# MSVS Mil-COTS Gun Tractor (Split From: MLVW restrictions)



## TSM A

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> It's because the gun tractor and sev's haven't been fielded yet........



30th Fd received their Gun Tractor end of Nov


----------



## Nfld Sapper

TSM A said:
			
		

> 30th Fd received their Gun Tractor end of Nov



Wasn't aware that they where fielded yet......


----------



## chrisf

Are they bursting into flames yet?


----------



## AC 011

TSM A said:
			
		

> 30th Fd received their Gun Tractor end of Nov



What do you think of the new ride?  (other than the standard "Holy   - It's huge!"

Looks like you're still stuck with your sprung shelter.  Any news yet on a move yet?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

TSM A said:
			
		

> 30th Fd received their Gun Tractor end of Nov



TSM once you get the guns hooked up can you send me a pic of the set up assuming you still use the 105's....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Man it will be interesting to see if they can get those in the door at 15th FD in Vancouver.


----------



## TSM A

Colin P said:
			
		

> Man it will be interesting to see if they can get those in the door at 15th FD in Vancouver.



hey Colin. they won't fit. and with the 75 foot turning radius it'll be hard to get them into the compound.
Ian


----------



## TSM A

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> TSM once you get the guns hooked up can you send me a pic of the set up assuming you still use the 105's....



once we get them i'll take a pic. but considering i'm on the wet coast, on the wrong side of the mountains it may take a while.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Seen....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Hope your Gunners learn how to back into position. The days of driving into position are done. Not unless you have a 250 foot turning radius. No longer will you swing the gun in by driving it in. Nor will you simply back it in on a short platform.

I'm all for creature comforts, but making a mobile home out of that truck is stupid in the extreme. I want to be handy and watching when they have to gallop into position and get their gun in action.

The size of that truck is beyond stupid for a combat support vehicle. Creature comforts have overtaken operational need.

It won't fit any hydraulic rack we have for maintenance. It won't fit any building we have for repair or maintenance. 

And who decided a truck with half the capacity of the HLVW should be twice\ three times, the size of a HLVW?

NOTE: I was out of line\ lane when speaking about the procurment folks. Everyone has a job, and everyone works hard at them and I was unfair in my comments.




_edited to remove unfair and uncalled for comments to the procurment folks_


----------



## blacktriangle

Hey recceguy, have you seen the next gen recce vehicle? 

2 roof hatches, ample space for pers and kit. 

It even comes pre-rolled, so you don't have to worry about how to actually employ it. Coming to an armoury near you, fall 2011!


----------



## dapaterson

When DND went out to industry, there was only one company that offered to sell us trucks.

So the choices were (a) MSVS MilCOTS or (b) nothing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

dapaterson said:
			
		

> When DND went out to industry, there was only one company that offered to sell us trucks.
> 
> So the choices were (a) MSVS MilCOTS or (b) nothing.



Be that as it may, that is an extremely poor excuse for accepting that truck.


----------



## dapaterson

So you'd prefer option (b):  nothing?   MLVW lifeextension wasn't going to happen, and something was needed.  And no other vendor was willing to sell.

I can just imagine the howls if we had retired the MLVW fleet and not provided any replacement...


(And note that there will eventually be an SMP MSVS as well, but there's been even more trouble defining the requirements in a way that there will be more than one bidder.  The MilCOTS MSVS is imperfect - but it's much better than nothing at all)


----------



## Fishbone Jones

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So you'd prefer option (b):  nothing?   MLVW lifeextension wasn't going to happen, and something was needed.  And no other vendor was willing to sell.
> 
> I can just imagine the howls if we had retired the MLVW fleet and not provided any replacement...
> 
> 
> (And note that there will eventually be an SMP MSVS as well, but there's been even more trouble defining the requirements in a way that there will be more than one bidder.  The MilCOTS MSVS is imperfect - but it's much better than nothing at all)



Can't argue it.

Get us some SPF 10000 and a welding helmet.

The brilliance around here is astounding 8)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I doubt it was a case of only one vender be willing to sell. More likely only one qualified vender willing to sell on the terms of the bid.

We could have bought off the shelf several designs of tactical truck, they just wouldn't be made here.


----------



## dapaterson

Colin P said:
			
		

> I doubt it was a case of only one vender be willing to sell. More likely only one qualified vender willing to sell on the terms of the bid.
> 
> We could have bought off the shelf several designs of tactical truck, they just wouldn't be made here.



Nope.  Only one response to the RFP.  And the trucks we got are made in the USA - manufacturer, in fact, announced a plant closing in Canada around the time the deal was announced.  They still have some presence in Canada, and are able to claim the necessary IRBs.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Hey recceguy, have you seen the next gen recce vehicle?
> 
> 2 roof hatches, ample space for pers and kit.
> 
> It even comes pre-rolled, so you don't have to worry about how to actually employ it. Coming to an armoury near you, fall 2011!



Might as well. They don't seem to be in any great rush to upgrade the C&R GWagons and get the fleet off the grounded list :


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Nope.  Only one response to the RFP.  And the trucks we got are made in the USA - manufacturer, in fact, announced a plant closing in Canada around the time the deal was announced.  They still have some presence in Canada, and are able to claim the necessary IRBs.



With everybody and his brother buying trucks (armoured and otherwise),  and production lines full so that the Yanks were buying case lots from any and all suppliers regardless of design and commonality, I wonder how many firms were motivated to source parts for IRBs?

Sounds to me like it would have been a major cost for the suppliers that wasn't required when selling to other customers.

The AHSVS went through fast.  Did we request IRBs on the UOR?  Or was that an acceptable ACAN?  Gawd, I luv acronyms.  ;D


----------



## Bass ackwards

Good Lord! 
What the hell is that ...that... _thing_ ?? 

I realize I've been out of the loop for quite a while but is that monstrosity supposed to be a improvement on a good old-fashioned deuce-and-a-half*... ?



*(like I said -it's been a while)


----------



## dapaterson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The AHSVS went through fast.  Did we request IRBs on the UOR?



It's a Mercedes, and as I recall at the time they were part of the happy Daimler-Chrysler family - so IRBs were not an issue.  (Or at least not a difficult issue)


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for clearing that up DAP.


----------



## Petard

The process to define the Artillery need was very lengthy, and like so many things it was very diffcult to get a consensus, especially during the rapid changes over the past 6 years. In the end I certainly do not agree with the "McNugget family" approach to putting everyone in the cab, or creature comforts like quad stereo when the CNR is on the floor and hard to access, but this was driven by feedback from the user community, and the consequence of the standard layout of the sole bidders vehicle. Something to keep in mind too is this particular vehicle is intended for domestic Ops only. The SMP variant will not follow the same approach. 

One of the reasons for such an enormous vehicle is that the echelon has been all but eliminated in Arty units. On top of this it was understood from the get go that it was not going to be a one for one replacement of vehicles. Consequently the payload this thing is expected to move before resupply got larger and larger. As for driving straight onto the gun marker, that has never been the only way to do it; it has always been an option to do an action right, left, or even front if need be. Granted I'll give you  that pulling the C3 behind almost 40' of truck does mean units are likely to see more of that.
   
The gun tractor at 30 Fd is still a prototype. A design review just took place last month for the SEV kit for the back. Within the next few months a trial of that kit will take place.
Final production and delivery of the gun tractor variant will not be until next year.

The project office has been aware of the infrastructure problems since the bid return, I can't speak for how they're going to deal with that because I don't know.  

As for how fast the AHSVS came into service, don't forget that it was acquired by UOR, for the Operational needs in theatre. This does not necessarily mean it will remain in service, although most likely it will. The big drawback of the UOR approach is that their very specific mission need results in very limited ability to sustain them, and can mean disposal at end of mission.

What helps people in staff postions on capturing user needs is the dreaded UCR, but how many people actually take the time to not only start one, but follow it through? This information is vital, especially as another large project such as LVMP, which is looking at replacing the other logistic vehicles, is just beginning. The 1st priority of which, for the gunners, is their LSVW CP's. The time to start pushing just how limited or bad those really are is now, officially, and not just carping about it.


----------



## TSM A

Petard said:
			
		

> The gun tractor at 30 Fd is still a prototype. A design review just took place last month for the SEV kit for the back. Within the next few months a trial of that kit will take place.
> Final production and delivery of the gun tractor variant will not be until next year.



Thanks for the info

so with the MLVW fleet essentially grounded that makes arty training real difficult.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Petard said:
			
		

> The process to define the Artillery need was very lengthy, and like so many things it was very diffcult to get a consensus, especially during the rapid changes over the past 6 years. In the end I certainly do not agree with the "McNugget family" approach to putting everyone in the cab, or creature comforts like quad stereo when the CNR is on the floor and hard to access, but this was driven by feedback from the user community, and the consequence of the standard layout of the sole bidders vehicle. Something to keep in mind too is this particular vehicle is intended for domestic Ops only. The SMP variant will not follow the same approach.
> 
> One of the reasons for such an enormous vehicle is that the echelon has been all but eliminated in Arty units. On top of this it was understood from the get go that it was not going to be a one for one replacement of vehicles. Consequently the payload this thing is expected to move before resupply got larger and larger. As for driving straight onto the gun marker, that has never been the only way to do it; it has always been an option to do an action right, left, or even front if need be. Granted I'll give you  that pulling the C3 behind almost 40' of truck does mean units are likely to see more of that.
> 
> The gun tractor at 30 Fd is still a prototype. A design review just took place last month for the SEV kit for the back. Within the next few months a trial of that kit will take place.
> Final production and delivery of the gun tractor variant will not be until next year.
> 
> The project office has been aware of the infrastructure problems since the bid return, I can't speak for how they're going to deal with that because I don't know.
> 
> As for how fast the AHSVS came into service, don't forget that it was acquired by UOR, for the Operational needs in theatre. This does not necessarily mean it will remain in service, although most likely it will. The big drawback of the UOR approach is that their very specific mission need results in very limited ability to sustain them, and can mean disposal at end of mission.
> 
> What helps people in staff postions on capturing user needs is the dreaded UCR, but how many people actually take the time to not only start one, but follow it through? This information is vital, especially as another large project such as LVMP, which is looking at replacing the other logistic vehicles, is just beginning. The 1st priority of which, for the gunners, is their LSVW CP's. The time to start pushing just how limited or bad those really are is now, officially, and not just carping about it.



Petard,

Thank you very much for the well spoken explanation. Now we have a glimpse into the process, how things like this end up happening and what we can do about it. I apologise for being out of my lane and sarcastic in my prose in my previous post. You also have a PM.

Regards
rg


----------



## Nfld Sapper

TSM A said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info
> 
> so with the MLVW fleet essentially grounded that makes arty training real difficult.



I know we that are authorized by the LUVW-MILCOTS ppl to tow our 2 105 C2's with said truck now.....


----------



## Petard

recceguy said:
			
		

> Petard,
> 
> Thank you very much for the well spoken explanation. Now we have a glimpse into the process, how things like this end up happening and what we can do about it. I apologise for being out of my lane and sarcastic in my prose in my previous post. You also have a PM.
> 
> Regards
> rg



Ack, no worries, does say something though that the situation would get you that PO'd, and with good reason.
There's no doubt this vehicle is going to be trouble for units to operate with in the tight confines of old armouries, and young drivers. But the process is too far down range now, this is the truck we're getting and we've got to find a way to deal with it. It also is a good time to learn from it and push your feedback everytime you hear Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project

I'm not sure what they're doing at G3 and the whole fleet management crew to deal with all the MLVW grounding, must be a real nightmare. Even in Roger's Pass they had to make do with an HLVW (worked quite well actually)

I thought some units had been using the MSVS Cargo variant to tow, no?

By the way NFLD sapper, odds are you are very likely to lose both your C1's this year.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Petard said:
			
		

> By the way NFLD sapper, odds are you are very likely to lose both your C1's this year.



You sure on that Petard, CFS ST.JOHN'S is a saluting base and we are tasked with that duty....


----------



## Petard

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> .... CFS ST.JOHN'S is a saluting base and we are tasked with that duty....



I know, but the C1 is one of those things that is being evaluated for divestment, completely.
Time will tell.


----------



## themoose

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> I know we that are authorized by the LUVW-MILCOTS ppl to tow our 2 105 C2's with said truck now.....



I would love to see that authorization.....   I highly doubt your allowed to tow a C1/2 or heaven forbid a C3 with the LUVW MilCOTS.   Not to say it's never been done, but you get up to a decent speed, even 50 km/h, and you need to hop on the binders, I think that gun will be pushing your forward quite nicely.   I will use to to maneuver around the compound / armouries, but never on civ roads.    Don't forget, you can barely see around it.

On another not to that, whoever corrected it, your right, that MSVSM GT we got at 30th FD was only there for 1 night.   The PMO came with it and gave us a brief on that plans for it.   According to him we are looking about 1 year before we see them, the engineers are in the same boat, although I expect theirs to be a bit quicker as the cargo area in theirs is much simpler in design than the GT version.

It's a good idea they have, a small crane on the back to lift off stores, a spare tire for the gun, ample storage areas / bins, some sort of set of stairs (sort of like the MLVW one) instead of that death trap ladder.

As for those of you that asked about what it's like towing a C3 behind it, well that's one fun challenge.   As the Regt TPTNCO, I am well accustomed to towing guns, and being an HLVW driver prior to the MSVSM, I have no issues with that size of truck or towing with it.   When you do get the C3 behind it, you can barely see it in your mirrors.    those of us who have towed a howitzer behind the MLVW will know what I mean when I say that you used to look in your mirrors and see the outer edge of the tires and shield flaps.   Now you see next to nothing.   I have mentioned this to the PMO MSVSM, and he told me that it was already mentioned to the PMO Howitzers and they are working on a sort of flag that you attach to the shield flaps to have visual on your gun behind you.

As for physically towing it, it's a dream.   The gun follows nicely, you barely notice it pull or push as you accelerate / brake.   Turning a corner is fine, as your already taking a wide turn for the truck, it's more than wide enough for the gun to follow properly.

With the grounding of the MLVW fleet, yes it's based on a couple isolated incidents, but we have to remember that we are dealing with 28-29 year old trucks that are on the way out.   About 2 years ago they started putting a cap on repairs to the MLVW, if the bill was over over 2k, they wouldn't authorize it and the vehicle would be PCC if it was that bad.   Now with the possibility of MLVW's having catastrophic failure while on the road, the restrictions are warranted.   IMO it's a good way to "assist" in the retirement of the MLVW fleet by restricting them based on these isolated incidents.


----------



## themoose

Petard:   Did you take that HLVW / C3 photo?  If so, just curious why they have the chains on the rear axle as opposed to the intermediate?

I just want to know another person's view on what axle to put chains on... not intending to judge someone here...

Also noticed that that gun has the permanently mounted lights as well...   is everyone starting to get them now??

We were again the test unit for that sort of thing, we've had those style of lights on our guns for years now...  work great (especially the new LED lights) except we need a 3rd brake light in the muzzle....  a red flag just aint enough IMO.

Cheers...


----------



## Petard

I did take the picture of the C3 with the HLVW, but I don't know why they put the chains on the axle they did. Good question and I'll ask around.

The need for a light on the C3 muzzle is a good idea and has been passed onto the life cycle manager, it would help too if units pushed UCRs to identify this. Following behind a C3 it is easy to mistake the actual length of the barrel.

There will not be that many gun tractors, or MilCOTs trucks in general, to go around, so not sure how it will unfold for those units in Saint John's and Charlottetown doing gun salutes there. The C3 is considerably heavier than a C1 and I've seen nothing for approval of other types of vehicles to pull that gun. Given the recent grounding of the MLVW fleet I know Regular Force units are looking into different vehicles to pull the LG1, but this is a deliberate study. Improvising vehicles haphazardly to pull a howitzer to a location on civilian roads is a recipe for an accident, and if the lights are not connected its quite possibly illegal.

I know some are fighting strongly to keep two howitzers in each of those salute base locations, problem is sustaining them there, and balancing that with operational needs when we're going to be reducing the fleet by about 2 dozen guns. Not helping the argument to keep them there are the annual technical inspections that show a habitual lack of user maintenance (and respect for the Artillery's colours), which would put a further strain on scant resources.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Petard said:
			
		

> There will not be that many gun tractors, or MilCOTs trucks in general, to go around, so not sure how it will unfold for those units in Saint John's and Charlottetown doing gun salutes there. The C3 is considerably heavier than a C1 and I've seen nothing for approval of other types of vehicles to pull that gun. Given the recent grounding of the MLVW fleet I know Regular Force units are looking into different vehicles to pull the LG1, but this is a deliberate study. Improvising vehicles haphazardly to pull a howitzer to a location on civilian roads is a recipe for an accident, and if the lights are not connected its quite possibly illegal.



Shouldn't be a problem for us as we are getting 7 MSVS's.. including 4 SEVS, 1 Caged and, 2 TCV/CARGO.......and its St. John's not Saint John's.....


----------



## Petard

Having a truck that can pull it does not, by itself, convince me the guns should be left in St John's or Charlottetown.
With fewer parts to go around, especially major assemblies including those with bearing surfaces, it would be diffcult to justify supporting 4 guns being used for just salute purposes, instead of normal artillery training activities.

The abysmal maintenance record of the guns in both St John's and Charlottetown is another reason they shouldn't be left there.


----------



## themoose

I can totally agree with Petard about the lack of parts and the lack of respect for the colors by non artillery units.
These days its harder and harder to get certain parts for the C1/2 & C3, and to justify keeping guns with non-artillery units for the sake of a couple salutes a year (I'm guessing maybe 2-3?).
As the national salute troop we regularly take part in at least 10 salutes each year in the NCR and surrounding area, and we still fight to keep our guns serviceable for this task.
Like all older vehicle / weapons, as newer items become available and the older stuff ages more and more, the tendency is to not devote as much resources to them.   For example the company that overhauled the C3's in the 90's went belly up a couple years back, well Canada had some money tired into them for a parts supply contract.   What did we do?   Sent some people over with some sea cans, loaded up all the parts we could to "get back" the money we invested in them, and brought them home.   As those parts dwindle away, we will likely not see any replacements for them.    The recoil mechanism is one big one, I believe there are only 1-2 left in the system.

As for towing the guns, the LG1 is one thing, being a true "light" gun in the physical sense,  but a C1/2 or C3 is much heavier.    I could see maybe the LG1 being towed with the LUVW MilCOTS but I doubt we will ever see an approval for them to tow a C1/2 or C3.

Are those yellow parts on the C3 specifically AVCON related items??   Can you shed light on to them, I have never seen that before!

Cheers.

Moose.


----------



## Petard

themoose said:
			
		

> Are those yellow parts on the C3 specifically AVCON related items??   Can you shed light on to them, I have never seen that before!
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> Moose.



The yellow parts on the shield are for the pump that operates with an hydraulic jack attached to the axle. The jack is only deployed on the gun platfrom to allow quick laying onto specific GAPs, its stowed when firing or travelling. The gun also has spade blocks fitted for the concrete gun ring it is fired off of. These are all AVCON mods
The pump is going to be replaced by a more effective two way one (something like the one on the LG1) next year.


----------



## themoose

Petard said:
			
		

> The pump is going to be replaced by a more effective two way one (something like the one on the LG1) next year.



Just don't use the one directly from the LG1... we all know how "effective" and reliable that hydraulic system is !   ;D


----------



## Thompson_JM

themoose said:
			
		

> Petard:   Did you take that HLVW / C3 photo?  If so, just curious why they have the chains on the rear axle as opposed to the intermediate?
> 
> I just want to know another person's view on what axle to put chains on... not intending to judge someone here...



My take on this part is that if you only have enough chains to do two of the 4 tires on the rear, stick em on the axle with the Diff lock on it... Since the driver probably already has the Inter-axle (referred to in the MSVS-M as the Power Drive Lock) engaged there will be good traction to begin with... plus with the tongue weight being felt more on the rear axle then the intermediate if worse comes to worse and it gets bogged down, chains on the rear axle will give the most "Bite" (mostly due to the Diff lock)

Thats just my take though... (i'll have to confirm if the Rear Diff lock only locks up the rear axle or the rear and intermediate on an HLVW)


As to part of the reason why they put the "Mobile Home" on the back of the Gun tractors and Engineer variants... See the picture below...







In case one of these bastards goes Tits up on the road, putting the Crew in a restraint system means that another incident like that one will hopefully not happen again.

I am a firm believer in the phrase "No Training should Ever supersede safety for any reason" Yes it happens, but that's not a good enough reason to not try to mitigate risk when and where possible. If that means hopefully we wont have another dead soldier because of a highly preventable "Oops" I am ok with the fact that it seems like overkill to some people.

And before we get into the whole "Troop Lift" debate, Troop lift qualifications for this vehicle are also not being handed out lightly either...  Of the past 3 courses reserve side that I have either taught on, or been a part of, (outside of the "Train the Trainer") only a handful of people are actually Troop lift Qualified.


----------



## themoose

Tommy said:
			
		

> My take on this part is that if you only have enough chains to do two of the 4 tires on the rear, stick em on the axle with the Diff lock on it... Since the driver probably already has the Inter-axle (referred to in the MSVS-M as the Power Drive Lock) engaged there will be good traction to begin with... plus with the tongue weight being felt more on the rear axle then the intermediate if worse comes to worse and it gets bogged down, chains on the rear axle will give the most "Bite" (mostly due to the Diff lock)
> 
> That's just my take though... (I'll have to confirm if the Rear Diff lock only locks up the rear axle or the rear and intermediate on an HLVW)



Well to me having the chains on the intermediate axle is best.   It's closest to the C of G and therefore should give better traction aid.   Putting the chains on the rear wheels while having a trailer attached shouldn't do to much extra for you, C of G wont be shifted that far back anyways, and it should move it closer to your intermediate axle anyways.

As for the HLVW and diff locks (it's the same for the MSVS too), you have 3 "levels" as you get stuck.    First engage 6 wheel drive, then engage your PDL (Primary Differential Lock, it locks the intermediate and rear axles together) and finally your differential locks (locking left and right side wheels together).




			
				Tommy said:
			
		

> As to part of the reason why they put the "Mobile Home" on the back of the Gun tractors and Engineer variants... See the picture below...
> 
> In case one of these bastards goes Tits up on the road, putting the Crew in a restraint system means that another incident like that one will hopefully not happen again.



I was there the day she was killed.   I said it before, and I said it now, I am glad we finally get our Gunners and Sappers in the cab.   From days of sucking in clouds of dust, to getting rocks kicked back at us from the gun, to being thrown around every which way, to people being killed and seriously injured, I'm so glad we will no longer be in the rear with the gear.    Less a part of the EIS for the gun and more a gun crew.




			
				Tommy said:
			
		

> I am a firm believer in the phrase "No Training should Ever supersede safety for any reason" Yes it happens, but that's not a good enough reason to not try to mitigate risk when and where possible. If that means hopefully we wont have another dead soldier because of a highly preventable "Oops" I am OK with the fact that it seems like overkill to some people.



It's got to start even before the idea of "nothing is more important than safety" when out on an exercise.   
It needs to begin from day 1 when someone is put behind the wheel of 2 - 10 tonnes of military truck and gun / trailer.   
Too many drivers are plucked from behind the wheel of their Honda civic or Pontiac sunfire and put behind the wheel of an HLVW / MLVW / MSVS and told to "drive."   Now I am not totally opposed to how we train our drivers, only certain attitudes towards the training of our drivers.   I have seen too many people thrown on a MLVW course one week (albeit a bastardized short one too) then thrown on a gun tow course the following week, and finally he / she is towing guns with troops in the back the following week.   How can we stress safety when that driver barely knows how an MLVW / HLVW / MSVS handles by itself, and then with a gun / trailer / water buffalo / beavertail attached adding to the handeling characteristics.

Time-frames for training are established for a reason, as soon as you deviate from them because "we are short drivers" or "we don't have anyone gun tow qualified", it's the fuse being lit on the accident powder keg waiting to blow up.




			
				Tommy said:
			
		

> And before we get into the whole "Troop Lift" debate, Troop lift qualifications for this vehicle are also not being handed out lightly either...  Of the past 3 courses reserve side that I have either taught on, or been a part of, (outside of the "Train the Trainer") only a handful of people are actually Troop lift Qualified.



Oh another can of worms there....  They are changing the troop lift system, and how we qualify for it.    No longer do we "automatically" get the qualification if we have done 1000 km on that vehicle, or a year after our driver wheel.   This wasn't making people aware of the inherent dangers of troop lift at all.   I have seen too many guys / gals driving carelessly with troops in the back, something even as simple as not going full speed over bumps that make the driver bounce in their seat but launch the troops in the back all over the place.

We now must take our 1 day troop lift course, which is still a mystery course to me.   I have inquired over and over about this, but nobody seems to know who can teach it, what the material is, etc...   Is this going to make it better? probably not.   Maybe we need to have a sort of practical test, followed up by re-certification if you have not transported troops in the previous 12 months. But this it another topic to discuss later on.

We are moving in the right direction with this, but it's going to take time to get everyone on-line with it and thinking the same way.   

 :2c:

Moose


----------



## Thompson_JM

themoose said:
			
		

> Well to me having the chains on the intermediate axle is best.   It's closest to the C of G and therefore should give better traction aid.   Putting the chains on the rear wheels while having a trailer attached shouldn't do to much extra for you, C of G wont be shifted that far back anyways, and it should move it closer to your intermediate axle anyways.
> 
> As for the HLVW and diff locks (it's the same for the MSVS too), you have 3 "levels" as you get stuck.    First engage 6 wheel drive, then engage your PDL (Primary *Power *Differential *Drive* Lock, it locks the intermediate and rear axles together) and finally your differential locks (locking left and right side wheels together).



Splitting hairs here but normally you want to engage the "Inter-axle" (on the HLVW) or PDL (on the MSVS-M) first prior to engaging the 6 wheel drive, as there are no speed limitations to an inter-axle or Power Drive lock. whereas it is not recommended to drive the HLVW or MSVS above 50 or 60kph in 6x6..  (moot point in the MSVS since if you engage the front axle over a certain speed it simply wont engage... at least its not supposed to....)

Exceptions to that are when you are required to make sharp turns at low speed and are getting bogged down. Engaging the front axle in those cases will help tighten your turn radius.. this is key on the MSVS-M as the turn radius on a good say is somewhere between "terrible" and "Oh The Humanity...."  

Also, what I was trying to get clarification on was if the Diff lock when engaged, would lock up the two rears, or all 4 rears... even with the Inter-axle lock on. (I know the MSVS-M will lock all 4 when the Rear Diff and PDL is engaged, but if only the Rear Diff is on, it will only lock the rear axle.... confusing? oh yeah....)



			
				themoose said:
			
		

> *It's got to start even before the idea of "nothing is more important than safety" when out on an exercise.
> It needs to begin from day 1 when someone is put behind the wheel of 2 - 10 tonnes of military truck and gun / trailer.  *
> *Too many drivers are plucked from behind the wheel of their Honda civic or Pontiac sunfire and put behind the wheel of an HLVW / MLVW / MSVS and told to "drive."*   Now I am not totally opposed to how we train our drivers, only certain attitudes towards the training of our drivers.  * I have seen too many people thrown on a MLVW course one week (albeit a bastardized short one too) then thrown on a gun tow course the following week, and finally he / she is towing guns with troops in the back the following week.*   *How can we stress safety when that driver barely knows how an MLVW / HLVW / MSVS-M handles by itself, and then with a gun / trailer / water buffalo / beaver-tail attached adding to the handling characteristics.*
> 
> *Time-frames for training are established for a reason, as soon as you deviate from them because "we are short drivers" or "we don't have anyone gun tow qualified", it's the fuse being lit on the accident powder keg waiting to blow up.*



I agree with you on all the points I bolded here 100%... we have had this discussion on course many times, and emphasis to our students just how important it is to always be thinking in this truck. The HLVW handles like a sports car compared to the MSVS-M


As far as the MSVS goes, I'm just waiting for my area to have a fatality.... the way they are cramming people into these courses and ram-roding them through... its ridiculous... trying to explain this to Standards or Battle school seems to result in them staring at you like you have a toaster on your head. 

None of the course packages have been put together properly yet... It's nuts....  

Bottom line is that when I got qualified HLVW as an MSE-Op I spent the better part of a month driving the thing.... 20 some odd days.... We've got Kids, and I mean kids here... 17-20 years old... who have driven LSVW as their largest vehicle... and they are getting the same fast forward "conversion Course" that people like me with 10 years of time in on the HLVW and a tour driving them all over the sandbox..... and there was still a learning curve for us on the MSVS....

the thing that bugs me the most.... *No backing rodeo is taught on this course...* If we want students to learn a large vehicle properly, we need to make them walk before they run... the best way to discover the dimensions of the vehicle is moving slowly under control in reverse... make em do that for a day, and their comfort level with the truck with go up a lot faster then just throwing em out on the road and saying "hey best of luck..." which feels like is what is happening in my Brigade group....

And No, a Safe Backing course is not enough, UNLESS it was done WITH an MSVS-M



			
				themoose said:
			
		

> Oh another can of worms there....  They are changing the troop lift system, and how we qualify for it.    No longer do we "automatically" get the qualification if we have done 1000 km on that vehicle, or a year after our driver wheel.   This wasn't making people aware of the inherent dangers of troop lift at all.   I have seen too many guys / gals driving carelessly with troops in the back, something even as simple as not going full speed over bumps that make the driver bounce in their seat but launch the troops in the back all over the place.
> 
> We now must take our 1 day troop lift course, which is still a mystery course to me.   I have inquired over and over about this, but nobody seems to know who can teach it, what the material is, etc...   Is this going to make it better? probably not.   Maybe we need to have a sort of practical test, followed up by re-certification if you have not transported troops in the previous 12 months. But this it another topic to discuss later on.



If you're in the Ottawa area try giving 28... er 32 Svc Bn a call... Talk to one of their Reg F MSE-Op types... they should have an idea about it... Failing that I can give you the number of our UTA who happens to know more about the Troop lift courses and all the stuff to go with it.




			
				themoose said:
			
		

> We are moving in the right direction with this, but it's going to take time to get everyone on-line with it and thinking the same way.



No kidding.... and it doesn't help that the SME's are fighting tooth and nail with the Battle Schools and Standards types to make improvements..... At least in our area... Change is very slow... I fear that someone is going to get Shmucked by a truck before anything moves forward....


----------



## Dissident

Some reading for y'all:
http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/index.html#contents

As per below:

I keep seeing people trying to eliminate risk, which I think is a flawed approach, especially when it comes to the military. 

The link is to an online version of a 1994 book called Target Risk. It makes a pretty good case, IMHO, that you can try to eliminate all the hazards you want, people will still get killed/injured at the same rate.

I think we are cheating ourselves by attempting to eliminate all the hazards which surround our troops in training. We would be better served teaching our troops about the hazards and risk management strategies.

Take the humoungus MSVS that you put a civic driving kid into. He will be very cautious and will actually do things like get out of the truck and do a walk around because he will be worried about damaging it since s/he will be unfamiliar with the size. A more experienced operator might very well forgo a ground guide to back the truck up because of his confidence.


----------



## Thompson_JM

TL;DR


I'll take a gander at it when I have a bit more time, but for now what I was able to make of the opening of the paper is a lot of theory....

Any chance you could sum up the MTP's of the link for us?


----------



## AC 011

themoose said:
			
		

> Well to me having the chains on the intermediate axle is best.   It's closest to the C of G and therefore should give better traction aid.   Putting the chains on the rear wheels while having a trailer attached shouldn't do to much extra for you, C of G wont be shifted that far back anyways, and it should move it closer to your intermediate axle anyways.



Hey Moose.  It’s been a while.  I’m hoping to get back up your way sometime soon.  If I can swing it, I’ll drop in to the Bty.

Regarding tire chain placement…

If the axles were individually mounted to the frame the CG of the vehicle would have an impact.  With the typical truck tandem axle configuration, the ground reaction forces are the same on each axle of the pair.

Installing on the first or second axle of a tandem set makes little difference – most of the time.  If you want extra traction for climbing steep hills – put the chains on the second axle.  For extra traction on steep descents, put the chains on the first.  Just don’t put them on both axles in a tandem set (or any pair of axles set close together) at the same time.  Bad things can happen, though I’ve never seen it, if you’re going too fast and the chains are loose.  

Tire chains on LAV's are a little different - You can't (at least you shouldn't) put chains on the #1 axle due to the steering geometry and clearance between the tires and the wheel housings at left and right lock.  That leaves axles #2 & #4 (no surprise, per the pam).

Cheers
Andy


----------



## Thompson_JM

Dissident said:
			
		

> Some reading for y'all:
> http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/index.html#contents
> 
> As per below:
> 
> I keep seeing people trying to eliminate risk, which I think is a flawed approach, especially when it comes to the military.
> 
> The link is to an online version of a 1994 book called Target Risk. It makes a pretty good case, IMHO, that you can try to eliminate all the hazards you want, people will still get killed/injured at the same rate.
> 
> I think we are cheating ourselves by attempting to eliminate all the hazards which surround our troops in training. We would be better served teaching our troops about the hazards and risk management strategies.
> 
> Take the humongous MSVS that you put a civic driving kid into. He will be very cautious and will actually do things like get out of the truck and do a walk around because he will be worried about damaging it since s/he will be unfamiliar with the size. A more experienced operator might very well forgo a ground guide to back the truck up because of his confidence.



That may be well and true, except that Policy dictates that we employ ground guides or do a walk-around Every time we reverse... and Speaking as an MSE-Op, I will still get out and do a walk around or use ground guides when backing up even after 10 years of driving them simply because once you become overconfident you get cocky, and exactly like you said, someone will back into something....

It's not Risk aversion per say.... It's getting everyone to focus on Safety and actually FOLLOW the rules we already have in place instead of Ignoring them for the sake of looking hardcore or getting the "Mission" done faster.


----------



## Kirkhill

Dissident (appropriate if you read the attached article) may indeed have a point here:



> European Cities Do Away with Traffic Signs
> By Matthias Schulz
> 
> Are streets without traffic signs conceivable? Seven cities and regions in Europe are giving it a try -- with good results.
> 
> .......
> European traffic planners are dreaming of streets free of rules and directives. They want drivers and pedestrians to interact in a free and humane way, as brethren -- by means of friendly gestures, nods of the head and eye contact, without the harassment of prohibitions, restrictions and warning signs.
> 
> A project implemented by the European Union is currently seeing seven cities and regions clear-cutting their forest of traffic signs. Ejby, in Denmark, is participating in the experiment, as are Ipswich in England and the Belgian town of Ostende.
> 
> The utopia has already become a reality in Makkinga, in the Dutch province of Western Frisia. A sign by the entrance to the small town (population 1,000) reads "Verkeersbordvrij" -- "free of traffic signs." Cars bumble unhurriedly over precision-trimmed granite cobblestones. Stop signs and direction signs are nowhere to be seen. There are neither parking meters nor stopping restrictions. There aren't even any lines painted on the streets.
> .....



Rule books may take the onus off the driver as they permit the driver to believe that s/he operates in a rational universe of rules with the working assumptions that:

a) everybody else follows the rules
b) if I follow the rules nothing can go wrong.

Conversely, if you assume chaos you are never disappointed.

As to the experiment in Europe I believe that both Thomas Reid and Benjamin Franklin would approve.


As an aside, when did you see anybody actually read an operations manual for anything other than a course?  Most folks start pressing buttons first then reqacch for the manual only when they get in trouble.


----------



## Thompson_JM

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Dissident (appropriate if you read the attached article) may indeed have a point here:
> 
> Rule books may take the onus off the driver as they permit the driver to believe that s/he operates in a rational universe of rules with the working assumptions that:
> 
> a) everybody else follows the rules
> b) if I follow the rules nothing can go wrong.
> 
> Conversely, if you assume chaos you are never disappointed.
> 
> As to the experiment in Europe I believe that both Thomas Reid and Benjamin Franklin would approve.
> 
> 
> As an aside, when did you see anybody actually read an operations manual for anything other than a course?  Most folks start pressing buttons first then reach for the manual only when they get in trouble.



Pie in the Sky..... Our Country is nothing like Holland... our roads are nothing like theirs.... The article if you are trying to apply it to our road system is like comparing Apples to Cheeseburgers........ 

Secondly as to the manuals, I do. my co-workers do... Many of the full and part timers who take their job seriously, do in fact do their homework as it were.... since it looks pretty dumb for me as a 2i/c to answer "ah jeeze... I dunno.... " and walk away from a legitimate question.

You will also have to change the current societies mindset back into a common sense/ common courtesy attitude....  On the roads in Ontario people are like Lord of the #@ing Flies out there... 

You start ripping down signs in Toronto and you could start filming the next Road Warrior movie in the ensuing chaos....


----------



## Dissident

See, I don't think so. Take the time to read the book from the link I posted. 

On a separate note, I know must of us are good at following the procedures and rules we have learnt, which is a reflection of the discipline the military teaches us. I tend to be a stickler for everyone doing DI's in the morning and I always do halt parades (although I must admit I leave it to the drivers to determine when they to do it.) However, I have also been under the gun and had to skip driver inspections because of imposed constraint. I took a risk (and would have assumed responsibility if something would have went sideways.)

While I do not want to question anyone’s professionalism, we are in the army and not everything always goes according to plan (or regulations). Have you never had a CO breathing down your neck or a WO telling you to just go? Sure nowadays I’d tell them to shove it, but I was not always an irreverent asshole. It is possible that you have never skipped any safety checks and have always followed all the safety rules or the proper procedures, but the odds are small.


----------



## Thompson_JM

Dissident said:
			
		

> See, I don't think so. Take the time to read the book from the link I posted.
> 
> On a separate note, I know must of us are good at following the procedures and rules we have learnt, which is a reflection of the discipline the military teaches us. I tend to be a stickler for everyone doing DI's in the morning and I always do halt parades (although I must admit I leave it to the drivers to determine when they to do it.) However, I have also been under the gun and had to skip driver inspections because of imposed constraint. I took a risk (and would have assumed responsibility if something would have went sideways.)
> 
> While I do not want to question anyone’s professionalism, we are in the army and not everything always goes according to plan (or regulations). Have you never had a CO breathing down your neck or a WO telling you to just go? Sure nowadays I’d tell them to shove it, but I was not always an irreverent *******. It is possible that you have never skipped any safety checks and have always followed all the safety rules or the proper procedures, but the odds are small.



I'll never say never, sometimes you do need to just get in and go. But certainly it is done when possible.... hell even overseas we would check the vehicles regularly. 

I'm saying that the key is to be safe, and follow the rules where possible. I have also taken the chances here and there and was willing to wear it if something went south... 

I read some of what you posted... maybe I need to read it at a time when I'm not trying to study for something else.... lol... but what I did read didnt seem to make sense to me...  talking about how traffic lights do not reduce collisions? I fail to understand that logic... Nothing will eliminate risk, when you factor in human nature and human error, but certainly putting measures in place to assist just make sense...

either that or this is talking about something way more theoretical then I am picking up.... Personally I dont like dealing in theoretical stuff... I'd rather focus on what is here and what we can do with it... 

This is also going well off the rails from the original topic.... The point of putting the crew into the cab was to avoid having troops injured or killed. It may not prevent it... But by putting them in a safer place it mitigates the risk.  

Someone had a saying on there profile here "Just because we've always done it this way, does not mean it isn't incredibly stupid...." Looking at the way the MSVS-M is carrying troops on the Gun tractor and Engineer variants, is to me, a step in the right direction, and away from that saying....


----------



## Dissident

That is exactly it though, the argument I derive from the book is that the concept of mitigating risk is inherently flawed. We (humans) are the flaw in that concept. The safer we make things (there are more example in the book which anecdotally corroborate this, beyond the street light example) the greater the risk people will take.

On a pure comfort basis, I completely support moving people into the cab. Awesome.

From a safety perspective it might very well be a zero sum gain: (Not being troop lift qualified, I can only speculate) having troops in the back you are responsible for (friends or just co worker) would make me VERY cautious when driving around. Removing this know hazard would (will) likely raise the level of risk I am willing to take.

Let me be facetious for a second. Imagine every car came equipped with a 10 inches long sharp spike sticking out of the steering wheel. How cautious/safe would you drive? I would bet that if it were so, the number of accidents would dramatically decrease. The injuries incurred in those accidents would be horrific, but it is exactly that known hazard which would motivate peoples actions.

So engineering things to be safer makes us feel good, but the results are, IMHO, counter intuitive. According to the book traveling by car is just as deadly now (per capita, not per km traveled) as it was before all the safety devices and standards took effect, such as seat belts, air bags, crumple zones...

ETA: What were the restriction imposed on vehicles doing troop lifts? 30kph max? on DND land only? These restrictions will most likely be lifted for the MSVS, they make no sense anymore. How will this effect the accident/injury rate? Just spit balling here...


----------



## Thompson_JM

Those may have been restrictions placed on the MLVW, but under the Canadian Forces Transportation Manual ALM-158-5 There are still stringent rules and regulations on Troop lift in general.

The biggest ones are that they cannot go on roads over 70 or 80 km/h and the Drivers must be qualified Troop lift, which at one point was IIRC (as I am at home and cannot access the manual here) 1000km and x amount of time on the vehicle, along with formal DND Driver training. From the understanding I have from higher, Troop lift restrictions are actually going to be tighter now then they were before as there were too many people who simply should not have been driving troops, and with the increased size of the vehicle, Higher determined that Not just anyone should be carrying a Platoon of Troops in the back... 

The problem was a combination of people being at risk in the back combined with the "Just throw em in the truck and get going" attitude. A newly qualified driver, who had an Oops..... 
The other problem is (as stated above) when you pull an 18 year old kid out of his Civic and throw him behind the wheel of something like an MLVW or MSVS-M without adequate trg... 

Right now the driver training for the new MSVS-M is utter shite... like I said, its only a matter of when.. not if there is a collision involving serious bodily harm or death. 

Our driver examiners are in some cases simply refusing to test soldiers they do not feel are qualified or have a good enough grasp of the vehicle.

We have told the Battle School our concerns but at this point I feel that they are more concerned with putting as many troops through the training so it looks good on paper, rather then add an extra two or three weekends onto the course. Not to mention they are putting more troops onto the courses then they should, and as such each student is not getting enough time behind the wheel. This is not as bad an issue for units like the Svc Bn's or Arty who are Mech units and will give their members ample time at the home unit to continue to hone their skills. But in the infantry units where a member may go 6 months from end course until the next time they touch the vehicle this is a serious concern. The MSVS-M is not a small truck. In order to drive it properly, and keep up on current skills the members need to drive it at least somewhat regularly... 

A different example, The infantry always wonder why guys in the Service Bn's are usually a bit weaker in their small arms skillsets. Especially things like C6, Carl G and M72.... well... we only see them once a year, so we tend to forget it..... The same can be said about the Trucks.... Use it or loose it (the skill)

Back to the Troops in the Cab issue for a moment though, with the Gunner Keys-Olliver incident, had that same even occurred where the troops were in the Cab, and restrained, there very well likely would not have been a death.... I am not a collision investigator so I cannot speak for certain, but I do believe the driver of the MLVW walked away from the crash with minor injuries. 

Also, for the record I have been troop lift qualified for 9-10 years now as well. (including HLVW)

Certainly there are some cases, heck, many cases where we as a society do tend to over protect.  I personally feel road safety is one that we do not yet do a good enough job.

Where do we draw the line though? do we take away speed limits? Traffic lights? Stop signs? 

Part of the reason people obey rules is also due to the punitive damage and penalties they would receive via the law were they to break them. How could one enforce a law if a rule doesn't exist?

Can a Police officer charge a driver for killing a child playing in a residential area when the driver was "Speeding" if no speed limit exists? What about reckless or dangerous driving? well if no speed limit exists, and there is nothing telling the driver to go slow, then How could the Crown prove the driver was really being dangerous? Common sense doesn't hold up in court. Especially when the proof is on the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was in the wrong.

I am willing to bet on the topic of road safety that the points that were brought up in the book can be refuted just as easily.  

It's all still pie in the sky though.... I mean really..... if we get rid of the signs, how are sign makers supposed to make any money?  ;D


----------



## Petard

This thread is starting meander quite a bit, maybe to get it focused again on topic...
FWIW, the MSVS gun tractor presently does not have any seating for the cargo or box area, only the cab.
While even this variant could be converted with fold up bench seats, it wouldn't be easy (there will be storage lockers, ammo bins and possibly the load handling system to remove in order to do it)
Any thoughts if the gun tractor variant should have bench seats in the back as part of the normal gun tractor configuration?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Speaking as someone who did Artillery Phase Training before even the MLVW Artillery SEV kits existed, I would have to say that it is time to find a better way to carry a Detachment, then "in the rear, with the gear".  I can remember bouncing across gun positions, laying across 50 tubes of ammo and catching rounds before they bounced out of the truck- it is a wonder that we did not kill anyone.  Obviously, the situation improved with the SEV kit, but not much.

I think the detachment needs to ride separated from the ammo.  some degree of armour protection for the crew should be considered.  Comfortable and ergonomic seats that are compatible with body armour and other kit would be a bonus for how rested and efficient a gun det could be.


----------



## Thompson_JM

Petard said:
			
		

> This thread is starting meander quite a bit, maybe to get it focused again on topic...
> FWIW, the MSVS gun tractor presently does not have any seating for the cargo or box area, only the cab.
> While even this variant could be converted with fold up bench seats, it wouldn't be easy (there will be storage lockers, ammo bins and possibly the load handling system to remove in order to do it)
> Any thoughts if the gun tractor variant should have bench seats in the back as part of the normal gun tractor configuration?



I personally do not see a need to put benches in the back. With all the other equipment in there it seems like overkill. Not to mention that the units will still have TCV versions for actually doing troop lift.


----------



## Kreslin01

Oki, this post actually made me create an account.


Update from Gagetown is this (from what i've heard, this also changes daily)
1. C2's are done, there are no parts there are no recoils, and after the catastrophic failure of a C3 cradle in the field C3's should be short to follow. (Dont have a Clue what the PRes will use)
As for having this guns for salutes, i dont see why they cant stay as there is no need for a recoil on Blank rounds and there for should be a non-issue, but im not a wpns tech, nor have the athority in Ottawa to have that say-so.

2. LG1s are being used for training now and M-777's are going to the reg force units with the LG1's eventually all comming to Gagetown

3. MSVS will become the new gun tractor. But here are some of the key diffrences between the Gun Tractor and Standard MSVS
the New Gun Tractor will be
      -9 people in the Cab
      -Raised 6 inches
      -No seats in the Back (Cargo Compartment)
      (All i  know for diffrences so far)

Now as a Detachment Commander heres my Beef with the New MSVS
1. In order to access the cargo area you need to attach a ladder, in order to do that you need to un-hook the gun.
2. Underneath of the truck all the electronic cabling and Air hoses are exposed, and there for you cannot get into half the AMA's on most Bases in order to deploy the guns.
3. The regular MSVS is rediculiously high inorder to get in and out of the truck, 6 Inches higher is worse, especially when you have to bring equipment out of the back of the truck and down a ladder.
4. They Fact they have a winch is great, but the fact that all the cabling is exposed means that when you getinto a situatuon in which you need to use it your probably going to have to call recovery because you ripped some cables.
5. EVERYTHING is eletronic and not easily fixed by the user
6. You cannot see the gun when towing it. (M-777 should be fine though)
7. This replaces the ML but there is no possible way that it could ever be deployed in theater, up armoured. (Not that the ML was ever a first choice in theater, I realize this but you totally lose the option) The Air Brakes are Civy Air Brakes and does not have the standard Military Overide
8. The Cab for all the gunners looks REALLY REALLY tight, and in those pictures they dont have any kit.
9. Having the Det commander and the Crew together is not always a good thing, as between moves this is when the Det Comd and the 2 I/C usually discuss the troops and can relax a bit with eachother while not infront of the troops.
10. The Warrenty stipulates that if we modify these trucks in anyway we Void the Warrenty. We cannot change a burnt out light, they have to go back to the dealership. Which is great news for the Driver as it is less maintance for him, but i means that if my truck needs a headlight replaced it goes to the Mechanics, sits three for 2-3 weeks, then the dealership for 2-3 week then back to maintance for 2-3 weeks then i finally get the truck. Im not sure what the supply will be like with the MSVS's, but i know that with the ML's sending them off to the Mechanics was a night mare and if you lost 2+ trucks in the Battery to the Mechanics it was a scramble to be able to deploy proplerly.
11. The turning radius is HUGE and therefore will have to change the way recces are conducted to account for this.


HOWEVER there are a few good points;
1. Comforts are nice
2. Heat is nice in order to dry out kit
3. Drives nice on the Highway
4. At least theres something to replace the aging ML

A few things that could be looked at later (In my Opinion);
1. Door connecting the Back to the Cab. (So you dont have to deploy the ladder to get a guy in the back to throw kit off the back)
2. Put benches and Cabinets in the Back (Like the ML Gun Tractor) If you dont use it, at least it gives you options. (I personally would have 2 members in the back still in order to unloard kit off the back during a deployment.)
3. Protect the cabling for GODS sakes
Take out the nice comfy Air Ride seats for more practical bench seats with cargo capability (But not for the driver)
4. Have the Ladder able to attach to the truck with the tailgate up and on the side both tailgates so you can get in and out of the truck with the gun hooked on. (As it is with the gun on a standard MSVS, its not a "quick" or overly safe proceedure.
5. Move the glad hands on the bottem of the truck so there better protected from gunners stepping on them in order to get into the back
6. Air bake override like the HLVW

There's probably more, but this is what i have off the top of my head. Now im not an athority on this subject and my opinions are only based off a user end, detachment commanders opinion. I am MSVS qualified, but my opinion MAY change after deploying it a few times, we shall see.


----------



## Petard

Good honest post Kreslin, keep 'em coming

I've seen the prototype at 30th Fd, and have spoken a great deal with some of the project staff; here's a few points to consider.

The MSVS MilCOT gun tractor is designed to pull the 105mm fleet only, not the M777. Its not intended to be deployed overseas, and there is no plan I've heard of to support this idea. An SMP variant is being designed for that purpose (pull M777, deployable with add on armour, etc) 
That having been said who knows what whole fleet management might do.
In any case the support for this type of system more than likely will result in some of the drawbacks you mentioned, but I'm not so sure about those kind of wait times you're describing

7 people are supposed to ride in the cab, not 9. Despite what some might think, the gun det for a 105 is still only 7, not 10.

A bench seat for 2 people is now being considered for the back, either as work area, or as you suggested so someone can ride in the back and be prepared to unload stores immediately on coming into action. There is no way to modify the cab to allow quick access to the back, although it is certainly a good idea.

There will be lockers for storing kit instead of a soup pile in the middle of the floor

There will be ammo racks and crane to lower them; unavoidable given the height of the vehicle. The ammo racks will allow individual rounds to be handed down/stored

The ladder can be attached to either side of tailgate as well as center, it is cumbersome, but for a lot of complicated reasons modifying the tailgate for even a simple ladder (like the HLVW) is not possible. You do not need to unhook the gun to attach the ladder to either side of tailgate when its in the horizontal position.

A rear view low light camera system was considered for the poor rearward visibility problem you've mentioned, unfortunately someone gave some bad advice and this option was eliminated. It might still be added later

The turn radius for the truck is actually not much further than the MLVW's, I kid you not, I had to eat crow when I challenged somebody on this (its only ~3' more)


----------



## Kreslin01

Well, unfortunatly were having some serious problems with the 105 fleet right now... and if i can figure out how to post pictures ill show you the C3 cradle as it snapped in half.



I do understand that its not a combat vechile, but really neither is the LSVW but it could still be employed in a pinch. Whether or not its designed to go into combat or not, its going to be employed in the combat arms, and therefore should have SOME sort of capability to gointo combat. I also belive that if it was designed as a combat vechile some other issuses would have been looked at more closely such as the exposed cabling, and massive amount of electronics. The lack of combat funtionality makes it a great civilian truck painted green, but, IMO not so good for the field artillery. The way civilian vehciles go and having driven both the MSVS and the Sterling, and using the Sterling in the field. I like the sterling better, more power. As big as the MSVS is it seems lacking big time in power. Theres a few mods needed to make it a actual viable option but it works in a pinch.

Ah, seen, sorry i was told it was 6 gunners in the rear and the standard 3 seats in the front. But i haven't actually played with the Gun tractor varient, only the standard MSVS.

The crane could be a issue with loading as then you have to remover the cargo tarp and frame in orderto load into the back. With the ammo racks, perhaps something more like the loading platform for the ADATS? something similer could be use like a step for half way up the truck. The sides of the cargo area look to come down easy enough, just like the HL, you could store ammo there and just lower the platform. Prehaps they could have looked at ammo bustles again like on the ML as those actually worked rather well. Perhaps reinforce them a bit more. Though im not sure what the chain senario will be with the MSVS, but loose chains is what wrecked the ML bustles. Rienforce the bottems and you should be good to go. That would help emliminate some of the ammo hight problem.

Still dont like the ladder system, negates the whole "With a minimum of delay" but i think i have a system with the standard MSVS troop lift were using right now, lower the tail gate to horizontal and then troops can jump off onto the gun then the ground in a manner that for me is "Safe Enough" for now.

Really i dont see a need for the MSVS to pull the M-777 anyway, the HL does a fine job as it is as a prime mover and an ammo limber.

We could propbably do withou the Camera though, CF policy still stands you need a ground guide anyway, granted most ground guides dont have a clue what thier doing, as its usually just Gnr Bloggins standing there, however i have a feeling the cameras would get broke a fair bit. THe problem isnt backing the gun up, which i guess could be a problem, but more so its when your driving down ther road, i like to know the gun is still there and usually you can still see the shield flaps on the C2/3 everynow and then when your bouncing along. and with the troops in the cab with you you wont have a clue if something either falls out the back (Which is known to happen) or if you in a most embarassing way forget to close the pintle hook and the gun bounces off the truck. In the long run though i think this is something we will just get use to over time and adapt to.

The one thing i ddint mention that is a BIG plus is the lower cargo stoage bins. This should actually facilitate alot of the tores that would usually go in the back of the truck, i was actually a little worried aboiut the gun box comming down from that hieght. Matter of time before some one got dinged with it. However all of it can fit into on of those storage boxes, stove and lantern etc. BIG fan about those.

The last issue were running into is compatability. Alot of the things we use the ML for other than driving IE the Muzzle Velocity Indicator cannot yet be plugged into the MSVS. were trying to figure out a way to get adapters or anything, currently the Master Gunner is working on this (From what im told) however perhaps instead of more time and money invested in this they could have put into the package the basic standard ML Slave/power outlet, and therefore we would be able to continue using most of our equipment seamlessly and without the need to spend more time and money.

I Hate being pessimistic about everything and in the end, the truck will come into service. We will do as we always do Adapt, overcome and blow the TSM's PP+S budget in Gun tape doing it. But like i said IMO its a civilian truck painted green. TIme will tell with field trials and no one can test equipment in the field like Gagetown can.

Now heres the big thing! i wonder if we can rig up the back for the famous Gagetown bunk beds.........


----------



## Kreslin01

There made the Pictures work


----------



## Dissident

[quote author=Kreslin01]
There made the Pictures work
[/quote]


----------



## Petard

Kreslin, is the spell check not working for you?
Anyway...



			
				Kreslin01 said:
			
		

> The crane could be a issue with loading as then you have to remover the cargo tarp and frame in order to load into the back. ... Perhaps they could have looked at ammo bustles again like on the ML as those actually worked rather well. Perhaps reinforce them a bit more. Though I'm not sure what the chain scenario will be with the MSVS, but loose chains is what wrecked the ML bustles. Reinforce the bottoms and you should be good to go. That would help eliminate some of the ammo height problem.


The tarp does not need to be removed to operate crane, ammo is in racks of 5 rds. Under the vehicle ammo bustles are a non starter, and it was also the change in ammo containers that made the ML version useless



			
				Kreslin01 said:
			
		

> We could probably do without the Camera though,...i have a feeling the cameras would get broke a fair bit. The problem isn't backing the gun up, which i guess could be a problem, but more so its when your driving down the road, ...with the troops in the cab with you you wont have a clue if something either falls out the back (Which is known to happen) or if you in a most embarrassing way forget to close the pintle hook and the gun bounces off the truck....


The camera is also to see if the next vehicle in your convoy is still there, besides seeing what the gun is doing, like maybe swaying. Swaying was a factor in the deadly accident 30th Fd had a few years ago in Petawawa. The C3 takes a real beating when going cross country, and its not meant to, actually seeing that might cause someone to slow down, like they should. Too early to say but it may have been a factor in why that C3 snapped in two.


			
				Kreslin01 said:
			
		

> The one thing i didn't mention that is a BIG plus is the lower cargo storage bins. This should actually facilitate a lot of the stores that would usually go in the back of the truck, i was actually a little worried about the gun box coming down from that height. Matter of time before some one got dinged with it. However all of it can fit into on of those storage boxes, stove and lantern etc. BIG fan about those.


The main gun box, right now, has a tie down area between the ammo racks, but certainly putting it in one of the large cargo bin, say the one behind the drivers door, wouldn't be such a bad idea, if there's room


			
				Kreslin01 said:
			
		

> The last issue were running into is compatibility. A lot of the things we use the ML for other than driving IE the Muzzle Velocity Indicator cannot yet be plugged into the MSVS. were trying to figure out a way to get adapters or anything, currently the Master Gunner is working on this (From what I'm told) however perhaps instead of more time and money invested in this they could have put into the package the basic standard ML Slave/power outlet, and therefore we would be able to continue using most of our equipment seamlessly and without the need to spend more time and money.


Glad to hear the School has the master gunner working on that. The MVI is supposed to have battery clips anyway if the vehicle does not have a NATO standard one pin plug. At anyrate I know the MSVS project staff does have the specs now for the MVI, and the Weibel radar that will soon be replacing it

Now the bunks beds, where do they fit in the combat functions you mentioned? ;D


----------



## Kreslin01

Yeah, spell check..... still figuring all the fancy buttons and where they are... I see I missed the big one labled spell check....

I may have to see how this ammo rack thing works because if there in 5rds a rack then they have to be un-crated, if they have to be un-crated might as well hand bomb, or just pull the HL beside and pass over. The Ammo bustles could also just be made bigger to compensate for the plastic tubes. Like I said though this could be a really good idea or it may just not be used.

Good call with the camera, never really thought about that. But it would still have to be massively ruggedized.

The MVI does have Battery's however, we haven't actually found any batteries, the QM says we don't have them here in the school. As for the clips to hook it up to the Truck Batteries, i remember using them, but i cant remember seeing them for the past few years since we got the new MVI kits with the laser thermometer, and new cases.

Now the Bunk bed are a very vital part of combat functionality!


----------



## Old Sweat

Kreslin01 said:
			
		

> Now the Bunk bed are a very vital part of combat functionality!



Geeze, I feel like a dinosaur again. When I was a gun number a jillion years ago, the height of luxury was crashing on a cam net during a road move.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Cam net and road moves, remember them well, they were comfy and toasty.


----------



## Hurricane

Kreslin01 said:
			
		

> 7. This replaces the ML but there is no possible way that it could ever be deployed in theater, up armoured. (Not that the ML was ever a first choice in theater, I realize this but you totally lose the option) The Air Brakes are Civy Air Brakes and does not have the standard Military Overide
> 
> 2. Put benches and Cabinets in the Back (Like the ML Gun Tractor) If you dont use it, at least it gives you options. (I personally would have 2 members in the back still in order to unloard kit off the back during a deployment.)
> 
> 
> There's probably more, but this is what i have off the top of my head. Now im not an athority on this subject and my opinions are only based off a user end, detachment commanders opinion. I am MSVS qualified, but my opinion MAY change after deploying it a few times, we shall see.



The MSVS-M was never designed to be deployed in theatre, it is a domestic operations vehicle only. The SMP MSVS is in the bidding process now and from the looks of the companys who have offered bids and their proposed designs, its going to be a cab over design similar to the look of the HLVW able to be fitted with uparmor. The contract will not be awarded until 2013 with a delivery date of the first vehicle in Spring 2014

The new Trooplift course, at least as taught on my course, states that you cannot have anything in tow behind the vehicle while carrying troops in the cargo area. As well, cargo and troops cannot be carried at the same time. In the event of an emergency, it causes a hazzard if they need to bail. Un-necessarily endangering the lives of soldiers to save a few seconds is not a good idea.


----------



## Kreslin01

Well i can assure you that the Troop lift MSVS is currently being used as all of the above. It is towing the M-777 Howitzer as its prime mover. Gun stores ARE in the back with troops and its going off road. We have also used it as a Gun tractor for the LG-1 in the same role. The only thing not being carried in the back is 155mm Ammunition as that's on a separate HL, although 105mm Ammunition is still carried in the back with the troops. In the Artillery troops are not troops, but they are classified as gun stores and therefore carried in the back. Not sure how much the doctrine will change with the new gun tractors, we shall see. 

I also understand it is not an operational vehicle and only for domestic operations, but this i see as one of the flaws in the design as you lose the capability to use it in a pinch. What good in a non-operational vehicle to the Army, specifically the combat arms as a gun tractor if you cant use it in the job its needed for? You use a non-operational MSVS as a gun tractor for training, but then when you go over seas you have to learn a new vehicle and a new system, this is not "Training as you fight" as the chain of command likes to keep telling us. I hold firm in my belief that a non operational vehicle should NOT be used in a combat arms trade in any capacity. I might work for MSE ops on Domestic operations, but not for Combat Arms as a viable alternative for an combat ready vehicle.

The Artillery is all about saving a few seconds, and we do what it takes to do so, this is now we train and its how we fight. Because we know our jobs, and we know our duty, ask an Infanteer what a few seconds means. Using that statement, then means the dangers we create for the job should be addressed, if theres a way to engineer them out then it should be looked at and addressed. We have come along way from what it used to be though. I highly suggest you go and watch an Artillery deployment, or ride in a ML after a crash move cross country with kit bouncing everywhere. its an MSE Safety nighmare i would imagine, but its the only way we can do our jobs for now. 

Yes I agree with safety, in not some guy who needlessly endangers his soldiers for a few seconds to be faster than another gun, however I do believe in a balance between the to. I'm actually one of the few guns that makes my guys climb out of the back of the truck and not jump for safety reasons. But there is such a thing as to safe, I've seen it and was almost killed do to safety believe it or not. I also believe that Danger is an inherent part of my job in many diffrent forms, and as controversial as it is to say, the truth is that danger keeps you sharp. You can put as many guards and safety's and write books and pubs and create drills to keep someones hand away from a hot stove, but you never realize the danger that way, you get lazy and slack and really your only protecting the dim witted. I'm sure theres a million people who disagree with this, but hey I played with sharp sticks as a kid, and we didn't always wear our seatbelts on a long road trip, and we turned out fine. Now look at some of your younger soldiers and ask the same question. Maybe they could have used some danger in there lives in order to teach them things like common sense. You won't really keep your hand from the stove unless you feel the heat.


----------



## dapaterson

Kreslin01 said:
			
		

> In the Artillery troops are not troops, but they are classified as gun stores and therefore carried in the back.



It is that sort of dumbassery that gets troops killed.


----------



## Kreslin01

Never said i agreed with it, but that's how its explained to me. Not sure where its written down or even if it is, but that is an actual answer one of my questions posed about troops in the back of a truck. Not to say we actually treat them like stores, but I do believe its how we can do some of the things that we do. Its a paper work thing. But like i said before, until the problem is recognized, addressed and a viable solution is found it is a necessary evil and has been for years. Since mechanized Artillery actually.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Just a point to note just like the Engineer SEV the section/detachment are all housed in the cab of the veh not in the box. So there should not be a problem of mixing troops and kit/ammo/stores.....


----------



## Kreslin01

But what happens when you run out of room in the back? Theres 10 men to a M-777 crew, and with full kit on, the back gets full in a hurry. What happens if you want to run 11, or 12 men in the crew, in Full FFO and winter kit, in the back of the Truck? Maybe im just playing devils advocate for now, but the question is valid. I hope it all works out, i do, but then you run into the problem that this is not the vehicle we use to fight with, so if something happens that we revert to having to have troops in the back with the stores your going to see injury rates go up and then there will be a panic that people are getting hurt. Its a step in the right direction..... kind of. I just think they need to find a real solution to the problem instead of wasting money on this further.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kreslin01 said:
			
		

> In the Artillery troops are not troops, but they are classified as gun stores and therefore carried in the back. Not sure how much the doctrine will change with the new gun tractors, we shall see.


Far be it from me to criticize however I have a major issue with this :rage:. We cannot carry troops in the MLVW. Now people are saying that its OK to carry troops in the back of the MSVS with potentially several hundred pounds of High Explosives.

A troop is a human being, not a "gun store". What BS. :rage:

Rant ends.


----------



## dapaterson

Kreslin01 said:
			
		

> But what happens when you run out of room in the back? Theres 10 men to a M-777 crew, and with full kit on, the back gets full in a hurry. What happens if you want to run 11, or 12 men in the crew, in Full FFO and winter kit, in the back of the Truck? Maybe im just playing devils advocate for now, but the question is valid. I hope it all works out, i do, but then you run into the problem that this is not the vehicle we use to fight with, so if something happens that we revert to having to have troops in the back with the stores your going to see injury rates go up and then there will be a panic that people are getting hurt. Its a step in the right direction..... kind of. I just think they need to find a real solution to the problem instead of wasting money on this further.



As has been stated:

The MSVS SMP, currently under procurement, will provide the prime mover for the M777.

Leaders are responsible for the safety of their subordinates.  If there is a problem they have an obligation to report it up their chain of command.  And, if need be, stop doing what they're doing to make things safe.  Blindly carrying on regardless can lead to avoidable injury or death.


----------



## Kreslin01

With the procurement with the SMP MSVS, what is the fate of the MSVS Gun Tractor variant then?


----------



## PuckChaser

Kreslin01 said:
			
		

> With the procurement with the SMP MSVS, what is the fate of the MSVS Gun Tractor variant then?



MSVS-COTS is supposed to be for DOMOPS and the PRes....


----------



## dapaterson

Kreslin01 said:
			
		

> With the procurement with the SMP MSVS, what is the fate of the MSVS Gun Tractor variant then?



MSVS gun tractor variant is intended for use with the 105mm guns, primarily for the Reserves.


----------



## Hurricane

The way our military purchases 2 separate vehicles for the same job is beyond logical understanding. (MilCOTS / G Wagon, MSVSM / MSVSSMP) When we arnt deployed, the "Operation" variant will do the same thing as our VOR'd HLVW fleet awaiting repair.........Rot away.


----------



## dapaterson

Hurricane said:
			
		

> The way our military purchases 2 separate vehicles for the same job is beyond logical understanding. (MilCOTS / G Wagon, MSVSM / MSVSSMP) When we arnt deployed, the "Operation" variant will do the same thing as our VOR'd HLVW fleet awaiting repair.........Rot away.



Do a quick examination of cost per unit of SMP vs COTS.   We need the SMP for deployed operations, but we can't afford enough to meet all our needs.  So we buy two: a cheap COTS for day to day, and the SMP for deployment.

Does it cause some problems?  Yes.  Is it better than the alternative, of having only a too-small fleet of SMP?  Yes.


----------



## Petard

Kreslin, you've been stuck on send so much you evidently haven't heard (read) what anybody else has said.

The MSVS MilCOT gin tractor is intended/designed to pull only the 105 fleet, not the M777
The SMP variant is being specifically designed to not only pull the M777, but deal with it much heaver payload and wiring harness for the DGMS

Gun detachments for a 105 are still 7 people, if someone wants to exceed that they're doing it outside of doctrine and established orbats for that size of gun

M777 detachments ride in two vehicle's, there is still work ongoing to get a 2nd vehicle per M777

No one is supposed to be riding in the back of either gun tractor, although the MilCOT variant may have a small bench seat in back for two people, its intended as a work area

Having the 105 gun det ride in the cab is a compromise, but the differences in time between them dismounting from the cab, and an M777 det dismounting from 2 vehicles is not going to be that large. Having them ride in the cab was decided for safety reasons, and user community was consulted

In any event, there will be trials conducted late this summer and into the fall to measure the effectiveness of the MilCOT design, a lot of work has already gone into the SMP variant design too.

But you're swinging after the bell Kreslin, the fight is over
If you have a gripe, and its related to gear, then start an UCR (don't believe the urban myth story they don't work. I've seen the other side of this in the staff duty world, and truth be told they do work, but very few users ever complete one)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In the old days the term "gun tractor" just meant a regular Deuce that happened to tow a gun. These trucks were lent to other units and other duties which meant carrying troops in the back. so it made sense to have the benches. The ML with the modified box limited this usage, the new trucks limit it even more. The ability of the brigade to move troops tactically goes down however.


----------



## Hurricane

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Do a quick examination of cost per unit of SMP vs COTS.   We need the SMP for deployed operations, but we can't afford enough to meet all our needs.  So we buy two: a cheap COTS for day to day, and the SMP for deployment.
> 
> Does it cause some problems?  Yes.  Is it better than the alternative, of having only a too-small fleet of SMP?  Yes.



Well, since we do not know the PPU of the SMP variant yet, we cant exactley do that, but I get your point. Yes the MSVSM will probably be cheaper, but thats just what it is.....CHEAP! The superstructure is flimsy, the glad hands are easily breakable, the ladders are easily breakable, the tail gate is a tripping hazzard for dismounting troops in darkness, the pintle hook is too high for proper weight distribution on any SMP trailer, the bench seats have small tie down points that stick out and can jam into a soldiers back during TC Tasks, suspension is worse than an MLVW for those in the rear, weapons rack is in an inconvienent location, what in gods name is the purpose of the cargo net storage box behind the drivers seat?

Anyways they could have chosen a better researched truck.


----------



## Snaketnk

Hurricane said:
			
		

> weapons rack is in an inconvienent location, what in gods name is the purpose of the cargo net storage box behind the drivers seat?



Weapons rack are fine for admin moves, but that's it. The cargo net storage is designed for 3x Rucksacks. How you're supposed to get them in or out without looking like a total retard is beyond me though. I agree on all the other points.

I can't help but look at the the ladder storage area and think "that would be an awesome place for a moving-truck style ramp..." That would make it really easy to dismount and load up heavier items.


----------



## Petard

Hurricane said:
			
		

> ... the glad hands are easily breakable, the ladders are easily breakable, the tail gate is a tripping hazzard for dismounting troops in darkness, the pintle hook is too high for proper weight distribution on any SMP trailer, the bench seats have small tie down points that stick out and can jam into a soldiers back during TC Tasks, suspension is worse than an MLVW for those in the rear, weapons rack is in an inconvienent location, what in gods name is the purpose of the cargo net storage box behind the drivers seat?
> 
> Anyways they could have chosen a better researched truck.



This thread is about the MSVS MilCOT gun tractor, with that in mind...

Glad hands: might be a problem as it is a common assembly in all variants, but the 105mm howitzers this truck is intended to tow do not have air brakes. If someone is towing an M777 (which does have air brakes) with the MilCOT variant, then they are using it for a purpose it wasn't designed for. Considering most of the times the det doesn't hook the air lines up anyway I'm not sure how much of a problem it will be

Troops dismounting in dark: not sure what tripping hazard you're talking about, but gun det will dismount from cab when coming into action, and use ladder to access stores. There will be no bench seats in back (there may be a storage area with a seat on it for two people - maybe)

Already identified that pintle location may have to be modified for the LG1 or C3, much as it was for the HLVW to tow an M777. Technical trial at TPOF this summer/fall will determine the ability to tow cross country and extent of mods, if any, required

Speaking of research, guess how many UCR's I had from the gunner community to help me help the MSVS project define the requirements of this particular truck?


A. None


----------



## dapaterson

Hurricane said:
			
		

> Anyways they could have chosen a better researched truck.



On the subect of better research - a fact that's posted in several locations:

When PWGSC went otu to industry to buy a truck, there was only one bid.  Only one offer to sell to DND.  No one else wanted the contract.

So the choices were: the MSVS MilCOTS, or nothing at all.


So, putting you in the same position, please decide which you would have chosen.


----------



## Hurricane

Could the contract requirements not have been reviewed to determine why only one company had bid and what detered the others?


----------



## old medic

Petard said:
			
		

> Glad hands: might be a problem as it is a common assembly in all variants, but the 105mm howitzers this truck is intended to tow do not have air brakes. If someone is towing an M777 (which does have air brakes) with the MilCOT variant, then they are using it for a purpose it wasn't designed for. Considering most of the times the det doesn't hook the air lines up anyway I'm not sure how much of a problem it will be



I have snapped two off the standard cargo version, both times the threaded brass fitting where it passes through the steel hanging bracket.  
I suspect the fitting will eventually be changed from brass to steel.


----------



## dapaterson

Hurricane said:
			
		

> Could the contract requirements not have been reviewed to determine why only one company had bid and what detered the others?



Certainly.  A consultation process with industry would take at least 6 months.  Rewriting the statement of requirements another 6 months.  Re-issuing the statement of requirements through PWGSC would be another 6 months, plus evaluation of bids and makign a decision would be about another 6 months.  This assumes no company appeals the process - which would add additional time to the process.

So, are you willing to wait at least two years and very possibly end up with the exact same truck as the successful bidder?


Keep in mind that although it sounds like a big order (1300 trucks) for major manufacturers that's a few extra shifts for a month or less.  Not a particularly interesting contract, and if you have limited resources, you'll focus your efforts and bid on contracts that will bring in more revenue and that will be more profitable.  COTS vehicles have lower margins than milspec.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Certainly.  A consultation process with industry would take at least 6 months.  Rewriting the statement of requirements another 6 months.  Re-issuing the statement of requirements through PWGSC would be another 6 months, plus evaluation of bids and makign a decision would be about another 6 months.  This assumes no company appeals the process - which would add additional time to the process.
> 
> So, are you willing to wait at least two years and very possibly end up with the exact same truck as the successful bidder?
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that although it sounds like a big order (1300 trucks) for major manufacturers that's a few extra shifts for a month or less.  Not a particularly interesting contract, and if you have limited resources, you'll focus your efforts and bid on contracts that will bring in more revenue and that will be more profitable.  COTS vehicles have lower margins than milspec.



Further to DAP's last, I suspect that the suppliers also would be concerned about not interrupting the supply to their regular commercial customers that are buying something like 1300 Class 7 & 8 trucks a month in Canada (probably 10 times that in the US ) http://www.todaystrucking.com/trucksales.cfm

Now if we managed the MilCOTs fleet the way that a civilian haulage contractor managed his then that would be a different matter - there would be a plan in place to constantly renew the fleet to replace damaged and high usage vehicles..... but that is another story.

PS How do civvy contractors manage to support mixed vehicle fleets?  Or for that matter, how does an Engineer Regiment manage the nightmare of vehicles that they have on charge?


----------



## dapaterson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Or for that matter, how does an Engineer Regiment manage the nightmare of vehicles that they have on charge?



Poorly.

There are initiatives to renew the high cost/low density fleets, but with the numbers very small it's difficult to do it in a regular, organized way - even more so when they're spread across the country.


----------



## Hurricane

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Certainly.  A consultation process with industry would take at least 6 months.  Rewriting the statement of requirements another 6 months.  Re-issuing the statement of requirements through PWGSC would be another 6 months, plus evaluation of bids and makign a decision would be about another 6 months.  This assumes no company appeals the process - which would add additional time to the process.
> 
> So, are you willing to wait at least two years and very possibly end up with the exact same truck as the successful bidder?
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that although it sounds like a big order (1300 trucks) for major manufacturers that's a few extra shifts for a month or less.  Not a particularly interesting contract, and if you have limited resources, you'll focus your efforts and bid on contracts that will bring in more revenue and that will be more profitable.  COTS vehicles have lower margins than milspec.



Ack, never really thought of it that way. With a desperate need for updated medium lift fleet, it's the way to go.


----------



## Hurricane

This is a little off the topic of the Gun Tractor again, but were the MSVS-M supposed to be delivered with EIS in them (Tire Changing Equip, Vehicle Tools, ect?)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Further to DAP's last, I suspect that the suppliers also would be concerned about not interrupting the supply to their regular commercial customers that are buying something like 1300 Class 7 & 8 trucks a month in Canada (probably 10 times that in the US ) http://www.todaystrucking.com/trucksales.cfm
> 
> Now if we managed the MilCOTs fleet the way that a civilian haulage contractor managed his then that would be a different matter - there would be a plan in place to constantly renew the fleet to replace damaged and high usage vehicles..... but that is another story.
> 
> PS How do civvy contractors manage to support mixed vehicle fleets?  Or for that matter, how does an Engineer Regiment manage the nightmare of vehicles that they have on charge?



Average lifespan for smaller trucks (pickups) in the logging industry is about 5 years. Larger specalized trucks such as off-road log haulers are often completly rebuilt, either onsite or shipped off to a shop.


----------



## TSM A

are we any closer to having the MSVS (M) Guntractor issued to units?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

TSM A said:
			
		

> are we any closer to having the MSVS (M) Guntractor issued to units?



We are still waiting for the MSVS (M) SEV aka Engineer


----------



## Matt_Ubbing

Received our first msvs gun tractor today. Going to take some adjustments on coming into and out of action, but oh well. We're gunners, well make do.


----------

