Jump to content
Kingtiger

Canadian LAVIII Coys

Recommended Posts

OK got some questions regarding the Canadian LAVIII coys.

Tactics:

Is the LAV Coy Canadas only Mech forces? No tracked vehicles like CV90s or M2s?

What level of enemy preparednes are the LAVIII Coy designed to face? are they supposed to clash with enemy mech forces?

Considering the LAV is thinly armoured I asume the infantry is the main force, the LAV is there for armoured transport and cover?

C/S:

What is the C/S for Co,Xo (Xo are LAV Captain right) and FOO? , the platoons are 11/A, 12/A etc right?

Any other info regarding LAVIII Coy tactics-C/S-structure would be most welcome :)

/KT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK got some questions regarding the Canadian LAVIII coys.

Tactics:

Is the LAV Coy Canadas only Mech forces? No tracked vehicles like CV90s or M2s?

What level of enemy preparednes are the LAVIII Coy designed to face? are they supposed to clash with enemy mech forces?

Considering the LAV is thinly armoured I asume the infantry is the main force, the LAV is there for armoured transport and cover?

A LAV Pam was attached recently, see if I can find it.

C/S:

What is the C/S for Co,Xo (Xo are LAV Captain right) and FOO? , the platoons are 11/A, 12/A etc right?

Any other info regarding LAVIII Coy tactics-C/S-structure would be most welcome :)

/KT

C/S

Last time I worked with them, Canadians used the "Commonwealth" standard:

Bn CO = 9

Bn 2IC = 9A

A Coy

Coy OC for A Coy = 19

Coy 2IC for A Coy = 19A

1 Pl = 11

2 Pl = 12

...

B Coy

Coy OC for B Coy = 29

Coy 2IC for B Coy = 29A

1 Pl = 21

2 Pl = 22

(i.e. first digit = sub unit, second digit = Pl / Tp No., 3rd Letter = vehicle ID [commander has no letter])

Of course they may have contracted the "American Disease" since then. ;)

FO / JTAC / JOST usually Coy number then 9G

So JTAC attached to A Coy = 19G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for the C/S info Gibsonm!

I have eyed through the LAVIII pdf and it isn't answering all my questions, but it do link me to another manual I should try to find that most likely will:

B-GL 321-006/FP-001, Combat Team Operations

:biggrin: /KT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK got some questions regarding the Canadian LAVIII coys.

Tactics:

Is the LAV Coy Canadas only Mech forces? No tracked vehicles like CV90s or M2s?

What level of enemy preparednes are the LAVIII Coy designed to face? are they supposed to clash with enemy mech forces?

Considering the LAV is thinly armoured I asume the infantry is the main force, the LAV is there for armoured transport and cover?

AFAIK, Canada has motorised and leg Inf only, no "mech" (i.e. tracked) Inf.

Pretty sure they follow the standard approach with other motorised forces when facing "real" opposition (drop "well short" [out of effective anti armour range] and adopt a fire spt position to spt a dismounted Inf assault).

I doubt very much they'd usually commit a LAV outfit against dug in Inf with good AT weapons with a plan to either drop "short" or "on" the position.

The LAV just isn't built to take that punishment but can exploit its good speed to drop the Inf and then rapidly move to a supporting position to shoot the Inf atk in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AFAIK, Canada has motorised and leg Inf only, no "mech" (i.e. tracked) Inf.

Pretty sure they follow the standard approach with other motorised forces when facing "real" opposition (drop "well short" [out of effective anti armour range] and adopt a fire spt position to spt a dismounted Inf assault).

I doubt very much they'd usually commit a LAV outfit against dug in Inf with good AT weapons with a plan to either drop "short" or "on" the position.

The LAV just isn't built to take that punishment but can exploit its good speed to drop the Inf and then rapidly move to a supporting position to shoot the Inf atk in.

You are correct. This is based on standard combat operations, last deployment saw some changes although minor. We operated in some areas without the Leopards. We use the combine team approach generally, tanks supporting the LAVIII's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do indeed use the LAV as "mechanized" in a conventional warfighting role (as in assaults on prepared positions) but in a combat team context - which means tank support, engineer support, and artillery support.

The formation is the "square combat team" which is a full up tank squadron (4 troops of 4 tanks, plus OC, OC's wingman (dozer) and BC) a LAV Coy, a FOO, and a field engineer section.

Tanks normally lead the advance with the LAVs a bound behind the tanks. When contact is made, half the tanks establish a firebase (under the command of the BC) while the other half provide intimate support to the infantry assault.

So while the LAV may not be super well armoured, it is always (doctrinally) accompanied by tanks, and the objective will have been shot up by tanks and artillery during the actual assault.

We have a tactics course for junior officers called ATOC that is all combat team operations, including multiple simulated (using a top-down simulation package called JCATS) operations - advance to contact, mobile defense, prepared defense, delay, urban assault - against a Soviet-style enemy. Used properly, the LAVs do just fine.

Note that for Canadians, doctrine is just a "suggestion" . :D

Keep in mind too that there is an applique armour package for them that makes a significant improvement to protection. It's not up to tank standards by any means, but it is no worse than M113 or Brad.

We also have modified M113s called TLAV. Much more powerful motor. Tank-style transmission (so it can pivot in place) 1-piece rubber track (like a snowmobile). And the Cadillac-Gage 1 meter turret from the old Grizzly (a 50 cal and a 7.62 in a powered, unstabilized turret with optical and II sights) That thing is FAST.

DG

18-11-09_0839.jpg.9f1b4b4f27b9b4e13d4284

18-11-09_0839.jpg.9f1b4b4f27b9b4e13d4284

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We also have modified M113s called TLAV. Much more powerful motor. Tank-style transmission (so it can pivot in place) 1-piece rubber track (like a snowmobile). And the Cadillac-Gage 1 meter turret from the old Grizzly (a 50 cal and a 7.62 in a powered, unstabilized turret with optical and II sights) That thing is FAST.

DG

thanks for the info DG!

Now the TLAV, I can see the aussie M113AS4 being used as a substitute. look similar, big difference is that the M113aS4 dont have a 7.62.

How is the TLAV handed out? totally replacing LAVIII or are they used for recce etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is in a support role, eng, etc.

Inf units are LAVIII based for the most part.

Our last venture in Afghanistan has changed how we use the LAVIII's (as much as some would disagree).

But in the end they are not tanks, they will need support. The IED/mine protection is not there also. The RG-31 has a better protection history.

Anywhere place that does not have a IED/mine problem they would do well, their mobility is very good on hard ground/roads.

Our LAVIII's are going through a mid-life retofit, the desert has shorten their life a bit, but it shorten mine also....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah, so a TLAV wont be seen in a set piece assault then unless hauling ENG troops? with set piece attack I mean like a LAVIII coy assault against lightly defended village with Tk Support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TLAV is a bit of an odd duck, in no small part because we are making them ourselves (the OEM for TLAV is 404 Workshop in Montreal - I've visited their production line and it is pretty cool)

There are a number of different variants - rubber track vs steel track, standard length vs extended length, turret vs RWS, old style bench seats vs "mine resistant" with much thicker floor and race car like suspension seats - and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the mix. Maybe an EME guy knows what's up with the production decisions.

They don't seem to be assigned to any specific unit, in that we don't have, say, 3 RCR outfitted with TLAV while 1 and 2 have LAV III. Instead, there is a pool and they get sent out to various places, I suspect to make up shortfalls in vehicles that were sent on ops or are otherwise VOR.

That one in the picture (Bethany) was mine for a course at the Armour School. The students got the vehicle they were supposed to be trained on, and staff (who weren't directly with the students) got TLAV. So as the troop leader, I got a TLAV.

I've also seen them as engineering vehicles (2 CER has a few) and other sorts of odds-and-sods roles.

It is conceivable that if we needed to field a whole lot of troops at once that you might see a battalion (or a subunit) outfitted with TLAV vice LAV III. Or the engineer section might be in TLAV. Or maybe the FOO. But doctrinally the TLAV has no specific role.

It's too bad, because I really like the vehicle. It ain't your father's M113; it is WAY faster, way more capable cross country (I took mine through the swamp and woods to the west of Monument Woods with no problem) and now that it can neutral turn, it is easier to winkle your way through broken country than with a LAV III or Coyote. Upgrade the turret to something stabilized and with thermals, put the surv system from the Coyote on it (or a next-gen system that would be smaller, lighter, and more capable) and you'd have a hell of a recce vehicle. It'd be Super Lynx.

The Afghan experience is significantly different from conventional warfighting. Afghanistan favoured mine blast resistance over cross-country performance and direct-fire armour. It favoured high road speed over trench crossing and sneaky-peeky. It was a very, very different fight than the combat team attack and it taught a number of very different lessons and demanded a number of different capabilities. We are still trying to capture all those lessons and apply them without changing the Army into something that can only do Afghanistan (and we are already seeing a return to practicing the conventional warfighting role and Boy Howdy has there been a LOT of skill fade there)

Anyway, I'm rambling.

If your intent is to write a scenario that is Canadians attacking a prepared position, the doctrinally correct Canadian ORBAT would be:

1 x Recce Troop (8 x ASLAV-25 organized as 4 x 2-car patrols, callsigns 42, 42G; 42A, 42B; 42C, 42D; 42E, 42F)

1 x Tank Sqn (19 Leo2 organized as 4 X 4 tank troops, OC, dozer, and BC)

1 x Infantry Coy (18 x NZLAVIII organized as 4 x 4 car platoons, OC, and Lav Captain)

1 x Engineer Field Section (2 x engineer vehicles of your choice, could be LAV or M113)

1 x FOO (1 x LAV)

to be strictly correct, you should also have the A1 Echelon: 1 x LAV III (SSM) 2 x ammo trucks, 2 x fuel trucks, 2 x general stores trucks, 2 x mine roller trucks, 1 x MRT, 1 x ARV, 2 x Ambulance, 1 x Sig Tech truck, 1 x FCS tech truck) and you could have the rest of the engineer equipment (a shitload of earthmoving equipment and stores trucks)

This clag usually moves with the tanks leading 2 troops up, with each half-squadron leapfrogging. The infantry moves as a unit a bound behind the rearmost tanks, and the echelon follows a bound behind the infantry. The FOO, the Squadron OC (and his wingman) the Coy OC, and the engineer section usually stay together as a tac HQ and they are usually up with the tanks.

(If you are picking up on all the "usually" it is because ground and situation dictates; we don't demand a "by the book" solution so long as the basic principles are followed)

When the lead element makes contact (so two tank troops) they usually take fire positions on the best ground they can find, and the FOO and the BC move to that spot. This is now the firebase. The infantry and the other half of the tank squadron move to an area close to the objective - on a flank if you can - and shake out with a troop of tanks leading, the infantry Coy, and the other tanks interspersed with the LAVs. This then moves onto the objective (ideally under cover of smoke and artillery) the infantry dismount, and the assault goes in. The LAV Captain does not dismount; he takes command of the (now empty) LAVs and moves them to a place where they can continue to support without being overly exposed. The LAVs might drive onto the objective depending on the situation.

The lead tanks on the assault fight through the objective and take up blocking positions to protect against counterattack. The intimate support tanks stay with the pongos.

That's by-the-book. In practice, the force mix of firebase vs assault force, assault tanks vs intimate support tanks, LAVs dismount on the objective or well short, breach or no breach etc will vary depending on the ground and enemy.

DG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting post DG, much appreciated! And yes I'm trying to come up with a nice Canadian Scenario where the LAVIII have focus. I'm truly in love with the LAVIII /ASLAV-25 concept and want some good scenarios for it :)

Hopefully I can get something good going :)

/KT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KT,

By all means press on but there will be a NZ Mot Coy Gp in the next (or perhaps one ofter) the upcoming ADF installment.

Trying not to cluttering the "future attractions" area which seems to be full already with the T-72 thing and the multi national BG thing. :)

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, some words of caution.

The course that teaches all this, ATOC, has all its practical work done on JCATS, which is very much like SB Pro played exclusively from the <F5> map screen.

The following positions were manned:

- Recce Troop Leader

- Tank Sqn OC

- Tank Sqn BC

- 4 x tank troop leaders

- Coy OC

- Coy Lav Captain

- 3 x Coy platoon comds

- Coy 2IC (off map - on radio only - he runs the net)

- Engineer Sec Comd

- FOO

- Sqn SSM (to command the echelon)

so 16 people to make one of these things work

Attacks were against platoon size positions with a platoon to company sized counterattack immediately following the main assault. Defenses were against battalion sized Soviet style units.

And something that JCATS does that SB does not is model suppression. SB units will attempt to manouver away from indirect fire, but they stay hellishly effective even while taking enormous losses. JCATS units, if they take effective fire, may/will be suppressed (depending on fire volume) which makes the firebase and FOO much more realistic. SB will require more direct fire attrition than JCATS or or the LAVs will get slaughtered.

DG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to worry fellas! :)

Gibbo: This wont be a online campaign, just ordinary offline singleplayer scenarios or small coops.

RecceDG: Player will control 1 platoon, rest will be AI.(Thats my plan atleast) Kinda like my "svensken kommer" scenario where you are a tk platoon supporting a AI CV90 Coys assault. so 16 players wont be needed, but sure the scenario could be "unlocked" and work as a Coop for a large crowd sometime.

Thanks for the input Guys!

/KT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, some words of caution.

The course that teaches all this, ATOC, has all its practical work done on JCATS, which is very much like SB Pro played exclusively from the <F5> map screen.

The following positions were manned:

- Recce Troop Leader

- Tank Sqn OC

- Tank Sqn BC

- 4 x tank troop leaders

- Coy OC

- Coy Lav Captain

- 3 x Coy platoon comds

- Coy 2IC (off map - on radio only - he runs the net)

- Engineer Sec Comd

- FOO

- Sqn SSM (to command the echelon)

so 16 people to make one of these things work

Attacks were against platoon size positions with a platoon to company sized counterattack immediately following the main assault. Defenses were against battalion sized Soviet style units.

And something that JCATS does that SB does not is model suppression. SB units will attempt to manouver away from indirect fire, but they stay hellishly effective even while taking enormous losses. JCATS units, if they take effective fire, may/will be suppressed (depending on fire volume) which makes the firebase and FOO much more realistic. SB will require more direct fire attrition than JCATS or or the LAVs will get slaughtered.

DG

I find JCATS artificial in that it's a training tool for a course. It is controlled environment for the students. The enemy is planed and used to teach basic lessons.

For JCATS to be effective to determine whether LAV's will or will not get slaughtered (and they will)would mean that the operators controlling the enemy force would have free rein on how and when they engage, they don't.

It all goes to smooth when the enemy follows a set of rules. We all know that the real enemy does not, so training this way can be counter productive. For getting drills down it works, other than that I have found it is a make work project for civies.

They will not let the enemy rum amok, thus giving the training unit a real taste of what could/will happen to all of their well though out plans. Real life is a bitch, as we have learned the hard way. Free up the enemy!

I have attended FTX;s in Germany where the enemy is doing just this, causing chaos to units with their unconventional war-fighting methods. The same methods our current enemy is using. Some units adapt quickly, some locked in drills and sop's don't do so well.

To me this is effective training, a enemy that can disrupt a unit by having no set of controls linked to how we think the enemy will fight.

We need to move on, the wall is down I hear, a CBT can not maneuver on a piece of ground littered with IED's as our last 20 years deployments have shown. The time of maneuvering in ground that is safe is over, our enemies know this.

Or.. outfit all our AFV's with mine/rollers/plows/IED kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IED = poor man's FASCAM.

But yes I'd agree that unless the En is underprepared the Inf will go in dismounted with the Tks in intimate support.

Can't see LAV reducing wire and other obstacles, crossing AP minefields or crossing tenches all that well against a "prepared" position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They will not let the enemy rum amok

Au contraire, mon ami. The enemy absolutely did run amok on my course. In fact, on our delay trace, the entire battalion less the CRP flanked our entire plan and popped out of a tiny defile through the otherwise "impassible" woods securing our left flank.

If it had not been for the Sqn Commander being somewhat leery of the claims that the abatis that was supposed to close that defile was "impassible" and placing half the squadron in overwatch over the exit of the defile instead of waiting below their forward runup positions, it would have been a bloodbath.

I imagine the nature of the enemy on that course varies with the specific pucksters who are playing OPFOR; ours were playing to WIN.

DG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Au contraire, mon ami. The enemy absolutely did run amok on my course. In fact, on our delay trace, the entire battalion less the CRP flanked our entire plan and popped out of a tiny defile through the otherwise "impassible" woods securing our left flank.

If it had not been for the Sqn Commander being somewhat leery of the claims that the abatis that was supposed to close that defile was "impassible" and placing half the squadron in overwatch over the exit of the defile instead of waiting below their forward runup positions, it would have been a bloodbath.

I imagine the nature of the enemy on that course varies with the specific pucksters who are playing OPFOR; ours were playing to WIN.

DG

I fail to see how a "entire battalion less the CRP,their forward runup positions" is any way tied to what we have been facing in the last 20+years of fighting. And this is my point.

Place what ever unit into a COIN environment with a enemy and see how that unit will do. From what I've seen we still have a long way to go.

We are training for a Fulda gap enemy, and as anyone can see that enemy is now gone and has been replaced by a non-conventional one.

We need to move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK this is getting a bit off topic, but does this look as a sound "canadian" LAVIII plan?

Its clearing a small village alongside route 7 at Gagetown to continue the assault north.

I can see this forming up into 2 different scenarios in the end. One being the LAV assault into the village and the other being the 2 tank platoon giving cover west of the Route 7.

Any input much appreciated.

plan.jpg.e8061dfd4f62a10d8498e4dd2378bb2

56e83caccedbe_CAN_clearingRoute7_rar.c4b

plan.jpg.e8061dfd4f62a10d8498e4dd2378bb2

CAN_clearing Route 7.rar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How big is the En on the Objective?

Not sure why the 3rd LAV PL goes to fire spt? Unless its really to provide flank security to the Tk Tps in the SBF?

The Tks there can achieve that already.

Pretty sure the LAV Coy OC would prefer his 3rd PL with him in the assault as a reserve or to let the atk go in "2 up" and improve the frontage.

Also the climb out of the FUP looks like a nightmare (assuming 10m contours). Or is the FUP line "in vicinity of" (i.e. it could be on the west side of the river) rather than specific?

If the threat is light and I had a bit of indirect fire spt, I'd be tempted to go straight off the line of march and accept the risk of crossing the obvious EA for the gain of speed, shock action and maintaining the tempo (as opposed to the roughly 11km trek in goat country to get to the suggested FUP).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't drawn it on the map but the idea being that the LAV platoon will face north covering the Tk plt flank. Valid or still betther to put the 3rd plt in the main assault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as above "depends".

What size is the OBJ? (i.e how many PLs abreast do you need to cover it)?

If two PLs up then you need the 3rd with them as a reserve in the assault? Also splitting units can make life more complicated for C2.

I would have thought a Canadain Coy would have some sort of Support Section (2 or 3 Jav posts, etc.).

If the perceived threat coming down the road is vehicle centric and the ground lends itself to anti armour, then the Spt section could provide the flank security (and its vehicle MGs sort out that sneaky gully) while you commit the PL to the assault.

An entire leg PL (let alone a PL and 4 x LAV) for flank support for a Coy atk seems very generous and you can make better use of them somewhere else.

If you do need a full PL for flank security, maybe the main threat isn't this little village and the Coy should be engaging this large flanking formation instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points.

The object is barely large enough for 2 LAVIII platoons. so 2 plt up and 3rd platoon legging behind would be more then enough for the obj.

But you are right, having 1/3rd of your assault power on flank support seems kind of weird, so I will shift them over for the assault.

I haven't seen anything about the LAVIII coy having spt sect, so don't think so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...