# Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:47:06 -0700*
>I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were selling off a few
Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they could not be registered in
Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had grossly failed
collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and punching through the
windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat and is just not
acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a dozen, right?
No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to use equipment which is
hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador.  However, why should we expect
military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety standards required for
passenger automobiles?  The Iltis was intended for the battlefield where there
are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway.  The after-market value
in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be, a consideration.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Carl DINSDALE <joscol@mb.sympatico.ca>* on *Wed, 26 Apr 2000 13:03:15 -0500*
I didn‘t think my point was the "after-market value" of the Iltis, but it is a valid
point. The Iltis may have been intended for the battlefield, but anyone who drove it
can attest to the fact that it wasn‘t engineered very well for that environment.
That gutless 1.4 litre engine does not go very well with a four wheel drive
suspension, especially one equipped with a differential lock. It seemed like they
had endless electrical and fuel system problems and the best thing the little bugger
was good for was summer road moves from London to Pet with the top down. I‘m way off
topic here, in my original message I was simply trying to express my frustration
with military acquisitions being made for political or fiscal reasons instead of
because it is simply the best equipment available for the job.
Carl
Bradley Sallows wrote:
> >I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were selling off a few
> Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they could not be registered in
> Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had grossly failed
> collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and punching through the
> windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat and is just not
> acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a dozen, right?
>
> No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to use equipment which is
> hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador.  However, why should we expect
> military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety standards required for
> passenger automobiles?  The Iltis was intended for the battlefield where there
> are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway.  The after-market value
> in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be, a consideration.
>
> Brad Sallows
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Gunner <randr1@home.com>* on *Wed, 26 Apr 2000 07:44:20 -0600*
DND spending billions of dollars on new kit IS a political issue. 
Canadian Taxpayers are the ones financing these purchases and they have
a reasonable expectation that most of the money will be spent in Canada
vice the US or some other country.  That‘s reality and I don‘t think
the government is wrong.  It‘s my tax dollars too and I want some type
of economic spinoff for Canadians...who can deny the benefit of the MLVW
and Iltis contract to Bombardier?
Secondly, was the Iltis the best veh for the job of battlefield taxi. 
Probably not the best, but, it is able to accomplish that mission.  Now
if you argued the economics of buying an Iltis, LSVW and the upcoming
LLVW Iltis replacement instead of buying one vehicle ie the Hummer
which was able to fulfill all these roles with its different variants. 
I could see alot of cost savings in having only one vehicle....one
vehicle for three purposes means, less trg of veh techs, simpler spare
parts reqr, less dvr trg, etc etc.  I think the Hummer is a diesel as
well, further simplifying the POL supply chain as we would have a
predominately diesel fleet.  
Gunner sends.....
PS.  Its‘ a better vehicle then the other pieces of s**t that we bought.
Carl DINSDALE wrote:
> 
> I didn‘t think my point was the "after-market value" of the Iltis, but it is a valid
> point. The Iltis may have been intended for the battlefield, but anyone who drove it
> can attest to the fact that it wasn‘t engineered very well for that environment.
> That gutless 1.4 litre engine does not go very well with a four wheel drive
> suspension, especially one equipped with a differential lock. It seemed like they
> had endless electrical and fuel system problems and the best thing the little bugger
> was good for was summer road moves from London to Pet with the top down. I‘m way off
> topic here, in my original message I was simply trying to express my frustration
> with military acquisitions being made for political or fiscal reasons instead of
> because it is simply the best equipment available for the job.
> 
> Carl
> 
> Bradley Sallows wrote:
> 
> > >I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were selling off a few
> > Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they could not be registered in
> > Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had grossly failed
> > collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and punching through the
> > windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat and is just not
> > acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a dozen, right?
> >
> > No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to use equipment which is
> > hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador.  However, why should we expect
> > military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety standards required for
> > passenger automobiles?  The Iltis was intended for the battlefield where there
> > are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway.  The after-market value
> > in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be, a consideration.
> >
> > Brad Sallows
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Andrew Davies" <Davies_A@region.durham.on.ca>* on *Wed, 26 Apr 2000 10:45:47 -0400*
I was part of the testing crew for the Iltis.  It failed, we bought it.  Cross country  testing was a drive down some dirt trails at CFB Borden - a very sandy but easy place to drive in 2WD much less 4WD.
As A taxpayer I‘d like the biggest bang for my buck, why set up an industry for a one of production run.  
Andrew
>>> Gunner  04/26/00 09:44AM >>>
DND spending billions of dollars on new kit IS a political issue. 
Canadian Taxpayers are the ones financing these purchases and they have
a reasonable expectation that most of the money will be spent in Canada
vice the US or some other country.  That‘s reality and I don‘t think
the government is wrong.  It‘s my tax dollars too and I want some type
of economic spinoff for Canadians...who can deny the benefit of the MLVW
and Iltis contract to Bombardier?
Secondly, was the Iltis the best veh for the job of battlefield taxi. 
Probably not the best, but, it is able to accomplish that mission.  Now
if you argued the economics of buying an Iltis, LSVW and the upcoming
LLVW Iltis replacement instead of buying one vehicle ie the Hummer
which was able to fulfill all these roles with its different variants. 
I could see alot of cost savings in having only one vehicle....one
vehicle for three purposes means, less trg of veh techs, simpler spare
parts reqr, less dvr trg, etc etc.  I think the Hummer is a diesel as
well, further simplifying the POL supply chain as we would have a
predominately diesel fleet.  
Gunner sends.....
PS.  Its‘ a better vehicle then the other pieces of s**t that we bought.
Carl DINSDALE wrote:
> 
> I didn‘t think my point was the "after-market value" of the Iltis, but it is a valid
> point. The Iltis may have been intended for the battlefield, but anyone who drove it
> can attest to the fact that it wasn‘t engineered very well for that environment.
> That gutless 1.4 litre engine does not go very well with a four wheel drive
> suspension, especially one equipped with a differential lock. It seemed like they
> had endless electrical and fuel system problems and the best thing the little bugger
> was good for was summer road moves from London to Pet with the top down. I‘m way off
> topic here, in my original message I was simply trying to express my frustration
> with military acquisitions being made for political or fiscal reasons instead of
> because it is simply the best equipment available for the job.
> 
> Carl
> 
> Bradley Sallows wrote:
> 
> > >I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were selling off a few
> > Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they could not be registered in
> > Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had grossly failed
> > collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and punching through the
> > windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat and is just not
> > acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a dozen, right?
> >
> > No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to use equipment which is
> > hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador.  However, why should we expect
> > military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety standards required for
> > passenger automobiles?  The Iltis was intended for the battlefield where there
> > are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway.  The after-market value
> > in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be, a consideration.
> >
> > Brad Sallows
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Carl Dinsdale <joscol@mb.sympatico.ca>* on *Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:18:47 -0500*
Gunner,
You‘ve brought up a very good point about keeping our spending within our borders, who can
argue with bolstering our own economy? However, Andrew waded in here and stated that he
was on the test team for the Iltis and it failed, but was still purchased. I don‘t
disagree with Bombardier or any other Canadian company being awarded contracts for DND
purchases, but the equipment should have to meet our testing and standards prior to final
acceptance. The LSVW came in just before I got out, but once again I heard it was
purchased despite failing trials miserably. Should we have bought it? Absolutely, BUT only
after it was improved to the point of passing our trials. Those trials are fine and dandy,
but are minimum standards, as pointed out by Andrew. They do not come close to the s**t
and abuse any vehicle is put through on a 6 week spring Ex.
I know there will be criticism for every and any military vehicle ever purchased, and I
obviously do not have the years of experience that you do in the green machine, but who is
making these decisions to purchase vehicles that fail our own testing? The down time,
parts, repairs etc. experienced after their purchase seems like spending good money after
bad. The long term be thought about during these purchase decisions as well because we
constantly try to get 20 years out of  vehicles that were purchased with 10 years in mind.
Am I way off base here? If so, by all means enlighten me.
Carl
Gunner wrote:
> DND spending billions of dollars on new kit IS a political issue.
> Canadian Taxpayers are the ones financing these purchases and they have
> a reasonable expectation that most of the money will be spent in Canada
> vice the US or some other country.  That‘s reality and I don‘t think
> the government is wrong.  It‘s my tax dollars too and I want some type
> of economic spinoff for Canadians...who can deny the benefit of the MLVW
> and Iltis contract to Bombardier?
>
> Secondly, was the Iltis the best veh for the job of battlefield taxi.
> Probably not the best, but, it is able to accomplish that mission.  Now
> if you argued the economics of buying an Iltis, LSVW and the upcoming
> LLVW Iltis replacement instead of buying one vehicle ie the Hummer
> which was able to fulfill all these roles with its different variants.
> I could see alot of cost savings in having only one vehicle....one
> vehicle for three purposes means, less trg of veh techs, simpler spare
> parts reqr, less dvr trg, etc etc.  I think the Hummer is a diesel as
> well, further simplifying the POL supply chain as we would have a
> predominately diesel fleet.
>
> Gunner sends.....
>
> PS.  Its‘ a better vehicle then the other pieces of s**t that we bought.
>
> Carl DINSDALE wrote:
> >
> > I didn‘t think my point was the "after-market value" of the Iltis, but it is a valid
> > point. The Iltis may have been intended for the battlefield, but anyone who drove it
> > can attest to the fact that it wasn‘t engineered very well for that environment.
> > That gutless 1.4 litre engine does not go very well with a four wheel drive
> > suspension, especially one equipped with a differential lock. It seemed like they
> > had endless electrical and fuel system problems and the best thing the little bugger
> > was good for was summer road moves from London to Pet with the top down. I‘m way off
> > topic here, in my original message I was simply trying to express my frustration
> > with military acquisitions being made for political or fiscal reasons instead of
> > because it is simply the best equipment available for the job.
> >
> > Carl
> >
> > Bradley Sallows wrote:
> >
> > > >I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were selling off a few
> > > Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they could not be registered in
> > > Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had grossly failed
> > > collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and punching through the
> > > windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat and is just not
> > > acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a dozen, right?
> > >
> > > No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to use equipment which is
> > > hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador.  However, why should we expect
> > > military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety standards required for
> > > passenger automobiles?  The Iltis was intended for the battlefield where there
> > > are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway.  The after-market value
> > > in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be, a consideration.
> > >
> > > Brad Sallows
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Derrick Forsythe <Derrick.Forsythe@gov.ab.ca>* on *Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:28:58 -0600*
my recollection is the Little ****ty Vehicle Wheeled LSVW failed three
separate trials and each time the bar was lowered -- due probably more to
political manoueverings than anything within DND.
I did hear one Sr offr streamer-type no names no pack drill say he was
"not confident" in the vehicle‘s abilities after delivery.
On the point I respectfully disagree with the arguement we shouls buy at
home first - such a policy, in my opinion, breeds inefficiencies and poor
workmanship.
I‘m sure we could buy blackhawk/seahawk helicopters for far less than the
original EH101 package - same for our personal weapons - jeeps, and a myriad
of other kit.
If a Canadian company can produce a weapons platform, truck or aircraft that
can compete on world markets gerat - if not we should not have to pay the
price for developing second rate kit just so Bombardier or any other company
can ensure a handsome return for shareholders.
> -----Original Message-----
> From:Carl Dinsdale [SMTP:joscol@mb.sympatico.ca]
> Sent:Wednesday, April 26, 2000 2:19 PM
> To:army@cipherlogic.on.ca
> Subject:Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
> 
> Gunner,
> 
> You‘ve brought up a very good point about keeping our spending within our
> borders, who can
> argue with bolstering our own economy? However, Andrew waded in here and
> stated that he
> was on the test team for the Iltis and it failed, but was still purchased.
> I don‘t
> disagree with Bombardier or any other Canadian company being awarded
> contracts for DND
> purchases, but the equipment should have to meet our testing and standards
> prior to final
> acceptance. The LSVW came in just before I got out, but once again I heard
> it was
> purchased despite failing trials miserably. Should we have bought it?
> Absolutely, BUT only
> after it was improved to the point of passing our trials. Those trials are
> fine and dandy,
> but are minimum standards, as pointed out by Andrew. They do not come
> close to the s**t
> and abuse any vehicle is put through on a 6 week spring Ex.
> I know there will be criticism for every and any military vehicle ever
> purchased, and I
> obviously do not have the years of experience that you do in the green
> machine, but who is
> making these decisions to purchase vehicles that fail our own testing? The
> down time,
> parts, repairs etc. experienced after their purchase seems like spending
> good money after
> bad. The long term be thought about during these purchase decisions as
> well because we
> constantly try to get 20 years out of  vehicles that were purchased with
> 10 years in mind.
> 
> Am I way off base here? If so, by all means enlighten me.
> 
> Carl
> 
> Gunner wrote:
> 
> > DND spending billions of dollars on new kit IS a political issue.
> > Canadian Taxpayers are the ones financing these purchases and they have
> > a reasonable expectation that most of the money will be spent in Canada
> > vice the US or some other country.  That‘s reality and I don‘t think
> > the government is wrong.  It‘s my tax dollars too and I want some type
> > of economic spinoff for Canadians...who can deny the benefit of the MLVW
> > and Iltis contract to Bombardier?
> >
> > Secondly, was the Iltis the best veh for the job of battlefield taxi.
> > Probably not the best, but, it is able to accomplish that mission.  Now
> > if you argued the economics of buying an Iltis, LSVW and the upcoming
> > LLVW Iltis replacement instead of buying one vehicle ie the Hummer
> > which was able to fulfill all these roles with its different variants.
> > I could see alot of cost savings in having only one vehicle....one
> > vehicle for three purposes means, less trg of veh techs, simpler spare
> > parts reqr, less dvr trg, etc etc.  I think the Hummer is a diesel as
> > well, further simplifying the POL supply chain as we would have a
> > predominately diesel fleet.
> >
> > Gunner sends.....
> >
> > PS.  Its‘ a better vehicle then the other pieces of s**t that we bought.
> >
> > Carl DINSDALE wrote:
> > >
> > > I didn‘t think my point was the "after-market value" of the Iltis, but
> it is a valid
> > > point. The Iltis may have been intended for the battlefield, but
> anyone who drove it
> > > can attest to the fact that it wasn‘t engineered very well for that
> environment.
> > > That gutless 1.4 litre engine does not go very well with a four wheel
> drive
> > > suspension, especially one equipped with a differential lock. It
> seemed like they
> > > had endless electrical and fuel system problems and the best thing the
> little bugger
> > > was good for was summer road moves from London to Pet with the top
> down. I‘m way off
> > > topic here, in my original message I was simply trying to express my
> frustration
> > > with military acquisitions being made for political or fiscal reasons
> instead of
> > > because it is simply the best equipment available for the job.
> > >
> > > Carl
> > >
> > > Bradley Sallows wrote:
> > >
> > > > >I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were selling
> off a few
> > > > Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they could not be
> registered in
> > > > Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had grossly
> failed
> > > > collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and punching
> through the
> > > > windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat and is
> just not
> > > > acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a dozen,
> right?
> > > >
> > > > No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to use
> equipment which is
> > > > hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador.  However, why should we
> expect
> > > > military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety standards
> required for
> > > > passenger automobiles?  The Iltis was intended for the battlefield
> where there
> > > > are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway.  The
> after-market value
> > > > in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be, a
> consideration.
> > > >
> > > > Brad Sallows
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > message body.
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Derrick Forsythe <Derrick.Forsythe@gov.ab.ca>* on *Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:36:27 -0600*
My personal favourite story regarding sub-standard kit has to be the tale of
Mary Collins and the raincoat.  It goes something like this:
Ms Collins - then Assoc Minister of Defence was reviewing .... something in
the East  - Pet I think.  It was raining and the Minister was handed one of
the old pattern windbreaker-type rain sponges we had before the current
pattern came into service.
needless to say Ms Collins was soaked to the skin by the time her official
duties were concluded.  The new raingear was not long in coming into
service.
hat‘s off to the individual who‘s quick thinking got results that could have
taken years longer through normal channels.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:27:27 -0700*
>but the equipment should have to meet our testing and standards prior to final
acceptance.
This seems to be a recurring legend I hear it about all our acquisitions.  Does
anything without a cadillac price tag ever actually meet all our standards?
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Gunner <randr1@home.com>* on *Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:36:08 -0600*
Derrick, I‘ve heard that story and I think that is an military "urban"
myth.  The other one I heard was the raincoat was never replaced because
no one ever submitted a UCR on it.  The old raingear wasn‘t that
bad....you just had to soak the s**t out of it with silicone and make
sure you reapply the silicone before every rainfall.
Derrick Forsythe wrote:
> 
> My personal favourite story regarding sub-standard kit has to be the tale of
> Mary Collins and the raincoat.  It goes something like this:
> 
> Ms Collins - then Assoc Minister of Defence was reviewing .... something in
> the East  - Pet I think.  It was raining and the Minister was handed one of
> the old pattern windbreaker-type rain sponges we had before the current
> pattern came into service.
> 
> needless to say Ms Collins was soaked to the skin by the time her official
> duties were concluded.  The new raingear was not long in coming into
> service.
> 
> hat‘s off to the individual who‘s quick thinking got results that could have
> taken years longer through normal channels.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Derrick Forsythe <Derrick.Forsythe@gov.ab.ca>* on *Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:39:24 -0600*
I worked for the Mulroney Govt at the time and had a couple of buds in
Collins‘ office - it wasn‘t urban myth  -
> -----Original Message-----
> From:Gunner [SMTP:randr1@home.com]
> Sent:Wednesday, April 26, 2000 3:36 PM
> To:army@cipherlogic.on.ca
> Subject:Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
> 
> Derrick, I‘ve heard that story and I think that is an military "urban"
> myth.  The other one I heard was the raincoat was never replaced because
> no one ever submitted a UCR on it.  The old raingear wasn‘t that
> bad....you just had to soak the s**t out of it with silicone and make
> sure you reapply the silicone before every rainfall.
> 
> 
> 
> Derrick Forsythe wrote:
> > 
> > My personal favourite story regarding sub-standard kit has to be the
> tale of
> > Mary Collins and the raincoat.  It goes something like this:
> > 
> > Ms Collins - then Assoc Minister of Defence was reviewing .... something
> in
> > the East  - Pet I think.  It was raining and the Minister was handed one
> of
> > the old pattern windbreaker-type rain sponges we had before the current
> > pattern came into service.
> > 
> > needless to say Ms Collins was soaked to the skin by the time her
> official
> > duties were concluded.  The new raingear was not long in coming into
> > service.
> > 
> > hat‘s off to the individual who‘s quick thinking got results that could
> have
> > taken years longer through normal channels.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Gunner <randr1@home.com>* on *Wed, 26 Apr 2000 16:20:26 -0600*
I agree with you Carl...buy Canadian, however, it has to meet the
minimum standards.  As I mentioned the purchase of a Hummer although
more expensive could have replaced the Iltis and the LSVW and the Iltis
replacement.  Cost savings could have been realized in trg, spare parts,
etc, etc and you have an operationally proven veh an Arnie drives one
as well!.
Just because a vehicle fails the trials doesn‘t mean it will be
discarded I‘m not sure if Andrew was involved in the post purchase
trials or the after purchase trials as if it is easily fixed through a
modification, then, all is well.  I think Andrew mentioned the Iltis in
sand trials... I never had a problem in sand unless I was trying to get
up a steep hill.  Some of the other members may have alot more
experience using the Iltis but I drove one for along time starting in
1986 and there wasn‘t many places it couldn‘t go.  Anyone else have
comments on the Iltis??  I haven‘t really "lived" in one for about seven
years.  
Carl Dinsdale wrote:
> 
> Gunner,
> 
> You‘ve brought up a very good point about keeping our spending within our borders, who can
> argue with bolstering our own economy? However, Andrew waded in here and stated that he
> was on the test team for the Iltis and it failed, but was still purchased. I don‘t
> disagree with Bombardier or any other Canadian company being awarded contracts for DND
> purchases, but the equipment should have to meet our testing and standards prior to final
> acceptance. The LSVW came in just before I got out, but once again I heard it was
> purchased despite failing trials miserably. Should we have bought it? Absolutely, BUT only
> after it was improved to the point of passing our trials. Those trials are fine and dandy,
> but are minimum standards, as pointed out by Andrew. They do not come close to the s**t
> and abuse any vehicle is put through on a 6 week spring Ex.
> I know there will be criticism for every and any military vehicle ever purchased, and I
> obviously do not have the years of experience that you do in the green machine, but who is
> making these decisions to purchase vehicles that fail our own testing? The down time,
> parts, repairs etc. experienced after their purchase seems like spending good money after
> bad. The long term be thought about during these purchase decisions as well because we
> constantly try to get 20 years out of  vehicles that were purchased with 10 years in mind.
> 
> Am I way off base here? If so, by all means enlighten me.
> 
> Carl
> 
> Gunner wrote:
> 
> > DND spending billions of dollars on new kit IS a political issue.
> > Canadian Taxpayers are the ones financing these purchases and they have
> > a reasonable expectation that most of the money will be spent in Canada
> > vice the US or some other country.  That‘s reality and I don‘t think
> > the government is wrong.  It‘s my tax dollars too and I want some type
> > of economic spinoff for Canadians...who can deny the benefit of the MLVW
> > and Iltis contract to Bombardier?
> >
> > Secondly, was the Iltis the best veh for the job of battlefield taxi.
> > Probably not the best, but, it is able to accomplish that mission.  Now
> > if you argued the economics of buying an Iltis, LSVW and the upcoming
> > LLVW Iltis replacement instead of buying one vehicle ie the Hummer
> > which was able to fulfill all these roles with its different variants.
> > I could see alot of cost savings in having only one vehicle....one
> > vehicle for three purposes means, less trg of veh techs, simpler spare
> > parts reqr, less dvr trg, etc etc.  I think the Hummer is a diesel as
> > well, further simplifying the POL supply chain as we would have a
> > predominately diesel fleet.
> >
> > Gunner sends.....
> >
> > PS.  Its‘ a better vehicle then the other pieces of s**t that we bought.
> >
> > Carl DINSDALE wrote:
> > >
> > > I didn‘t think my point was the "after-market value" of the Iltis, but it is a valid
> > > point. The Iltis may have been intended for the battlefield, but anyone who drove it
> > > can attest to the fact that it wasn‘t engineered very well for that environment.
> > > That gutless 1.4 litre engine does not go very well with a four wheel drive
> > > suspension, especially one equipped with a differential lock. It seemed like they
> > > had endless electrical and fuel system problems and the best thing the little bugger
> > > was good for was summer road moves from London to Pet with the top down. I‘m way off
> > > topic here, in my original message I was simply trying to express my frustration
> > > with military acquisitions being made for political or fiscal reasons instead of
> > > because it is simply the best equipment available for the job.
> > >
> > > Carl
> > >
> > > Bradley Sallows wrote:
> > >
> > > > >I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were selling off a few
> > > > Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they could not be registered in
> > > > Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had grossly failed
> > > > collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and punching through the
> > > > windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat and is just not
> > > > acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a dozen, right?
> > > >
> > > > No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to use equipment which is
> > > > hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador.  However, why should we expect
> > > > military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety standards required for
> > > > passenger automobiles?  The Iltis was intended for the battlefield where there
> > > > are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway.  The after-market value
> > > > in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be, a consideration.
> > > >
> > > > Brad Sallows
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > message body.
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"dave" <dave.newcombe@home.com>* on *Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:25:59 -0700*
Have you ever followed the paer trail on one of these big contracts.  Ask
questions about the Navy‘s new Frigate program, like who are the primary
shareholders and company officers in Paramax prime software contracter.
You might find them to be recentlyat the time retired Naval Officers.
Maybe they "bid" and won, but with 100 untried merchandise and a long term
maintenance contract, it isn‘t hard to be cynical.
Since the designs we select are always built under licence by a Canadian
company, they we have every right to expect the very best for the buck..We
can build Hummers under licence I‘m sure.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gunner 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
> I agree with you Carl...buy Canadian, however, it has to meet the
> minimum standards.  As I mentioned the purchase of a Hummer although
> more expensive could have replaced the Iltis and the LSVW and the Iltis
> replacement.  Cost savings could have been realized in trg, spare parts,
> etc, etc and you have an operationally proven veh an Arnie drives one
> as well!.
>
> Just because a vehicle fails the trials doesn‘t mean it will be
> discarded I‘m not sure if Andrew was involved in the post purchase
> trials or the after purchase trials as if it is easily fixed through a
> modification, then, all is well.  I think Andrew mentioned the Iltis in
> sand trials... I never had a problem in sand unless I was trying to get
> up a steep hill.  Some of the other members may have alot more
> experience using the Iltis but I drove one for along time starting in
> 1986 and there wasn‘t many places it couldn‘t go.  Anyone else have
> comments on the Iltis??  I haven‘t really "lived" in one for about seven
> years.
>
> Carl Dinsdale wrote:
> >
> > Gunner,
> >
> > You‘ve brought up a very good point about keeping our spending within
our borders, who can
> > argue with bolstering our own economy? However, Andrew waded in here and
stated that he
> > was on the test team for the Iltis and it failed, but was still
purchased. I don‘t
> > disagree with Bombardier or any other Canadian company being awarded
contracts for DND
> > purchases, but the equipment should have to meet our testing and
standards prior to final
> > acceptance. The LSVW came in just before I got out, but once again I
heard it was
> > purchased despite failing trials miserably. Should we have bought it?
Absolutely, BUT only
> > after it was improved to the point of passing our trials. Those trials
are fine and dandy,
> > but are minimum standards, as pointed out by Andrew. They do not come
close to the s**t
> > and abuse any vehicle is put through on a 6 week spring Ex.
> > I know there will be criticism for every and any military vehicle ever
purchased, and I
> > obviously do not have the years of experience that you do in the green
machine, but who is
> > making these decisions to purchase vehicles that fail our own testing?
The down time,
> > parts, repairs etc. experienced after their purchase seems like spending
good money after
> > bad. The long term be thought about during these purchase decisions as
well because we
> > constantly try to get 20 years out of  vehicles that were purchased with
10 years in mind.
> >
> > Am I way off base here? If so, by all means enlighten me.
> >
> > Carl
> >
> > Gunner wrote:
> >
> > > DND spending billions of dollars on new kit IS a political issue.
> > > Canadian Taxpayers are the ones financing these purchases and they
have
> > > a reasonable expectation that most of the money will be spent in
Canada
> > > vice the US or some other country.  That‘s reality and I don‘t think
> > > the government is wrong.  It‘s my tax dollars too and I want some type
> > > of economic spinoff for Canadians...who can deny the benefit of the
MLVW
> > > and Iltis contract to Bombardier?
> > >
> > > Secondly, was the Iltis the best veh for the job of battlefield taxi.
> > > Probably not the best, but, it is able to accomplish that mission.
Now
> > > if you argued the economics of buying an Iltis, LSVW and the upcoming
> > > LLVW Iltis replacement instead of buying one vehicle ie the Hummer
> > > which was able to fulfill all these roles with its different variants.
> > > I could see alot of cost savings in having only one vehicle....one
> > > vehicle for three purposes means, less trg of veh techs, simpler spare
> > > parts reqr, less dvr trg, etc etc.  I think the Hummer is a diesel as
> > > well, further simplifying the POL supply chain as we would have a
> > > predominately diesel fleet.
> > >
> > > Gunner sends.....
> > >
> > > PS.  Its‘ a better vehicle then the other pieces of s**t that we
bought.
> > >
> > > Carl DINSDALE wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I didn‘t think my point was the "after-market value" of the Iltis,
but it is a valid
> > > > point. The Iltis may have been intended for the battlefield, but
anyone who drove it
> > > > can attest to the fact that it wasn‘t engineered very well for that
environment.
> > > > That gutless 1.4 litre engine does not go very well with a four
wheel drive
> > > > suspension, especially one equipped with a differential lock. It
seemed like they
> > > > had endless electrical and fuel system problems and the best thing
the little bugger
> > > > was good for was summer road moves from London to Pet with the top
down. I‘m way off
> > > > topic here, in my original message I was simply trying to express my
frustration
> > > > with military acquisitions being made for political or fiscal
reasons instead of
> > > > because it is simply the best equipment available for the job.
> > > >
> > > > Carl
> > > >
> > > > Bradley Sallows wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were selling
off a few
> > > > > Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they could not be
registered in
> > > > > Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had grossly
failed
> > > > > collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and punching
through the
> > > > > windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat and is
just not
> > > > > acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a dozen,
right?
> > > > >
> > > > > No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to use
equipment which is
> > > > > hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador.  However, why should we
expect
> > > > > military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety standards
required for
> > > > > passenger automobiles?  The Iltis was intended for the battlefield
where there
> > > > > are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway.  The
after-market value
> > > > > in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be, a
consideration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brad Sallows
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > message body.
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > message body.
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Gunner <randr1@home.com>* on *Wed, 26 Apr 2000 16:50:24 -0600*
Does anyone know about building Hummers under license in Canada?  I
heard it was looked at but GM or the unions... wouldn‘t allow it.
Agree with your comments about senior officers and NCMs working with
companies that receive large contracts...GM Diesel LAV III rings a
bell as does Computing Devices Canada TCCCS and Calian Technologies
JANUS.  Is this "featherbedding" or simply companies hiring
experienced Canadian Officers and NCMs?  I don‘t know.
About the Frigates...that was a political hot potato and still is for
that matter. You here calls from the Bloc Quebecois and PCs for the
government to subsidize a national ship building program all the time. 
There is a reason the Canadian Navy ship wise is a relatively brand
new fleet.  I predict that the government will announce in the next year
or two plans to build at least two - four of the proposed Navy ships
combined comd and con/supply/tankers to replace the AORs.
dave wrote:
> 
> Have you ever followed the paer trail on one of these big contracts.  Ask
> questions about the Navy‘s new Frigate program, like who are the primary
> shareholders and company officers in Paramax prime software contracter.
> You might find them to be recentlyat the time retired Naval Officers.
> Maybe they "bid" and won, but with 100 untried merchandise and a long term
> maintenance contract, it isn‘t hard to be cynical.
> Since the designs we select are always built under licence by a Canadian
> company, they we have every right to expect the very best for the buck..We
> can build Hummers under licence I‘m sure.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gunner 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 3:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
> 
> > I agree with you Carl...buy Canadian, however, it has to meet the
> > minimum standards.  As I mentioned the purchase of a Hummer although
> > more expensive could have replaced the Iltis and the LSVW and the Iltis
> > replacement.  Cost savings could have been realized in trg, spare parts,
> > etc, etc and you have an operationally proven veh an Arnie drives one
> > as well!.
> >
> > Just because a vehicle fails the trials doesn‘t mean it will be
> > discarded I‘m not sure if Andrew was involved in the post purchase
> > trials or the after purchase trials as if it is easily fixed through a
> > modification, then, all is well.  I think Andrew mentioned the Iltis in
> > sand trials... I never had a problem in sand unless I was trying to get
> > up a steep hill.  Some of the other members may have alot more
> > experience using the Iltis but I drove one for along time starting in
> > 1986 and there wasn‘t many places it couldn‘t go.  Anyone else have
> > comments on the Iltis??  I haven‘t really "lived" in one for about seven
> > years.
> >
> > Carl Dinsdale wrote:
> > >
> > > Gunner,
> > >
> > > You‘ve brought up a very good point about keeping our spending within
> our borders, who can
> > > argue with bolstering our own economy? However, Andrew waded in here and
> stated that he
> > > was on the test team for the Iltis and it failed, but was still
> purchased. I don‘t
> > > disagree with Bombardier or any other Canadian company being awarded
> contracts for DND
> > > purchases, but the equipment should have to meet our testing and
> standards prior to final
> > > acceptance. The LSVW came in just before I got out, but once again I
> heard it was
> > > purchased despite failing trials miserably. Should we have bought it?
> Absolutely, BUT only
> > > after it was improved to the point of passing our trials. Those trials
> are fine and dandy,
> > > but are minimum standards, as pointed out by Andrew. They do not come
> close to the s**t
> > > and abuse any vehicle is put through on a 6 week spring Ex.
> > > I know there will be criticism for every and any military vehicle ever
> purchased, and I
> > > obviously do not have the years of experience that you do in the green
> machine, but who is
> > > making these decisions to purchase vehicles that fail our own testing?
> The down time,
> > > parts, repairs etc. experienced after their purchase seems like spending
> good money after
> > > bad. The long term be thought about during these purchase decisions as
> well because we
> > > constantly try to get 20 years out of  vehicles that were purchased with
> 10 years in mind.
> > >
> > > Am I way off base here? If so, by all means enlighten me.
> > >
> > > Carl
> > >
> > > Gunner wrote:
> > >
> > > > DND spending billions of dollars on new kit IS a political issue.
> > > > Canadian Taxpayers are the ones financing these purchases and they
> have
> > > > a reasonable expectation that most of the money will be spent in
> Canada
> > > > vice the US or some other country.  That‘s reality and I don‘t think
> > > > the government is wrong.  It‘s my tax dollars too and I want some type
> > > > of economic spinoff for Canadians...who can deny the benefit of the
> MLVW
> > > > and Iltis contract to Bombardier?
> > > >
> > > > Secondly, was the Iltis the best veh for the job of battlefield taxi.
> > > > Probably not the best, but, it is able to accomplish that mission.
> Now
> > > > if you argued the economics of buying an Iltis, LSVW and the upcoming
> > > > LLVW Iltis replacement instead of buying one vehicle ie the Hummer
> > > > which was able to fulfill all these roles with its different variants.
> > > > I could see alot of cost savings in having only one vehicle....one
> > > > vehicle for three purposes means, less trg of veh techs, simpler spare
> > > > parts reqr, less dvr trg, etc etc.  I think the Hummer is a diesel as
> > > > well, further simplifying the POL supply chain as we would have a
> > > > predominately diesel fleet.
> > > >
> > > > Gunner sends.....
> > > >
> > > > PS.  Its‘ a better vehicle then the other pieces of s**t that we
> bought.
> > > >
> > > > Carl DINSDALE wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn‘t think my point was the "after-market value" of the Iltis,
> but it is a valid
> > > > > point. The Iltis may have been intended for the battlefield, but
> anyone who drove it
> > > > > can attest to the fact that it wasn‘t engineered very well for that
> environment.
> > > > > That gutless 1.4 litre engine does not go very well with a four
> wheel drive
> > > > > suspension, especially one equipped with a differential lock. It
> seemed like they
> > > > > had endless electrical and fuel system problems and the best thing
> the little bugger
> > > > > was good for was summer road moves from London to Pet with the top
> down. I‘m way off
> > > > > topic here, in my original message I was simply trying to express my
> frustration
> > > > > with military acquisitions being made for political or fiscal
> reasons instead of
> > > > > because it is simply the best equipment available for the job.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carl
> > > > >
> > > > > Bradley Sallows wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > >I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were selling
> off a few
> > > > > > Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they could not be
> registered in
> > > > > > Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had grossly
> failed
> > > > > > collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and punching
> through the
> > > > > > windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat and is
> just not
> > > > > > acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a dozen,
> right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to use
> equipment which is
> > > > > > hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador.  However, why should we
> expect
> > > > > > military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety standards
> required for
> > > > > > passenger automobiles?  The Iltis was intended for the battlefield
> where there
> > > > > > are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway.  The
> after-market value
> > > > > > in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be, a
> consideration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brad Sallows
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > > message body.
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > message body.
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > message body.
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:59:14 -0700*
>Anyone else have comments on the Iltis??
I drove Iltis a fair amount for a reservist between 1986 and 1992.  I had no
complaints, although many who never bothered to properly learn to operate the
vehicle did.  The single greatest VOR problem in the early service years seemed
to be operators who failed to turn off the master switch, thereby ensuring the
battery would lose charge.  Second place went to those drivers who could never
figure out how to employ the choke and throttle when starting the Iltis.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *MOHAMMADNAWAZ@cs.com* on *Wed, 26 Apr 2000 18:56:46 EDT*
 HUMMER  YOU  UNDERSTAND     CANDIAN  REAL  YOU
UNTIED STATE      TELPHONE  410 869-3633
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com>* on *Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:59:14 -0700*
My memory is a bit vague here, but I seem to recall that about 1970-80
we had a very large number of Chev One Ton trucks palmed off on the Land
Element sic that were completely "off the shelf" and couldn‘t even be
driven off highway. Seems to me here I could be wrong but many of them
were painted yellow from the factory and resembled someone‘s
department of highways vehicles. Hey, but the price was right, and GM
was in a recession. Tell me I‘m wrong??
Carl Dinsdale wrote:
> 
> Gunner,
> 
> You‘ve brought up a very good point about keeping our spending within our borders, who can
> argue with bolstering our own economy? However, Andrew waded in here and stated that he
> was on the test team for the Iltis and it failed, but was still purchased. I don‘t
> disagree with Bombardier or any other Canadian company being awarded contracts for DND
> purchases, but the equipment should have to meet our testing and standards prior to final
> acceptance. The LSVW came in just before I got out, but once again I heard it was
> purchased despite failing trials miserably. Should we have bought it? Absolutely, BUT only
> after it was improved to the point of passing our trials. Those trials are fine and dandy,
> but are minimum standards, as pointed out by Andrew. They do not come close to the s**t
> and abuse any vehicle is put through on a 6 week spring Ex.
> I know there will be criticism for every and any military vehicle ever purchased, and I
> obviously do not have the years of experience that you do in the green machine, but who is
> making these decisions to purchase vehicles that fail our own testing? The down time,
> parts, repairs etc. experienced after their purchase seems like spending good money after
> bad. The long term be thought about during these purchase decisions as well because we
> constantly try to get 20 years out of  vehicles that were purchased with 10 years in mind.
> 
> Am I way off base here? If so, by all means enlighten me.
> 
> Carl
> 
> Gunner wrote:
> 
> > DND spending billions of dollars on new kit IS a political issue.
> > Canadian Taxpayers are the ones financing these purchases and they have
> > a reasonable expectation that most of the money will be spent in Canada
> > vice the US or some other country.  That‘s reality and I don‘t think
> > the government is wrong.  It‘s my tax dollars too and I want some type
> > of economic spinoff for Canadians...who can deny the benefit of the MLVW
> > and Iltis contract to Bombardier?
> >
> > Secondly, was the Iltis the best veh for the job of battlefield taxi.
> > Probably not the best, but, it is able to accomplish that mission.  Now
> > if you argued the economics of buying an Iltis, LSVW and the upcoming
> > LLVW Iltis replacement instead of buying one vehicle ie the Hummer
> > which was able to fulfill all these roles with its different variants.
> > I could see alot of cost savings in having only one vehicle....one
> > vehicle for three purposes means, less trg of veh techs, simpler spare
> > parts reqr, less dvr trg, etc etc.  I think the Hummer is a diesel as
> > well, further simplifying the POL supply chain as we would have a
> > predominately diesel fleet.
> >
> > Gunner sends.....
> >
> > PS.  Its‘ a better vehicle then the other pieces of s**t that we bought.
> >
> > Carl DINSDALE wrote:
> > >
> > > I didn‘t think my point was the "after-market value" of the Iltis, but it is a valid
> > > point. The Iltis may have been intended for the battlefield, but anyone who drove it
> > > can attest to the fact that it wasn‘t engineered very well for that environment.
> > > That gutless 1.4 litre engine does not go very well with a four wheel drive
> > > suspension, especially one equipped with a differential lock. It seemed like they
> > > had endless electrical and fuel system problems and the best thing the little bugger
> > > was good for was summer road moves from London to Pet with the top down. I‘m way off
> > > topic here, in my original message I was simply trying to express my frustration
> > > with military acquisitions being made for political or fiscal reasons instead of
> > > because it is simply the best equipment available for the job.
> > >
> > > Carl
> > >
> > > Bradley Sallows wrote:
> > >
> > > > >I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were selling off a few
> > > > Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they could not be registered in
> > > > Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had grossly failed
> > > > collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and punching through the
> > > > windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat and is just not
> > > > acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a dozen, right?
> > > >
> > > > No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to use equipment which is
> > > > hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador.  However, why should we expect
> > > > military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety standards required for
> > > > passenger automobiles?  The Iltis was intended for the battlefield where there
> > > > are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway.  The after-market value
> > > > in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be, a consideration.
> > > >
> > > > Brad Sallows
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > message body.
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"dave" <dave.newcombe@home.com>* on *Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:04:53 -0700*
With the amount of UN mission and humanitarian relief taskings we get, It
would be worth our while to have the capability to transport and deploy a
battaliion of troops, by sea.  This would give us rapid deployment
capabilities for materiel, and a command and control platform in theatre.
We can airlift ours troops, but getting thier equipment to a hotspot is a
bit different.
A Naval platform with a battalion‘s light combat equipment pre-positioned,
would be a great headstart to loading out a Batt. and getting the logistics
of an around the world voyage sorted out.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gunner 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
> Does anyone know about building Hummers under license in Canada?  I
> heard it was looked at but GM or the unions... wouldn‘t allow it.
>
> Agree with your comments about senior officers and NCMs working with
> companies that receive large contracts...GM Diesel LAV III rings a
> bell as does Computing Devices Canada TCCCS and Calian Technologies
> JANUS.  Is this "featherbedding" or simply companies hiring
> experienced Canadian Officers and NCMs?  I don‘t know.
>
> About the Frigates...that was a political hot potato and still is for
> that matter. You here calls from the Bloc Quebecois and PCs for the
> government to subsidize a national ship building program all the time.
> There is a reason the Canadian Navy ship wise is a relatively brand
> new fleet.  I predict that the government will announce in the next year
> or two plans to build at least two - four of the proposed Navy ships
> combined comd and con/supply/tankers to replace the AORs.
>
> dave wrote:
> >
> > Have you ever followed the paer trail on one of these big contracts.
Ask
> > questions about the Navy‘s new Frigate program, like who are the primary
> > shareholders and company officers in Paramax prime software
contracter.
> > You might find them to be recentlyat the time retired Naval Officers.
> > Maybe they "bid" and won, but with 100 untried merchandise and a long
term
> > maintenance contract, it isn‘t hard to be cynical.
> > Since the designs we select are always built under licence by a Canadian
> > company, they we have every right to expect the very best for the
buck..We
> > can build Hummers under licence I‘m sure.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Gunner 
> > To: 
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 3:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
> >
> > > I agree with you Carl...buy Canadian, however, it has to meet the
> > > minimum standards.  As I mentioned the purchase of a Hummer although
> > > more expensive could have replaced the Iltis and the LSVW and the
Iltis
> > > replacement.  Cost savings could have been realized in trg, spare
parts,
> > > etc, etc and you have an operationally proven veh an Arnie drives one
> > > as well!.
> > >
> > > Just because a vehicle fails the trials doesn‘t mean it will be
> > > discarded I‘m not sure if Andrew was involved in the post purchase
> > > trials or the after purchase trials as if it is easily fixed through
a
> > > modification, then, all is well.  I think Andrew mentioned the Iltis
in
> > > sand trials... I never had a problem in sand unless I was trying to
get
> > > up a steep hill.  Some of the other members may have alot more
> > > experience using the Iltis but I drove one for along time starting in
> > > 1986 and there wasn‘t many places it couldn‘t go.  Anyone else have
> > > comments on the Iltis??  I haven‘t really "lived" in one for about
seven
> > > years.
> > >
> > > Carl Dinsdale wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Gunner,
> > > >
> > > > You‘ve brought up a very good point about keeping our spending
within
> > our borders, who can
> > > > argue with bolstering our own economy? However, Andrew waded in here
and
> > stated that he
> > > > was on the test team for the Iltis and it failed, but was still
> > purchased. I don‘t
> > > > disagree with Bombardier or any other Canadian company being awarded
> > contracts for DND
> > > > purchases, but the equipment should have to meet our testing and
> > standards prior to final
> > > > acceptance. The LSVW came in just before I got out, but once again I
> > heard it was
> > > > purchased despite failing trials miserably. Should we have bought
it?
> > Absolutely, BUT only
> > > > after it was improved to the point of passing our trials. Those
trials
> > are fine and dandy,
> > > > but are minimum standards, as pointed out by Andrew. They do not
come
> > close to the s**t
> > > > and abuse any vehicle is put through on a 6 week spring Ex.
> > > > I know there will be criticism for every and any military vehicle
ever
> > purchased, and I
> > > > obviously do not have the years of experience that you do in the
green
> > machine, but who is
> > > > making these decisions to purchase vehicles that fail our own
testing?
> > The down time,
> > > > parts, repairs etc. experienced after their purchase seems like
spending
> > good money after
> > > > bad. The long term be thought about during these purchase decisions
as
> > well because we
> > > > constantly try to get 20 years out of  vehicles that were purchased
with
> > 10 years in mind.
> > > >
> > > > Am I way off base here? If so, by all means enlighten me.
> > > >
> > > > Carl
> > > >
> > > > Gunner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > DND spending billions of dollars on new kit IS a political issue.
> > > > > Canadian Taxpayers are the ones financing these purchases and they
> > have
> > > > > a reasonable expectation that most of the money will be spent in
> > Canada
> > > > > vice the US or some other country.  That‘s reality and I don‘t
think
> > > > > the government is wrong.  It‘s my tax dollars too and I want some
type
> > > > > of economic spinoff for Canadians...who can deny the benefit of
the
> > MLVW
> > > > > and Iltis contract to Bombardier?
> > > > >
> > > > > Secondly, was the Iltis the best veh for the job of battlefield
taxi.
> > > > > Probably not the best, but, it is able to accomplish that mission.
> > Now
> > > > > if you argued the economics of buying an Iltis, LSVW and the
upcoming
> > > > > LLVW Iltis replacement instead of buying one vehicle ie the
Hummer
> > > > > which was able to fulfill all these roles with its different
variants.
> > > > > I could see alot of cost savings in having only one vehicle....one
> > > > > vehicle for three purposes means, less trg of veh techs, simpler
spare
> > > > > parts reqr, less dvr trg, etc etc.  I think the Hummer is a diesel
as
> > > > > well, further simplifying the POL supply chain as we would have a
> > > > > predominately diesel fleet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gunner sends.....
> > > > >
> > > > > PS.  Its‘ a better vehicle then the other pieces of s**t that we
> > bought.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carl DINSDALE wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn‘t think my point was the "after-market value" of the
Iltis,
> > but it is a valid
> > > > > > point. The Iltis may have been intended for the battlefield, but
> > anyone who drove it
> > > > > > can attest to the fact that it wasn‘t engineered very well for
that
> > environment.
> > > > > > That gutless 1.4 litre engine does not go very well with a four
> > wheel drive
> > > > > > suspension, especially one equipped with a differential lock. It
> > seemed like they
> > > > > > had endless electrical and fuel system problems and the best
thing
> > the little bugger
> > > > > > was good for was summer road moves from London to Pet with the
top
> > down. I‘m way off
> > > > > > topic here, in my original message I was simply trying to
express my
> > frustration
> > > > > > with military acquisitions being made for political or fiscal
> > reasons instead of
> > > > > > because it is simply the best equipment available for the job.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carl
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bradley Sallows wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were
selling
> > off a few
> > > > > > > Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they could
not be
> > registered in
> > > > > > > Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had
grossly
> > failed
> > > > > > > collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and
punching
> > through the
> > > > > > > windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat and
is
> > just not
> > > > > > > acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a
dozen,
> > right?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to use
> > equipment which is
> > > > > > > hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador.  However, why
should we
> > expect
> > > > > > > military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety
standards
> > required for
> > > > > > > passenger automobiles?  The Iltis was intended for the
battlefield
> > where there
> > > > > > > are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway.  The
> > after-market value
> > > > > > > in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be, a
> > consideration.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Brad Sallows
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > > > message body.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > > message body.
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > message body.
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > message body.
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bruce Williams" <Williabr@uregina.ca>* on *Wed, 26 Apr 2000 23:39:58 -0600*
The discussion of vehicles brings to mind a true classic. In the mid 70‘s
the Militia was issued commercial pattern Dodge 1 ton trucks to replace the
old reliable 3/4 ton SMP.
These things came painted flat green which was fine except they had CHROME
trim. I happend to be Tn Officer at the time so I ordered the chrome painted
before the C.O. saw it and flipped. all was fine until the base Tn officer
came to do his inspection. Being an air type he was upset at the
unauthorized modification and that he would have the paint removed and we
would have to pay for it.
Needless to say things were a bit tense between us. Then he saw the dented
bumper and went on a tear about no accident report. He was not impressed
when I said it wasn‘t an accident, we would have no problem pushing a tree
like that over with our old 3/4 tons. He said an accident report had to be
submitted. He went ballistic when I said i wouldn‘t submit an accident
report but I was preparing a UCR since anything that flimsy was totally
inadequate for field use.
I have to admit by then things really turned into a pissing contest between
us. Fortunatly, my O.C. was present and tactfully suggested I leave. He told
me later he figured we were ready to start throwing punches.
The great irony is that a few years later when I was in District HQ running
the Log Adm shop that same Captain was one of my staff...somehow we never
chatted about that inspection.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"dave" <dave.newcombe@home.com>* on *Thu, 27 Apr 2000 06:03:01 -0700*
Reminds me of an old joke
Whats yellow and sleeps 6?
 a C.E. crewcab!
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Edwards 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
> My memory is a bit vague here, but I seem to recall that about 1970-80
> we had a very large number of Chev One Ton trucks palmed off on the Land
> Element sic that were completely "off the shelf" and couldn‘t even be
> driven off highway. Seems to me here I could be wrong but many of them
> were painted yellow from the factory and resembled someone‘s
> department of highways vehicles. Hey, but the price was right, and GM
> was in a recession. Tell me I‘m wrong??
>
> Carl Dinsdale wrote:
> >
> > Gunner,
> >
> > You‘ve brought up a very good point about keeping our spending within
our borders, who can
> > argue with bolstering our own economy? However, Andrew waded in here and
stated that he
> > was on the test team for the Iltis and it failed, but was still
purchased. I don‘t
> > disagree with Bombardier or any other Canadian company being awarded
contracts for DND
> > purchases, but the equipment should have to meet our testing and
standards prior to final
> > acceptance. The LSVW came in just before I got out, but once again I
heard it was
> > purchased despite failing trials miserably. Should we have bought it?
Absolutely, BUT only
> > after it was improved to the point of passing our trials. Those trials
are fine and dandy,
> > but are minimum standards, as pointed out by Andrew. They do not come
close to the s**t
> > and abuse any vehicle is put through on a 6 week spring Ex.
> > I know there will be criticism for every and any military vehicle ever
purchased, and I
> > obviously do not have the years of experience that you do in the green
machine, but who is
> > making these decisions to purchase vehicles that fail our own testing?
The down time,
> > parts, repairs etc. experienced after their purchase seems like spending
good money after
> > bad. The long term be thought about during these purchase decisions as
well because we
> > constantly try to get 20 years out of  vehicles that were purchased with
10 years in mind.
> >
> > Am I way off base here? If so, by all means enlighten me.
> >
> > Carl
> >
> > Gunner wrote:
> >
> > > DND spending billions of dollars on new kit IS a political issue.
> > > Canadian Taxpayers are the ones financing these purchases and they
have
> > > a reasonable expectation that most of the money will be spent in
Canada
> > > vice the US or some other country.  That‘s reality and I don‘t think
> > > the government is wrong.  It‘s my tax dollars too and I want some type
> > > of economic spinoff for Canadians...who can deny the benefit of the
MLVW
> > > and Iltis contract to Bombardier?
> > >
> > > Secondly, was the Iltis the best veh for the job of battlefield taxi.
> > > Probably not the best, but, it is able to accomplish that mission.
Now
> > > if you argued the economics of buying an Iltis, LSVW and the upcoming
> > > LLVW Iltis replacement instead of buying one vehicle ie the Hummer
> > > which was able to fulfill all these roles with its different variants.
> > > I could see alot of cost savings in having only one vehicle....one
> > > vehicle for three purposes means, less trg of veh techs, simpler spare
> > > parts reqr, less dvr trg, etc etc.  I think the Hummer is a diesel as
> > > well, further simplifying the POL supply chain as we would have a
> > > predominately diesel fleet.
> > >
> > > Gunner sends.....
> > >
> > > PS.  Its‘ a better vehicle then the other pieces of s**t that we
bought.
> > >
> > > Carl DINSDALE wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I didn‘t think my point was the "after-market value" of the Iltis,
but it is a valid
> > > > point. The Iltis may have been intended for the battlefield, but
anyone who drove it
> > > > can attest to the fact that it wasn‘t engineered very well for that
environment.
> > > > That gutless 1.4 litre engine does not go very well with a four
wheel drive
> > > > suspension, especially one equipped with a differential lock. It
seemed like they
> > > > had endless electrical and fuel system problems and the best thing
the little bugger
> > > > was good for was summer road moves from London to Pet with the top
down. I‘m way off
> > > > topic here, in my original message I was simply trying to express my
frustration
> > > > with military acquisitions being made for political or fiscal
reasons instead of
> > > > because it is simply the best equipment available for the job.
> > > >
> > > > Carl
> > > >
> > > > Bradley Sallows wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were selling
off a few
> > > > > Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they could not be
registered in
> > > > > Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had grossly
failed
> > > > > collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and punching
through the
> > > > > windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat and is
just not
> > > > > acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a dozen,
right?
> > > > >
> > > > > No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to use
equipment which is
> > > > > hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador.  However, why should we
expect
> > > > > military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety standards
required for
> > > > > passenger automobiles?  The Iltis was intended for the battlefield
where there
> > > > > are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway.  The
after-market value
> > > > > in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be, a
consideration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brad Sallows
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > message body.
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > message body.
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Gunner <randr1@home.com>* on *Thu, 27 Apr 2000 07:24:19 -0600*
The GM 1 Ton...better known as the "fun ton"...ever drive one across
country?  You were bounced all of the place.  They were replaced in the
mid to late 80s by the CUCV stood for something like Commercial Utility
Combat Vehicle.  I‘m not sure if the US still have them...I think the
Hummer replaced them all Hey another vehicle the Hummer could have
replaced...that‘s four vehicles in the CF inventory that could have been
replaced by one vehicle!
Ian Edwards wrote:
> 
> My memory is a bit vague here, but I seem to recall that about 1970-80
> we had a very large number of Chev One Ton trucks palmed off on the Land
> Element sic that were completely "off the shelf" and couldn‘t even be
> driven off highway. Seems to me here I could be wrong but many of them
> were painted yellow from the factory and resembled someone‘s
> department of highways vehicles. Hey, but the price was right, and GM
> was in a recession. Tell me I‘m wrong??
> 
> Carl Dinsdale wrote:
> >
> > Gunner,
> >
> > You‘ve brought up a very good point about keeping our spending within our borders, who can
> > argue with bolstering our own economy? However, Andrew waded in here and stated that he
> > was on the test team for the Iltis and it failed, but was still purchased. I don‘t
> > disagree with Bombardier or any other Canadian company being awarded contracts for DND
> > purchases, but the equipment should have to meet our testing and standards prior to final
> > acceptance. The LSVW came in just before I got out, but once again I heard it was
> > purchased despite failing trials miserably. Should we have bought it? Absolutely, BUT only
> > after it was improved to the point of passing our trials. Those trials are fine and dandy,
> > but are minimum standards, as pointed out by Andrew. They do not come close to the s**t
> > and abuse any vehicle is put through on a 6 week spring Ex.
> > I know there will be criticism for every and any military vehicle ever purchased, and I
> > obviously do not have the years of experience that you do in the green machine, but who is
> > making these decisions to purchase vehicles that fail our own testing? The down time,
> > parts, repairs etc. experienced after their purchase seems like spending good money after
> > bad. The long term be thought about during these purchase decisions as well because we
> > constantly try to get 20 years out of  vehicles that were purchased with 10 years in mind.
> >
> > Am I way off base here? If so, by all means enlighten me.
> >
> > Carl
> >
> > Gunner wrote:
> >
> > > DND spending billions of dollars on new kit IS a political issue.
> > > Canadian Taxpayers are the ones financing these purchases and they have
> > > a reasonable expectation that most of the money will be spent in Canada
> > > vice the US or some other country.  That‘s reality and I don‘t think
> > > the government is wrong.  It‘s my tax dollars too and I want some type
> > > of economic spinoff for Canadians...who can deny the benefit of the MLVW
> > > and Iltis contract to Bombardier?
> > >
> > > Secondly, was the Iltis the best veh for the job of battlefield taxi.
> > > Probably not the best, but, it is able to accomplish that mission.  Now
> > > if you argued the economics of buying an Iltis, LSVW and the upcoming
> > > LLVW Iltis replacement instead of buying one vehicle ie the Hummer
> > > which was able to fulfill all these roles with its different variants.
> > > I could see alot of cost savings in having only one vehicle....one
> > > vehicle for three purposes means, less trg of veh techs, simpler spare
> > > parts reqr, less dvr trg, etc etc.  I think the Hummer is a diesel as
> > > well, further simplifying the POL supply chain as we would have a
> > > predominately diesel fleet.
> > >
> > > Gunner sends.....
> > >
> > > PS.  Its‘ a better vehicle then the other pieces of s**t that we bought.
> > >
> > > Carl DINSDALE wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I didn‘t think my point was the "after-market value" of the Iltis, but it is a valid
> > > > point. The Iltis may have been intended for the battlefield, but anyone who drove it
> > > > can attest to the fact that it wasn‘t engineered very well for that environment.
> > > > That gutless 1.4 litre engine does not go very well with a four wheel drive
> > > > suspension, especially one equipped with a differential lock. It seemed like they
> > > > had endless electrical and fuel system problems and the best thing the little bugger
> > > > was good for was summer road moves from London to Pet with the top down. I‘m way off
> > > > topic here, in my original message I was simply trying to express my frustration
> > > > with military acquisitions being made for political or fiscal reasons instead of
> > > > because it is simply the best equipment available for the job.
> > > >
> > > > Carl
> > > >
> > > > Bradley Sallows wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were selling off a few
> > > > > Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they could not be registered in
> > > > > Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had grossly failed
> > > > > collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and punching through the
> > > > > windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat and is just not
> > > > > acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a dozen, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to use equipment which is
> > > > > hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador.  However, why should we expect
> > > > > military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety standards required for
> > > > > passenger automobiles?  The Iltis was intended for the battlefield where there
> > > > > are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway.  The after-market value
> > > > > in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be, a consideration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brad Sallows
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > message body.
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > message body.
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Gunner <randr1@home.com>* on *Thu, 27 Apr 2000 07:26:06 -0600*
Totally agree with you!  However, my point was the Navy may get new
ships prior to the Air Force getting new helicopters and aircraft.  The
government may decide that the CF will buy something for instance the
CC150 Airbus‘s.  Its not DND top priority, but, we have to fund the
purchases.
dave wrote:
> 
> With the amount of UN mission and humanitarian relief taskings we get, It
> would be worth our while to have the capability to transport and deploy a
> battaliion of troops, by sea.  This would give us rapid deployment
> capabilities for materiel, and a command and control platform in theatre.
> We can airlift ours troops, but getting thier equipment to a hotspot is a
> bit different.
> A Naval platform with a battalion‘s light combat equipment pre-positioned,
> would be a great headstart to loading out a Batt. and getting the logistics
> of an around the world voyage sorted out.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gunner 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 3:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
> 
> > Does anyone know about building Hummers under license in Canada?  I
> > heard it was looked at but GM or the unions... wouldn‘t allow it.
> >
> > Agree with your comments about senior officers and NCMs working with
> > companies that receive large contracts...GM Diesel LAV III rings a
> > bell as does Computing Devices Canada TCCCS and Calian Technologies
> > JANUS.  Is this "featherbedding" or simply companies hiring
> > experienced Canadian Officers and NCMs?  I don‘t know.
> >
> > About the Frigates...that was a political hot potato and still is for
> > that matter. You here calls from the Bloc Quebecois and PCs for the
> > government to subsidize a national ship building program all the time.
> > There is a reason the Canadian Navy ship wise is a relatively brand
> > new fleet.  I predict that the government will announce in the next year
> > or two plans to build at least two - four of the proposed Navy ships
> > combined comd and con/supply/tankers to replace the AORs.
> >
> > dave wrote:
> > >
> > > Have you ever followed the paer trail on one of these big contracts.
> Ask
> > > questions about the Navy‘s new Frigate program, like who are the primary
> > > shareholders and company officers in Paramax prime software
> contracter.
> > > You might find them to be recentlyat the time retired Naval Officers.
> > > Maybe they "bid" and won, but with 100 untried merchandise and a long
> term
> > > maintenance contract, it isn‘t hard to be cynical.
> > > Since the designs we select are always built under licence by a Canadian
> > > company, they we have every right to expect the very best for the
> buck..We
> > > can build Hummers under licence I‘m sure.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Gunner 
> > > To: 
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 3:20 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
> > >
> > > > I agree with you Carl...buy Canadian, however, it has to meet the
> > > > minimum standards.  As I mentioned the purchase of a Hummer although
> > > > more expensive could have replaced the Iltis and the LSVW and the
> Iltis
> > > > replacement.  Cost savings could have been realized in trg, spare
> parts,
> > > > etc, etc and you have an operationally proven veh an Arnie drives one
> > > > as well!.
> > > >
> > > > Just because a vehicle fails the trials doesn‘t mean it will be
> > > > discarded I‘m not sure if Andrew was involved in the post purchase
> > > > trials or the after purchase trials as if it is easily fixed through
> a
> > > > modification, then, all is well.  I think Andrew mentioned the Iltis
> in
> > > > sand trials... I never had a problem in sand unless I was trying to
> get
> > > > up a steep hill.  Some of the other members may have alot more
> > > > experience using the Iltis but I drove one for along time starting in
> > > > 1986 and there wasn‘t many places it couldn‘t go.  Anyone else have
> > > > comments on the Iltis??  I haven‘t really "lived" in one for about
> seven
> > > > years.
> > > >
> > > > Carl Dinsdale wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Gunner,
> > > > >
> > > > > You‘ve brought up a very good point about keeping our spending
> within
> > > our borders, who can
> > > > > argue with bolstering our own economy? However, Andrew waded in here
> and
> > > stated that he
> > > > > was on the test team for the Iltis and it failed, but was still
> > > purchased. I don‘t
> > > > > disagree with Bombardier or any other Canadian company being awarded
> > > contracts for DND
> > > > > purchases, but the equipment should have to meet our testing and
> > > standards prior to final
> > > > > acceptance. The LSVW came in just before I got out, but once again I
> > > heard it was
> > > > > purchased despite failing trials miserably. Should we have bought
> it?
> > > Absolutely, BUT only
> > > > > after it was improved to the point of passing our trials. Those
> trials
> > > are fine and dandy,
> > > > > but are minimum standards, as pointed out by Andrew. They do not
> come
> > > close to the s**t
> > > > > and abuse any vehicle is put through on a 6 week spring Ex.
> > > > > I know there will be criticism for every and any military vehicle
> ever
> > > purchased, and I
> > > > > obviously do not have the years of experience that you do in the
> green
> > > machine, but who is
> > > > > making these decisions to purchase vehicles that fail our own
> testing?
> > > The down time,
> > > > > parts, repairs etc. experienced after their purchase seems like
> spending
> > > good money after
> > > > > bad. The long term be thought about during these purchase decisions
> as
> > > well because we
> > > > > constantly try to get 20 years out of  vehicles that were purchased
> with
> > > 10 years in mind.
> > > > >
> > > > > Am I way off base here? If so, by all means enlighten me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carl
> > > > >
> > > > > Gunner wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > DND spending billions of dollars on new kit IS a political issue.
> > > > > > Canadian Taxpayers are the ones financing these purchases and they
> > > have
> > > > > > a reasonable expectation that most of the money will be spent in
> > > Canada
> > > > > > vice the US or some other country.  That‘s reality and I don‘t
> think
> > > > > > the government is wrong.  It‘s my tax dollars too and I want some
> type
> > > > > > of economic spinoff for Canadians...who can deny the benefit of
> the
> > > MLVW
> > > > > > and Iltis contract to Bombardier?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Secondly, was the Iltis the best veh for the job of battlefield
> taxi.
> > > > > > Probably not the best, but, it is able to accomplish that mission.
> > > Now
> > > > > > if you argued the economics of buying an Iltis, LSVW and the
> upcoming
> > > > > > LLVW Iltis replacement instead of buying one vehicle ie the
> Hummer
> > > > > > which was able to fulfill all these roles with its different
> variants.
> > > > > > I could see alot of cost savings in having only one vehicle....one
> > > > > > vehicle for three purposes means, less trg of veh techs, simpler
> spare
> > > > > > parts reqr, less dvr trg, etc etc.  I think the Hummer is a diesel
> as
> > > > > > well, further simplifying the POL supply chain as we would have a
> > > > > > predominately diesel fleet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gunner sends.....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PS.  Its‘ a better vehicle then the other pieces of s**t that we
> > > bought.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carl DINSDALE wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I didn‘t think my point was the "after-market value" of the
> Iltis,
> > > but it is a valid
> > > > > > > point. The Iltis may have been intended for the battlefield, but
> > > anyone who drove it
> > > > > > > can attest to the fact that it wasn‘t engineered very well for
> that
> > > environment.
> > > > > > > That gutless 1.4 litre engine does not go very well with a four
> > > wheel drive
> > > > > > > suspension, especially one equipped with a differential lock. It
> > > seemed like they
> > > > > > > had endless electrical and fuel system problems and the best
> thing
> > > the little bugger
> > > > > > > was good for was summer road moves from London to Pet with the
> top
> > > down. I‘m way off
> > > > > > > topic here, in my original message I was simply trying to
> express my
> > > frustration
> > > > > > > with military acquisitions being made for political or fiscal
> > > reasons instead of
> > > > > > > because it is simply the best equipment available for the job.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carl
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bradley Sallows wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were
> selling
> > > off a few
> > > > > > > > Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they could
> not be
> > > registered in
> > > > > > > > Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had
> grossly
> > > failed
> > > > > > > > collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and
> punching
> > > through the
> > > > > > > > windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat and
> is
> > > just not
> > > > > > > > acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a
> dozen,
> > > right?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to use
> > > equipment which is
> > > > > > > > hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador.  However, why
> should we
> > > expect
> > > > > > > > military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety
> standards
> > > required for
> > > > > > > > passenger automobiles?  The Iltis was intended for the
> battlefield
> > > where there
> > > > > > > > are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway.  The
> > > after-market value
> > > > > > > > in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be, a
> > > consideration.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Brad Sallows
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > > > > message body.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > > > message body.
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > > message body.
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > message body.
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > message body.
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"dave" <dave.newcombe@home.com>* on *Thu, 27 Apr 2000 12:30:42 -0700*
Do you mean ",Keep quebec‘s shipyards working". Re-equip the navy!
Just think, if we could co-ordinate government pork barreling, we could
equip and expand our forces.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gunner 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
> Totally agree with you!  However, my point was the Navy may get new
> ships prior to the Air Force getting new helicopters and aircraft.  The
> government may decide that the CF will buy something for instance the
> CC150 Airbus‘s.  Its not DND top priority, but, we have to fund the
> purchases.
>
> dave wrote:
> >
> > With the amount of UN mission and humanitarian relief taskings we get,
It
> > would be worth our while to have the capability to transport and deploy
a
> > battaliion of troops, by sea.  This would give us rapid deployment
> > capabilities for materiel, and a command and control platform in
theatre.
> > We can airlift ours troops, but getting thier equipment to a hotspot is
a
> > bit different.
> > A Naval platform with a battalion‘s light combat equipment
pre-positioned,
> > would be a great headstart to loading out a Batt. and getting the
logistics
> > of an around the world voyage sorted out.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Gunner 
> > To: 
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 3:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
> >
> > > Does anyone know about building Hummers under license in Canada?  I
> > > heard it was looked at but GM or the unions... wouldn‘t allow it.
> > >
> > > Agree with your comments about senior officers and NCMs working with
> > > companies that receive large contracts...GM Diesel LAV III rings a
> > > bell as does Computing Devices Canada TCCCS and Calian Technologies
> > > JANUS.  Is this "featherbedding" or simply companies hiring
> > > experienced Canadian Officers and NCMs?  I don‘t know.
> > >
> > > About the Frigates...that was a political hot potato and still is for
> > > that matter. You here calls from the Bloc Quebecois and PCs for the
> > > government to subsidize a national ship building program all the time.
> > > There is a reason the Canadian Navy ship wise is a relatively brand
> > > new fleet.  I predict that the government will announce in the next
year
> > > or two plans to build at least two - four of the proposed Navy ships
> > > combined comd and con/supply/tankers to replace the AORs.
> > >
> > > dave wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Have you ever followed the paer trail on one of these big contracts.
> > Ask
> > > > questions about the Navy‘s new Frigate program, like who are the
primary
> > > > shareholders and company officers in Paramax prime software
> > contracter.
> > > > You might find them to be recentlyat the time retired Naval
Officers.
> > > > Maybe they "bid" and won, but with 100 untried merchandise and a
long
> > term
> > > > maintenance contract, it isn‘t hard to be cynical.
> > > > Since the designs we select are always built under licence by a
Canadian
> > > > company, they we have every right to expect the very best for the
> > buck..We
> > > > can build Hummers under licence I‘m sure.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Gunner 
> > > > To: 
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 3:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
> > > >
> > > > > I agree with you Carl...buy Canadian, however, it has to meet the
> > > > > minimum standards.  As I mentioned the purchase of a Hummer
although
> > > > > more expensive could have replaced the Iltis and the LSVW and the
> > Iltis
> > > > > replacement.  Cost savings could have been realized in trg, spare
> > parts,
> > > > > etc, etc and you have an operationally proven veh an Arnie drives
one
> > > > > as well!.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just because a vehicle fails the trials doesn‘t mean it will be
> > > > > discarded I‘m not sure if Andrew was involved in the post
purchase
> > > > > trials or the after purchase trials as if it is easily fixed
through
> > a
> > > > > modification, then, all is well.  I think Andrew mentioned the
Iltis
> > in
> > > > > sand trials... I never had a problem in sand unless I was trying
to
> > get
> > > > > up a steep hill.  Some of the other members may have alot more
> > > > > experience using the Iltis but I drove one for along time starting
in
> > > > > 1986 and there wasn‘t many places it couldn‘t go.  Anyone else
have
> > > > > comments on the Iltis??  I haven‘t really "lived" in one for about
> > seven
> > > > > years.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carl Dinsdale wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gunner,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You‘ve brought up a very good point about keeping our spending
> > within
> > > > our borders, who can
> > > > > > argue with bolstering our own economy? However, Andrew waded in
here
> > and
> > > > stated that he
> > > > > > was on the test team for the Iltis and it failed, but was still
> > > > purchased. I don‘t
> > > > > > disagree with Bombardier or any other Canadian company being
awarded
> > > > contracts for DND
> > > > > > purchases, but the equipment should have to meet our testing and
> > > > standards prior to final
> > > > > > acceptance. The LSVW came in just before I got out, but once
again I
> > > > heard it was
> > > > > > purchased despite failing trials miserably. Should we have
bought
> > it?
> > > > Absolutely, BUT only
> > > > > > after it was improved to the point of passing our trials. Those
> > trials
> > > > are fine and dandy,
> > > > > > but are minimum standards, as pointed out by Andrew. They do not
> > come
> > > > close to the s**t
> > > > > > and abuse any vehicle is put through on a 6 week spring Ex.
> > > > > > I know there will be criticism for every and any military
vehicle
> > ever
> > > > purchased, and I
> > > > > > obviously do not have the years of experience that you do in the
> > green
> > > > machine, but who is
> > > > > > making these decisions to purchase vehicles that fail our own
> > testing?
> > > > The down time,
> > > > > > parts, repairs etc. experienced after their purchase seems like
> > spending
> > > > good money after
> > > > > > bad. The long term be thought about during these purchase
decisions
> > as
> > > > well because we
> > > > > > constantly try to get 20 years out of  vehicles that were
purchased
> > with
> > > > 10 years in mind.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am I way off base here? If so, by all means enlighten me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carl
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gunner wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > DND spending billions of dollars on new kit IS a political
issue.
> > > > > > > Canadian Taxpayers are the ones financing these purchases and
they
> > > > have
> > > > > > > a reasonable expectation that most of the money will be spent
in
> > > > Canada
> > > > > > > vice the US or some other country.  That‘s reality and I
don‘t
> > think
> > > > > > > the government is wrong.  It‘s my tax dollars too and I want
some
> > type
> > > > > > > of economic spinoff for Canadians...who can deny the benefit
of
> > the
> > > > MLVW
> > > > > > > and Iltis contract to Bombardier?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Secondly, was the Iltis the best veh for the job of
battlefield
> > taxi.
> > > > > > > Probably not the best, but, it is able to accomplish that
mission.
> > > > Now
> > > > > > > if you argued the economics of buying an Iltis, LSVW and the
> > upcoming
> > > > > > > LLVW Iltis replacement instead of buying one vehicle ie the
> > Hummer
> > > > > > > which was able to fulfill all these roles with its different
> > variants.
> > > > > > > I could see alot of cost savings in having only one
vehicle....one
> > > > > > > vehicle for three purposes means, less trg of veh techs,
simpler
> > spare
> > > > > > > parts reqr, less dvr trg, etc etc.  I think the Hummer is a
diesel
> > as
> > > > > > > well, further simplifying the POL supply chain as we would
have a
> > > > > > > predominately diesel fleet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gunner sends.....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PS.  Its‘ a better vehicle then the other pieces of s**t that
we
> > > > bought.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carl DINSDALE wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I didn‘t think my point was the "after-market value" of the
> > Iltis,
> > > > but it is a valid
> > > > > > > > point. The Iltis may have been intended for the battlefield,
but
> > > > anyone who drove it
> > > > > > > > can attest to the fact that it wasn‘t engineered very well
for
> > that
> > > > environment.
> > > > > > > > That gutless 1.4 litre engine does not go very well with a
four
> > > > wheel drive
> > > > > > > > suspension, especially one equipped with a differential
lock. It
> > > > seemed like they
> > > > > > > > had endless electrical and fuel system problems and the best
> > thing
> > > > the little bugger
> > > > > > > > was good for was summer road moves from London to Pet with
the
> > top
> > > > down. I‘m way off
> > > > > > > > topic here, in my original message I was simply trying to
> > express my
> > > > frustration
> > > > > > > > with military acquisitions being made for political or
fiscal
> > > > reasons instead of
> > > > > > > > because it is simply the best equipment available for the
job.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carl
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bradley Sallows wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were
> > selling
> > > > off a few
> > > > > > > > > Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they
could
> > not be
> > > > registered in
> > > > > > > > > Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had
> > grossly
> > > > failed
> > > > > > > > > collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and
> > punching
> > > > through the
> > > > > > > > > windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat
and
> > is
> > > > just not
> > > > > > > > > acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a
> > dozen,
> > > > right?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to
use
> > > > equipment which is
> > > > > > > > > hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador.  However, why
> > should we
> > > > expect
> > > > > > > > > military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety
> > standards
> > > > required for
> > > > > > > > > passenger automobiles?  The Iltis was intended for the
> > battlefield
> > > > where there
> > > > > > > > > are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway.
The
> > > > after-market value
> > > > > > > > > in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be,
a
> > > > consideration.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Brad Sallows
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > > > > > message body.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > > > > message body.
> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > > > message body.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > > message body.
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > message body.
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > message body.
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Derrick Forsythe <Derrick.Forsythe@gov.ab.ca>* on *Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:00:46 -0600*
I was at a USI meeting last night at the Mess and got to talking with my
Honourary Colonel and a former CO of the unit.  The Honourary was waxing
poetically on the merits of the Bren Gun Carrier as a Recce vehicle.
We got on to the "sub-standard vehicles" currently employed in Reserve units
for Recce LSVW.  My former CO had spent some time in Ottawa working for
the Feds in the early 70‘s about the time we were working on a replacement
for the one tons.
There were three different bids submitted:
General Motors
Land Rover
Volvo
the Vehicles were trialed at LETE ? the evaluation facility in Ottawa.
One of the tests involved getting the vehicles stuck in a mudhole in order
to test the winch.  The then CDS was present to witness this particular
trial.
First up was the General Motors candidate that promptly got stuck - engaged
the winch and extracted itself perfectly as per the trial.
Second was the Land Rover which, like the GM candidate, got stuck and was
successfully extracted via its winch.
Then came the Volvo which was the only vehicle to fail the trial -- the
testers COULD NOT get it stuck, therefore the winch could not be deployed.
In the end the wrench bendres had to disengage the drive train from the
front or back  I can‘t remember which thereby allowing the vehicle to
become stuck so it could successfully winch itself out of the muck.
clearly the best vehicle for the job was the Volvo and the company had even
offered to build a plant in Quebec to assemble the vehicles as a condition
of receiving the contract.
politics got in the way however and GM was successful in having the trial
results quashed and the process re-started.
that is how we ended up with the CUCV.
the more things change......
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:33:35 -0700*
>that is how we ended up with the CUCV.
On our MIUSR the CUCV basic cargo variant was priced at either $5000 or $7000
memory‘s a bit hazy.  Iltis weighed in at $28000 and MLVW at $58000.  You
don‘t suppose cost was a significant factor?
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Robin Craig" <therobincraig@home.com>* on *Thu, 27 Apr 2000 22:26:58 -0400*
Hello, I saw your posting about the trilas in the 70‘s, that is interesting.
I am a member of this list and am a bit interested in military history when
it comes too vehicles and equipment. Too that end I am an endless shutterbug
and carry a camera all the time plus i have a fairly good network of
contacts.
Living here in Ottawa I get too see alot of things that alot of people dont
even know pass thru the city, I saw the NYALA from GM the other week
interesting machine  originally SA built thing.
Anyway back too those tests, the two volvos are still around the area here,
one in the contance bay area and the other went to Quebec somewhere. The two
Land Rovers are in Alomnte but unfortunatly they are being absorbed into the
soil as we speak as the owner wont part with them or restore them. I
obtained a hard copy of all the Land Rover data from the test before LETE
closed and have prints from some of the test work, the data from valcartier
was all missing for some reason.
I run a 1986 Land Rover 110 2.5 na diesel as my daily driver and I also own
an ex British army Daimler Ferret mk 2/3 in full runnning condition.
rgds
Robin Craig
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Ted Underhill and Heidi Schmidt <edward@IslandNet.com>* on *Thu, 27 Apr 2000 19:41:57 -0700*
Which just goes to show that purchased off the shelf CUCV generally gives
the taxpayer better value. Before anyone brings up the Griffon - I admit
it also is a POS bought off the shelf. The iltoids were built in Canada -
can anyone imagine that bombardier ate the costs of building the plant,
training the workforce, and then tearing down the plant afterwards?  No.
Pass on the extra costs to the army it is no wonder that an iltis costs
$28000!
Speaking of off the shelf, has anyone taken a good look at the Danish
combat uni?  It looks so suspiciously like our new CADPAT that one wonders
why DND didn‘t just place an order with the Danish textile manufacturer.
It could have been issued sooner and probably acquired at a much lower per
unit cost. 
Rounds complete
Ted Underhill
At 02:33 PM 4/27/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>>that is how we ended up with the CUCV.
>
>On our MIUSR the CUCV basic cargo variant was priced at either $5000 or
$7000
>memory‘s a bit hazy.  Iltis weighed in at $28000 and MLVW at $58000.  You
>don‘t suppose cost was a significant factor?
>
>Brad Sallows
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
>to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
>message body.
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Carl DINSDALE <joscol@mb.sympatico.ca>* on *Sat, 29 Apr 2000 09:47:13 -0500*
I think the trucks you are referring to were used by base side admin type units, CE carpenters
and electricians etc. Can‘t imagine them in combat arms units, remember the seven reasons why
things are seen?
Carl
Ian Edwards wrote:
> My memory is a bit vague here, but I seem to recall that about 1970-80
> we had a very large number of Chev One Ton trucks palmed off on the Land
> Element sic that were completely "off the shelf" and couldn‘t even be
> driven off highway. Seems to me here I could be wrong but many of them
> were painted yellow from the factory and resembled someone‘s
> department of highways vehicles. Hey, but the price was right, and GM
> was in a recession. Tell me I‘m wrong??
>
> Carl Dinsdale wrote:
> >
> > Gunner,
> >
> > You‘ve brought up a very good point about keeping our spending within our borders, who can
> > argue with bolstering our own economy? However, Andrew waded in here and stated that he
> > was on the test team for the Iltis and it failed, but was still purchased. I don‘t
> > disagree with Bombardier or any other Canadian company being awarded contracts for DND
> > purchases, but the equipment should have to meet our testing and standards prior to final
> > acceptance. The LSVW came in just before I got out, but once again I heard it was
> > purchased despite failing trials miserably. Should we have bought it? Absolutely, BUT only
> > after it was improved to the point of passing our trials. Those trials are fine and dandy,
> > but are minimum standards, as pointed out by Andrew. They do not come close to the s**t
> > and abuse any vehicle is put through on a 6 week spring Ex.
> > I know there will be criticism for every and any military vehicle ever purchased, and I
> > obviously do not have the years of experience that you do in the green machine, but who is
> > making these decisions to purchase vehicles that fail our own testing? The down time,
> > parts, repairs etc. experienced after their purchase seems like spending good money after
> > bad. The long term be thought about during these purchase decisions as well because we
> > constantly try to get 20 years out of  vehicles that were purchased with 10 years in mind.
> >
> > Am I way off base here? If so, by all means enlighten me.
> >
> > Carl
> >
> > Gunner wrote:
> >
> > > DND spending billions of dollars on new kit IS a political issue.
> > > Canadian Taxpayers are the ones financing these purchases and they have
> > > a reasonable expectation that most of the money will be spent in Canada
> > > vice the US or some other country.  That‘s reality and I don‘t think
> > > the government is wrong.  It‘s my tax dollars too and I want some type
> > > of economic spinoff for Canadians...who can deny the benefit of the MLVW
> > > and Iltis contract to Bombardier?
> > >
> > > Secondly, was the Iltis the best veh for the job of battlefield taxi.
> > > Probably not the best, but, it is able to accomplish that mission.  Now
> > > if you argued the economics of buying an Iltis, LSVW and the upcoming
> > > LLVW Iltis replacement instead of buying one vehicle ie the Hummer
> > > which was able to fulfill all these roles with its different variants.
> > > I could see alot of cost savings in having only one vehicle....one
> > > vehicle for three purposes means, less trg of veh techs, simpler spare
> > > parts reqr, less dvr trg, etc etc.  I think the Hummer is a diesel as
> > > well, further simplifying the POL supply chain as we would have a
> > > predominately diesel fleet.
> > >
> > > Gunner sends.....
> > >
> > > PS.  Its‘ a better vehicle then the other pieces of s**t that we bought.
> > >
> > > Carl DINSDALE wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I didn‘t think my point was the "after-market value" of the Iltis, but it is a valid
> > > > point. The Iltis may have been intended for the battlefield, but anyone who drove it
> > > > can attest to the fact that it wasn‘t engineered very well for that environment.
> > > > That gutless 1.4 litre engine does not go very well with a four wheel drive
> > > > suspension, especially one equipped with a differential lock. It seemed like they
> > > > had endless electrical and fuel system problems and the best thing the little bugger
> > > > was good for was summer road moves from London to Pet with the top down. I‘m way off
> > > > topic here, in my original message I was simply trying to express my frustration
> > > > with military acquisitions being made for political or fiscal reasons instead of
> > > > because it is simply the best equipment available for the job.
> > > >
> > > > Carl
> > > >
> > > > Bradley Sallows wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were selling off a few
> > > > > Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they could not be registered in
> > > > > Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had grossly failed
> > > > > collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and punching through the
> > > > > windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat and is just not
> > > > > acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a dozen, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to use equipment which is
> > > > > hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador.  However, why should we expect
> > > > > military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety standards required for
> > > > > passenger automobiles?  The Iltis was intended for the battlefield where there
> > > > > are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway.  The after-market value
> > > > > in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be, a consideration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brad Sallows
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > message body.
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > message body.
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"William J <andy> Anderson" <aanderson@sk.sympatico.ca>* on *Fri, 28 Apr 2000 21:25:34 -0700*
on 29/4/00 07:47, my good friend Carl DINSDALE at joscol@mb.sympatico.ca
wrote:
> Can‘t imagine them in combat arms units, remember the seven reasons why
> things are seen?
1. Shape
2. Shadow   
3. Sillouette
4. Shine
5
6
7
God I‘m glad I‘m a civie now tee hee
andy sends:
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Michael O‘Leary" <moleary@bmts.com>* on *Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:52:36 -0400*
The "new" army isn‘t satisfied with only seven reasons why things are seen.
The Warrior Handbook 1996 lists eleven:
Shape
Shadow
Silhouette
Movement
Spacing
Position
Texture
Colour
Scale
Noise
Shine
Somebody probably got an outstanding PER for coming up with four more.  
mike
At 09:25 PM 4/28/00 -0700, you wrote:
>on 29/4/00 07:47, my good friend Carl DINSDALE at joscol@mb.sympatico.ca
>wrote:
>
>> Can‘t imagine them in combat arms units, remember the seven reasons why
>> things are seen?
>
>1. Shape
>2. Shadow   
>3. Sillouette
>4. Shine
>5
>6
>7
>
>God I‘m glad I‘m a civie now tee hee
>
>
>andy sends:
>
Michael O‘Leary
Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
 http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm 
Change is not to be feared. Simultaneously, change is not necessarily
improvement. An effective leader improves through change. An ineffective
leader seeks improvement through change. The first is sure of his
end-state, the latter never is. - MMO
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"dave" <dave.newcombe@home.com>* on *Sat, 29 Apr 2000 08:08:47 -0700*
What about number 12,
The press has decided it will be seen, and often.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael O‘Leary 
To: 
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 8:52 PM
Subject: Why Things Are Seen, was Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
> The "new" army isn‘t satisfied with only seven reasons why things are
seen.
> The Warrior Handbook 1996 lists eleven:
>
> Shape
> Shadow
> Silhouette
> Movement
> Spacing
> Position
> Texture
> Colour
> Scale
> Noise
> Shine
>
> Somebody probably got an outstanding PER for coming up with four more.  
>
> mike
>
>
> At 09:25 PM 4/28/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >on 29/4/00 07:47, my good friend Carl DINSDALE at joscol@mb.sympatico.ca
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Can‘t imagine them in combat arms units, remember the seven reasons why
> >> things are seen?
> >
> >1. Shape
> >2. Shadow
> >3. Sillouette
> >4. Shine
> >5
> >6
> >7
> >
> >God I‘m glad I‘m a civie now tee hee
> >
> >
> >andy sends:
> >
>
>
>
> Michael O‘Leary
>
> Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
>  http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm 
>
> Change is not to be feared. Simultaneously, change is not necessarily
> improvement. An effective leader improves through change. An ineffective
> leader seeks improvement through change. The first is sure of his
> end-state, the latter never is. - MMO
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------

