# The All Mighty Itlis



## Mud Crawler (3 Dec 2000)

The other i turned on my left and faced a itlis...i got sick and vomited all around.Shouldnt we get some REAL 4x4 vehicule?Hell my civilian Jeep Laredo would do a better job!The Itlis looks like its built on a cat frame.I feel like if i sit in it, i might break it.In Denmark they have nice mercedes 4x4, with a cable cutter wielded on the bumper so you don‘t get decapitated when you encounter so metal wire tied between 2 trees(or however you write that brown pole with green leaves tied to it).I wonder if a lieutnant as the power to allow the wielding of such cable cutters on the itlis.If you wanna see what im talking about, go to  http://www.tactical.dk .


----------



## RCA (3 Dec 2000)

As much as I prefered the old pattern 64 jeeps I have to admit you have to really work at it to get the Iltis stuck. They can pretty much go anywhere. However the drawbacks are it can really carry only two the rear seats are useless other than for radios and kit, and the other one is they are impossible to sleep in. As for the cable cutters there is a bracket on the front of the veh where one can be attached. (I‘m pretty sure the armd recce use them all the time). As for civ pattern jeeps, can any one say CJ. The only good civ pattern veh we ever had was the 5/4 ton cargo - the CP never funtioned properly.


----------



## Travis Silcox (4 Dec 2000)

Ilitis are decent vechiles, you can take them into the bush, fairly reliable, topspeed is at about 130 km.

look at it this way, at leasts it‘s not as crappy as those hummers the states have


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Dec 2000)

The US Army has Humvees, TYVM - rich civvies drive Hummers.

My friend owns a US Army HUMV - very loud, not much top speed - reminded me a lot of being in an MLVW in some ways.

They should have stayed with the Willy‘s MB/Ford GPW.  4-cylinder engine that a monkey could fix, great traction/go anywhere.


----------



## Mud Crawler (5 Dec 2000)

So in your opinion, whats the best bush vehicule an amry can own?


----------



## Mud Crawler (5 Dec 2000)

Oh by the way, you can farely weel survive a mine explosion with a hummer, maybe not a jumpin mine with delayed explosion, deadly at 30 meters around explosion point, but its always better than an Itlis wich would be thorned apart.Its true the old jeeps kicked ass.Very very very very very very simple mechanics very easy to fix and really reliable.Im wondering what technology can offer better than that?Good ol‘ reliable Jeeps 


Thank God for bullet proof vests!


----------



## Travis Silcox (5 Dec 2000)

i didn‘t exactly understand your first paragraph..

but hummers (humvees) WILL survive a mine... only the engine and the people inside will all be dead. 

I know of a person who drove an iltis and hit a land mine while doing a recce, he survived (all limbs and everything), so i think the iltis isn‘t that bad =)


----------



## ocknod (7 Dec 2000)

Boy‘s Boy‘s Boy‘s.....You really shouldn‘t start hammering on the Iltis before your really get a chance to use the jeep.   I‘ve had the old polecat up to the windows fording rivers, had it buried up to the doors in mud, blasted through 3 foot snowbanks.  The fact is the Iltis is a fine jeep for what the CF needs it for.   Hummers are far too wide and clumsy, They can‘t get into the tight little hides and harbours that the Iltis can.


----------



## JRMACDONALD (10 Dec 2000)

MNES AND VEHICLES DO NOT  MIX!!!  I DO NOT WANT TO SEE OPINIONS  OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN THE VEH , LET ALONE DRIVEN  THEM, LET ALONE HAVE NOT SEEN THEM BLOWN UP!!!
A mine is designed to DESTROY  a vehicle and people, WAKE UP!!!!


----------



## Brock (11 Dec 2000)

Mines and light utility vehicles don‘t mix.  I‘ve driven in the Iltis lots of times and it is a good little vehicle.  Yes, it does need to be replaced, but the Hummer is not a good replacement.  It is simply overkill, for the job it is designed to do.  An excellent replacement that would improve capabilities without breaking the CF bank would be the newest Land Rover Defender 110 model.  It is slightly longer than the Iltis, but about the  same width.  In addition is the future the CF could replace the current Whitestar (Iveco-Fiat) LSVW with the Land Rover Defender 130 if they wanted.  The topic of mines strikes is full of rhetoric.  People must understand that a light vehicles‘ armour is only supposed to save the life of people in side of the vehicle from small arms fire 5.56-7.62mm max and small anti-personnel/vehicle mines, not tank mines.  The Hummer is too big for 99% of th jobs it is required to do an far to expensive and complex to maintain.


----------



## bossi (12 Dec 2000)

... speaking of crappy vehicles, here‘s something from today‘s Ottawa Citizen (I found it most interesting that "... Both DND and Western Star declined to release results of the vehicle‘s 1994 re-test conducted at the Nevada Automotive Test Centre ):

Military forced to recall ‘life-threatening‘ trucks
Fires, hazardous tire carrier reported
Patti-Ann Finlay, Citizen Special

TORONTO -- The backbone of the Canadian army‘s transportation fleet has been recalled for a second time after a series of vehicle fires, reports of a defective tire carrier and lawsuits by injured personnel. 

Canadian Forces bases across the country have rounded up 2,815 Light Support Vehicle Wheeled (LSVW) trucks, manufactured by Western Star in Kelowna, B.C., and sold to the federal government in 1992 for $225 million, to fix the fire hazard. 

"We‘ve had fires that have ranged from about $300 (in damages) to a complete vehicle loss" worth as much as $80,000, said Gus MacDonald, a civilian engineer with the Department of National Defence, who is overseeing the recall. 

The Department of National Defence estimates average fire costs at $18,674 per damaged vehicle. 

Western Star is replacing the vehicle‘s starter, believed to be the source of the 28 vehicle fires reported since the LSVW went into service in 1995, through a four-month "retrofit" of the entire fleet that will cost an estimated $1 million, said Mr. MacDonald. The Defence Department said there have been no injuries resulting from the fires. 

While the repair work is being performed by Western Star, the project is being paid for by DND and Bosch, the subcontractor that manufactured the starter, said Dennis Umrysh, director of support vehicles, project management, for DND. 

Internal DND correspondence from 1998, before the first recall, concluded the initial series of 12 fires was the result of a manufacturing defect or design deficiency with the solenoid component of the starter. Briefing notes to the defence minister dated May 22, 1998, said the entire LSVW fleet was at risk of catching fire. 

Western Star paid to replace the solenoid during the first recall at an estimated cost of up to $2 million. 

"We‘ve all come to the conclusion that the first program didn‘t work," said Mr. MacDonald. 

Western Star, recently acquired by Freightliner LLC in Oregon, referred to the current repair project as an "upgrade." 

"It‘s a fleet enhancement," said John Sauer, Western Star‘s purchasing manager for defence and specialty products. 

Mr. MacDonald said DND is also tendering bids for another repair project intended to fix the LSVW‘s spare tire carrier -- a plan that will require another estimated $1 million. 

Some soldiers have been hurt while using the truck‘s spare tire carrier. "The scope of injuries has been anything from a facial laceration to a severe facial laceration with a loss of an eye," said Mr. MacDonald. 

Western Star and Dew Engineering, a subcontractor and the manufacturer of the spare tire carrier, face two lawsuits by former Forces members for injuries allegedly related to a design flaw with the carrier. 

Former privates Daniel Rummery of Winnipeg and Brendan Wornes of Calgary were discharged from the military as a result of injuries sustained from their accidents. 

"They don‘t want to have to admit that this thing -- this tire carrier -- this truck is a very dangerous, life-threatening piece of equipment," said Mr. Rummery. 

The 26-year-old former combat engineer lost his right eye while changing a tire on the support vehicle during the Winnipeg flood in April 1997. 

"The tire mechanism failed and swung back and struck my face," said Mr. Rummery. 

Lawyers representing Western Star and the Department of National Defence refused to comment on the litigation. 

In its statements of defence, Western Star denies any responsibility for the injuries and claims they are the result of soldier carelessness and/or improper training. 

The truck is one of the Forces‘ mainstay non-combat vehicles. Used in a variety of military operations, including the transportation of troops and emergency medical services, the vehicle is deployed in civilian emergencies as well as peacekeeping operations. 

The truck‘s recall is the latest episode in a long-standing list of LSVW problems faced by DND and endured by the army‘s rank and file -- the primary users of the cargo truck. 

After Western Star, a newcomer to the defence industry at the time, secured the contract with DND in 1992, the vehicle was tested in 1993 and, following unfavourable results, again in 1994. 

The first report, based on a seven-month test at the now dismantled Land Engineering Test Establishment near Ottawa, shows the LSVW truck did not pass four of six categories. Failure in one category would have been enough to fail it. 

The executive summary of the report states that "in excess of 150 fleet shortcomings were discovered." 

National Defence claims modifications were made and that the LSVW passed subsequent testing, requested and paid for by Western Star, before it went into mass production at the Kelowna plant. 

The vehicle has been widely criticized by the army‘s 20,000 soldiers. 

"I‘m scared to drive it," said one non-commissioned officer who asked not to be identified. "I don‘t feel safe at all in that truck." 

Mr. Rummery concurs with that assessment. 

"That thing is the worst piece of equipment they‘ve ever used. I think it‘s one of the worst pieces of hardware for its age," he said. 

Mr. Wornes, 30, said problems with the vehicle date back to its earliest days. 

"When it came into service (in 1995) ... you couldn‘t walk into any shop on the base ... without seeing a massive amount of LSVWs sitting on the hoist for one reason or another," said Mr. Wornes, a former vehicle technician with the army. 

He was injured preparing a demonstration with the tire carrier and underwent reconstructive surgery to the left side of his face following his March 1995 accident. 

He still suffers chronic headaches and facial pain. 

The truck manufacturer cites DND‘s "failing to conduct appropriate tests to ensure the carrier was fit for purpose," in naming the federal government as a third party in the lawsuits. 

Both DND and Western Star declined to release results of the vehicle‘s 1994 re-test conducted at the Nevada Automotive Test Centre. 

"We don‘t have any authority to release that report," said National Defence Headquarters spokesman Lt.-Cmdr. Philip Anido. "The tests were done for Western Star, ordered by Western Star, and I was told directly that they were not the property of DND." 

Donna Olson, Western Star‘s in-house lawyer, said: "I just can‘t see what would be Western Star‘s interest or incentive -- or why we would want to release those results." 

DND officials said they are not worried about the vehicle‘s performance or maintenance record. The LSVWs are expected to be used by the army for another 10 to 15 years, said Mr. Umrysh. 

He added that problems are common in the early years of any fleet.


----------



## McG (5 Feb 2001)

Wonder if any of that LSVW crap could have been avoided had they not closed LETE at about the same time.


----------



## bossi (7 Feb 2001)

Exactly!


----------



## 2 Charlie (7 Feb 2001)

The LSVW, Light Squeaky Vehicle Wheeled.  As the article points out, it failed its trials miserably.  There were no mods done to pass the second trial, the standards were lowered.  In essence political intervention was the rule of the day and the LSVW was served to DND/CF literally by order in council.  â€˜Got to save Canadian jobs at what ever expense you knowâ€™.

As for the venerable Iltis, aka deutch for polecat.  When Bombardier picked up the rights to build it, it was about the same time the Bundeswehr deemed it to be pretty much unsafe.  They were phasing it out as we were rolling them out.

The Iltis has served us well; unfortunately, there is an acceptance that it is not as safe as once thought, hence due to fleet life and safety concerns the need for a new vehicle.  Anyone notice that the Iltis is not used very much abroad, just a thought.

Now for those slamming the HUMV, HMMV, or Hummer.  Unless you have had the chance to operate one or can validate your beliefs, as I have been told in the recent past, check firing.  The Hummer was designed for multiple roles and does all of them very well.  If we had of adopted the Hummer instead of the LSVW (IVECO) we would not be in half the predicament we are in today.  We could have replaced two vehicle concepts with one, and developed numerous more Canuck derivatives to suit our force needs.  Instead we got the little nightmare that keeps on going, going and squeelllll.  (Yes I am aware of the brake pad replacement, just a little humour).

As for those with mines on their minds, shake your heads, wheeled vehicles, light skinned, talk to retired Mjr Henwood (I believe this is his name), and ask him what he thinks of the Iltis.  Hummers have a proven record for mine strike/occupant survival; of course the Hummer is usually destroyed.  But hey this is a foolhardy topic, mines and light skinned wheeled donâ€™t mix.

As an after thought, the cost per LSWV was a joke compared to the equivalent off an IVECO European production line, ironically, for those who like to investigate, compare the cost to an off the line Hummer.

For a country our size and with the size of our military, it is to bad we don‘t have a system like the Finnish, put out a proposal and buy off the open world market.  Best dollar for the bang so to speak.  This continuous concept of built in Canada is killing us financially.  

The C-7 family cost about twice per unit as the open market price tag.  We now sell them internationally, but the size of the orders will never cover the investment of Made in Canada.

Same with the Iltis, MLVW, LSVW, HLVW.  The ADATS is another very evident example with the associated GDF 005 35mm and Skyguard price tag.  

Made in Canada at what real cost?  I personally don‘t think we have done a good job of defence spending.  

Look at the new Frigates, the government dumped in millions with the belief we could sell them on the world market, no sales yet.

So, make your own comments or rebuttles, but at the end of the day that peice of kit was built by the lowest bidder, just too bad it cost more to build it here.

UBIQUE


----------



## Gordon Dundas (7 Feb 2001)

> Originally posted by McG:
> *Wonder if any of that LSVW crap could have been avoided had they not closed LETE at about the same time.*


Let‘s face it ! Why do you think they closed it in the first place, it would‘nt passs LSVW!


----------



## Yard Ape (12 Mar 2001)

This is what was already discussed on this topic previously:

 on the old War Diary

 Yard Ape


----------



## McG (19 Mar 2001)

A HMMVW is not good protection from a mine.  In fact it is very poor protection from a mine.  Here is one which hit a mine in Bosnia.  I wish I could share some of the details on the type of mine and its effects on the crew, but the picture did not come with this information.


----------

