Light Tactical Armoured Vehicle: Second attempt.

[hptmurphy]

Have a look at Military.ie and that will give you some of the basics and then look up manoeuvre warfare

Part of the problem with the LTAV (from a Cav point of view) is that it doesn’t take account of doctrine (plus there aren’t enough CRVs & MRVs)

I have something more than whats actually available on line and what is taught to YEs is not actual doctrine or practice but concept based on what others do with they would have available to them.

Elements are then taken out that can be improvised to what we can do.

Most of what is actually practised is what done on a very small scale in support of overseas operations.

Where as years ago with AMLs that fitted straight into the traditional role of Cavalry it was straight forward, you learned it from the book and practiced it verbatim. Can't do that any more as the traditional Cavalry role has all but been thrown to the wind with the absence of suitable vehicles.

So whats evolving is theory based around what is available rather than using your vehicles according to whats in the book. So in this way you buy what ever vehicle that will take you forward in the direction you see the role taking rather than looking back from where you've been and what you've had.

We can sit here and pontificate all day about LTAVs but until its decided what the role will be in ten years time and what missions are envisaged, the Corps will conceptualize as opposed to being bale to go back to what is in effect WW2 tactics.

Whether they can ever fulfill those concepts for actual war fight as opposed to what is required for peace keeping remains to be seen.

Having tacked the future of DF AFVs to MOAWG with the purchase of the MRVs, no doubt they will become the main armour of the Corps in the future, if they go down the road of using versins with 105 /120 guns for fire support , it will be a very bold moved, but it will again probably be MOWAG based.

As for LTAVs.....I think MOWAG Eagle maybe revisited if for now other reason than its MOWAG

[na grohmiti]

One wonders why the Eagle was not selected first day.

[hptmurphy]

One wonders why the Eagle was not selected first day.

I would think having used the RG31 , someone probably though the RG32 was going to be a good vehicle and probably had all but committed to it on paper before getting their hands on a production run vehicle

But I'm sure the resident expert will come up with a different scenario and then revert to this one in about 6 months time

[hptmurphy]

The dismounts means much more flexibility and there is much more to the Cav than medium recce

When you are limited in fire support assets you can't dual task them as recce vehicles... MRV can do one or the other.. but not both at the same time.

The LTAV technically can carry out the point recce role when fitted with .5 or 40mm Grenade Launcher... but the big issue being you must have enough vehicles along with your bigger assets.. You don't deploy a recce Troop without having an Armoured troop to provide fire support and you need to be able to deploy more that one recce troop at a time to provide accurate intellgence and again that troop needs support.

This is the old school train of though, this is how brigade recce works with a Cav squadron , but its all set pieces with very little room for change..so again you can't go with role specific vehicles from this train of thought or your back to very singular roles.

[na grohmiti]

Originally the LTAV was supposed to replace the soft skin nissan in the cav troops. But that was the plan long before there was LTAV. By then the Panhard AML 90 and 60 it would work alongside had become obsolete.
I wonder if any cav sqn ever had the actual assets it was supposed to have? Is doctrine always going to be theoretical.
Last time I saw it, there was still APCs in the Cav orbat. Not MRV or CRV, but APC.

[DeV]

I have something more than whats actually available on line and what is taught to YEs is not actual doctrine or practice but concept based on what others do with they would have available to them.

Elements are then taken out that can be improvised to what we can do.

Most of what is actually practised is what done on a very small scale in support of overseas operations.

Where as years ago with AMLs that fitted straight into the traditional role of Cavalry it was straight forward, you learned it from the book and practiced it verbatim. Can't do that any more as the traditional Cavalry role has all but been thrown to the wind with the absence of suitable vehicles.

So whats evolving is theory based around what is available rather than using your vehicles according to whats in the book. So in this way you buy what ever vehicle that will take you forward in the direction you see the role taking rather than looking back from where you've been and what you've had.

We can sit here and pontificate all day about LTAVs but until its decided what the role will be in ten years time and what missions are envisaged, the Corps will conceptualize as opposed to being bale to go back to what is in effect WW2 tactics.

Whether they can ever fulfill those concepts for actual war fight as opposed to what is required for peace keeping remains to be seen.

Having tacked the future of DF AFVs to MOAWG with the purchase of the MRVs, no doubt they will become the main armour of the Corps in the future, if they go down the road of using versins with 105 /120 guns for fire support , it will be a very bold moved, but it will again probably be MOWAG based.

As for LTAVs.....I think MOWAG Eagle maybe revisited if for now other reason than its MOWAG

The only thing I would add to that is sufficient suitable vehicles.

I would think having used the RG31 , someone probably though the RG32 was going to be a good vehicle and probably had all but committed to it on paper before getting their hands on a production run vehicle

do the Swedes (and others) RG32s suffer the same issues as our RG32M LTVs?
I don’t know the answer

When you are limited in fire support assets you can't dual task them as recce vehicles... MRV can do one or the other.. but not both at the same time.

The LTAV technically can carry out the point recce role when fitted with .5 or 40mm Grenade Launcher... but the big issue being you must have enough vehicles along with your bigger assets.. You don't deploy a recce Troop without having an Armoured troop to provide fire support and you need to be able to deploy more that one recce troop at a time to provide accurate intellgence and again that troop needs support.

This is the old school train of though, this is how brigade recce works with a Cav squadron , but its all set pieces with very little room for change..so again you can't go with role specific vehicles from this train of thought or your back to very singular roles.

absolutely

The LTAVs aren’t intended as Recce Troop vehicles but due to insufficient CRVs & MRVs they have filled that role.

The heavier armament the Recce Troops have the better

[Fantasia]

The RG32 was selected because it was the only one that met the spec in terms of mine protection. Simple as that.

[EUFighter]

The RG32 was selected because it was the only one that met the spec in terms of mine protection. Simple as that.

To be 100% correct we picked the RG-32M LTV (or RG Outrider), it is based upon the RG-32 but is wider and has a higher cabin. Plus while over 800 RG-32's have been produced and entered service only 27 RG-32M LTV's have been made.

As for mine protection, the RG-32M LTV has a STANAG 4569 rating of Level 2, which is the same as the Eagle IV and LMV both of which were also available at the time. The RG-32M LTV had the potential on paper to be a great vehicle but its manufacturer just screwed it up.

[hptmurphy]

The RG32 was selected because it was the only one that met the spec in terms of mine protection. Simple as that.

So was the spec realistic?... gain we ran into the same issue with the MOWAGs , we bought top end gear and top shelf price and expected it to be perfect and then can't understand when they aren't ..

The heavier armament the Recce Troops have the better

Nooooooo!!!! you don't need a heavily armed vehicle as your job is not to sustain engagement, 60mm mortar was ideal, just enough to get you out of trouble until you can high tail it, the armoured section the likes of the AML 90 was your back up

I wonder if any cav sqn ever had the actual assets it was supposed to have?

Possibly at some point in the early '80s if you had pooled all the vehicles in existence with the Cav you could have fielded a full troop, including a HQ troop with the wrecker.Squadrons were heavily dependent on 4 x4 softskins by the late 80s early 90s, there was an acute shortage of.

A cav squadron is a very complex animal and I doubt if all the appointments could ever be fielded given there was actually a requirement for 9 x Lts per squadron. DRs were also in short supply with suitable motorbikes not really available until the late 90s.

But for the types of Ops we mounted along the border etc , was only really required to have two fully equipped troops per squadron deployed, but you had to have a full compliment of soft skins to make it work.

[DeV]

So was the spec realistic?... gain we ran into the same issue with the MOWAGs , we bought top end gear and top shelf price and expected it to be perfect and then can't understand when they aren't ..

The armour cracking was a major issue and was repaired under warranty. A lot of the other issues are probably more to do with the conditions they were subjected to (any other vehicle would also suffer), the spares support (coupled with DF Admin more than likely) and lack of sufficient techs

Nooooooo!!!! you don't need a heavily armed vehicle as your job is not to sustain engagement, 60mm mortar was ideal, just enough to get you out of trouble until you can high tail it, the armoured section the likes of the AML 90 was your back up

i’m talking probably max 40mm (Bofors/CTA) and Javelin (long range version). With a section of 90/105mm

[na grohmiti]

I believe all the DR bikes were boarded and not replaced. (Not with off road bikes anyway).
When the Berliet wreckers were retired, The replacements became S&T vehicles. Even though some of the lifting equipment came straight off the Berliet and was fitted to other trucks.
The soft skins made sense when they had a canvas tilt, but stopped being recce vehicles as soon as the soft skins became steel roofed.
Armoured recce is just that. Get in, have a look from under armour if possible, and get out. Be armoured enough to retain mobility, be armed heavily enough to keep enemy heads down if you are detected and need to bug out.

Cavalry ORBATs, worldwide are similar to an infantry platoon. Just with wheels. Your big gun armoured vehicle is your Fire team/machine gun. Your soft skin is your scouts or riflemen. Up the line your bigger gun in an armoured vehicle is your SF MAG, or platoon mortar. Your Platoon runner has a motorcycle...

[spider pig]

New off road DR bikes have been bought. Waiting on roll out to units

[hptmurphy]

I believe all the DR bikes were boarded and not replaced. (Not with off road bikes anyway)

the Res Cav got the last of the road bikes..Yamhas or Kwakers, not sure but had them a short time when they were boarded..bikes not my thing. The off roaders..... got some heavy use.

i’m talking probably max 40mm (Bofors/CTA) and Javelin (long range version

AML 60 and a couple of CG 84s in soft skins were ideal.. when the 60 was gone the theory was to load up on AT4s and CG 84mms out of the back of a Nissan, good fire power but not instant as such and had to be dismounted.

Be armoured enough to retain mobility, be armed heavily enough to keep enemy heads down if you are detected and need to bug out.

and this is where the likes of the MRVs and the LTAVs don't fit the equation

[DeV]

.Armoured recce is just that. Get in, have a look from under armour if possible, and get out. Be armoured enough to retain mobility, be armed heavily enough to keep enemy heads down if you are detected and need to bug out.

the advantage of the MRV/CRV being the DE so they can do other tasks and CTR etc as well

New off road DR bikes have been bought. Waiting on roll out to units

thoughts on the MRV/CRV? suitable? (if we had more)?

AML 60 and a couple of CG 84s in soft skins were ideal.. when the 60 was gone the theory was to load up on AT4s and CG 84mms out of the back of a Nissan, good fire power but not instant as such and had to be dismounted.

why I say get the RWS that can take Javelin (even if you have to pop out to reload). That’s why you have overwatch. Your DEs still have them

and this is where the likes of the MRVs and the LTAVs don't fit the equation

depends on the enemy. In a conventional op the en also have light armour (assuming it’s en recce that locate you which of course isn’t guaranteed)

[na grohmiti]

the advantage of the MRV/CRV being the DE so they can do other tasks and CTR etc as well

thoughts on the MRV/CRV? suitable? (if we had more)?


why I say get the RWS that can take Javelin (even if you have to pop out to reload). That’s why you have overwatch. Your DEs still have them



depends on the enemy. In a conventional op the en also have light armour (assuming it’s en recce that locate you which of course isn’t guaranteed)

But, as we established earlier, CTR isn't a cavalry responsibility really, it is in infantry one.
You can't do route recce if your vehicle is the largest vehicle in the convoy.
If you have javelin, you plan to engage armour. If you engage armour from armour, unless they are less armoured than you, you will lose. Missiles don't keep heads down. Targets for missiles rarely travel solo. Thats why anti armour teams dismount. You'll also notice that most armoured vehicles with anti armour missiles fitted, usually have more than one missile ready to use, and normally travel in groups of 4.
Indeed during certain engagements where Panhard was involved, the entire crew aimed the gun, tied a rope to the firing pedal, and dismounted to a safe distance under cover.