# "Mine-Proof" vehicle to replace the G-Wagon



## FormerHorseGuard (26 Apr 2006)

here isthe link tothe story i was metioning
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=960bb9c5-9625-425e-a330-46b9d10185a9


Army getting new, 'mine-proof' vehicles
Armoured car in which four soldiers were killed to be phased out
  
Chris Wattie, National Post
Published: Tuesday, April 25, 2006

The Canadian army's G-wagons, the vehicle in which four soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb this weekend, is due to be phased out in the dangerous mountains and foothills of southern Afghanistan in favour of a better, "mine-proof" armoured car.

Liz Hodges, a spokeswoman for the Department of National Defence, said the first 25 of the new Nyala armoured vehicles arrived this month in Kandahar from the manufacturer's South African production plant.

The remaining 25 vehicles are to be delivered "by the end of May," she said.

"They were selected because they provide a high level of protection to soldiers against IEDs [improvised explosive devices] or mines," she said. "They are highly resistant to mine blasts."

Sources in the Canadian task force said the new vehicles will begin replacing the more lightly armoured G-wagons in patrols north of the main coalition base, a mountainous region where Taliban insurgents still operate.

Corporal Matthew Dinning, Bombardier Myles Mansell, Lieutenant William Turner and Corporal Randy Payne died after their convoy was struck in that patrol area, while their G-wagon was driving through a dried-up riverbed.

The bodies of the four men were carried aboard a Hercules transport plane yesterday in an emotional farewell ceremony on the tarmac at Kandahar Air Field, home base of coalition forces in southern Afghanistan.

More than 3,000 Canadian, U.S., British, Dutch, Romanian and other soldiers lined the runway as the four flag-draped coffins were carried into the waiting plane.

Brian MacDonald, a senior analyst with the defence lobby group Conference of Defence Associations, said the soldiers may have been targeted because they were travelling in the most lightly armoured vehicle in their convoy.

"The G-wagon is really only a light-utility vehicle ... it's pretty lightly armoured," he said. "It's a perfectly good vehicle for what it was designed for, but it can't survive a mine strike or a [roadside bomb] like this."

Mr. MacDonald, a former army colonel, said it "makes perfect sense" to replace the smaller vehicle with the Nyalas in the region the soldiers call "Taliban country."

cwattie@nationalpost.com


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Apr 2006)

Lets be clear.  Nothing on this earth made thus far is mine proof.  Better protection probably but even that is all relative.

"Brian MacDonald, a senior analyst with the defence lobby group Conference of Defence Associations, said the soldiers may have been targeted because they were travelling in the most lightly armoured vehicle in their convoy."

Or maybe because we are the enemy in their eyes.  Weren't heavier vehicles also targeted?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Apr 2006)

http://www.answers.com/topic/rg-31
http://www.mercedes-benz.ca/index.cfm?id=318

The Nyala is 1.7 meters longer, 0.66 m wider and 0.66 m higher and a greater wheelbase of 0.56 m.  It also appears the CF is calling it the ARMOURED PATROL VEHICLE (APV) http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_91_1.asp?uSubSection=91&uSection=1


----------



## geo (26 Apr 2006)

The Canadian army's G-wagons, the vehicle in which four soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb this weekend, is due to be phased out in the dangerous mountains and foothills of southern Afghanistan in favour of a better, "mine-proof" armoured car.

The GWagon isn't being taken out of service...... they just don't plan on using it in the mountains and foothills.

BIG difference in interpretation


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (26 Apr 2006)

i am a firm believer in the law that says, ( not sure who wrote it) if you solve one problem on the battle field, another person will create a new problem to counteract your solution.

new equipment to  help avoid being blown , they  will only plant bigger bombs and mines.

I watched a program on the Military channel about Vietnam war, and they showed the people going out to recover dud bombs and rockets and then bringing them back to camp then rebuild the duds into new weapons. almost like mini bomb making factories, so if they can do that and live thru it, I am sure some one today can do the same and do it better, i am sure there are books out there on how to do it better.

so what ever new machine they  build as a solution to the problem they will build a weapon to take it out of action just as fast


----------



## Wookilar (26 Apr 2006)

Nyala (smacks head). Sorry, couldn't remember. Better put together than the Mamba, and it is true it can take a strike better than a G-Wagon (or Iltis, or HL for that matter). That's what it is designed for, after all.
I don't know anything about this new weapons system, I've never even seen one with a turret. (looks at website....) Huh, that's what it looks like with a turret  . Seems like someone is using their heads, does this mean the procurement problem may be finding some solutions?
I've looked at one after a strike and was very impressed with the lack of damage. Every little bit of help we can give the boys (and girls) while patrolling looks good to me, especially when it is an already proven platform. Those South Africans sure know how to make an army car.
That statement about the G-Wagon's being phased out, just goes to show you how much the press really cares. Obviously no homework done or thought put into it.


----------



## geo (27 Apr 2006)

the press & the oposition found an easy mark in criticizing the Iltis - so the GWagon became our savior...... now the press has started to rag on the GWagon, enter the Nyalah................... (stay tuned "as the stomach churns")

It's easy to criticize. If you don't have anything practical to propose as an alternative..... STFU (IMHO)


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2006)

Well....when we gradually work our way back up the chain to TANKS, I guess we will have to reassess our "Newer, Kinder, Gentler Army" and it's "Wheels Only" philosophy and make us Armour Corps guys happy.   ;D  Funny how cyclic life is.


----------



## geo (27 Apr 2006)

If memory serves me right, the Soviets weren't all that successful with heavy armour in Afghanistan either.......... 
(mind you, the US was providing the Jihadis with armament at the time.... )


----------



## PEI Pat (1 May 2006)

I concur with the previous statement that there is nothing on this planet that is totally mine-proof. Iraq would be a good example. When the "bad guys" realized that they could blow up Hummers with roadside bombs, they did. When the US led coalition started deploying Bradley's in the same convoy fashion, said bad guys came up with bigger bombs. Even the M1 is not immune. The bad guys can make bigger bombs. Period. I have seen pictures of two M1's that were scrap because of buried, "recycled", dud 500 pounders. The bellies of rigs are always vulnerable. Mack trucks have created some sort of new combat vehicle with the V shaped hull, but it only takes an extremist with lots of explosives and a shovel to wreck it and the crew. Lets face it, a cube van full of fertilizer and diesel ruined a building and 160 people in OK City. A cargo van mixed the same way, with some nitrogen cylinders for effect, blew out seven underground floors at the former World Trade Center in 1993. I don't know what the answer is to the whole mine problem, but for Pete's sakes, don't let the politicians solve it on their calculators. As far as vehicle replacement goes, I feel great about jobs being created in Canada, but look at the history. The whole HLVW thing between UDTC and Bombardier is a good example. My opinion: The Americans have pretty much perfected the combat vehicle challenge. Why do we feel the need to keep re-inventing the friggin' wheel here in Canada ?? Buy the Oshkosh. Buy the Kaisers. Buy the Hummers. Buy the Aircraft. The assembly lines are in place. The assembly lines are continuous. The parts are gallore. Lets trade water, oil, hydro, and good beer for better Mil equipment. Again, my opinion.

Pat


----------



## geo (1 May 2006)

PEI pat.... nice thought but..... it ain't going to happen.  Too many jobs in too many political ridings are dependent on government contracts of this kind.  (call me cynical)

What you are proposing would only work if Canadian factories were given the oportunity to produce some kit (or their components).... if you intend to develop the design engineers in Canada - then you have to have jobs for them to do here.... not there..... unless you intend to export all our brightest / finest to the US.


----------



## PEI Pat (2 May 2006)

As soon as I read the previous post, I had the same thought as many of you surely just did ..... Did someone say "Avro Arrow"? When will we learn ? Wouldn't it be nice if the Fed would "help" set up a new business, one with no history, to build really good vehicles ? I don't mean anything like the Bricklin's from NB, or the Scot trucks from NS ! I mean someone that can make, from scratch, a good series of Mil veh, both tracked and wheeled, and sell them here and abroad. But that's re-inventing the wheel, isn't it.

Yeah, I know, more nice thoughts. And I know none of the above is going to happen either. 

Pat in PEI


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (2 May 2006)

> Wouldn't it be nice if the Fed would "help" set up a new business, one with no history, to build really good vehicles ?



Isn't that Bombardier?  Heh...


----------



## geo (2 May 2006)

GM Diesel............


----------



## PEI Pat (2 May 2006)

Yeah yeah. I know. GM Diesel and Bombardier...but are these really continuous lines ?? Don't get me wrong. I've heard the LAV series are pretty good 8x8's, but again, based on the American design. Am I right ? Does GM continually pump out LAV's and replacement parts ? And is Bombardier set up to make new ML's, HL's and continue to make them and their parts. See what I meant originally ? We just don't have that capability here in the Great White North, Eh ? Probably because we just don't "normally" need that capability. So why don't we just buy good quality bulk machines south of the border, and have the ability to buy more of the same as required when our first batches get wrecked ? We all know it is cheaper that way, just not politically correct. I guess there isn't much left here to debate.

Pat


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (2 May 2006)

> Yeah yeah. I know. GM Diesel and Bombardier...but are these really continuous lines ??



I was being sarcastic... Most of our industrial companies have "no history" building military vehicles, and are only able to produce by virtue of massive Government subsidy.



> I've heard the LAV series are pretty good 8x8's, but again, based on the American design. Am I right ? Does GM continually pump out LAV's and replacement parts ?



LAVs are based on a Swiss design (MOWAG Piranha) and are as "Canadian" as you're going to get (turrets are Delco, though).  General Dynamics (GM Diesel switched owners) is in nearly constant production of these vehicles in London for a variety of armies, including the US, Saudi, New Zealand and Canadian.

One further point:  just because it's American doesn't necessarily make it a good piece of kit or one we should adopt.


----------



## PEI Pat (2 May 2006)

Sorry to come off rough. Not my intention, really. I figured you were being sarcastic. I was too. Also my mistake then about the LAV. I thought that the MOWAG was Yank originally (USMC design 'dream team' - They certainly seem to take lots of credit for it). I thought the Swiss were doing the same as us, making it as required. I also knew London was making LAVs for a variety of countries, I just didn't know they were continuous (I was under the impressions that Saudi and NZ orders were long since filled, as well as others)

Finally, I agree with that fact that American made is not always the best kit (I'll take a Land Cruiser before a Suburban anyday overseas on UN tasks) but with their production capabilities versus ours, they can't be beat for quality, quantity, and variety. Anyway, my two cents. All the best. 

Pat (old 021 - old 935)


----------

