Officer of Engineers

I have a concern here. All these things, the STINGRAY, MGS, and the M8, they're all assualt guns. They're not tanks. They will die when used as tanks.

__________________
Chimo

canoe

Not to be rude (sorry this is just a pet peeve) probably part of it is the fact when I was infantry I didn't like the idea of being cannon fodder nore do I like the idea my buddies still in service being treated that way either.

But that sounds alot like the statement Hiller made when a G-wagon got wasted by an IED about how it doesn't matter how much armor you put on a vehicle if the enemy wants to kill you he can.

The statement is true in fact but very misleading, armor makes a difference. Countless wars have proven that. And I'll argue to hell and back with anyone who says otherwise. In that specific case a Bison was in the blast radius behind the G-wagon and took only minor damage and no injuries. The G-wagon was blasted past the point of recognition with predictable results for the crew.

Your right maybe if the suicide bomber strapped more explosives to himself he would have wasted the Nyala but the fact is he didn't. And given the damage I read the Nyala received theres a good chance casualties would have been higher if that had been a G-wagon. I simply beleive the G-wagon was a poor choice of vehicle for combat operations, even with the armor addon package. I've heard this straight from the guys using it, for combat ops they don't like it.

Again I'm not trying to be rude I realise your an officer with many years of experience and I was only an enlisted infantrymen in for 3 years so I do respect your opinion on the matter and your experience but I totally disagree in this case.

Officer of Engineers

It's a simple case of escalation. You will note that most attacks against convoys are now done via IEDs instead of suicide bombers. That was not the case when we had the ILTIS. The G-WAGON also survived some hits before the Taliban increased the load.

Give it 6 months and you will see the Taliban learn how to deal with the South African vehicle.

Anon

The Leo1C2 is an eminently serviceable design, even if it is dated, it is definitely not useless.

StingRay II has a 'low powered' 105mm gun while the M8 Thunderbolt has a full power 120mm gun.

I think the choice between those two should be as easy as it is obvious.

The M8 can mount an already designed applique armor kit to give it 30mm API frontal protection. Slat armor could actually protect it against even modern direct attack heavy ATGMs to a good degree.

Depends. If you put M8 Thunderbolt in hull-down defensive postions and faced 'em off against a bunch of T-80Us advancing across open ground they'd probably perform brilliantly. And vice versa, advancing across open ground against even Leo1C2s they'd get slaughtered.

Personally, if i was canada, i'd just bolt more advanced applique armor and a few other goodies(namely a 120mm gun!) to the Leo1C2, and call it a day.

Canmoore

woa...talk about an earie coincidence...not even 6 days and this happens

Canmoore

Yesterday, my buddy whose with RCR and I were talking about this. He was showing me his liscence for all the light vehicles he can drive. We got talking about the Nyala, he was saying that the weapon system is such a way that it can be operated and aimed from the inside of the vehicle.

He was saying that he has spoken to alot of the guys returning from A-stan, there saying that the Taliban are pretty smart in that they are matching every thing we throw at them. For a while they couldnt find away to crack open our LAV's, the rpg gunners were not very experienced, and the RPG's either missed or just bounced off the sloped armour. A few suicide bombs and IED's blew off a wheel or two and damaged the hull of the LAV but they were able to return to base under there own power.

However the Taliban have since figured out how to best dystroy a LAV. What they do is place 3 tank mines ontop of each other, then when the vehicle moves over them, the blast flips the LAV over, and the crew inside are either killed or injured, and the LAV is disabled.

Then we brought in the Nyala, and well now we can see that a giant suicide bomb was used to demolish the vehicle and kill the occupant.

It will be a matter of time he says, that they figure a way to take out one of the leo's

canoe

Quite possibly, but at least we'll be making them work harder. The armor does make a difference. The more difficult the vehicle is to take down the more resources and planning will be required.

From Oct 2005 till Aug 2006 excluding rollovers and accidents.

6 dead, 11 injured in G-wagons do to roadside bombs or enemy attacks.
2 dead, 23 injured in LAV III's do to roadside bombs or enemy attacks.
2 injured in Bison's do to roadside bombs or enemy attacks.
2 injured in Nyala's do to roadside bombs or enemy attacks.

Again this excludes rollovers and traffic accidents.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-vehicle-casualties.htm

Officer of Engineers

I knew it. We're re-orging into the Marines.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Getting ready to roll: Soldiers of the Royal Canadian Regiment head out on patrol with their LAV-3 troop carriers earlier this month during a training exercise at CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick. (Photo: Andre Forget)
Getting ready to roll: Soldiers of the Royal Canadian Regiment head out on patrol with their LAV-3 troop carriers earlier this month during a training exercise at CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick. (Photo: Andre Forget)
Military wants rapid-response team

Canadian forces will take part in amphibious exercise off U.S. coast

By David Pugliese
CanWest News Service

Canadian soldiers, sailors and aircrew will be participating in a seaborne invasion off the east coast of the U.S. next month in the first major test of the military's plan to have a rapid response force capable of intervening in failed or failing states around the world.

The troops will be put ashore by landing craft operating from the USS Gunston Hall, a U.S. navy amphibious assault ship. The landing and accompanying operations off the coast of North Carolina are being billed as an experiment designed to test Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier's plan to create a floating strike force that could position itself off the coast of any global hotspot.

Commodore Paul Maddison, commander of the military's standing contingency force, said about 1,100 Canadian Forces personnel will be involved in the experiment.

'Kick some ideas around'

"This is a joint exercise being led by the navy," he said. "In terms of concept development it's always good to do an experiment to actually kick some ideas around and see what comes out the other side and to get smarter along the way."

The 2005 defence policy statement recommended the military acquire an amphibious assault ship capable of pre-positioning a standing contingency task force made up of both regular troops and special forces. At the time, Hillier said he wanted the force to be exercising its capabilities in 2006, with an initial operational capability ready by 2007. Besides transporting 800 troops, Hillier said an amphibious ship bought by Canada would have to carry up to six helicopters and be capable of offloading smaller landing craft.

Military personnel on board such a vessel could be used for a variety of missions, including rescuing Canadians trapped in a foreign country, delivering humanitarian aid or conducting combat operations.

In 2004, Canadian defence planners estimated that two used amphibious assault ships could be purchased for about $400 million. If Canada wanted to build two new ships the cost would be about $1.5 billion. Defence analysts say two such ships, one for the East and one for the West Coast, would be needed for Canada.

Military officials, however, stress that there is no plan to move forward with obtaining such vessels. Maddison said the military is only at a point where it is examining whether the concept of a standing contingency force is feasible. It may or may not be, he added.

"What makes this (exercise) different is we're really focusing on the element of command and control of all of these assets and exploring whether or not it would be useful for Canada to generate this kind of capability," Maddison said.

The Gunston Hall will arrive in Halifax in early November along with another U.S. frigate. Canadian light armored vehicles and other combat equipment will loaded on to the ship, along with about 150 Canadian troops.

Set sail for North Carolina

The U.S. ships will be joined by a Canadian naval task force including the submarine HMCS Windsor, a destroyer, two frigates and a refueling ship. That group will then set sail for North Carolina where they will be met by two Canadian maritime coastal patrol vessels.

Various drills and training will be conducted along the way as well as when the force is situated off the coast of North Carolina.
One of the key aspects of the experiment is to have Canadian troops loaded into landing craft and transported to shore as part of amphibious operations.

Maddison said Canadian Sea King helicopters have also been stripped of some equipment so they can be used as troop transports to move soldiers to shore.

U.S. officers, versed in amphibious operations, will act as mentors for the Canadians.

Navies around the world are concentrating on operating in what is referred to as the littoral zone, essentially coastal areas. A Canadian ship that could be used in such areas might have a role in a domestic crisis, for example, of providing aid and emergency supplies to parts of British Columbia hit by an earthquake. On the international scene such a force could be used in cases where there are no readily available airports or staging bases.

In terms of failing or failed states, Commodore Maddison said, "You could see this concept as useful in terms of going anywhere and to project force on land rapidly."

The Gunston Hall and Canadian ships are expected to return to Halifax by Nov. 20.

Anon

"In 2004, Canadian defence planners estimated that two used amphibious assault ships could be purchased for about $400 million. If Canada wanted to build two new ships the cost would be about $1.5 billion. Defence analysts say two such ships, one for the East and one for the West Coast, would be needed for Canada."

There's some bullshiit being sold here, pure and simple. For the same reason it's BS that two Iowas could provide coverage in the Pacific and the Atlantic. A two ship class would spend most of their time in maintainance, in training cycles and workups, and would rarely be available, especially when you needed them.

BB opponents have used the exact same argument for years.

Anon

Apparently they ARE very stupid, cause you can kill a LAV III with a 14.5mm HMG quite easily.

Canmoore

Yes, but the Taliban mainly uses hit and run tactics, and an RPG launcher is alot easier to carry around than a Heavy Machine Gun is. Most of these attacks on the LAV's consist of RPG ambush's, IED's or Suicide Bombers.

troung

Then the RPG-7 rockets are defective/badly stored or simply just missing the target. The sides don't look sloped if my memory holds true and they are not using any slat armor.

Of course being the bastard who fires an RPG-7 within range of the 25mm auto-cannon and CF small arms is not a lucky straw to draw.

The common Afghani problem, weapon handling skills...

I remember posting an article not long ago about the problems they had in fighting LAV-IIIs...

__________________
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

Canmoore

Most of the time they just miss the target...these fighters know that the second they fire that RPG, all hell is going to rain down on them. Its more of fire, then run away as fast as you can, and its not like the majority of the Taliban are expert rocketeers.

The armour on the LAV III is sloped, this is mainly designed to offer better protection from mines, however, as you said, it could have been a defective rocket that bounced off. In which case the crew are probably counting there blessings.

troung

You lazy EGOMANIC Canadians just need to send over some THICK SKINNED Gavin tracked light tanks!!! They could avoid the roads and with band-tracks could sneak up and surprise the Taliban teams. The thick hull could shrug off RPG-7s and allow the infantry to fight MOUNTED behind gunshields!!! Your LAV-III wheeled-truck deathtraps are road bound and lightly armored and cannot get off the roads and take the fight to the Taliban!!! No better then TF-Smith of GM-100!!!! THE SAME KIND OF VEHICLES THAT THE FRENCH WERE ANNIHILATED IN THE FIRST INDO-CHINA WAR! The Gavin is an ALL-TERRAIN LIGHT TRACKED ARMORED FIGHTING VEHICLE.

One of the "urban legends" being foisted by primarily Canadian LAV-III liars is that antitank mines do not pose a threat because a road-bound LAV-III ran over a small anti-personnel mine (not a surprise) and didn't get totally destroyed. ANY Army vehicle can run over an AP mine designed to blow a foot off via a few ounces of explosives and not be completely destroyed. But here is proof from the Canadians themselves: a web page describing how they are desperately trying to add a huge piece of underbody armor to LAV-IIIs to protectt hem from landmines. If the LAV-III is mine protected as the Canadian liars proclaim, why are the trying so hard to develop underbody mine armor? The LAV cannot afford any extra weight--knowing this it must be an urgent requirement because the truth is that the LAV IS POORLY PROTECTED AGAINST LANDMINES.

In contrast to the continued lies about the LAV-III, the "vanilla" M113 aluminum alloy armor is much lighter than LAV-III steel and can be thus thicker without weight penalty. Compared to the LAV-III's measly 14mm thick steel (little more than 0.5 of an inch), the M113A3 has rolled 5083/5086 H32 aluminum armor that varies from 1.5 to 1.75 inches (38.1mm to 44.45mm thick), not to mention spall liners inside the hull. We have not even talked about adding applique' armor to it yet---the applique' armor the M113A3 can carry because its NOT overweight and has extra reserve power WILL stop 14.5mm heavy machine gun bullets, in fact it can be types that defend against 30mm autocannon kinetic energy projectiles as well as RPGs.

So the M113A3 as-is has armor that is 3 times thicker and is thus much stronger and lighter than the LAV-III's thin steel. We can work with this and get a far greater level of protection against RPGs, 30mm autocannon and ATGMs using M113A3 Gavins! If you want to be in a thin-walled, air-filled rubber-tired LAV-III in a a shooting war, then the fitting nickname for the LAV-III would be the "Custer" as in being surrounded by enemies and annihilated as he was at the battle of Little Big Horn because he refused to use common sense. Custer thought he could ride his way out of any trouble, in the same kind of hubris the rubber-tired fanatics think will save them from "Indians with RPGs and ATGMS

Take your Gavin tracks and upgrade them to a M-113A4 with the hybrid-electric drive, band tracks and they will do much better!!! Plus you can sling load a Gavin on a helicopter!!!! It can be flown in by C-130 or slung under a CH-53E. And give it a V shaped hull to make it mine proof. Further its tracks can run over mines that would kill the RUBBER TIRES of a LAV-III death-truck. The Gavin light track is tracked and can take an IED far better then a LAV-III BS-TRUCK riding on 8 air filled RUBBER tires stuck on the roads. The Gavin can provide SHOCK ACTION against the Taliban!!! The LAV-III cannot go off road and is not armed or protected to fight the Taliban.

The Gavin can do this because it has extra power and weight-carrying capability since its 28% more space/weight efficient than a BLOATED LAV-III armored TRUCK, rolls on weight spreading and compact tracked propulsion. It's about time you Canadians take war serious and stop playing board games!!!!

The so-called "legacy" M113A3 tracked AFV kicks the avante garde' ******** LAV-III/IAV wheeled armored car in the ass by 4 decades of COMBAT SUCCESS; the LAV-III/IAV's only "track" record is a LEGACY OF FAILURE.

The Gavin is the greatest armored fighting vehicle of all time, ever, period.

BFD15

It was my understanding the Canadian Forces had upgraded a couple hundred M-113 personnel carriers, but to what standard I do not know. Also I read a news report the other day involving the Minister of National Defence was recieving criticism because DND has made an order for 50 sets of the band tracks for the upgraded M-113s with options for more. Maybe someone is thinking like you Troung. The story made mention the M-113s were not being considered for use in Afganistan, but the way things appear to work when you see how the Leopard deployment was denied it probably means the M-113s are being loaded on a C-17 as I write this .