Have Canadian LAV's been configured with any survival kits against IEDs and such?
As some of you are probably aware Canada is operating in Afganistian and has been taking a significant number of casualties lately. The causes of the casualties thus far has largely been rollovers and IED's and accidents.
Certain questions are being asked, recently we lost a G-Wagon and its crew to a roadside bomb. General Hiller made a statement a short time after the incident that given the nature of the explosive no vehicle could have protected the crew. The honesty of that answer is somewhat questionable given the G-wagon had a Bison trailing right behind it that was directly in the blast radus at the time of the explosion and suffer no mentionable damage.
There have also been a number of incidents involving roadside bombings on the Lav's which thus far have protected their crews extremely well.
There seems to be some kind of unspoken rule around the CF right now that no one is really supposed to be talking about the G-wagon's survivability especially to the press.
When I outcleared we were still using the Iltis which frankly has about as much protection as a golf cart. Just out of curiosity are there any Canadians out there that have an opinions or experience on the G-wagons?
Last edited by canoe; 04 May 06, at 05:37.
Have Canadian LAV's been configured with any survival kits against IEDs and such?
Rode in a G-Wagon and it was far more comfortable than the Iltis ever was ... and alot warmer. As an engineer, I really see no way around the problem. I can stack two 155mm shells on top of each other and I will take out even a Star Wars Imperial Walker. I can stuff explosives down a hole a hell of alot easier than you can bolt on armour.
The CF is buying 50 RG-13s from South Africa. They're a little better; having a higher clearance to channel the blast away from the body but again, it's a matter of how much explosives were used. There's a problem with the RG-13s though with their heights. The CF ain't going to corner as fast and would have to slow down tremendously as compared to the G-Wagon. The RG-13's extra height make it easier to tip.
The LAV-3s were designed with a higher clearance for channelling mineblasts in mind.
To the best of my knowledge no. I don't beleive there have been any special addons to increase their armor capabilities.Originally Posted by Dago
I should add though we bought some Nyala's to be used for route proving ahead of our patrols.
I agree that in some cases there will be no way to protect against IED's. However should we not be making it harder for them to take out our guys? My point the formentioned case was the Bison and its crew survived -uninjured- while the G-wagon was torn to shreds.Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
The logic that armor really makes no difference just doesn't fly with me. I'm not suggesting we put everyone in MBT's but I think given the situation over there making sure everyone has at least light armor when travelling would be sensible. Yes we'll still take casualties but we'll likely take less and we'll be making the pricks work harder to get them.
We try but at times, there's simply no way to fit everybody into LAV-IIIs. There's not enough to go around. So, you do convoys of putting the armour up front and behind and the more vulnerable vehicles in between.
Most times it works but sometimes, it doesn't.
The best protection is intel and get these guys before they can plant the booby traps.
If the fact our guys got ambused in the middle of a village by some kid wielding a hand axe and a bunch of gunmen is any indication I'd say our intelligence efforts have been less then great lately.Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
One other thing to note is we have no air recon to patrol routes and provide intel like the yanks do.
It occurs to me that we have enough armor sitting in Canada to go around the issue would be getting them all over there and keeping them all maintained. I've heard A-stain is brutal on vehicles but I still think the extra expense is worth it. We are a pretty rich country after all and the number of people we have over there is sustainable given our GDP.
And deprived our other two brigades of training and getting ready for their part?
Wouldn't be the first time we've short changed on equipment for training. But I think it would still be worth it. Train them the best you can with the equipment shortages over here, rather then have them operate over there with a mix of light armor and no armor.Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
Plus we had enough armor to spare recently to loan 100 Grizzly's to the African Union. So I'm not sure if were actually that tight.
GRIZZLYs are done. Metal fatique is setting in and the amour is getting coroded. The refit addresses some of the issues but I would not use them pass the CFR training cycle - if that. G-Wagons are going to be assigned to the inf recee units. The LAV-III will be the mech inf battle taxis. The COYOTE is going to be the armoured recee.
Actually this addresses the bigger problem here. We're still mech infantry oriented in that our role is geared towards a conventional campaign operation; not an insurgency operation. Our peacekeeping experience is actually woefully inadequate for Afghanistan.
And I don't see us getting any better at this. We've stipped the Jump Company from 3 RCR to form the 1st Company of the Special Operations Regiment. We took away the mortar and assault pioneers from the infantry and task them to guns and engineers respectively but we've not raised their numbers accordingly. This means that combat support must come from the brigade level when infantry battlions need them right there and organic to their TOE.
We've gone back to thinking brigade instead of battalion and company.
I think the fact we've lost some of our combat effectiveness is pretty evident over there right now. And I agree it would be nice if our battlions had their own support. I think the MGS if we ever get it will address some of that but we're deficent in alot of areas right now and the op in Afganistian is making it painfully obvious.Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
We're begging for air support and medivacs from anyone who will spare it. We have no (helo) air transport capability of our own. Our troops have been engaged a number of times and generally seemed to be unable to purse and destroy the enemy on their own.
Putting it in short the Afgan fighters were running into are coming off pretty good (considering their equipment and training). Our guys seem to be underequipped and under trained for their tasked mission. Its not a black and white firefight over there intel assets would be great, so would quick responding fire support.
We've bought new 155mm howitzers for Afghanistan and within range of the base, they've been pretty good but for air support. I knew Air Command was trying to get the CF-18s over there but it would not have been of much use. The British HARRIERs have been the hammer of choice, over the US APACHE; having been able to take off and come to support the ground elements within 20 minutes. The APACHEs needed another 5-10 minutes. Noway the CF-18s could have done as fast, especially on that runway.
I concur with the assesment of the Harriers...far better option then the apache at the moment. I have always maintained and still maintian that for support of troops nothing beats the Harrier..! Countless of times the British Harrier's have rescued both American and British forces stranded or stuck in between firefights in Afghan.!Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
I have few colegues serving in the helmand province, and are quite relived, and with a big grin on there faces.....that the Harriers there are staying and not going till operations are over.! There should also be 10 'brit version' Apache on route soon to support the para/marine contingent.
*Note 1....I have said that Harriers are best for troop support.... that does not mean i am saying there are the best fighter planes in the world.....!! (just stating this point out before, i get my fellow Xenophobe Yanke cousins moaning about what I have said.!
*Note 2....I also said 'brit version' Apache...yes I do know its American, but the version we have are different to the ones in use by the states...they use totally different engine by rolls royce, and electronics are different, modified or upgraded.
plus I think there assembled here in the U.K (not 100% sure on this one)
Last edited by Simullacrum; 04 May 06, at 11:01.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)