# No more patrols for G-Wagons in Afghanistan?



## mcchartman (31 May 2006)

Full article can be found here:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1149027011878&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467



> Military parks G-wagons as Afghan danger grows
> Light jeeps no longer going on patrols
> 
> Ottawa favours new armoured vehicles
> ...



What do you guys think? I may be off track, and correct me if I am, but isn't it somewhat foolish to stop sending G-wagons on patrol before the Nyalas are actually received? In my humble opinion, the worst thing that the Forces could do right now is to decrease the number of patrols as it would also mean a decrease in the monitoring of insurgent activity. Please enlighten me.


----------



## karl28 (31 May 2006)

I am not a soldier and never been to Astan but the article stated that they where removing the G-wagon from patrols didn't say that they where reducing the number of patrols It probably means  that  until these new armoured vehicles are delivered the soldiers in Astan will have the same work load but fewer assets to conduct them in


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (31 May 2006)

There are Nyalas on the ground in theatre now.  This was widely reported when they arrived.


----------



## GAP (31 May 2006)

Right now, with the opposition hammering them, optics are everything. To get around that, they ordered more Nyalas, and reduced the visual exposure of the GWagon. Makes good political sense. Because of the recent deaths in a Gwagon...they (MDN and CF)don't need more bad publicity.


----------



## karl28 (31 May 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin  thanks for heads up didn't know that


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 May 2006)

I doubt that they have enough Nyla’s and LAV to replace them entirely. Anyone know if they are planning to buy more LAV’s?


----------



## Bobbyoreo (31 May 2006)

There are some pretty good videos on the Nyala's on the web some where. Shows them in testing. I think they tried 6kg -12 kg of Explosives and the truck held up pretty good. Only seem to lose a tire or two. They seem like really good trucks plus everyone can see whats going on inside and out cause of the windows all the way around. I think its a great buy.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (31 May 2006)

No word on new LAVS but they are getting another 25-50 of the Nyalas to help ease the burden on the LAV's in theater.  

Good link on them here.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehapv.htm


----------



## Darth_Hamel (31 May 2006)

Politicians trying to avoid bad photo ops of coffins coming home by using G-Wagens less should remember the words of the CDS after the 4 soldiers were killed by the IED; roughly that no matter how much armour you put on a vehicle the insurgents can build a big enough bomb to kill people inside.  It's the job of the higher ups to reduce casualties while working towards the mission accomplishment, but politicians should never get into the trap of thinking that military operations can be successful witout suffering casualties.


----------



## cbt arms sub tech (31 May 2006)

Be great to hear some feedback from the troops overseas right now with our OPSEC concerns....Very true with the comments from CDS....


----------



## mcchartman (31 May 2006)

When I read the article for the first time, I was also under the impression that this move was based on home politics more than anything else. Now I don't want to start talking too much of politics around here, but this really came as a surprise to me considering how the Harper administration has already acted on several issues despite outcries from the opposition in the few months since it was elected.

It is true however that feedback from troops overseas would be a great asset to this topic.


----------



## Korus (31 May 2006)

I was in Kandahar on the last roto, and I'll defiantly echo the CDS' statement that no matter how much armour you put on a vehicle, the insurgents will just build a bigger bomb.....


----------



## Armymedic (31 May 2006)

And no doubt they will. 

I bet that within one yr, they do an IED large enough to flip a LAV (If they have not already).


----------



## calgarytanks (31 May 2006)

~RoKo~ said:
			
		

> I was in Kandahar on the last roto, and I'll defiantly echo the CDS' statement that no matter how much armour you put on a vehicle, the insurgents will just build a bigger bomb.....



exactly. However, we also have a history of adapting tactics and sensibilities to overcome deficincies in equipt. See the Sherman tank debate in Normandy for one example. As long as we don't fall into the trap of confusing firepower with sensible operations; not to suggest we ever have.


----------



## Franko (31 May 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> I bet that within one yr, they do an IED large enough to flip a LAV (If they have not already).




Just to put it in a bit of perspective here troops.....

Insurgents are taking M1s out in Iraq with IEDs......they just keep adding in explosives until they reach the desired effect.

Taliban have access to internet sources in Afghanistan also....I'm sure they are in touch with one another as to how to take on infidels.

My $0.02 worth

Regards


----------



## 3rd Horseman (31 May 2006)

The mojies were building stacked mines big enough to take out armour as early as 94 in Bosnia. Obviously anyone can build bigger bombs to combat armour, the difference is it takes more effort, sophistication and longer to do it. Light fighters doing hit and run attacks cant do the big stuff easily thus the tradeoff. And most important larger devices leave bigger marks in the ground or culverts when laid thus easier to detect. Potential larger explosives is not a tactical reason to omit armour to protect troops. Nylas are a better choice but still IMHO the wrong veh for the task.

Recce BD -  is that photo of the M1 struck by IED, a mobility kill that was later killed by US fast air or is it a complete IED kill? It looks like the M1 that was hit day one on the assult into Bagdad that was taken out by US forces to deny it from the EN.


----------



## JasonH (1 Jun 2006)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Just to put it in a bit of perspective here troops.....
> 
> Insurgents are taking M1s out in Iraq with IEDs......they just keep adding in explosives until they reach the desired effect.
> 
> ...



Looks like that abrams was disabled not destroyed by an IED.  You can see the hole left by a Maverick missile which destroyed it.


----------



## lawandorder (1 Jun 2006)

Just read this article.  It says that the G-wagons will no longer be driving off the base in Afghanistan.

http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=2&nid=39626



> G-Wagons Parked in Afghanistan
> Josh Pringle
> Wednesday, May 31, 2006
> 
> ...


----------



## TCBF (1 Jun 2006)

Next thing you know, we will be buying tanks.


----------



## 1feral1 (1 Jun 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> And no doubt they will.
> 
> I bet that within one yr, they do an IED large enough to flip a LAV (If they have not already).



They have mate, seen the video (terr propagand type with snake charming music added etc), not a pleasant sight. Pretty scary.

Wes


----------



## Haggis (1 Jun 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Next thing you know, we will be buying tanks.



Yep, big white plastic tanks mounted on the rear of the Nyalas to hold all the fertilizer that politicians keep throwing at us.


----------



## geo (1 Jun 2006)

1. from what I have understood, the GWagons aren't to be used for patrols anymore - (once the aditional Nyalas are received?).  But the CF uses these vehicles for lots of other tasks. Have doubts that too much dust will accumulate on em from lack of use.

The US have been having similar problems with their Hummers & have responded with similar interest in Nyalas, Bushmawsters & other similar vehicles.... IEDs will continue to be a problem

(anyway - if all else fails - they can always give the GWagons to the reserves as a replacement for the Bisons, cougars & grizzlies that were "borrowed"


----------



## Franko (1 Jun 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Recce BD -  is that photo of the M1 struck by IED, a mobility kill that was later killed by US fast air or is it a complete IED kill? It looks like the M1 that was hit day one on the assult into Bagdad that was taken out by US forces to deny it from the EN.



Unknown. I have many pictures here but unfortunatly I can't extract them from a powerpoint AFV lecture I have here with me. I don't have MS Office on my home PC.

Uggg...this is driving me nuts.

Give me a couple of days and I'll post them somehow.

Regards


----------



## missing1 (1 Jun 2006)

"from what I have understood, the GWagons aren't to be used for patrols anymore"

To late for my young fellow, 4 stacked anti tank mines can make anyones day unhappy,no matter what you are driving in.      

Dave Payne


----------



## big bad john (2 Jun 2006)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/06/01/pf-1609980.html


June 1, 2006 

Forces buy more armoured vehicles

OTTAWA (CP) - The Canadian Forces is buying 25 more South African Nyala armoured vehicles for its Afghanistan mission. 

The $31-million purchase from BAE Land Systems OMC comes after Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said the army's G-Wagon light armoured vehicles would be pulled off patrol duty in Afghanistan. 

The G-Wagons have proved vulnerable to roadside bombs. 

The latest purchase of Nyalas comes on top of a $64-million order for 50 of the vehicles placed last fall with General Dynamics Land Systems of Canada. Those vehicles were delivered this spring and the new Nyalas should start arriving in September. 

The Nyalas, which weigh 8,400 kilograms fully loaded, include bullet-resistant windows and offer protection against mines and booby traps. 

They carry machine-guns or grenade launchers which gunners fire from inside the vehicle. 

The G-Wagons were purchased as a quick replacement for the flimsy and aging Iltis jeeps that were standard in the army for years. 

But the lightly armoured G-Wagons, made by Daimler Chrysler, were no match for the improvised explosive devices - many of them powerful - planted by Afghan insurgents. Five Canadians have died while riding in G-Wagons hit by blasts. 

The Nyalas can carry six people at a top speed of 105 kilometres an hour.


----------



## calgarytanks (2 Jun 2006)

it seems to me the procurement phase of this acquisition was astonishingly short - how many months was it before the need was identified and the kit appeared in theatre?  would it be correct to say the new government is working faster on these things, or is this merely a coincidence? it seems like the new howitzers were also delivered to theatre very quickly also.


----------



## big bad john (2 Jun 2006)

calgarytanks said:
			
		

> it seems to me the procurement phase of this acquisition was astonishingly short - how many months was it before the need was identified and the kit appeared in theatre?  would it be correct to say the new government is working faster on these things, or is this merely a coincidence? it seems like the new howitzers were also delivered to theatre very quickly also.


As was said to me once when I was a young officer.  "See miracle do happen".  Now about that....


----------



## KevinB (2 Jun 2006)

Sigh

We bought Armoured G wagons when the Iltis exploded

We bought Nyala's when the GWagon exploded

We buy X when they get a bigger bomb for the Nyala (or use more RPG's...)


You gotta get out on the ground mingle with the people and shoot the bad people in the motherfucking face!


----------



## paracowboy (2 Jun 2006)

look up Eyre's post on the War of the Snakes. It says, far better than Infidel or I (or at least in greater depth), what Infidel and I are saying.

Now, how do I shorten Infidel? I can't go with "Infy", that's already taken....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Jun 2006)

The G-wagon is decent, but the Nayla is better for this task, I am impressed that they are making things happen. They should bite the bullet and negotiate for a larger batch and start equipping units with these, we will likely get a lot of use out of them over the years.


----------



## bilton090 (2 Jun 2006)

Darth_Hamel said:
			
		

> Politicians trying to avoid bad photo ops of coffins coming home by using G-Wagens less should remember the words of the CDS after the 4 soldiers were killed by the IED; roughly that no matter how much armour you put on a vehicle the insurgents can build a big enough bomb to kill people inside.  It's the job of the higher ups to reduce casualties while working towards the mission accomplishment, but politicians should never get into the trap of thinking that military operations can be successful witout suffering casualties.


 ​ Wacko-up , it's not a photo-op, it's looking after the boy's ! So now you
are an Eng. EY ! right !   You wouldn't know a pound C4 if you were sitting on it.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (5 Jun 2006)

The G-wagon is decent, but the Nayla is better for this task, I am impressed that they are making things happen. They should bite the bullet and negotiate for a larger batch and start equipping units with these, we will likely get a lot of use out of them over the years.

 I don't dis- agree one bit but I do have a concern and it was mentioned earlier.  What happens when they start taking out the Nayla's?  Do we only use LAV's?  What happens when they start taking out LAV's?  It is one of the oldest battle in war firepower vs armour.  Firepower will always win.  It is just easier to up the firepower then it is the armour.  

I don't know if it so much of avoiding photo-ops as it is eliminating the bad press as the public seems to be wavering in its support of the mission.  Will the policy save life's, yes till the Taliban adjust their tactics to take out the larger vehicles.  But until the Taliban is defeated- truly and harshly dealt with or we pull our toops out of theater, our young men in women will continue to be at risk and some will not survive every encounter.

The G wagon was an fix to the Iltis problem and it was/is a good vehicle for general purpose and some operational duties.  The Nayla is a good fix to the landmines and some of the IED's but no vehicle will ever be IED proof.  It would be impossible.

MOO


----------



## KevinB (5 Jun 2006)

Do a search on EFP's and Shaped Charges...

This is a look good feel good fix.


----------

