# Canadian deaths in Kabul not preventable, says report



## Pieman (24 Aug 2004)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/08/24/kabul_jeep040824.html



Canadian deaths in Kabul not preventable, says report
Last Updated Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:01:16 EDT 
OTTAWA - Two incidents that killed three Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan could not have been prevented, a National Defence department report concluded on Tuesday. 


INDEPTH: Canada's Casualties

  
Cpl. Robert Beerenfenger  
Sgt. Robert Short and Cpl. Robbie Beerenfenger were killed in October 2003 when a landmine detonated under their Iltis jeep while on patrol in the Jowz Valley, near Kabul. Four Canadians were injured. 

In January, Cpl. Jamie Murphy and an Afghan civilian were killed when a suicide bomber jumped on one of two Iltis jeeps carrying Canadian soldiers on patrol about 1.5 kilometres from the Canadians' base, Camp Julien. The explosion injured three other Canadian soldiers. 


INDEPTH: Canada's equipment

Critics say the light utility jeep used in Afghanistan, the Iltis, doesn't offer enough protection. 

But the DND board of inquiry report concluded the Iltis was the most appropriate vehicle for the Canadians to use for their patrols. 

In the Jowz Valley incident, the report said the same road had been used frequently, and as early as two hours prior to the blast. 

In the suicide bombing, the inquiry concluded that the Iltis was the best vehicle the Canadians had to patrol in an urban environment such as Kabul. 

The report does offer some recommendations which are being implemented, said the chief of defence staff. 

"We are committed to putting measures in place that will lessen the risk to our soldiers conducting these types of missions," said Gen. Ray Henault. 

The family of Cpl. Jamie Murphy said they didn't blame the military and that the suicide bomber was the only person responsible for Jamie's death. 

"Unfortunately Jamie was in the wrong place at the wrong time," the family said in a statement. 

Canada plans to replace the Iltis, in use since the mid-1980s, with a heavier Mercedes four-door utility vehicle this year. Similar vehicles have been used by Canada's NATO allies in peacekeeping missions in the Balkans. 

Written by CBC News Online staff
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A very sad incident.  Curious to know if the rest of the people here agree with the conclusion:



> But the DND board of inquiry report concluded the Iltis was the most appropriate vehicle for the Canadians to use for their patrols



Especially since the Iltis was replaced shortly after, it seems kind of a contradictive conclusion. Was replacing the Iltis after really this terrible incident just politically modivated, or was it a good decision? Or both?


----------



## CdnGalaGal (24 Aug 2004)

Maybe they should have said that the Iltis was the most appropriate vehicle for the Canadians to be used AT THE TIME. 

Then again... Were the new Mercedes being used at the time? And would, say, a UN forerunner have afforded any more protection than an Iltis that would have significantly reduced the amount of damage incurred (or possibly saved these lives)? We've gotta work with what we've got, unfortunately...


----------



## Lance Wiebe (24 Aug 2004)

This Board of Inquiry directly contradicts the original Board of Inquiry, done in theatre.

The DND Board goes totally against some of the findings and conclusions of the original board.  Of course, the original Board found that the Iltis was NOT suitable, and the area patrolled was NOT low risk.

I guess the boys in Ottawa know best, though.   :


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (25 Aug 2004)

The only good part of this story is that the two news channels I watched did a great job in highlighting the 'inconsistencies' with the change in findings.

Kudos to both CTV Newsnet and CBC (for once) for providing some accurate reporting.




M.   

P.S. Maybe it's just me, but I think Global has shifted to the right since the passing of Izzy Asper.


----------



## Scratch_043 (25 Aug 2004)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> The only good part of this story is that the two news channels I watched did a great job in highlighting the 'inconsistencies' with the change in findings.
> 
> Kudos to both CTV Newsnet and CBC (for once) for providing some accurate reporting.
> 
> ...


it's funny, but some of the best commentary you will find in the news comes from this hour has 22 minutes, or Royal Canadian Air Farce, because they criticize the govt where other 'serious' news networks are afraid to.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (25 Aug 2004)

What are you talking about?

I never listen to Taylor.

The original Board was done in theater.  It found, and yes, I am repeating myself, that the route should never have been designated "low risk".  The review, done in Ottawa, overturned that.

If the route was not "low risk", then the Iltis could not have been used, simple enough?

It has been quite clearly covered by the media.  The review, completed by "senior staff", overturned findings reported in the original Board of Inquiry.  The original board specifically mentioned the route designation.

I have no clue where you received your information, but apparently not from the news!


----------



## rormson (25 Aug 2004)

Lance summed it up well. I'm sure the Brass in Ottawa know best "   : ". (See my opinions in the "Troop Strength to Increase Topic" ). Lest we forget the guys who perished in the Iltis. Who can really say if the G Wagon would have helped? I'd like to think so if, God forbid, there is a "next time".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Aug 2004)

Hey Lance,
It looks like your arguing with yourself as "parasoldier" deleted his post and went home.
Either that or your hearing the voices again..... >


----------



## Lance Wiebe (26 Aug 2004)

AAArgh!

One little slap and they run away. :crybaby:

I even held back!  (I was waiting for him to keep arguing) :threat:


----------



## Parasoldier (26 Aug 2004)

Never run away.  What we were told on the ground and what you were reading are different.  Understandably, we in Para Coy have a different outlook.


----------



## Armymedic (27 Aug 2004)

The actual reports are on the dnd site, and make a long but interesting read.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (27 Aug 2004)

> What we were told on the ground and what you were reading are different.


  

Understood.  It just seems strange to me that the two reports are so conflicting.



> Understandably, we in Para Coy have a different outlook



A different outlook from the Board of Inquiry, or a different outlook from the review of the Board of Inquiry?  Or both?


----------



## Parasoldier (27 Aug 2004)

> A different outlook from the Board of Inquiry, or a different outlook from the review of the Board of Inquiry?  Or both?



I would say the review of the Board of Inquiry did not have any surprises.  I know from patrolling in the rural areas that there were lots of places that could have been mined overnight.  The engineers were very professional in the way they conducted business.  
I agree that it is strange that they are so conflicting.  The end BOI serves its purpose, to recommend procedures so this doesn't happen again.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (27 Aug 2004)

A theory making the rounds is that because the Iltis could only patrol low risk routes, some routes were downgraded to low risk, just so they could be patrolled.

This was one of the points of the Board of Inquiry.  The route was downgraded, and maybe should not have been designated low risk, because it was not a low risk route.  If this is in fact the case, that the route was downgraded so we could continue patrols, then that is a damning statement against our equipment.  Which, the government assured Canadians was "adequate for the task".  If it was downgraded, and shouldn't have been, without the equipment being an issue, then maybe it was a damning statement against our intelligence.

So, the theory goes, the review had no choice but to change the findings.  Otherwise, there was someone, somewhere, going to be in trouble.  And we can't have that now, can we?


----------



## devil39 (27 Aug 2004)

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> A theory making the rounds is that because the Iltis could only patrol low risk routes, some routes were downgraded to low risk, just so they could be patrolled.
> 
> This was one of the points of the Board of Inquiry.   The route was downgraded, and maybe should not have been designated low risk, because it was not a low risk route.   If this is in fact the case, that the route was downgraded so we could continue patrols, then that is a damning statement against our equipment.   Which, the government assured Canadians was "adequate for the task".   If it was downgraded, and shouldn't have been, without the equipment being an issue, then maybe it was a damning statement against our intelligence.
> 
> So, the theory goes, the review had no choice but to change the findings.   Otherwise, there was someone, somewhere, going to be in trouble.   And we can't have that now, can we?



_Sarcasm on_   Obviously there must be a conspiracy here Lance.   Definitely the "Brass" must be covering something up.     _Sarcasm off_ 

I'm sure your comments and speculation are comforting for the families.


----------



## GGboy (28 Aug 2004)

Forgive me if this is an obvious question, but how exactly were the engineers or the Para Coy O.C. or the BG C.O. to determine this particular route was high risk? As opposed to any other goat track around the outskirts of Kabul?
Was the route clearance conducted just before the mine strike routine, or was there some indicator beforehand that IEDs or mines might be a threat? As far as I've heard it was routine, but ...
Having met the officers in charge of Para, the Engineers, or the whole BG I would find it VERY hard to believe they would've engaged in anything like underestimating the risk level on a patrol route. Regardless of what the boys in NDHQ may or may not have been up to with their review of the field inquiry.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (28 Aug 2004)

That is the question, isn't it?

The route was downgraded.  The BOI said it was a mistake to downgrade it.  The review overturned that.


----------



## Parasoldier (28 Aug 2004)

The route was proved prior to the incident.  Vehicles had been down the road shortly before.

The first BOI stated that the Engineers were not using the latest operating procedures that were developed after the mine strike in Eritrea.  It was investigated, and the Engineers did not know the new changes in SOPs, but the old ones did the job.  Therefore there was nothing wrong with raising the confidence in the route.

I have to agree with GGBoy, none of the leadership would have authorized a patrol if they were not confident in the Eng assessment.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (28 Aug 2004)

Understood.

Thanks for clearing things up.


----------



## KevinB (4 Sep 2004)

Having been in Jowz valley patrolling recently - no manner of vehicle would have mattered.

 Areas are very easily remined here and if they suspected Armoured vehicles they would have used a bigger mine.

The Gwagon or LAV's are not urban parolling friendly - you are buttoned up in the Gwagon and can't hear shit (the windows dont go down and you 6 is exposed)  in the Iltis you are open - can face rearward in the back (seats were modified for this usage).

 The bottom line is there is F all you can do if they want to hit you...  They will.

In some areas of Jowz an Iltis (even foot) is more pratical than a LAV.




Due to the upgrading of risk on nearly all routes the Gwagons and Iltis cannot patrol a lot of areas - unfortunately that leaves the LAV and Coyote which as I have mentioned previously or not well suited for the task.


----------



## Spr.Earl (4 Sep 2004)

So Kev. are we hiding now so to  speak?


----------



## axeman (4 Sep 2004)

As a soldier who has seen what a mine can do to a veh i can state an Iltis is not   a veh. to be taken on some of these goat tracks . If some one wants to defeat armour wellthey will defeat it but there are ways of defeating mine the NYALA / MAMBA are PROVEN to defeat mines so are the lavs. the up armoured HMMVW are pr oven to defeat mines up to a point and i have seen what that point is . the ILTIS while a good veh are old and are generally good for utility reasons should not have been used for the patrols . I've spoken   to members of the patrols they agree the Iltis should not of been there . The higher ups can always say that well they worked up till then could also say "well the lsvw worked on the Apollo tour also" but they needed a lot of help to work . I hate to say it but sooner or later someone will have to realize to save lives costs money and   its not cheap to save lives. we don't need veh that are approved because of money reasons we need veh that are approved because of safety . the NYAlA would be a good troop transport. so are the HMMVw with the up armour kit. some one has to say enough is enough you politicians buy the right kit now. as to the LAVS not being able to take a mine strike we had one strike a mine at   approx 0700 and by approx 1800 that night they had it out on the patrol route .   , the up armoured HMMVW while written off saved lives also .


----------



## Spr.Earl (4 Sep 2004)

Axe I agree and also disagree.
The Iltis is a light jeep or a light recce vehicle nes pass?

What do you expect from alight vehicle?
What type of patrol would you expect from a vehicle with every one buttoned up?
What impression would the civies get if we ran around all buttoned up?

The only trouble with the Iltis is it's old and burnt out.

Too do proper patrols you need a open vehicle with all around view and non restrictive egress for the patrol and crew and the only way to do that is with a Jeep or a Iltis type of vehicle,so sad but that is reality for vehicle patrol.

Open Jeep's are a necessary but we must over come those fears that come with riding in open vehicle's if we can't we may end up being none effective when it comes to what may come down the pipe in the futuire.


----------



## KevinB (4 Sep 2004)

When we took over from the 3R22eR recce pl they prefered the Iltis to the GWagon...

 The Belgians and Germans are using the Iltis on the same goat tracks etc.

All of us over here understand the threats - there is no way to eliminate it - FACT.  There are different approaches to dealing with it -  Armour up and button up - while this might be the "Safe" answer it is not very effective for you cannot patrol some the roads - the Jowz valley area goes from open to tight village roads.  Clearly the LAV does not fit well down those roads - so you need to dismount or go in a lighter (smaller and less armoured) vehicle.  The other problem is posturing - you cannot get the locals to tell you jack shit when you are all buttoned up inside a box.
 The Iltis allows for unrestricted 360 degree vision for the driver and crew - the LAV and Coyote (and GWagon) do not.

The trade off is you are more vulnerable to both SA fire and mines - but you will diminish the threat for you can interact with the locals and determine threats at a greater distance and degee of accuracy.

The Nyala is a Engineer vehicle - we dont have enough to go patrolling in them and once again it is the 'Enter the Box' mentality - they are a great asset for proving a route - but they are not a patrol vehicle.


  Before everyone condemns the Iltis - take a look at what our allies are using...

Other than the Americans everyone else is out in Light skinned vehicles - yes they have armoured vehicle available, but not used for genral patrolling.


----------



## pbi (5 Sep 2004)

I would like to back up Kevin B on this one. While I have not driven the Jowz valley route, I have surveyed it from the OP (now unoccupied) that overlooks the valley. Unless you guard a route like that constantly you just cannot be sure it has not been re-mined. 

Kevin rightly points out that the threat from VBIEDs, IEDs and suicide bombers is like the weather: it's there, but there isn't much you can do to stop it. The traffic in Kabul is atrociously bad, and pedestrians of every description are constantly scuttling in an and out between the vehicles with packages, boxes,etc. Large commercial vehicles (including lots of POL tankers-good VBIEDs) are everywhere and any one of them, or any one of the many vans, taxis or cars could be aimed at you. Especially when you are stalled in traffic, there isn't alot you can do.You have to get on with the mission. You can mitigate with ballistic protection, stay vigilant, use good tactical driving skills, but these only reduce the risk they don't remove it. As far as the mines go, the baddies are not stupid. If they want to kill an up-armoured HMMVW, they will just stack the AT   mines, if they get the chance.

The only way we will reduce the VBIED/IED/suicide bomber threat, at all, is as KevinB suggests to build the trust of the locals by presence patrolling and showing that we are not afraid. If they trust ISAF and OEF, then maybe (just maybe) they will be less receptive and supportive to those who plan these attacks like the one against the DYNCORPS building last week (VBIED). There is no guarantee of this   outcome (there is no guarantee of anything here...) but I can't think of a better way. LAVs and other APCs/IFVs have their very important uses but they are not the be-all, end-all and they are unsuited to this type of work. 

This patrolling, with 360 degree vision and good hearing, is also the best way to gain HUMINT which is the most vital kind of int in these operations. Rumbling around in LAVs or packed inside the tight confines of a G-Wagen doesn't really cut it. While everybody was keen to get the new G-wagen,   now that I've seen it I'm not so sure it is that superior to the Iltis in all respects. The best judges are the soldiers using it. Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Sep 2004)

You guys have brought up some very pertenant points about what is required in a Recce Vehicle.  If the Iltis is too lightly armoured to serve effectively as a recce vehicle and the GWagen and LAV variants are too 'enclosed', what should we be using?

Recce operators need to use their eyes and ears to be effective.  With CIMIC and MOST roles to be filled we need to be 'out there' and able to 'mingle' with the population.  

Do we now come up with a different format for our patrols?  One to include a couple of Iltis and an armoured vehicle like a Bison or LAV?  Would the presence of an armoured vehicle in patrols deflect the interest of a suicide bomber or IED from a soft skinned vehicle to a more heavily armoured one?

GW


----------



## pbi (5 Sep 2004)

This is an excellent question. What Canada is missing, in my opinion, is an intermediate vehicle that lies between the LUVW and the LAV. The French Cavalry Squadron here uses a small, fourwheeled AFV called the VBL-it seems better suited than a LAV, but offers more protection than LUVW. There are other similar things about in varoius countries contingents here but in the end, if you want eyes and ears on the ground, you are going to accept some degree of risk. Zero risk acceptance, in my opinion, means Zero mission accomplishment, zero knowledge, and in turn a much higher risk because your are cut off from info.

We are soldiers in a dangerous place: we (especially we leaders) have to do all that can reasonably be done to reduce the danger, but we cannot make it go away.  God forbid that we lose one more soldier, but there is no way to promise Canadians that all their sons will come home. Cheers.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (22 Sep 2004)

Reports aside, for those of us that were there, a patrol route that is used on a daily basis with options of taking secondary routes is obviously going to be termed low risk based on recent intel reports.I challenge you to find me a vehicle anywhwere in the world that could prevent death/injuries from a mine, keeping in mind no army is rich enough to deploy a battle group of wombat mine vehicles.Ask any Athena vet and they will tell you that the iltis was a superior vehicle for the narrow streets of Kabul.If they had hit the mine in our "new" LAV 3's, the result would be the same, with the exception that the media wouldn't have a story scapegoat.


----------



## KevinB (22 Sep 2004)

Personally - I would prefer to still be using the Iltis - having the Gwagon and LAV as an option if the threat/mission dictates.

 The French VBL (which in my understanding translates to LAV - Vehicle Blinde Leger - well the Vandoo Recce guys kept calling the LAV a VBL3...)  Is a noteworthy item - a neat little fast Armoured Recce Vehicle. 
 But I dotn think it is the ticket either for once again you are boxed up.

Now YOU won't see ME preachign for larger soft skins - as some contingents here have done.  The idea of mountign troops ina  HL or ML is to me a suicide bomber pinic - 20 for the price of 1...


----------



## George Wallace (22 Sep 2004)

In November 1959 a two-jeep patrol was ambushed while patrolling along the demarcation line in the Sinai as part of UNEF.  Tpr R.H. Allen in the easily-identifiable lead vehicle was wounded and later died of his wounds.  This is only one of the many tales of troops being wounded or killed in soft skinned vehicles.  Earlier, again in the Sinai, on 1 Mar 1959, a RCD Ferret was blown completely off the road when its' right front wheel hit a mine causing injuries to the three man crew.

It is clear that over the last fifty odd years of "Peacekeeping" we have suffered loses in the performance of our duties.  Some are unavoidable and a hazard of our profession.  However, with better equipment, those losses may not have occured.  The Ferret was a Recce Vehicle.  Today we do not have a Recce Vehicle.  Not only for the protection of our troops, but also to truly define the role of the Armour Regiments, both Reg and Res, we need a Recce Vehicle.

After saying that, then one must honestly say that those deaths were avoidable, had the Government properly equiped the CF with the vehicles to do the job of Recognnaissance in the first place (a long time ago).

GW


----------



## Acorn (22 Sep 2004)

There are roles for soft-skins and roles for armour. We have a couple of recce vehicles George, though no equivalent to the Ferret - for which we haven't had an equivalent since it was retired many years ago. Under the right conditions a jeep-like vehicle is suitable for recce.

Acorn


----------



## pbi (23 Sep 2004)

On the issue of light armoured vehs for ptl ops on overseas missions, the Germans here in Afgh are operating an interesting machine called DINGO: it resembles a NYALA but with less exposed glass. The other day I was talking to the driver of one, who told me that the Germans bought it specifically for ops like Afgh, etc: it would not normally be on the TOE in Germany, which saves them having to buy them for the entire Army. This might help us cover the recce veh gap. Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Sep 2004)

Acorn said:
			
		

> There are roles for soft-skins and roles for armour. We have a couple of recce vehicles George, though no equivalent to the Ferret - for which we haven't had an equivalent since it was retired many years ago. Under the right conditions a jeep-like vehicle is suitable for recce.



There definitely are roles for soft skinned vehicles, but they should not be for Recce in a hostile environment as we are using them now.   They are a good training aid for Recce training.   They are effective in non-hostile environments.   They make good Logistic/Liason vehicles.

The Canadian Forces have no Armour Recce vehicles in their inventories for Armoured Reconnaissance.   The Engineers have some equipment, but it is in very limited quantities.

DO NOT EVEN THINK TO REPLY THAT THE COYOTE IS A RECCE VEHICLE.   IT IS NOT.   IT IS A SURVEILLANCE VEHICLE.   The only vehicle of that size that I would ever think of doing Recce in would be the old German Luchs.   At least it was quiet (They did solve their problems with the brakes.)   It could drive just as fast in Reverse as forward (as the Ferret was capable of doing), and that was aided by having two driver stations.   It had a 20 mm cannon, as the German philosophy was to fight for their info.   The Coyote is noisy.   It makes 20+ point turns to turn around on roads.   It is too large and heavy for Recce.   The turret is on the rear third of the vehicle, limiting the vision of the CC on Crest Drills and Blind Corners.   Its' cross-country capabilities are very limited.   It 'cannot' do self recovery (even though it has a winch).   

The GWagen is a 'soft-skinned' vehicle that offers marginally better protection to its occupants, but at the same time restricts the use of some of their abilities to do their jobs, should that be patrolling or Recce.   The uparmoured versions further restrict the abilities of the crews to efficiently do those jobs.   It will make a good Adm/Liason vehicle in relatively safe environments.   

GW


----------



## Gayson (23 Sep 2004)

I believe the G-Wagon could be better if the roof was removable and the windshield could be folded down.  You could keep some of that extra protection and still be able to hear and see things well.


----------



## KevinB (23 Sep 2004)

The unarmoured ones have that feature (most of the nations [that are not using Hummers] have those here)

IMHO the only thing the Iltis needed was a midlife refurb program rather than spending hard fought defence dollars on the Armoured Gwagons (which have An ENORMOUS Price Tag).
I'd rather money go into range time - weapon refit - and a LSVW replacement


----------



## pbi (26 Sep 2004)

I tend to agree with Kevin B and J. Gayson, especially if you need to do "eyes and ears" veh patrols (ie: too big an area to cover with foot ptls, but can't just rumble around in a tin box). Having now been out on a ptl with US MPs in up-armoured Hummers, I'm really not so sure those vehs are the answer either. Only the gunner can hear/see reasonably well, and it is rather awkward to use wpns from the inside (although not impossible).The people inside contribute little or nothing to info gathering.

I like the idea of the "stripped down" G-Wagen too, but I'm wondering now if maybe there actually is no 100% solution to the desire to have both   "360 eyes and ears" and high levels of force protection on the same veh. Cheers


----------



## axeman (26 Sep 2004)

PBi I agree with you and Kevin B. I think our Iltis was a good piece of kit  but old and tired . if we coulda gotten something like it but with an up armoured  bottom i'd be happy rather then another veh that is a box with no chance of removing the armoured top . maybe if they did like land rover and jeep just did and introduce a stretch version with a truly removable top , as long as it had the ponies to pull itself around . and done this not in the usual canadian way of taking the old tired bodies and cut them and strech em out , I mean purchase new iltis bodies with this stretch and new engines .  :-\


----------



## pbi (26 Sep 2004)

Yes--I think you are on the right track, but  I think that the Iltis was just a bit too small. I would like to see an operational trial done with stripped down G-wagens  with floor plates, roll cage and maybe a C9 and C6 mounted, or whatever systems you can think of (maybe one veh in the ptl with a .50?). We have the vehicle and it's brand new, so we should try to make the best of it. Cheers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Sep 2004)

Like the one that's already available?

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/daimler_chrysler/daimler_chrysler5.html


----------



## Bartok5 (26 Sep 2004)

What Recceguy has linked to is the "Command and Reconnaissance" variant of the G-Wagon.  We are buying them for our Infantry Recce Platoons and other organizations as part of the overall procurement package.  If you draw a mental picture of the SAS "pink panther" landrover, then you have a good idea regarding the capability of the G-Wagon "gun truck".  

The German KSK had the C&R G-Wagons in Kandahar a couple of years ago.  They were seriously kick-arse vehicles - ideally suited to the role.  We will be well-served indeed.  It is unfortunate that the G-Wagons which have ended up in Afghanistan due to the "rush fielding" are the more conventional hard-top configuration.  Once the C&R variants come on line, we will have a vehicle eminently suited to the light patrol task.

We can argue all day about armour protection for peace-support patrolling.  I saw a borrowed U.S. up-armoured HMMVW take an AT mine-strike in Kandahar, and everyone walked away.  The vehicle was written-off, but it did it's job.  In my view, that is the type of protection that we need to be striving for.  Underbelly armour to defeat mines and buried IEDs, but unrestricted arcs of observation and fire for the crew.  I remain convinced that the ability to apply 360-degree vigilance (and firepower) is the best form of crew protection from surface threats.  Coincidentally, the "open concept" allows the crew to perform the vital function of civilian interaction and accrue all of the CIMIC/HUMINT benefits which flow from same. Fully-armoured AFVs are NOT the answer, even if they do afford a moderate degree of additional crew protection.  You can't do your job as a soldier from an enclosed tin can...  The C&R G-Wagon with belly-armour will serve our needs ideally.  From what I saw of the KSK gun trucks in Kanadahar, it is "good to go" as a patrolling platform with "defensive teeth".


----------



## pbi (26 Sep 2004)

Mark C/Recce Guy: Yes--that is exactly what I was thinking of, but I had not seen this picture before. This should do it. 

Mark: I just want to be clear what version of U/A HMMVW you saw, because the one I was in on hte MP patrol could in no way be described as "open concept": it was more "tin can" . The Permeter Security Coy here uses the more open type HMMVW, but I haven't looked closely to see if these are U/A. Cheers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Sep 2004)

Mark C,

The C&R version are identical to the logistic version, only they have the cupola in the top. It is not the version I linked to. That is what we need though. The C&R version is what the boys have in Afghanistan now. We have no open GWagon versions in the buy. This has been the heartache we've been discussing on other threads, we'll be doing recce from a fishbowl.


----------



## Bartok5 (26 Sep 2004)

Recceguy,

Really?  Hmmm - I was under the distinct impression that our "C&R" variant was going to be the same G-Wagon version that the KSK guys were running in K'har.  Their's was a completely open upper vehicle, shrouded in a roll-cage with a weapon station (AGL and HMG capable) on a ring-mount in the rear and a passenger soft-mount for an MG.  Along with extra external stowage for fuel cans, kit, ammo, etc.  Very much like the SAS "Pink Panther" Landrover, but with a roll-cage.  

I guess my question is, if what we are currently fielding in Afghanistan is indeed the "C&R" variant (hard-top, fully-enclosed), then what does the standard vehicle look like?  I can't imagine a vehicle configuration more ill-suited to light recce tasks, unless the standard version lacks the basic roof hatch and pintle mount?  This is disturbing news indeed....

PBI - I can see where you're confused.  Poor wording on my part.  3 PPCLI Recce Pl was equipped with the standard, fully-enlosed up-armoured HMMVWs in K'har.  We "borrowed" them from the U.S. MP Coy because unarmoured Iltis were a "no go" (at formation level) outside of the airfield perimeter.  A good call, given that the 2-3 km "belt" surrounding the airfield perimeter was arguably the most mined area in the world.  It had been reseeded at least 3 times as the airfield changed hands between the Russians, and later the Taliban.  The fully-enclosed "tin can" aspect of the up-armoured HMMVWs was a detriment, but we worked around that by dismounting at every opportunity to interact with the locals (C9 gunner providing overwatch from the roof hatch).  At the end of the day, although the up-armoured HMMVW was a less than ideal patrol vehicle, it was a far cry better than rolling through the outlying villages in Coyotes or Bisons.  The USMC had done that before us, and all they had managed to do was intimidate and annoy the locals by scaring children, killing chickens, and stirring up a lot of dust.  Our success was firmly grounded in dimounting and encouraging personal interaction.  Even with its "enclosed presence", the armoured HMMVW is reasonable platform for such activities - assuming that you roll down the windows and dismount to interact with the locals at every opportunity.  A LAV is simply counter-productive - even if you have 4 troops standing up in the rear hatches waving and showering the locals with manna from heaven.  The armoured vehicles are just too large and intimidating.  

The version of the G-Wagon that I saw the KSK using in K'har would be the ideal compromise if fitted with some anti-blast belly armour.  Recceguy, are you sure about what you said?  If so, then it would appear that we have missed the boat - yet again....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Sep 2004)

When I was at the Gunnery conference in G'town we had a long talk on it. I had the train the trainer course in Borden and we used the logistic variant. Same thing only a closed top with luggage rack and 4 seats, with a stowage compartment in the back. The MP variant gets a light bar. You're right, we missed the boat, but then, did they ask the users what we wanted\ needed? We know that answer already. Do they ever? Unless something has changed in the last couple of months (unlikely), what you see, is what you get.


----------



## axeman (26 Sep 2004)

http://army.ca/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Operations/blown_hmmv.JPG   theres the pic


----------



## pbi (27 Sep 2004)

> Our success was firmly grounded in dimounting and encouraging personal interaction.  Even with its "enclosed presence", the armoured HMMVW is reasonable platform for such activities - assuming that you roll down the windows and dismount to interact with the locals at every opportunity.  A LAV is simply counter-productive - even if you have 4 troops standing up in the rear hatches waving and showering the locals with manna from heaven.  The armoured vehicles are just too large and intimidating.



Ok, seen. I haven't been out on a day patrol yet, but I can tell you that the night patrol involved none of the above. (Although I'm assured that in daytime they do all the good village walkabout stuff). I guess if we had actually gotten out a few times, or stopped and turned off the engines and listened/watched for a bit, we might have compensated for the tin can effect. As it was, I'm not 100% sure what hte impact/value of the patrol was. Cheers.


----------



## KevinB (1 Oct 2004)

MarkC- Your right we missed the boat.

 I have driven both variants -
 the C&R is no differrent that the other, but for the adition of the roof hatch and hand crank turret.  None of the full hard tops have ANY point.  But like so much CF procurement the end user is the one that suffers...

The Hungarian Para-Commando Regt that we now share CJ with has the Gun-Truck version of the GWagon...


----------



## Gunner (2 Oct 2004)

Picture of our C&R Variant and a picture of the German DINGO (armoured UNIMOG for lack of a better descripter).

After having spent the last two months driving in a G Wagon I can honestly say that it is a good vehicle but is not a good military vehicle for patrolling, etc. We are cursed again with an off the shelf model (like the Griffon).  A good product but its versatility is limited.  When you travel in the basic up-armoured version you are cut off from the outside world and are not able to respond to anything around you (as described by MarkC).  The troops have nick named it the "Fish Bowl" for obvious reasons.

The C&R variant is once again a good vehicle but probably not a good military vehicle.  The cupola makes it very top heavy (and high) and once again the ability to react to anything around you is limited.  Roof, winshield, windows and sides are pemanently fixed (although the unarmoured version windows can be rolled down).


----------



## George Wallace (2 Oct 2004)

Gunner

Thanks for the photos.  Looks like the GPS antenna mount is in danger of being shoot off by the C 6 if it is ever employed on the GWagen.

The Dingo looks impressive and looks to be designed to take a mine blast.  Is it made by Mercedes on the Unimog Chassis or did you just throw out the words Unimog to describe it?

GW


----------



## KevinB (3 Oct 2004)

C&R shots
My gunner in the hatch





sitting in the QRF lines





The ILTIS gun truck


----------



## Gunner (3 Oct 2004)

George,

The German driver described it as an armoured UNIMOG to me.   It certainly looks similar from my experience.   I didn't have time to go through it as much as I would have like.   My lack of German didn't held either!

Cheers,


----------



## George Wallace (3 Oct 2004)

I see from the second batch of pictures that what I originally thought as the GPS Ant Mount is really a Wire Cutter.

On the Iltis Gun Truck, is the GPig mounted on a 'Dog Leg' bolted to the right side of the Iltis, similar to what we did with our jeeps in the early 70's?

GW


----------



## KevinB (3 Oct 2004)

The Iltis's we were using did not have the bracket in - we just sat the C6 in our laps  8)  
I shot from the back during my drive by but I think the front blast'em method was more stable.

We have some of the gun stands in our CQ - but we are not using the Iltis for outside the gate operations anymore so they were all removed.  The Belgian and German ones here have them on.

The GPS antena on the Gwagon is on the hood - quite well protected from the C6


----------



## scm77 (9 Oct 2004)

Is it possible to remove the windows completely (not roll them down, take them off) from the armoured variant?  It would take away some protection but at least you could hear.


----------



## scm77 (9 Oct 2004)

I'm guessing that this is the KSK G-Wagon that was talked about above.


----------



## pbi (10 Oct 2004)

KevinB where did you guys fire? At CJ or Pul-E-Charki? Cheers


----------



## Bartok5 (10 Oct 2004)

Yep,

The above pics are of the G-Wagon variant that I was referring to earlier.  This model is apparently referred to as the "Special Operations" variant, and can be purchased as a refit package for other G-wagon models.  Speaking to previous DAD desk officer for Light Infantry development, there was talk of procuring the Special Operations conversion package for LUVWs issued to the light battalions.  I am not sure whether that idea has progressed or not since we spoke a year or so ago.  

If it is good enough for the KSK, then I'd hazard to say that the SO G-Wagon variant would fit the bill nicely for our light patrol tasks.  It would perform along similar lines to the Rover Defender 90 "gun jeeps" which are currently employed by the British SAS, Para Regt, and U.S. Army Rangers.   

Cross your fingers that someone in the hallowed halls of procurement will see the light.....


----------



## pbi (10 Oct 2004)

Mark C: I'm with you on that. This would be a great idea-it looks like just what we need. Cheers.


----------



## KevinB (10 Oct 2004)

PBI,
 CJ for the Iltis - P/C for the GWagons and (yuck) LAV

MarkC - ditto 

How the hell anyone can call the C&R variant either command or recce is unfathomable.


----------



## pbi (10 Oct 2004)

C&R= Cramped and Restricted.


Smack!


Ouch. :-[


OK-OK. I'm Just kidding. Shouldn't look the gift horse in the mouth.

Cheers.


----------

