Nice looking Armd Car

[Jakko Westerbeke]

Originally Posted by maple_leaf_eh

The Tap-Vee is the great uncle of the Vietnam V100 armored car

Great-nephew, surely?

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by Jakko Westerbeke

Great-nephew, surely?

Yes I misspoke!

V100 to V150/V200 to ASV-150/M1117 to TAPV

[rob love]

They are heavily laden with electronics, are reported to be top heavy, and have a lot of VOR time. They also do not like the rain as the electronics are sensitive to moisture. I'm glad I don't have to work on them.

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by rob love

They are heavily laden with electronics, are reported to be top heavy, and have a lot of VOR time. They also do not like the rain as the electronics are sensitive to moisture. I'm glad I don't have to work on them.

A member of the Cold War Collection mused whether driver training was inadvertently contributing to instability at speed. He wondered where the drivers were taught to hold the wheel? (Without a trained TAPV driver to contribute, the question will be unanswered.) If a power steering equipped short wide stance vehicle gets a speed wobble, would the drivers' failing arms make the problem worse? Hands at 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock, or 8 o'clock and 4 o'clock?

They have a second problem of visibility. The crew sit up front in comfy seats. The V100's seats are 1" of compressed horsehair and canvas. I read a few accident reports of drivers turning the wheel at a road intersection and crushing a car in their left side blindspot! For most AFVs the requirement is for a crew member to be in the weather topside giving all around observation, especially when manoeuvering around smaller vehicles.

[David Wilkinson]

Back in 2016 I ran into four young troopers who had just completed the first TAPV drivers course. They were all excited about having a new vehicle to drive, but they were universal in saying it was not a reconnaissance vehicle. They concluded it was too big, heavy, unwieldy and poor cross country.
By chance, a couple of years later, I spoke to the Textron Canada project chief and he assured me the army got exactly what they asked for. I guess my point is that the young soldiers knew what they needed to do their job, but other considerations got in the way during the procurement process. I just hope the Ukraine army appreciates the survivability enhancements.

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by David Wilkinson

....
By chance, a couple of years later, I spoke to the Textron Canada project chief and he assured me the army got exactly what they asked for. I guess my point is that the young soldiers knew what they needed to do their job, but other considerations got in the way during the procurement process. I just hope the Ukraine army appreciates the survivability enhancements.

From what I remember in the press and statements, the TAPV was specified to requirements heavily leaning on AFG experience with IEDs in LAVs and RG31s. It had to be as safe or safer from those threats. Since IEDs there tended to blow upwards, the belly and wheel arches are probably very substantial. Not sure if the same standard of an MRAP was used, but that is what I remember.

Secondly, no modern Canadian army vehicle can have enough electronics, so say the bosses and project people. Yes, the long range observation devices in the Coyote gave stellar service in Kosovo and around Kabul, but does every wheeled recce call sign have to be the land based equivalent of a low earth orbit sensor platform? It is possible to be too clever in life.

[Jakko Westerbeke]

Originally Posted by maple_leaf_eh

no modern Canadian army vehicle can have enough electronics, so say the bosses and project people. Yes, the long range observation devices in the Coyote gave stellar service in Kosovo and around Kabul, but does every wheeled recce call sign have to be the land based equivalent of a low earth orbit sensor platform?

Go ask the Germans about the Puma …