# New "HLVW" type Mercedes Truck in Gagetown?



## honestyrules (3 Oct 2006)

Hi! Somebody out there knows what's going on with those trucks? Are they trial only? They are of the same size as an HL and the one I seen was a "PLS TYPE" truck. There was markings in the windows too (something like in a car show) with all the specs on the vehicule.


----------



## TN2IC (3 Oct 2006)

Trail I believe...


----------



## Love793 (3 Oct 2006)

They're being assessed for replacement of the MLVW.  You can see more on Army news. One of the episodes between 45-55 I think.


----------



## honestyrules (3 Oct 2006)

> They're being assessed for replacement of the MLVW.


Cool! But why that big to replace a medium sized (2 1/2 ton)?


----------



## TN2IC (3 Oct 2006)

PLS... it makle sure it can handel the PLS deal.


----------



## Howie (3 Oct 2006)

As good of a truck as it was and still is, the MLVW wasnt known for having an abundance of power. From what Ive seen, having PLS capability is pretty much a waste. If we used it in the field like we should, it isnt a bad idea, however we dont.


----------



## TN2IC (4 Oct 2006)

Ture Howie on the PLS deal.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Oct 2006)

Well guys.  I will disagree with both of you on the PLS.  It is a very useful tool.  If you have ever been in 'places' where it has been used a lot, you would see the advantages of it.  It has seen a wide variety of uses, and is very adaptable.  I ran a PLS Section and the things we could do go far beyond both your experiences.  The Engineers also find it a useful piece of kit, as do the Sigs.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Oct 2006)

Yes yes we do  ;D

How else would we get our bridging pieces to the task site? or move the ROWPU. 

 :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Oct 2006)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=ec355a40-7809-40a7-aa14-15feadfdd810&k=54443



> "They're taking a beating out here," said Warrant Officer John Blain, who runs the maintenance section at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa and who is responsible for the team that keeps the vehicles running here.
> 
> "I was looking at some of the [heavy trucks] today. We're keeping them rolling because that's what we do, but it's an awful lot of bubble gum and Band-Aids."
> 
> Mr. O'Connor said his government is "*looking at rushing through a bunch of heavy trucks*," but that they needed to be armoured.





> O'Connor lands amid attacks in Kandahar
> Mechanic has complaint
> Donald McArthur, CanWest News Service
> Published: Wednesday, August 30, 2006



As I remember these stories from O'Connor's last visit the point was made that the MLVW replacement project (which has been approved) is separate from the HLVW project (which has yet to be approved).  Perhaps these are the rush replacements for the HLVWs he was talking about rather than MLVW replacements.


----------



## ringo (5 Oct 2006)

Is the Oshkosh MTT being offered for part of truck replacement program?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Oct 2006)

Howie said:
			
		

> As good of a truck as it was and still is, the MLVW wasnt known for having an abundance of power. From what Ive seen, having PLS capability is pretty much a waste. If we used it in the field like we should, it isnt a bad idea, however we dont.



You never got to drive the deuce did you? I think the biggest problem with the MLVW, is that the tranny and the engine never seemed to a happy couple.


----------



## TN2IC (6 Oct 2006)

The Deuce is fun... you got to try the Deuce.


----------



## STONEY (28 Oct 2006)

The big Mercedes Army truck (no licence plates) was on static display at the Halifax international airshow right inside the main entrance in early september.  I asked around but nobody seemed to have any explanation of why it was there .  It sounds like it was the same one as in Gagetown with manufacturers data displayed in winshield.  Also in the Army display area there were a lot of MILCOTS trucks and when asked why the Regs were using trucks orignally meant for Reserves was told they used them to tow the LSVW's down from Gagetown besides posession is 9/10th of the law.

Toodles.


----------



## Nug (28 Oct 2006)

STONEY said:
			
		

> The big Mercedes Army truck (no licence plates) was on static display at the Halifax international airshow right inside the main entrance in early september.  I asked around but nobody seemed to have any explanation of why it was there .  It sounds like it was the same one as in Gagetown with manufacturers data displayed in winshield.  Also in the Army display area there were a lot of MILCOTS trucks and when asked why the Regs were using trucks orignally meant for Reserves was told they used them to tow the LSVW's down from Gagetown besides posession is 9/10th of the law.
> 
> Toodles.



Can you say Bison? ;D


----------



## geo (28 Oct 2006)

some milcots did go to reg units (not borrowed from the Reserves).... eg: MP Platoons.

Given that some changes were made to the GWagon allocation so that Res RECCE units could get some.... quite probable that the freed up Milcots found their way into Reg compounds


----------



## Trogdor (5 Dec 2006)

Reserve MP platoon in Ottawa has G Wagons now too.


----------



## recoverygod (5 Dec 2006)

I'm not sure anyone was around for the old CUCVs.  They were also a MILCOT type vehicle.  and was told to be for the Res only.  but when the Reg units were deployed, they only wanted to take the CUCv over the iltis, do to the fact that they were diesel. and more solid then the Iltis.  Now as for the Gwagon and MILCOT.  If I was dropping a large bag of cash for vehicles,  I would want them to be used as needed.  hence why both are dispersed over the whole army.  A great use of funds. I think anyways.


----------



## Trogdor (5 Dec 2006)

ringo said:
			
		

> Is the Oshkosh MTT being offered for part of truck replacement program?



I believe so, and I hope we get the Oshkosh truck.


----------



## Bomber (5 Dec 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=ec355a40-7809-40a7-aa14-15feadfdd810&k=54443
> 
> As I remember these stories from O'Connor's last visit the point was made that the MLVW replacement project (which has been approved) is separate from the HLVW project (which has yet to be approved).  Perhaps these are the rush replacements for the HLVWs he was talking about rather than MLVW replacements.



HLVW are being mid life upgraded instead of replaced right away.  

Such a big truck to replace the 2.5 ton is to handle the armies bigger kit.  M777 with Ammo, engineer stuff, even 105's with det and ammo.  the MSVS from Oshkosh is a big truck, with a seven ton capacity, but it fits in a herc, and is being thorwn in as a replacemtn for the ML, and having driven it, I have to say, lets get it done with.  It is an awesome truck.


----------



## geo (5 Dec 2006)

recoverygod said:
			
		

> I'm not sure anyone was around for the old CUCVs.  They were also a MILCOT type vehicle.  and was told to be for the Res only.  but when the Reg units were deployed, they only wanted to take the CUCv over the iltis, do to the fact that they were diesel. and more solid then the Iltis.  Now as for the Gwagon and MILCOT.  If I was dropping a large bag of cash for vehicles,  I would want them to be used as needed.  hence why both are dispersed over the whole army.  A great use of funds. I think anyways.


and before the CUCV was the Five quad, and the two generations of dodge power wagons that replaced the three quads..... ayup - I missed the horse & buggy period though


----------



## Petard (5 Dec 2006)

Bomber said:
			
		

> HLVW are being mid life upgraded instead of replaced right away.
> 
> Such a big truck to replace the 2.5 ton is to handle the armies bigger kit.  M777 with Ammo,... even 105's with det and ammo...  the MSVS from Oshkosh is a big truck, ...  It is an awesome truck.



What are you basing your conclusion on? 
I'm interested in your opinion because I am the trial officer for a potential gun tractor (and limber) replacement, what you've hit on is only a fragment of what has to be measured, but I am just wondering aloud, what makes you think it is an "awesome truck"?


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2006)

I don't want to divert this discussion but your "limber" reference intrigued me.  Are limbers still in use or is it a case of an old idea being new again?  The last gun that I was aware of with a limber was the old 25 pdr.


----------



## geo (5 Dec 2006)

I remember the old L5 pack howitzer that 5 RALC used to carry in the box of the 2 1/2

Having seen 10 ton PLS in use within the CF and commercial variants in all sizes, I always wondered why "the guns" never opted to have a tilt bed ammo and stores unit for a 2 1/2, 3 or 5 ton gun tractor.


----------



## Petard (5 Dec 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Having seen 10 ton PLS in use within the CF and commercial variants in all sizes, I always wondered why "the guns" never opted to have a tilt bed ammo and stores unit for a 2 1/2, 3 or 5 ton gun tractor.



Oddly enough Geo, that's exactly what we trialed last Sept., an HLVW PLS carrying 3 small sea containers modified to be used as a SEV for a gun tractor. 

BTW I use the term "limber" very loosely, it could mean another vehicle carrying primarily ammo, or in the traditional sense, i.e. a kind of small trailer hauling an extra load.

But the whole SOR for the gun tractor is a complicated issue, and remains to be resolved, this is happening soon.


----------



## geo (5 Dec 2006)

Heh....
Yeah - you shoulda seen how complicated it waas with the L5 in the back of the 2 1/2.
They had this big "A" frame on the front bumper, feeding a winch cable thru the cab thru the box to the gun's towing ring.  There were rails / tracks that they would store on the vehicles side.  Going into action, they would have to lay down the ramps and run down the gun to bring it into action ...... almost like a "keystone cop" commic strip... BUT things got real interesting if the tow ring got caught on the tailgate/ truck bed as it was winched back inside.  the operator was in front of the vehicle and unable to see what was going on out back.... saw one instance where cable was pulled tighter and tighter till it snapped, broke all the bows and carved a neat grove in the cab roof & hood - also scaring the bejesus out of the winch operator.

Ah yes - there's no life like it.


----------



## ringo (6 Dec 2006)

Have they given any thougth to using an LAV III as a tow vehicle for M777.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2006)

ringo said:
			
		

> Have they given any thougth to using an LAV III as a tow vehicle for M777.



Although the Grizzley was used to tow the C1/2/3, it had two rear doors, not a ramp.  The Ramp on the LAV III would negate towing any arty piece.  Add on the spare tire and there is no way that the crew could mount or exit the LAV.


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2006)

WRT using the LAV or any other kind of MOWAG based vehicle would be the problem with ammunition and stores.  the Inside box of this class of vehicle is just too darned tight to fit staff & stores at any one time - which means that a "gun" would require LAV AND TRUCK.


----------



## TN2IC (6 Dec 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> - I missed the horse & buggy period though




Does your 404's have horse and buggy on them? I'm just kidding my Chimo friend.

Cheers,
TN2IC


----------



## old medic (6 Dec 2006)

Mine does  :-[

It's still better than an LSVW


----------



## TN2IC (6 Dec 2006)

Amen to that old medic.


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2006)

No horse and buggy.... though there were a couple of "dogs"..............


----------



## old medic (6 Dec 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> No horse and buggy.... though there were a couple of "dogs"..............



##@#... still got one of those too.


----------



## Petard (6 Dec 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> WRT using the LAV or any other kind of MOWAG based vehicle would be the problem with ammunition and stores.  the Inside box of this class of vehicle is just too darned tight to fit staff & stores at any one time - which means that a "gun" would require LAV AND TRUCK.



Which is the Status Quot with the M777 at the moment, ie a LAV II (Bison) and an up-armoured HLVW.
2 vehicles has been the norm for Artillery units deployed on Ops (the exception being in Kabul) for about 10 years now, yet our doctrine hasn't actually supported this, it has only 1 vehicle doing the job, and so the second vehicle has had to be "borrowed" from other units. This doctrine is in the middle of being changed right now.

But this will lead to a problem of what to give the low readiness (and Reserve) units if a 2 vehicle combination like that is what is acceptable (needed), and right now all they have is one vehicle; the problem being can we afford that and, if not, is there a compromise if force generation is to equal force employment. It's not likely this new truck, by itself, will be meet the requirement of FG=FE.

There's a lot more to all this, but in the Arty world that's the crux of it, and we'll have to wait and see what the new year brings.


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Dec 2006)

Cripes, Master Gunner, we've gone back a hundred years. At the end of the nineteenth century a gun detachment - called a sub-section at the time - consisted of a gun and limber towed by a six horse team and a wagon and limber towed by another six horse team. The wagon et al waited a distance behind the guns to come forward to resupply ammunition, hence the term 'wagon lines' instead of A1 echelon that used to be used in the artillery.


----------



## Petard (6 Dec 2006)

lol
it's not that bad sir 

That's just the issue with the towed gun part of our capability, a right now problem that deals with what I thought the topic was about, namely new trucks we've seen around.
There are other future capabilities being kicked around, but the Army hasn't quite made up its mind yet with what they should be (HIMARS, unmanned munitions, NLOS-C et al), I just didn't want to hijack the thread too much with Arty stuff. But I guess I just did. ;D


----------

