Author Topic: The CV90 Fan Page  (Read 106308 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,691
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #50 on: July 28, 2006, 13:58:13 »
I am a unrepentant fan of this family of vehicles, the APC, IFV, support, engineer (if made) and Mortar versions should all be purchased right now as a addition to our fleet of LAV’s, you can then retire the various M113 versions. Since people are always screaming “keep the supply chain simple” they will find this approach hard to argue.

I am all for Canada replacing it’s Leo’s with newer MBT and Leo 2’s and versions of the M1 are there for the asking, all we have to do is make the decision. But if we aren’t going to replace the Leo C2’s or upgrade them, then we might as well consider the CV90/120 as an addition or replacement as the Leo’s become to difficult to reapair. They are supposed to be out of service in less than 10 years and even if we signed the cheque today we would not likely see a CV90/120 for at least 3 years. How much armour protection are you going to lose between the current Leo (I heard that only a fraction got the upgrade) and the CV90/120? I doubt either could stand up against a modern 125mm round, although as pointed out the likely threat will be an older 100mm, threat level will depend on which ammo they are using, as I think the Chinese and others are marketing new ammo for the 100mm.

Frankly I am tired of us always waiting for the next greatest design coming down the pipe, we have a chance right now to equip our forces with some of the best MBT and IFV’s in the world and the MBT’s are at bargain prices. Plus if we tag onto the Dutch order for the CV’s likely we can get a good price.

Offline HDE

  • Member
  • ****
  • 515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 195
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #51 on: August 02, 2006, 15:29:17 »
What's the status of the M113s the CF had upgraded?  Are they in use or in storage somewhere?

Offline reccecrewman

  • Another fine day to be in the Corps..............
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,091
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 542
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #52 on: August 02, 2006, 16:13:36 »
CTC Gagetown has a fair number of the T-LAV's............... Couldn't speculate on exact number, but there is a fair number down there.

Regards
Some people wonder all their lives if they've made a difference....... Soldiers don't have that problem.

Better to die fighting, standing on your feet than to live life serving on your knees.

Offline Sidka

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6
A little idea i ave who maybe can save money and headache to Canada
« Reply #53 on: August 15, 2006, 05:31:10 »
Hey guys sry if i post that as my first post here but maybe its good to start whit that anyway here what i ave think
Ps:sry if my english is a little crappy im a frenchy canuck :)

Well lots of talking about MGS MMEV...some say its crap other say it gonna be cool i ave read last week that most of the CF want leo back and leave the MGS MMEV and put the money in better thing..i even read about CF buying M1A1 like the aussie.. anyway what about CV90 and all the variant?Uh im dumb you will say but look at that
Ok let take the LAV for compare some of the spec LAV weight is 18 000 and max speed 100kph

CF was looking for some kind of wheeled artillery system right?
You guys ever heard about
CV90 AMOS (Advanced MOrtar System)

Spec:
AMOS is a high firepower twin-barrel 120mm smooth bore mortar jointly developed by Hagglunds and Patria. The CV90 AMOS provides high rate indirect fire at battalion level, while retains significant direct fire capability.
The AMOS mortar system can engage targets at more than 10 km with conventional unguided ammunition or smart ammunition such as the STRIX projectile. It also provides a multiple round simultaneous impact capability of up to 14 impacts simultaneously and provides high rates of fire.
Crew 4 
Main Gun Caliber 120mm 4.72-in
Height 2.8 m 9-ft
Length 6.6 m 22-ft
Max Range 600 km 324 nm
Rate of Fire 26 rounds/min 
Max Speed 70 kph 44 mph     
Max Weight 28,000 kg 61,728-lb 
Weight (Empty) 24,000 kg 52,910-lb
Number of Weapons 90 
Power 600 shp 
SetUp Time 1 min 
Span 3.2 m 10-ft

For the MGS looking of discution about its gonna be easy to transport oversea and easy to drive in little road but they should thing about our guys im not the only one knowing how easy to destroy a striker is by a IED or RPG (just look at USA in irak) and knowing the LAV look to ave problem whit stability just try to think whit a 105mm turret on how its gonna be...So what about CV90105 and CV90120

CV90105 Anti-Tank Vehicle (TML).

Spec:
The CV90105 combines GIAT's TML 105 turret and the proven CV90 chassis achieving an anti-tank vehicle. The TML 105 turret has day and night sights for both commander and gunner providing a hunter-killer capability.
Crew 4 
Main Gun Caliber 105mm 4.13-in
Height 2.8 m 9-ft
Length 8.9 m 29-ft
Max Range 600 km 324 nm
Max Speed 70 kph 44 mph
Max Weight 28,000 kg 61,728-lb
Weight (Empty) 26,000 kg 57,319-lb
Power 600 shp 
Span 3.2 m 10-ft

120mm

Spec:
The CV90120 is armed with the high-pressure, low recoil CTG 120/L50 smooth bore gun enabled to fire all 120mm standard NATO ammunition. Secondary armament consists of a 7.62mm and a 12.7mm machine guns. In addition of the gunner's UTAAS sight, the CV90120 also mounts a Commander's Panoramic low signature sight providing a hunter-killer capability.
Crew 4 
Main Gun Caliber 120mm 4.72-in
Height 2.8 m 9-ft
Length 8.9 m 29-ft
Max Range 600 km 324 nm
Rate of Fire 14 rounds/min 
Max Speed 70 kph 44 mph
Max Weight 28,000 kg 61,728-lb
Weight (Empty) 26,000 kg 57,319-lb
Number of Weapons 45 
Power 600 shp 
Span 3.2 m 10-ft
Rate of Fire (Sustained) 12 rounds/min

For the MMEV

CV9040 Anti-Aircraft Vehicle (AAV).

Spec:
The CV9040 AAV combines the CV90 chassis with the proven Bofors Defence TriAD turret. This vehicle is intended to provide short range air defense supporting mechanized military units even in the front-line of the battlefield. The CV9040 AAV is armed with a Bofors L70 40mm cannon and is also suitable against surface targets.
Crew 3 
Main Gun Caliber 40mm 1.57-in
Height 2.5 m 8-ft
Length 6.6 m 22-ft
Max Range 600 km 324 nm
Rate of Fire 330 rounds/min 
Max Speed 70 kph 44 mph
Max Weight 28,000 kg 61,728-lb
Weight (Empty) 24,000 kg 52,910-lb
Power 600 shp 
Span 3.2 m 10-ft

Put in team whit The old ADATS turret mounted on a CV90 chassis


Here some other variants

CV90 Armoured Recovery Vehicle (ARV).


CV9025 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV).


CV9030 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV).


CV9040 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV).


The CV9035 MkIII


CV90 Forward Observation Vehicle (FOV).


CV90 Forward Command Vehicle (FCV).



What you guys think about this idea?i'd like to ave some feedback plz thank :)





Offline Erki

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #54 on: September 25, 2006, 18:44:18 »
Hi everybody, new poster here.

Due to the latest cuts in our armed forces about 100 CV9040A and 100 Strv 121 (Leopard 2A4) might come up for sale in the next year. Prices should be around 10-15 M swedish crowns or 1,5-2 M$ CAN for each. Maybe something for Canada? The CV90:s should be easily regunned to 25mm for commonality with the LAV-III.

I can't really understand how you guys can work with all wheeled units in a terrain which from what I've heard is quite similar to ours. Forests, marshes, snow etc. Our equivelent of the LAV, the Patria XA-203, is well known for it's poor mobility and almost exclusively used solely on roads.

Way to go in Kandahar by the way. Makes a lot of us over here want to can our non-combat capable conscript army and go professional. With our current setup we could never do those kinds of operations.

Cheers from Sweden.

Offline peaches

  • Member
  • ****
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 178
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #55 on: September 25, 2006, 19:02:51 »
Would be great to see Canada get some tracked IFV, and new tanks.  We don't need 1000, but 100 Leo2's would be nice.  Give the Leo c2's to the reserves perhaps.  Would be nice to have 1 heavy mech brigade, tracks, tanks and M109A6, or maybe Pz2000.  This whole notion that heavry mech warfare is over just doesn't add up.  Russia, China, France, UK, USA even Holland are still in the Tank business.  Even the Assuies just bought 60 M1s.  The whole "we never deploy them" argument is crap too, if the USA can deploy 3 armoured DIVISIONS to Iraq, we can send a single REgt, use a big boat!! :) :) :cdn:   
Good GCI is Good
No GCI is Bad
Bad GCI is Treason!!!

Online George Wallace

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 279,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 26,526
  • Crewman
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #56 on: September 25, 2006, 19:16:57 »
Peaches

You may want to do a little more research into what your proposal really should be.  What you just proposed is unworkable.  100 tanks, would not even fill the requirements of one Regiment, let alone three or more.  As well, it would not provide enough for the School, Wainwright, and War Reserves.  As for cascading the Leo 1 C 2 fleet down to the Reserves, you are really stretching your credibility.  We had enough of a problem with 128 tanks filling the requirements of one Regiment, the School, and War Reserve.  There was no Combat Training Center in Wainwright at that time.  Nope.  You proposal doesn't cut it.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2006, 19:21:00 by George Wallace »
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.

Any postings made by me which are made on behalf of Army.ca will be followed by the statement "George, Milnet.ca Staff".

Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline peaches

  • Member
  • ****
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 178
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #57 on: September 25, 2006, 19:44:07 »
Sorry, just throwing ideas out there.  I am an Air Force guy, but after the last few years I am hooked on joint ops.  I just think we should have at least 1 mech brigade.  I have heard alot of talk about tanks being old news, but I just don't buy it.  Like I said our allies and advesaires are not "doing away" with them, down sizing there numbers, yes, scrapping no.  Perhaps I used the wrong term, Regt, should have been battalion. 

About the reserves, and I do not know alot about them, or what they could support.  I just came back from an exchange tour with USAF, saw how the US reserve units operate, guess I'm comparing apples & oranges.
Good GCI is Good
No GCI is Bad
Bad GCI is Treason!!!

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 24,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,573
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #58 on: September 25, 2006, 21:29:23 »
Would be great to see Canada get some tracked IFV, and new tanks.  We don't need 1000, but 100 Leo2's would be nice.  Give the Leo c2's to the reserves perhaps.  Would be nice to have 1 heavy mech brigade, tracks, tanks and M109A6, or maybe Pz2000.  This whole notion that heavry mech warfare is over just doesn't add up.  Russia, China, France, UK, USA even Holland are still in the Tank business.  Even the Assuies just bought 60 M1s.  The whole "we never deploy them" argument is crap too, if the USA can deploy 3 armoured DIVISIONS to Iraq, we can send a single REgt, use a big boat!! :) :) :cdn:   
when you get down to it... ignore the matter of the US deploying 3 divisions to the Gulf...
Consider the rolling stock that the US has deployed to Afghanistan.  You will find that they are a little bit like the DDay dodgers of WW2 fame.... forgotten.

The US servicemen see our LAVs and wonder why they don't have, at the very least, the Strykers.....  

Go figure.
Chimo!

I have been turned into a ferret by the resident witch!!
And back again..... what a ride!

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 9,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,783
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #59 on: September 25, 2006, 23:55:43 »
They have Strykers.  Most of the whole family except for the MGS.
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 130,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,308
  • Freespeecher
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #60 on: September 26, 2006, 00:11:13 »
Grass is greener syndrome:

US pers in mech or cavalry see the LAV 25 and think it's cool because it is fast. SBCT units would like the LAV because of the Delco turret and 25mm cannon. Light units want something with some protection and punch to suppliment the HMMVW's.

We, on the other hand.................
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Eland

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 84
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #61 on: October 08, 2006, 08:23:46 »
Peaches

You may want to do a little more research into what your proposal really should be.  What you just proposed is unworkable.  100 tanks, would not even fill the requirements of one Regiment, let alone three or more.  As well, it would not provide enough for the School, Wainwright, and War Reserves.  As for cascading the Leo 1 C 2 fleet down to the Reserves, you are really stretching your credibility.  We had enough of a problem with 128 tanks filling the requirements of one Regiment, the School, and War Reserve.  There was no Combat Training Center in Wainwright at that time.  Nope.  You proposal doesn't cut it.

You've got a pretty good point there, George. Just the other day, as a thought exercise I wondered how many troops we'd need to support a fleet of 300 - 400 tanks (a country of Canada's wealth should be able to acquire that many). This is a minimal number which would allow for basic combat stocks and training, but not war reserve.

What I came up with was:

Hive off 100 tanks for a training establishment - 100 recruits just entering their trade plus a minimum of 200 training officers and NCO's (allowing roughly two pers per candidate, one to deliver the training, the other to assist with monitoring the training and handling the admin work associated with developing and managing the training syllabus). That's 300 personnel. Now add on another 100 - 200 other support people (adm clerks & supply techs, etc.) to assist with running the entire training establishment overall. Add about 150 technical types - your mechanics, electro-optical techs and other vehicle maintainers, and your total training establishment, candidates included, runs to 650 people.

Now take the combat fleet on top of all that. That's 1200 personnel to actually operate the tanks (assuming four-man crews). Now, using the general rule of thumb that you need a minimum of 3 - 4 personnel to support one soldier in the field, you need a support establishment of 4800 all ranks/trades.

Your total establishment is 4800 + 1200 + 650 = 6650 personnel. With these kinds of numbers needed to run even a de minimis armoured division, it's a wonder how we managed to run 128 Leopards with as few people as we did for as long as we did.

In fact, with a fleet of just 128 tanks being, as you point out, insufficient to handle training, combat and war reserves, I'm left with the impression that the few tanks we had in Germany up until 1990 would have only been able to play a very minimal role if the Soviets had attacked NATO. To put it more bluntly, the 36 - 54 effective tanks we had in Lahr would have had very short shelf-lives in battle if Soviet forces had penetrated the US VIII Corps FEBA in any significant numbers. It would have been like Hong Kong all over again. In saying so, I don't wish to diminish the work of the Canadian soldiers posted in Lahr at the time. They did extraordinarily well, despite being chronically underequipped and undermanned. The quality of the work they were doing was so high that they were actually training US soldiers, rather than the other way around, and they were held in very high esteem by German troops as well.

Let's face it, the 128 Leopards Trudeau bought in 1977 were just a form of tokenism intended to keep trade links with Germany open, and prevent Canada from being kicked out of NATO entirely. It was a pretty cynical move, knowing that at the time Canada had the wealth to be able to do much more.

The numbers I've generated in my scenario may be off base (hell, I might even be totally out of my lane here) but the idea of the exercise was not get absolutely accurate numbers, but to get an idea of just how many people you really need to run and operate several properly-sized  tank regiments.
"I think, therefore I blog!"

Offline General Disorder

    Mmmmphhh!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 160,581
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,784
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #62 on: October 08, 2006, 09:04:12 »
To go with numbers, assumptions must be made:  (these are all assumptions)
First: a "tank" regiment has 59 tanks, based on three squadrons of 19 and RHQ's tanks (2, right?)
Second: we wish to equip 3 regiments, therefore, 177 tanks for the field force alone
Third: the Armd Shool would require tanks to train, assume a minimum of a squadron's worth, so another 19 (Total so far is 196)
Reserves: I don't know: 10% or so?  19?  A squadron's worth of "war stocks/whole fleet management?" (215 so far)
Tech's Training: Borden will need some to train the techs.  How many?  10 is a nice round number (225)

So, can we afford 225 tanks?  Is my math right?  Do we need 3 regiments?  Now, I know we would not field 3 regiments simultaneously, but the idea is 1 "over there", 1 getting ready to go, and the third in the the reconstitution cylce.

Now, what about the recce?  Leave a recce squadron in each regiment?  I don't think that's enough.  Maybe a recce regiment?  8 CH?  FGH?
So, there I was....

Offline Eland

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 84
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #63 on: October 08, 2006, 12:17:02 »
To go with numbers, assumptions must be made:  (these are all assumptions)
First: a "tank" regiment has 59 tanks, based on three squadrons of 19 and RHQ's tanks (2, right?)
Second: we wish to equip 3 regiments, therefore, 177 tanks for the field force alone
Third: the Armd Shool would require tanks to train, assume a minimum of a squadron's worth, so another 19 (Total so far is 196)
Reserves: I don't know: 10% or so?  19?  A squadron's worth of "war stocks/whole fleet management?" (215 so far)
Tech's Training: Borden will need some to train the techs.  How many?  10 is a nice round number (225)

So, can we afford 225 tanks?  Is my math right?  Do we need 3 regiments?  Now, I know we would not field 3 regiments simultaneously, but the idea is 1 "over there", 1 getting ready to go, and the third in the the reconstitution cylce.

Now, what about the recce?  Leave a recce squadron in each regiment?  I don't think that's enough.  Maybe a recce regiment?  8 CH?  FGH?

Von Garvin,

Your math seems about right to me. You ask, "Can we afford 225 tanks?" To which I would reply, "Can we afford $1 billion dollars to spend on new kit?" I base that $1bn on 225 new-build Leopard 2A6's, which seem to be selling for around $5 - 7 million each when German Euros are converted to CDN $. The MGS buy would have provided only 66 units for $800 million CAD. Admittedly the price I'm factoring for the Leo 2A6 buy does not account for parts, spares and training.

Money is not the issue here, we're spending what, 2.8 billion to buy 4 new C-17's? It's political will.

As for attaching a recce squadron to each regiment - yes, you would definitely need to do that.

"I think, therefore I blog!"

Offline General Disorder

    Mmmmphhh!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 160,581
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,784
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #64 on: October 08, 2006, 16:37:46 »

As for attaching a recce squadron to each regiment - yes, you would definitely need to do that.



What I mean is, that in today's battlegroups, there seems to be a recce squadron in it.  So, are three recce squadrons enough?  If so, should they be "penny-packeted" out to the armoured (tank) regiments?  Or, do we equip the three existing regular force regiments with tanks (a la my model) and then stand up 8 CH as a recce regiment?  Three squadrons (two anglo, one franco, naturally)?  If so, would Gagetown be the place to do it?  Shilo?  Suffield?  If it's a bilingual formation, then, as far as quality of life, at least NB is officially bilingual, and Gagetown has a fairly healthy french population for the families, the troopers, etc.
As for my earlier post re: numbers: are ten in Borden enough?  I mean, there are Vehicle Techs to be trained, FCS techs, Weapons techs...did I miss any?
I guess a "billion" dollars initially, followed by spare parts, etc, might be do-able, but I am not a financial/business whiz (If I were, would I still drive a 2000 Ford Explorer?)
So, there I was....

Offline Eland

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 84
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #65 on: October 08, 2006, 20:24:59 »
What I mean is, that in today's battlegroups, there seems to be a recce squadron in it.  So, are three recce squadrons enough?  If so, should they be "penny-packeted" out to the armoured (tank) regiments?  Or, do we equip the three existing regular force regiments with tanks (a la my model) and then stand up 8 CH as a recce regiment?  Three squadrons (two anglo, one franco, naturally)?  If so, would Gagetown be the place to do it?  Shilo?  Suffield?  If it's a bilingual formation, then, as far as quality of life, at least NB is officially bilingual, and Gagetown has a fairly healthy french population for the families, the troopers, etc.
As for my earlier post re: numbers: are ten in Borden enough?  I mean, there are Vehicle Techs to be trained, FCS techs, Weapons techs...did I miss any?
I guess a "billion" dollars initially, followed by spare parts, etc, might be do-able, but I am not a financial/business whiz (If I were, would I still drive a 2000 Ford Explorer?)


I favour the idea of having three (or four) Regular Force tank regiments with their own (that is to say, organic) recce squadrons.
Since we seem to be moving gradually towards a model based on fighting for information (as the Germans and the US are known for),
I would tend to think one recce squadron per regiment might be too small in size to be useful. 

As far as organization of these recce squadrons goes, what I would lpropose is a heavier force structure - say, a six-vehicle troop comprised of two Centauro wheeled tank-destroyers (instead of the MGS) accompanied by three 'mud-recce' variants of the Coyote (lacking a full-bore sensor suite). The Coyotes would go out on a trace, make and maintain contact, then call up the Centauros for fire support if things get hairy and exfiltration is needed. Attached to the troop you would have one LAVIII with a seven-man assault troop for additional counter-infantry and counter-armour assistance. You could also use the Coyotes to initially identify targets and if the enemy force they detect is small and relatively weak/isolated, bring up the Centauros and the LAVIII to take it out or cut it up a bit.

Once a trace is cleared, you could then bring up Coyote OP vehicles to set up semi-static OP's. Once they are in place, follow-on forces can proceed to meet them while the heavy recce troops go forward to the next tactical bound. If your recce forces are functioning as they should, then they ought to be 'pulling' the main body into its advance to contact.

As for stationing of recce units, placing the Francophone unit in Valcartier, one Anglo unit in Gagetown for initial training serials (consider this unit forward deployed as part of a rapid-reaction force), and the other Anglo unit in Wainwright for manoeuvre training seems to make sense - to me, anyway.

It's interesting to see that you favour standing up 8CH as a primary recce regiment, because when I was serving in 'C' Squadron 1st Hussars ('79 - '81) we had a sergeant from 8CH attached to my unit as RSS. If I recall correctly, 8CH were equipped mostly with Lynx C&R back then, so they were the real recce experts and were in a position to impart their knowledge to our regiment.

"I think, therefore I blog!"

Offline Lance Wiebe

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 3,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 892
  • Retired WO
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #66 on: October 09, 2006, 18:18:21 »
Warning!  Brief history lesson!

Umpteen years ago, when Canada really had tanks, we had somewhere around 330 Centurions.  The four Armour Regiments (RCD, 8CH, FGH, LdSH) all had them, of course.  They were based in Germany (4CMBG), Gagetown (3 CBG), Calgary (1CBG) and Petawawa (2CBG).  There was a reserve, plus tanks at the Armour School and at the RCEME School.  Each Unit had a Recce Tp, which consisted of 13 ferrets.

Brigade Recce, believe it or not, was the prime function of the Armour Reserves, although the Unit that was in 4 CMBG (all the Regiments rotated through Germany) had a unique Brigade Recce Sqn.  The Squadron had three troops of Ferrets, plus a LOH troop.  The LOH's that I remember were Hillyers.  Armour Officers flew the LOH, and were not only trained pilots, they could also call in Artillery and fast air.  The Artillery also had a "air" troop, consisting of FOO's flying around in L19's.  That's one reason why our training areas are covered with abandoned air fields.

But, I digress.  In a conventional battlefield scenario, Brigade Recce has always been conducted by one squadron.  A Brigade does not have that big a frontage that it needs any more than that.  We presently have three Brigades, the Recce Squadrons would do just fine, assuming conventional warfare.

If, somehow, we managed to recruit enough people in to the Army, we may be able to have two tank squadrons per Regiment, plus Brigade Recce Sqn.  Two tank squadrons times three Units, plus tanks for the two Schools, plus reserves, would require us to buy somewhere around 170 - 180 tanks.  That's a lot of tanks, and a lot of soldiers, that would only be really worthwhile if we are going to be involved in conventional warfare.  Food for thought.

But, IF the improbable (and my dream) comes true, then I think that the ideal tank for us to buy would be the Leopard 2A5.  I say that, because, for one thing, they are almost all rebuilt 2A4's, and the price is reasonable compared to the new built 2A6.  For another, the FCS is nigh-identacle to the C2, shortening conversion training for both crewman and FCS Techs.  And the FCS in our tank is pretty darn good. 

OK, so my dream is that we buy a couple hundred Leo 2A5's plus, to sweeten the pot, we buy a bunch of Wiesel to give the the Armour Reserve, so that they have a proper recce vehicle to train on.  Then we buy a few hundred CV9030, so the Infantry have a tracked vehicle to play with.  (So they can keep up to the tanks and support us properly...)  And maybe a few PZH2000 for the Artillery, so they have something besides 105 to play with.....

Welcome to Lance's dream world........
"It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who served beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag." - Charles M. Province

Offline General Disorder

    Mmmmphhh!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 160,581
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,784
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #67 on: October 09, 2006, 19:15:03 »
I like Lance's Dream World :D
So, there I was....

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,691
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #68 on: October 10, 2006, 01:38:31 »
What does Lance do to replace the M548 in his dream world? Reading about the thunder run in Iraq, resupplying was a real bit*h and cost a number of lives. I wonder if a cutdown LAV carry pallets would work?

Offline Lance Wiebe

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 3,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 892
  • Retired WO
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #69 on: October 10, 2006, 18:40:33 »
Well, if I was going to have a tracked Battle Group, or Brigade even, I would like to keep it tracks as much as possible.  How many times have we seen tanks leaving a hide to get resupplied, because the resupply couldn't get to them?  For the short term, becasue I really don't see anything a whole heck of a lot better out there, I would stay with the MTVC.  (Mobile tactical vehicle light, cargo)

Yes, it's just a rebuilt and modified 113, but we do have a few of them around......
"It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who served beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag." - Charles M. Province

Online Kirkhill

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 84,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,641
  • Just plain difficult
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #70 on: November 28, 2006, 12:11:07 »
Some interesting videos for you CV90 Fans

Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAsR7m1wXM0
CV90s outstanding off-road capabilities. Notice the Bradley that doesn't get anywhere in the snow and that it takes alot to get stuck with a CV90, luckely they had a two Bv206 to pull the CV90 out of the mess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKyzLAAfS2s
An overview of the CV9030. I didn't know it could engage air targets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUsgZZeJqhE
A CV9040 weapons demonstration video. Displaying accuracy and various munition types on multiple targets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP_vyAybrc
CV9040/56. CV9040 fitted with BILL 2 ATGW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_VrWUKXpdA
CV90120 Tank display/commercial.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=80450#post80450
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.
"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Offline Bzzliteyr

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,408
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #71 on: November 30, 2006, 08:40:26 »
I remember seeing a variant of the MTVL with a pickup truck type flatbed on the back that looked like it was destined to be the new M548.  Maybe 2-3 years ago in the K-lines at the Armour School.
Adsum

UNPROFOR, CPSM, Canadian Forces Commander Land Force Command Commendation (Bosnia 1993), Canadian Decoration, General Campaign Star - ISAF

Offline Bzzliteyr

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,408
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #72 on: December 12, 2006, 18:44:17 »
Um, did lose a whole week or two on this topic??

Anyhow, here's a cool CV90 vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okly05HmKEA&eurl=
Adsum

UNPROFOR, CPSM, Canadian Forces Commander Land Force Command Commendation (Bosnia 1993), Canadian Decoration, General Campaign Star - ISAF

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 24,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,573
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #73 on: December 12, 2006, 20:03:18 »
Um, did lose a whole week or two on this topic??

Anyhow, here's a cool CV90 vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okly05HmKEA&eurl=

Nice - noticed that it sorta skidded to a halt -  probably didn't have it's winter tracks installed ;)

but............here is one on the BV90's mobility
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAsR7m1wXM0&NR
Chimo!

I have been turned into a ferret by the resident witch!!
And back again..... what a ride!

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 24,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,573
Re: The CV90 Fan Page
« Reply #74 on: December 12, 2006, 20:10:33 »
My only beef with the vehicle is the rear door for the troops to bail from.
Wider than what we had with the Cougar/Grizzly but, when you compare to the ramp we have on the M113 AND the LAVIII, I think it's going in the wrong direction.
Chimo!

I have been turned into a ferret by the resident witch!!
And back again..... what a ride!