# War taking unexpectedly harsh toll on vehicles



## super26 (3 Apr 2007)

War taking unexpectedly harsh toll on vehicles
All LAV IIIs to be replaced within the year 
GRAEME SMITH 

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — All of Canada's LAV III armoured vehicles in Afghanistan will need to be replaced within the next six to eight months, Canada's army chief told troops Monday, because hard fighting and harsh conditions are taking a greater toll than expected.

“We're going to replace them faster than we'd planned,” Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie said of the vehicles that are the backbone of Canada's fighting force. 

The army's fleet of available LAVs, however, is shrinking because 20 of the $3.5-million Light Armoured Vehicles have been destroyed and they're no longer manufactured. The remaining ones will have to be refurbished for service.

In an open-air forum with troops in Kandahar last night, the general responsible for all Canadian land forces also described maintenance issues with two other military vehicles that have forced the military to scramble for spare parts and look at replacing old tanks.

Related to this article

Enlarge Image 
Articles 
Afghanistan police to get RCMP help, Day pledges  
Game on! It's a hockey-heavy Easter for troops  
Pitched battles in Afghanistan 'unlikely'  
Hillier predicts renewed attacks  
The perils of sniffing out safety on Afghan roads  
Follow this writer 
Add GRAEME SMITH to my e-mail alerts  
Latest Comments 
" Asterix M from Canada writes: It feels like Canada always... 
I noticed how the article said 'When Canada bought 75 of them... 
"if the anti-american printing presses break down then you buy... 
I love how this turns into a Harper hate-fest even though it... 
33 reader comments | Join the conversation 
 Problems have cropped up with the new RG-31 Nyala, the commander said. When Canada bought 75 of them from South Africa last year, the vehicles didn't come with any guarantee that Canada could also buy sufficient spare parts.

“They break a hell of a lot faster than we thought,” he said.

But some of the worst problems described by the commander concerned the Leopard tanks sent to Afghanistan late last year. Canada has only 17 tanks on the battlefield, but they serve as a symbol of military power in districts where many people remain unsure about which side has more strength.

Lt.-Gen. Leslie said he hopes Stephen Harper will replace the old tanks, adding that he expects the Prime Minister's decision within about a week.

The Leopard tanks are 30 years old and are vulnerable to the increasingly powerful suicide bombs faced by Canadian troops, he said, and with temperatures climbing every day he expressed concern about how the tanks will handle the 55-degree heat.

“They're on their last legs,” he said.

Government researchers have been studying ways to prepare the tanks for summer, but the ideas — such as outfitting soldiers with cold-water cooling vests, or installing air-conditioning — would involve modifications to tanks the military had already planned to decommission four years ago.

“We're either going to replace them, or not,” Lt.-Gen. Leslie said. “If we replace them, thank God. If the decision is ‘No,' we'll suck it up, we'll come up with some workarounds, and we'll soldier on. Quite frankly, we'll see within the next week or so.”

The commander made the comments as he answered questions from soldiers, the majority of whom asked about vehicle issues. The forum came at the end of a visit by Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, Treasury Board President Vic Toews, and Helena Guergis, secretary of state for foreign affairs, as they toured the Provincial Reconstruction Team's small base in Kandahar city.

Lt.-Gen. Leslie thanked the ministers for the support of their government, which last year approved the largest increase in military spending in decades. In some cases, he said, more money won't immediately solve the problems: The shortage of spare parts for the Nyala has been caused by high demand among the countries that operate the vehicles, and it's impossible to find enough parts.

“It's not a question of money,” he said. “There's a lack of widgets.”

But when the parts become available, Lt.-Gen. Leslie said, they will be expensive. Turning to Mr. Toews, from the Treasury Board, he said the government has promised to spend whatever is necessary.

“The minister's standing right here, and he said he'd pay the cheque. Did he not? He's nodding,” he said, jokingly.

Other supplements to the battered fleet of vehicles are already on their way to Afghanistan, he added. In addition to the 45 boxy, tracked M113 armoured vehicles that arrived on the last ship, he said, another 100 M113s will be prepared in the next six to eight months and shipped over.

Within the same time frame, the military also plans to buy another 85 heavily armoured trucks, adding to the 300 armoured trucks now in the final stages of the purchasing process.

Besides trying to replace equipment, the commander also told his troops that he needs their help to replace themselves. The next rotations of soldiers in Afghanistan will require trainers, he said, making an impassioned plea for troops to stay in the military after they return to Canada.

“I need you to come back,” he said. “When you're finished this tour, work with us to change the culture of the army, to pass along your combat experience and your practical wisdom.”


----------



## GAP (3 Apr 2007)

Please supply a link to the article.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2007)

Here's the link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070403.wafghanvehicles03/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

I'm glad to read that LGen Leslie is hammering on the bigger issues: more money,not just for vehicles, and retention.  Maybe he reads Ruxted.ca?


----------



## GAP (3 Apr 2007)

Either great minds think/read alike, or fools seldom differ....  

Anyone have any idea how many of the 300 new trucks are slated for the sandbox?


----------



## nowhere_man (3 Apr 2007)

If the Tanks and Lav's are going to need replacing maybe instead of buying Globemasters they should of put that money into replacing the tanks and Lav's. 

I mean theres no point in owning heavy lift planes if you haven't anything heavy to lift.


----------



## mudrecceman (3 Apr 2007)

nowhere_man said:
			
		

> If the Tanks and Lav's are going to need replacing maybe instead of buying Globemasters they should of put that money into replacing the tanks and Lav's.
> 
> I mean theres no point in owning heavy lift planes if you haven't anything heavy to lift.



Conversely, one could argue "there is no point in owning anything heavy if you haven't any heavy lift planes".

To each of those arguments, I would point out that there is a real requirement for tanks, LAVs and the Globemaster.  It isn't as simple as "pick one" when all 3 are vital to current operations, training and the ability to do the job.

So, ya, IMHO, we need all those, and probably more too.

MRM


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Apr 2007)

So please tell me why this is an unexpected turn of events...I remember asking about replacements for the LAV's as soon as the mission was annouced.

Now the Tank issue I can understand and the part supply for the Nayla's. But for the LAV's it was clear that we were going to wear them out. Likely they will replace them with the LAV IV fitted with a turret ring and reuse the turrets?


----------



## Babbling Brooks (3 Apr 2007)

Read what LGen Leslie said about the tanks, folks:



> "We're either going to replace them, or not," Lt.-Gen. Leslie said. "If we replace them, thank God. If the decision is 'No,' we'll suck it up, we'll come up with some workarounds, and we'll soldier on. Quite frankly, we'll see within the next week or so."



The CLS is saying that there's a plan to replace Canada's main battle tank, and that that plan will be approved or not this week.

That's big news.

And to those who wonder where the money will come from, note that we're cancelling the MGS purchase with only about $16M in total costs incurred, which leaves about $634M in already-allocated money to find another tank replacement.

What can you buy with over $600M?


----------



## GAP (3 Apr 2007)

Last summer, when this issue originally came up, I sent an email to the MND regarding there being an opportunity for Canada to tag onto the last production run of the LAVIII. I received an email back essentially poo pooing the need for any more LAV's and that we had purchased enough and no more would be needed  to meet out needs. Go figure.....


----------



## Journeyman (3 Apr 2007)

Adding absolutely nothing of value to this thread...... 

Nice illustration with the article; how long have we been tying antennae to the back deck?   ;D


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (3 Apr 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Last summer, when this issue originally came up, I sent an email to the MND regarding there being an opportunity for Canada to tag onto the last production run of the LAVIII. I received an email back essentially poo pooing the need for any more LAV's and that we had purchased enough and no more would be needed  to meet out needs. Go figure.....



"I'm a bureaucrat....I know better than you right up to the point my incompetence is exposed at which point I look for a scapegoat."


Matthew.   :blotto:


----------



## GAP (3 Apr 2007)

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> Read what LGen Leslie said about the tanks, folks:
> 
> The CLS is saying that there's a plan to replace Canada's main battle tank, and that that plan will be approved or not this week.
> 
> ...



Was there not a bit of a fire sale over in Germany a couple of  months back? $600M goes a long way for a bunch of slightly used and abused tanks.


----------



## GAP (3 Apr 2007)

Here's the CTV Article and Video interview with Gen Leslie
Video Link
Canada to accelerate rebuilding of LAV-3 vehicles
Updated Tue. Apr. 3 2007 8:25 AM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

The Canadian army is speeding up the rebuilding of LAV-3 armoured vehicles that have been pummelled by heavy fighting and Afghanistan's harsh terrain. 

Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie confirmed that most of the army's fleet of light armoured vehicles, which are repaired at a plant in Edmonton, will be serviced within the next six to eight months. 

"The equipment is being hard-used," Leslie told Canada AM on Tuesday. "The Canadian army has about 600 of these light armoured vehicles and every 12 months or so we have to replace the stock. The current fleet is (already) getting to the stage where we have to think about shifting them around." 

CTV's Paul Workman reported Tuesday from Kandahar that 20 of the $3.5-million vehicles have been destroyed and cannot be replaced. 

"The difficulty is that this vehicle is no longer manufactured and it's really the backbone of the vehicles the Canadian Forces use here," said Workman. 
More on link


----------



## Babbling Brooks (3 Apr 2007)

> Was there not a bit of a fire sale over in Germany a couple of  months back? $600M goes a long way for a bunch of slightly used and abused tanks.



If I were a betting man, I'd be looking not only at the Germans, but at which other countries might be in the same position as Germany...


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Apr 2007)

In my opinion the reporting of this story is all over the map. Apples, oranges and ash trays are being mixed willy nilly, primarily by journalists who are not in country. I have heard several widely varying versions of events on the same news outlet(s) in a matter of a few hours. The most coherent explanation was from a CTV reporter (Roger Smith?) who is travelling with the party. The CTV Newsnet host this morning launched into a long explanation which missed all the points; Smith? refuted her and explained that there is a LAV rebuild program on in Canada, along with some facts re the tanks and RG31s.

Leslie is talking about returning LAVs to Canada for rebuild, something that is a normal part of the life cycle of armoured vehicles. He is not saying we have to replace them, although in my opinion it would be nice to have some more.

The RG31s have a spare parts supply problem, something that all users are having to cope with.

As for the Leopards, it is clear he hopes to receive approval to buy some new(er) tanks. If this is not forthcoming, as he says, we'll soldier on.

This story, which should be straight forward, is being further complicated because of the deployment of some more M113s to theatre, Some people are interpreting this as a replacement of the LAVs by them.

Rant ends.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Apr 2007)

I wonder if the M113’s coming over are the Engineering versions, which would be quite useful.


----------



## Canadian Sig (3 Apr 2007)

According to one source the New Leos have been approved ( for lease ) so that will surely help out.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/04/03/3906930-cp.html


CP exclusive: Canada to lease new tanks for Afghanistan

By MURRAY BREWSTER
    


   

OTTAWA (CP) - A federal cabinet committee has given the green light to the lease of 20 state-of-the-art tanks to replace aging armoured vehicles in Afghanistan, The Canadian Press has learned. 

The cabinet priorities and planning committee approved the lease of the German-built Leopard A6M tanks last week, said a Defence Department source, who asked not to be named. 

The recommendation, which is unlikely to be overturned, is now on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's desk for final approval. 

The news Tuesday came as Gen. Andrew Leslie, the country's top army officer, said he might have to consider pulling existing tanks - which don't have air conditioning - out of service in Afghanistan this summer because of the heat. 

He also told troops in Kandahar to expect a decision from the prime minister on the new tanks within a week. 

The new tanks have air conditioning, as well as improved protection against road-side bombs and suicide vehicles, both of which have been packing progressively bigger punches lately. 

The army has a handful of older Leopard tanks, which are currently doing duty in western Kandahar as part of NATO's Operation Achilles. 

The deal, which apparently includes access to ample spare parts, also gives Canada the option to purchase an unspecified number of additional tanks at a later date. 

Reports last winter suggested that in addition to a lease, the army wanted to purchase 80 new Leopards, but the source said that number is likely to be scaled back. 

Harper wouldn't bite on questions about the future of the vehicles. 

"Cabinet has been discussing the tank issue and we'll have an announcement on that shortly," he said in Kitchener, Ont. 

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, in Montreal for a speech, said he wasn't aware the issue was resolved. 

A Defence Department spokesman didn't deny that a lease arrangement has been struck. 

"We are exploring a number of options to address an operational requirement," said Lt. Adam Thomson. "However, we have nothing to announce at this moment." 

The defence source could not say how much the arrangement was worth, but brand new Leopard tanks cost roughly US $6 million each. 

Currently, the army has 17 of its old 45-tonne tanks patrolling the desert and dirt roadways of rural Kandahar. The biggest drawback to the vehicles is their lack of air conditioning in a climate where daytime summer temperatures soar above 50C. 

Defence Department researchers have looked at installing air conditioners in the vehicles but that would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per vehicle. 

Another idea proposes to give tank crew cooling vests - the same kind used by professional race car drivers - but they would be cumbersome when layered along with existing body armour. 

Aside from the comfort factor, the lease of new tanks is seen as a more cost-effective solution, said the defence source. 

Alex Morrison of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies said buying new equipment is better than retrofitting. 

"It just makes more sense," he said. "This is a decision that's been in the mill for at least the last seven months." 

New Democrat defence critic Dawn Black said she's not opposed to the lease arrangement, but only because it means tank crews won't have to roast. 

"I think it was irresponsible to deploy them, knowing they weren't suitable for the climate," she said. 

In February, a policy think-tank produced a report that criticized Canada's deployment of tanks to Afghanistan, saying the 1970s vintage Leopard-C2 vehicles were vulnerable to insurgent attacks. 

Researcher Michael Wallace, of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, argued that new Leopard A6Ms would also be vulnerable to road-side bombs and rocket-propelled grenades. He said the introduction of tanks had the potential to spark an "arms race" with insurgents, prompting the Taliban to build bigger bombs. 

Morrison dismissed the arguments, calling them ridiculous. 

"What would they have us do?" he asked. "Take the tanks home and then the insurgents won't use whatever weapon they have? What will happen in the end is the insurgents would control the whole country."


----------



## George Wallace (3 Apr 2007)

nowhere_man said:
			
		

> If the Tanks and Lav's are going to need replacing maybe instead of buying Globemasters they should of put that money into replacing the tanks and Lav's.
> 
> I mean theres no point in owning heavy lift planes if you haven't anything heavy to lift.



I hope that in reading the rest of this topic, you have seen the error in you logic.


----------



## GAP (3 Apr 2007)

Are we still relaying them using the Antanovs?


----------



## Kiwi99 (3 Apr 2007)

I believe that  when he talked about replacing the LAVs in Afghanistan, his intent was to replace them with LAVs from Canada, not purchase brand new vehicles.  They would come back to Edmonton and be worked on.  And when their replacements needed to be worked on the cycle would repeat itself.  People are jumping the gun with all this replace the LAV hype.  
From experiance with the LAV in Afghanistan, I can say that there is no better killer of the enemy in theater.  It saves lives of Canadians, and takes those of the enemy.  It is by no means ready to be retired or replaced with a new vehicle, and to suugest otherwise would be foolhardy.  It is the most capable vehicle in the fleet.
The Nyala has its own and different role, for which it is well suited.  Sure, spare parts are an issue, but so are spare soldiers as replacements.  
As for M113s to theater, right out of 'er.  The LAV and tank combined effort is more than enough.  Then we have to stgart with dealing with spare parts for other veh.  

Forget this media garbage, lets just kill more jundis!!!


Kiwi out!


----------



## 3rd Horseman (3 Apr 2007)

Canadian Sig said:
			
		

> In February, a policy think-tank produced a report that criticized Canada's deployment of tanks to Afghanistan, saying the 1970s vintage Leopard-C2 vehicles were vulnerable to insurgent attacks.



  Were was he when the idiots in the glass palace sent Iltis jeeps in, which begot the Mercedes, which begot the Nayla, which begot the ....Tank. As usual our commanders can never figure out what stage of a war we are fighting. Should have been Tank first then.......finally Iltis when peace came. Just like Yugo when we were fighting we had UNPROFOR when the war ended they brought in IFOR followed by the big force during absolute calm SFOR. Should have been SFOR then....UNPROFOR during peace. You would think that the think tanks could figure this out even if our leaders cant.


----------



## MG34 (4 Apr 2007)

As long as they don't send the M113s over as troop carriers,now there's a death trap if there ever was one. I loved driving them and running around Hoenfels in them but no way would I go to war in one.
  The upper crust deficated in the bed with not getting LAV replacements earlier,but there is a  bunch of them sitting in Wainwright that could go over instead of being used at the CMTC gong show.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Apr 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> As long as they don't send the M113s over as troop carriers,now there's a death trap if there ever was one. I loved driving them and running around Hoenfels in them but no way would I go to war in one.
> The upper crust deficated in the bed with not getting LAV replacements earlier,but there is a  bunch of them sitting in Wainwright that could go over instead of being used at the CMTC gong show.



MG34 have you used the new M113's? They do have an up-armour kit to protect the vital parts. The only problem with the vehicle is the location of the fuel cells and the up-armour for that part. 

<edited to add>

My first sentence seems a bit harsh MG34 but I don't see any other way to phrase it


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Apr 2007)

Command-Sense-Act 105 said:
			
		

> Nfld Sapper, I'll second that motion.
> 
> The upgraded M113 is a world of difference - for one thing, it can actually climb up some hills!  Between the up-armour, better mobility, better comfort and weapons station options, I think it has a place.  Yes, the fuel cells can be a problem.  However, compared to the old M113...
> 
> ...



I've only dealt with the proto type of a proto type SEV and it was a POS but then again I was more concerned with how the track would perform rather than playing with all the tools on it. [Side note, still waiting to see the report on the tracks that was tested. Geez been almost 2 years now, how long does it take them to write a report  ??? ;D]

WRT a 113 going places where a Leopard would fear to go I would personally choose not believe that IMHO. I spent about 4 to 5 months travelling up and down the Lawfield Corridor and we were able to get them stuck left right and centre. One spot it took 2 MTVLS to pull out my M113 A3 and I think there is pic of it floating around this site.

As for the faults we can discuss that in pm/email if you want CSA.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (4 Apr 2007)

> As long as they don't send the M113s over as troop carriers,now there's a death trap if there ever was one. I loved driving them and running around Hoenfels in them but no way would I go to war in one.



I concur, just because they have been upgraded, they still have a magnesium aluminum hull. "no thanks" If they sent over the engineer version, fine, but not as a troop carrier. I can remember Americans fired a tow missile at one of their older M113's in Grafenwoehr Germany during a during live fire exercise and it burnt like a torch. You could see the hull glowing brightly from the range control tower for hours.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (4 Apr 2007)

> According to one source the New Leos have been approved ( for lease ) so that will surely help out.



I'm pretty sure that's only part of the story, Canadian Sig.  But it does give hints as to what the final story will be for our Armoured soldiers.  Anyone want to lay money that our eventual Leo 1 replacement will be anything other than Leo 2's?  I'll take your money.


----------



## MG34 (4 Apr 2007)

Nfld Sapper said:
			
		

> MG34 have you used the new M113's? They do have an up-armour kit to protect the vital parts. The only problem with the vehicle is the location of the fuel cells and the up-armour for that part.
> 
> <edited to add>
> 
> My first sentence seems a bit harsh MG34 but I don't see any other way to phrase it



I am familiar with the upgrade,an M113 hull is an M113 hull no matter how it is dressed up,they were great in Croatia and Bosnia but not so much in Astan.
 As for the terrain,we didn't encounter any terrain that a LAV could not have passed over without preperation,and no veh short of a bulldozer could operate in the grape fields (I wasn't around when the Leo trials were done in the fields so I'm not sure on that). The M113 has no mobility advantage over the LAV and sacrifices optics,firepower and protection, as a specialist veh sure but not a front line troop carrier.


----------



## Loachman (4 Apr 2007)

About LAVs not being manufactured any more: GDLS Canada's website lists a "Canadian APC" under current products http://www.gdlscanada.com/main.html


----------



## Jammer (4 Apr 2007)

The LAV III in it's CDN configuration is not being made anymore, however the Stryker which uses the LAV III chassis is still in production.
GDLS London builds the chassis and sends it down to Ohio for wpns fitting


----------



## Kiwi99 (4 Apr 2007)

But I am guessing that once the plant has finished with the Strykers and whatever other orders they have, they have the capability to revert back to the Canadian LAV III.  Its business, right.  Don't bite the hand that feeds ya, and the yanks spend more than we do, so why stop production to start ours.  Our time will come.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Apr 2007)

Loachman said:
			
		

> About LAVs not being manufactured any more: GDLS Canada's website lists a "Canadian APC" under current products http://www.gdlscanada.com/main.html



Then a question could be asked as to when this info was last updated and if the person doing so had the most current info.  Not that it really matters much.

Supply and Services will continue with their current mandate.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (4 Apr 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> I am familiar with the upgrade,an M113 hull is an M113 hull no matter how it is dressed up,they were great in Croatia and Bosnia but not so much in Astan.



 I have a problem with this comment, you must be talking about the non combat tours. I cannot argue that the hull is not a problem but when you compare hull to hull you must be speaking only of the issue of IEDs. Obviously the LAV has a sweet optics and gun kit and who would not want the good stuff when going into battle no matter how small and lightly armed the En force. But when comparing the kit to the en you face, the 113 is should have no issue in a technical aspect to A Stan then Yugo where the fighting was against a modern army not just foot borne rpgs, rifles and the odd small size mortar. Don't forget that the IED was first encountered by Cdn forces in Yugo and they were planted by Mujees, back then we called them stacked mines/explosives.
I guess in close I would have rather had a LAV in Yugo if given the choice but I did fight the 113 it was just fine and infact probably better when it comes to economy and mobility. I used the up armoured version and it took some healthy hits and survived.

edit typo


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (4 Apr 2007)

With flat bottoms, flat sides and older armour, are the M113's not significantly more vulnerable to IED's/VBIED's.


Matthew.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (4 Apr 2007)

I would say yes. But with the up armour and the unique trait of the magnesium the metal plates actually obsorb allot of blunt energy before breaking or spalling. My example was that one should not sell that veh short. Accepting that obviously the LAV is an improvement by far. I would have argued that the 113s should have been doing the duties the ilties and other soft vehs were doing in the beginning and would be a good choice now for the Log train and non front line cbt vehs activities.


----------



## MG34 (5 Apr 2007)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> I have a problem with this comment, you must be talking about the non combat tours. I cannot argue that the hull is not a problem but when you compare hull to hull you must be speaking only of the issue of IEDs. Obviously the LAV has a sweet optics and gun kit and who would not want the good stuff when going into battle no matter how small and lightly armed the En force. But when comparing the kit to the en you face, the 113 is should have no issue in a technical aspect to A Stan then Yugo where the fighting was against a modern army not just foot borne rpgs, rifles and the odd small size mortar. Don't forget that the IED was first encountered by Cdn forces in Yugo and they were planted by Mujees, back then we called them stacked mines/explosives.
> I guess in close I would have rather had a LAV in Yugo if given the choice but I did fight the 113 it was just fine and infact probably better when it comes to economy and mobility. I used the up armoured version and it took some healthy hits and survived.
> 
> edit typo



The M113 will not take the hits that a LAV will is a fact. As for Yugo service I too was involved in a few scraps and APC did take hits but every M113 that hit a landmine or was hit with an RPG or similar  suffered either unrepairable damage or was penetrated, not so with the LAV. Inone of my Yugo tours we had 4 M113 hit mine/IED ,all were a write off due to the elastic nature of the hull,which caused it to bend and distort rendering it unservicable,a LAV can be repaired and sent back into service and were during my time in A stan. IRDs are the main threat to vehs there,the bottom hull of the M113 will not withstand the same forces as a LAVs due t the design,once again a fact.
  The M113 is a fine specialist veh, it works well but only when escorted by more capable vehs, it is not a good convoy escort or liason veh as it must be stationary to engage targets.
 In a non combat role yes the M113 may have a place, but we have specialized vehicles that are better at it. 
 The M113 was great in it's day ( which was 4 decades ago)but even when brand new t was never intended to serve on the front lines,it's just a taxi to get you there,that point has been lost on the CF for quite sometime as we used the M113 as an MICV,it was wrong in the 80's just as it is wrong to think of attemping to use it as such today.


----------



## 22B (5 Apr 2007)

MG34 is bang on.  We had this discussion yesterday at the Museum, and it was agreed that the 113 is a fine second line support vehicle, just like the deuce, but it cannot replace the LAV.  Oddly enough, it was the Cougar that was the winner for a stop gap, because of the 76mm gun and the ease of maint and repair.  Who would've thought.


----------



## ArmyRick (5 Apr 2007)

I have also extensive expirience with M113 (and Grizzlys). There day has come and gone.  Some people seem to think we should keep them around. Not this cat, send them into retirement. I have very little expirience with LAVIII and I agree 100% that it is a far superios vehicle.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Apr 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> But I am guessing that once the plant has finished with the Strykers and whatever other orders they have, they have the capability to revert back to the Canadian LAV III.  Its business, right.  Don't bite the hand that feeds ya, and the yanks spend more than we do, so why stop production to start ours.  Our time will come.



I'm guessing you're right, Kiwi99.  They still have all the tooling and drawing packages and can restart that line as soon as time/space/labour are available.

I would not surprised if there are several engineers working on an unsolicited proposal for the *LAV IV*.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Apr 2007)

Actually, MOWAG does have a LAV IV (which is even bigger, heavier etc.).

I suspect a better use of the engineer's time and energy would be to go over the AAR's and rebuild the LAV's to a LAV 3.5 standard to improve survivability, firepower, ease of maintainence and wring out all those annoying little glitches.......


----------



## tank recce (5 Apr 2007)

22B said:
			
		

> MG34 is bang on.  We had this discussion yesterday at the Museum, and it was agreed that the 113 is a fine second line support vehicle, just like the deuce, but it cannot replace the LAV.  Oddly enough, it was the Cougar that was the winner for a stop gap, because of the 76mm gun and the ease of maint and repair.  Who would've thought.



We were discussing this over beer at the Legion Tuesday night, including those of us who've put our names in for the Stream 3 festivities this fall. For all the C&C, weapons, and protection issues that the G-Wagon has, and the "too big to go through here" and "too small gun for this task" issues the LAV has, we kept coming back to ... the Cougar. Fast, moderate armour, and a pumpkin-launcher that will smash anything less than a modern MBT... 

The young troopers don't know any different, but some of us with barked knuckles from the turret days are REALLY hoping that when we report for workup, the first courses we get are Cougar related... (Hey, we can hope!  ;D)


----------



## George Wallace (5 Apr 2007)

I see we are regurgitating the old TOW on the side of the turret and the Cougar discussions all over again.


----------



## ArmyRick (5 Apr 2007)

George, round and round we go in circles!  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (5 Apr 2007)

I know......as long as we don't go Full Circle and bring up the Tank Destroyer/Assault Gun/MGS again.   ;D


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (5 Apr 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I see we are regurgitating the old TOW on the side of the turret and the Cougar discussions all over again.



As a relative newby who obviously missed that discussion, the outcome was?


Matthew.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (5 Apr 2007)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Nfld Spr, when you go into action/come under contact, your air sentry should be pulling in. The delco turret with TOW has one launch tube on either side of the turret. You would not be able to stow anything on the back of the turret due to BBDA.
> 
> To fire TOW, the vehicle has to remain stationary (and preferably in a hull down position) anyways. So the air sentry can duck his arse back inside.



Ok, thx. As you can see I'm only familiar with armoured vehicles in the adm role.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (5 Apr 2007)

Another point, are the T-LAVS in theater finally armed? I know all the ones I've seen back here had the mounts but never been armed. Even the ones at the Armoured School.

I know this might be OPSEC, feel free to pm me.


----------



## McG (6 Apr 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I see we are regurgitating the old ... the Cougar discussions all over again.





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> ......as long as we don't go Full Circle and bring up the Tank Destroyer/Assault Gun/MGS again.   ;D


Well, now that you've mentioned it, the MGS would make a nice Cougar replacement.  It would provide a common platform to the LAV III fleet, and it brings a bigger gun that is stabalized.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Apr 2007)

I would go even further on the MGS subject and say that it is not an Armour Corp wpn system......Here comes the "HERITIC" side......It is an Infantry wpn.  Like the Mortars and HMG's it should be an Infantry Support Wpn and integral to an Infantry organization.


----------



## TCBF (9 Apr 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> Well, now that you've mentioned it, the MGS would make a nice Cougar replacement.  It would provide a common platform to the LAV III fleet, and it brings a bigger gun that is stabalized.



- If one happens to think that the Super Cougars (MGS) are worth $USD 6,000,000 each...


----------

