Topic: ATVs, do they have a role in the Combat Arms, split from Re: How to employ 63.93 lbs of death spewin

[Petamocto]

I insist that the bigger problem is that we for some completely retarded reason do not utilize ATVs in the CF.

An ATV with a trailer or a side-by-side could easily move these things around the battlespace where they could be set up.  Not just these, but anything, be it a 50 cal, water, a generator, etc.

For what we spend on a single F35, we could buy enough brand new ATVs to outfit the entire combat arms with ATVs for the next century and double our mobility.

[dapaterson]

For what we spend on a single F35, we could buy enough brand new ATVs to outfit the entire combat arms with ATVs for the next century and double our mobility.

And increase their vulnerability to certain forms of attack.  And increase fuel requirements.  And increase maintenance requirements.  And increase training requirements.  And increase infrastructure requirements.  And increase transportation requirements.

[Technoviking]

An ATV with a trailer or a side-by-side could easily move these things around the battlespace where they could be set up.  Not just these, but anything, be it a 50 cal, water, a generator, etc.

I'm not sure how ATVs would work and I defer to those who served in either a light battalion or the Canadian Airborne Regiment.  As I recall, they had .50s in the "DFS Platoons of the companies/commandos.  My question is: how were they and the associated ammo lugged around?  I highly doubt that they were put into the various platoons.  Were they used at the Coy/Cdo level?

So, I suppose the bigger question could be: do we go with light battalions again?  Do we spread them across the army?  Do we concentrate them in a single brigade? 

Irrespective of the answer, other than mounting it on a vehicle (aka RG-31, TAPV, whatever), how is this thing lugged around?

Edited for spelling error.

[Haggis]

I insist that the bigger problem is that we for some completely retarded reason do not generally utilize ATVs in the CF.

There.  Fixed it for you.

The CF has used a variety of Off Road Vehicles (ORVs) including ATVs and utility vehicles (i.e. Gators, Rangers etc.) and user trialled several for use by light armoured recce units of the Army Reserve.   The Army (more correctly, Canada Command) also used them extensively at Op CADENCE.  ASGs continue to use them in administrative roles such as range patrolling.  They are employed in Afghanistan today (three soliders were KIA when their Gator hit an IED during a supply shuttle run last year) and were successfully employed on Op TOUCAN in East Timor.

[dapaterson]

Hey!  This is the internet!  Don`t confuse the argument with facts!

[Rogo]

Just a question but wouldn't using a .50 on either a trailer or sidecar thinger attached to an ATV be very very difficult?  What's wrong with the Gwagons now?

I agree I imagine ATVs could be useful but would a combat role work?

Also if the CF wants to be cheap let's just give everyone roller skates, still faster than walking 

[recceguy]

  What's wrong with the Gwagons now?

GWagons are on their way out

Also if the CF wants to be cheap let's just give everyone roller skates, still faster than walking 

Solarbabies

[CanadianTire]

Just a question but wouldn't using a .50 on either a trailer or sidecar thinger attached to an ATV be very very difficult?  What's wrong with the Gwagons now?

I agree I imagine ATVs could be useful but would a combat role work?

Also if the CF wants to be cheap let's just give everyone roller skates, still faster than walking 

I think ATVs might have a small, but useful role in combat.  The Brits use them all the time.  The Rat Patrol in KAF picks up their Timmie's on their ATVs and then rolls out the gate to do whatever stuff they do.  Their secret squirrel types mount their Minimi and GPMG on ATVs.  Even the Paras use them for hauling weaponry and supplies to units outside the wire (and by that, I mean the FOB wire).

[Rogo]

What are they looking to replace them with?

See roller blades are the jeeps of the future, silly F35 project 




I can see their usefulness around bases or FOBs but I just imagine if you are on roads where the main threats appear to be IEDs that they'd probably not be too popular with the personnel.

[recceguy]

What are they looking to replace them with?

They don't know.

[Rogo]

Okay, thanks for the info guys.   I learned something today. 

[Thucydides]

Just to throw some sand in the gears here, if we are willing to pay the associated training, logistics and infrastructure costs of using ATV's, with their relatively tiny payloads, why not go for something with more utility, larger payload etc. like the BV-206 or ST "Bronco" all terrain tracked vehicle.

These things can move over terrain that even ATV's cannot, carry an load up to 5 tons in the case of the Bronco and can swim. If the idea is to provide enhanced mobility, improved logistics and the ability to support operations in places where only dismounted infantry can operate, then this is the way to go. These vehicles are also not limited by weather like helicopters or air assets, so perations can continue 24/7. They are also large enough to carry heavy weapons (including mortars and perhaps artillery pieces) as well as a huge amount of ammunition, as well as radios and optics and FCS to ensure they are employed to the maximum effect.

[Michael O'Leary]

BV-206 or ST "Bronco" all terrain tracked vehicle.

Because they lack the "fun" and "look cool" potential for good hero photos that "real soldiers" want.   

[Danjanou]

Excuse me we bought you a whole bunch of these puppies back during the Cold War, what did you do with them? Leave them out in the Snow somewhere?



Seriously years back doing ATC over the lovely bogs of Newfoundland, I thought some sort of light ATV ( like all the friggin hunters zipping around us) would make a good A Ech vehicle for the CQMS and perhaps to drag along heavy crew served weapons etc that we'd be needing to set up into defensive positions. Hands up all those who remember from the Mortar and or MG courses the lovelyphrase "man packed."

[Petamocto]

Multiple things to answer here...

DAP, saying they increase our vulnerability is a non-starter unless you are doctrinally stating that no soldiers should ever move dismounted anywhere from now on because we are too soft.  All of the other requirements you listed are basically insignificant, as they are cheaper, more fuel efficient, lighter, easier to learn, etc etc than just about everything we have short of adopting bicycles.

Haggis, I know the CF has used them sparingly, which is where I have learned how useful they are.  Because they were locally acquired for an op somewhere or because 3 RCR did a quasi trial with them does not mean that the CF has incorporated them organically like I am suggesting.  My experience with them is building a massive live-fire range with them and we used them to haul sand bags and the heavy SITs all over the place.  I was hooked from then on.

Techno and Rogo, I am not suggesting any sort of fighting vehicle, but a purely logistic-based vehicle.  It is a pack mule for kit that can go almost anywhere (please nobody be a goof and post a photo of an ATV getting stuck or looking at a cliff, you know what I mean by mobility and almost anywhere).  My suggestion is just to have ATVs with trailers or side-by-sides with a cargo area in the back that anything you want could go in.

So to wrap this up, if anyone is trying to imagine a combat vehicle like a german motorcycle with an MG42 on the sidecar you are making this far more complicated than it needs to be.  It's a pack mule that you don't have to worry about walking off on you, that's all.

[Thucydides]

Yes, the BV 206's puchased during the cold war have apparently been abandoned to rust out somewhere, but this dosn't mean they are not useful vehicles even today (although we would have to buy new BV's or Bronco's today)

They were used with some success in Afghanistan, transporting troops and equipment during OP HARPOON if I recall correctly. Not only was their ability to travers rough terrain unmatched (carrying sections of troops and equipment), but the BV could be airlifted in and out by Chinook. If I were to build a massive live fire range, having five thousand kilograms of "stuff" on one platform seems more efficient than running ATV's back and forth to bring another item.

The idea that anything can be a pure "logistics vehicle" seems a bit out of whack, considering the punishment real logistics vehicles are taking over in the sandbox. Any future enemy will certainly be looking to damage our logistics train, a vehicle which is not limited to roads and has such low ground pressure it does not set off many types of IED, and which is capable of being uparmoured and even armed if the situation requires makes a lot of sense. As for employment, the third company of every battalion (which isn't mechanized) can be "motorized" with this type of vehicle.

[Technoviking]

As for employment, the third fourth company of every battalion (which isn't mechanized) can be "motorized" with this type of vehicle.

Just fixed that.  In the 2013 Force Employment structure, the BG has four Inf Coys: 3 in LAV, 1 in "something else" (and used as force protection).

[Kirkhill]

From an old thread on the Bv206:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,28436.msg319771.html#msg319771

The difference is that now we have the CH47s back, with more to follow. 

The ATV would make a nice addition to the kit bag with Bvs operating as either Section Carriers, or where circumstances require as Platoon or CQ vehicles.

[Technoviking]

From an old thread on the Bv206:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,28436.msg319771.html#msg319771

The difference is that now we have the CH47s back, with more to follow. 

The ATV would make a nice addition to the kit bag with Bvs operating as either Section Carriers, or where circumstances require as Platoon or CQ vehicles.

Makes perfect sense.
So, taking this a step further (or more), is there a requirement for all nine battalions to be mechanised?  Or is there a role for an "airmobile" or "Light" brigade?  One that is truly strategically deployable?  We have a (small) fleet of CC-17 Globemasters now, Chinooks on the way and this AGLS with smaller, agile vehicles may be perfect to go where Mech can't go.  (I wouldn't offer anything smaller than a brigade, thus allowing a deployed battlegroup to be rotated, it would have brigade assets, etc). 
Going back to Haiti (again) in our Hemisphere, or elsewhere for that matter, would there be a role for such a brigade, with such lighter vehicles?

[Petamocto]

I think Haiti is a perfect example of where lighter skin vehicles could make their comeback.

Little to no mine/IED threat is ideal.

More face time = less threat overall in the long term, too.

[Thucydides]

Makes perfect sense.
So, taking this a step further (or more), is there a requirement for all nine battalions to be mechanised?  Or is there a role for an "airmobile" or "Light" brigade?  One that is truly strategically deployable?  We have a (small) fleet of CC-17 Globemasters now, Chinooks on the way and this AGLS with smaller, agile vehicles may be perfect to go where Mech can't go.  (I wouldn't offer anything smaller than a brigade, thus allowing a deployed battlegroup to be rotated, it would have brigade assets, etc). 
Going back to Haiti (again) in our Hemisphere, or elsewhere for that matter, would there be a role for such a brigade, with such lighter vehicles?

Perhaps like this?

[dogger1936]

When we worked with the commando's in afstan they used only dirtbikes and 4 wheelers. While a IED would mean near certain death, they had the option to not go on routes and into smaller alleyways etc at a high rate of speed. As well they could be mistaken at night/day for local transportation from afar. Not allowing the triggerman copious amounts of time to set up. I.E like lavs coming loudly for miles and miles with cat engines roaring and dust cloud.

Having said that thinking back a few years I remember reserve armd recce did some trials on it as IIRC a platform to use after cougars were taken away and "tank" sqns re rolled into recce with not enought iltis to go around.

As for the BV-206 it's another great vehicle. I did my course with the RCR back in the 0's and had a blast.

I see the valid use of both in todays combat environment. sacrifice security for speed isnt a new idea....sorta like taking the op by force! dam time apperication!

[57Chevy]

It would probably be great in an air transportable/droppable role
for an even quicker first reaction airborne force, and modified for the
needs thereof.

Like this  John Deere

[daftandbarmy]

The Royal Marines' use an armoured BV 206 called the Viking:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/viking/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqvSHkp_wew

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BvS_10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marines_Armoured_Support_Group

This vehicle is the workhorse behind their new 'Commando 21' orbat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commando_21

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?134254-Commando-21-and-FSG-organisation-vs-traditional-way&p=4256396#post4256396


Call me crazy, but perhaps a country like ours might consider adopting a vehicle like this if we're serious about arctic sovereignty, or just shifting an infantry battalion quickly around a battlefield.


Oh, I forgot, the F35 will guarantee our sovereignty all by itself...

[Rogo]

And at very minimum they do make zipping around within bases quick, wether it is in Canada or abroad.

I remember seeing MPs in Bagotville zip around base on them when the Cadet portion of the base was running some sort of Bicycle rally thing. 

I like the idea, I just figure (keep in mind I'm still untrained) that if I were to go outside a base or FOB on deployment I'd much rather be on foot (where I can quickly engage threats) or be inside a real vehicle (where there is some protection from threats).  You did concede though that this wouldn't be in a combat role, hence winning my support.