the public isn‘t specific enough to state their intentions. It should be discussed publically more.