# Why we need humvs.



## Da_man

The Iltis is (with the sea kings) the shame of our army.  They are old, doors open while driving, engine wont start, etc.  Jacques Duval (a famous car reviewer here in Quebec) even review it.  Needless to say, it was quite embarassing.
I think that if we had humvs, life would be better.  You dont have to worry about a wheel to come off or something.  Its armored and landmine proof, so no more you know what.
Also, I think that would raise our "cool factor" with the public.  I think we need the people of this country to believe in their army, and thats not going to happen with the Iltis.


----------



## East Side Soprano

HMMVWs are not landmine proof. Special versions are armoured (survivavble to shell fragments and 7.62 ammunition at short range), although they too will not always survive a landmine blast. But they probably will increase our ‘cool factor"


----------



## dano

HMMVWs are to bulky in my opinion for Canadian commitments first of all.

HMMVWs would put the CF in more debt, the fuel usage is high. Maintenance is expensive, having to order expensive parts. 
The Silverado‘s I‘d say are an interesting addition to the CF PRes.

Making a long story short... HMMVWs are just in the cool factor... We want whatâ€™s best for us, regardless of how it looks, saving lives instead of saving public views.


----------



## Thompson_JM

Hey Dano... ever drive an LSVW???

Didnt think so.. its a p.o.s. 4cyl Turbo diesel engine that gets equally bad millage. the HLVW has a roughly 700km range on a 400Litre diesel Tank, so when it comes down to it, very few vehicles have good milage in the CF. 
besides.. army vehicles are special purpose in alot of cases.. you cant expect to have a truck that can do all that the Humvee or HLVW can and also expect good milage.. 

Fuel Economy is not a legitimate reason to not buy a vehicle that is more then capable of fufilling the needs of two trucks, the LSVW, and in more then a few cases the MLVW. the "Milverado" is a nice vehicle and as a reservist i think it will be fun to drive. but as was dissussed in other threads, it is non-deployable.  we cant send a chevy truck over to afghanistan, iraq, bosnia, etc.. the Humvee on the other hand is a much more usefull vehicle. and if you really compare it to some of the other vehicles in the CF its probabbly going to be one of the trucks that will be worth its price tag.
the others in my opinion being the MLVW (you just cant kill an ML) and the HL (being that its a good solid truck.)

also, maintenance costs are negligable as well.. when it comes down to it, the Humvees would break, but no more then an LSVW. talk to soldiers. alot of them will tell you that they want the Humvees, especially soldiers who have gone overseas. the new G-Waggon should be an Excellent replacement for the Reg force providing that the Gov‘t Buys enough of them. but i think the Chevy trucks were bought due to the cool factor since they arnt going to be very usefull in a real operational setting..

That being said im still looking forward to driving them. since hey. they do look pretty cool..


----------



## scm77

Plus the Humvee wasn‘t even entered into the bidding.


----------



## axeman

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


try looking up blown hmmv in the recent pics 
all five personel walked/ limped away . Thats including the person sitting over the wheel.
although it may be wide and heavy.I think i can say right now i have operated these things in mined areas . it fits the NYALA‘S /MAMBA‘S MINE CLEARING FOOTSTEPS none of the veh that the canadians are looking at will do that. The HMMV is a lot bettter veh in my OPINION. As to a "cool factor " where have you used these veh? ive used both . and also tried the "milverado " I‘ll stick with my favorite the HMMV


----------



## combat_medic

The HMMV and the Iltis are not in the same class, and so it‘s a completely unfair comparison. The Iltis was a pretty good vehicle in its day, and does exactly what it was designed to do. It‘s a rugged, powerful, small all-terrain vehicle that can operate in a myriad of different conditions (when properly serviced). The HMMV is more of a light armoured truck and is more than twice the size of the Iltis. Replacing the LSVW with the Hummer wouldn‘t be a bad idea, but even it has its problems. If you wanted to replace the Iltis (which is due), a more suitable comparison would a Land Rover 110 which is a small Jeep-esque vehicle, and isn‘t some monstrosity of an SUV like the Hummer.


----------



## Da_man

the new models are coming, so i guess they could be them used from th U.S.


----------



## gyrit

There are alot better things out there besides hmmvws the swiss make some fairly cool vehicle‘s that are alot better. all these vehicle‘s have been thought of as unreasonable due to cost, and other things.


----------



## axeman

I never called down the Iltis . I‘ve driven it many miles and yes it is a good veh. Only problem is that we did not keep building them if we had new ones to replace the worn out ones there would not be this huge brewhaha over replacement. But since we are replaceing them let us replace them with a veh. that fills a safety niche that really isnt thought of by many peaple . . The Nyala travels first , then Hmmv‘s. Its a lot safer then a veh that does not fit the footprint of this veh that was bought for clearing routes but does not have a soft skin veh that fits the tracks. As to it being a huge monstrosity  it was designed to be that way . The 110 or even the 190 rovers are good veh‘s. but not designed like the HMMV. The HMMV was over designed . The sticking point for us to purchase it was the parts and build was wanted to be here in Canada .The makers down in the States said nope so here we are back and forthing over the Wolf  and Milverado.


----------



## humint

NDHQ just announced that it is buying all new armoured vehicles for urban operations. Apparently, they are just as good as the HMMV in small streets such as in Afghanistan.


----------



## RCD

If we are going to get a limited number of them. Let‘s make sure that we have enough parts for it‘s life cycle.
 I always like the old 67 Jeep.


----------



## _Ditch_

Tried posting this in the other topic, but thought I would have more luck here:

I heard a "rumor" at one point, that the US was willing to equip the Canadian military with Hummers, if we agreed to purchase the parts for a certain number of years? Any fact to this, or is it BS?


----------



## gosho4

Yeah but if its true how many years?It might end up being cheaper not to.


----------



## dbrock

Not since the POS CUCV did the US have a say in the type of vehicles the the CF utilized.  Canada has come up with some great vehicles and it looks like teh tradition is continuing. I gotta get back to canada and re-enlist and get my hands on one of those new bad boys.

   :evil:       :fifty:


----------



## chrisf

I‘m guessing the Pinzgauer line could stack up reasonably well against the HMMWV.

I would think one major argument against Canada acquiring HMMVWsis that they‘ve become a bit of an icon for the American military, don‘t take this as anti-americanisim, but NOT looking like Americans on a battlefield usually serves as a good bit of protection. If you want to put the other guys in a world of hurt, attack an American and blame it on the other guys.

I know it‘s been well proven in desert and open terrain, but of curiousity, how does the hummer make out in wooded areas?


----------



## Slim

Everyone says that the Hummer is a bad idea...I say "B*&&$#*T to that.

the Hummer could replace three classes of vehicle! 

-They could do all the recce stuff.
-All the admin stuff.
-They could double as an MLVW.
-They could double as ADP vehicles.
-they could double as an ambulance. ( by the way when I say "double", I mean that there are modular kits for all of the above configurations!)

So the "expensive" hummer would be bought to replace three other vehs...with all different parts and ...well I‘m sure everyone gets the idea.

AND THE PARTS WOULD BE CHEAP!!!

So...why in heavens name are we getting the Silverado!!!

I am re-posting this as is so entirely F#&*%@G relevant!


----------



## combat_medic

Slim: Having a Hummer doing Recce is like shoveling your driveway with a snowplow. It‘s large and cumbersome, and (I believe) even wider than a Coyote, which is only a long range Recce vehicle. 

Having a Hummer for an ambulance also makes less sense as it can only carry 2 casualties, making us require double the amount.

The Canadian army still needs something small, narrow and light, like the Iltis, Jeep, Land Rover, Gelandewagon. Also, the ML is about 3 times the size of a Hummer, so attempting to replace the one with the other is akin to swapping a car for a bicycle. I have a hard time believing that you can carry 18 troops with kit in the back of a HMMV, nor tow a 105 Howitzer with it.

LSVW for HMMV is a fair trade, anything else is just stupid. There is a need and role for a small 4x4 vehicle, and for a large truck; roles that could never be filled by the Hummer.

Finally, bear in mind that the HMMV was designed with North American roads in mind. Driving down a side street in Europe (such as Bosnia) or down dirt tracks in Africa would be not only difficult but dangerous. Not everyone has wide lanes to drive in, and occasionally going into the ditch a little means driving into a mine field.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

M151 Ford "mutt" was the jeep.. M551 is the Sheridan tank...but I am not one to be picky.. 

Bzz


----------



## axeman

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m119-specs.htm 
This will clear up if a hmmv will tow a gun or not . It will .


----------



## Doug VT

We don‘t "need" Humvee‘s.  This is a senseless argument.  The iltis may be getting a bit of a hard time, but it gets the job done.  In fact, we wouldn‘t be able to use anything bigger in the cramped alleys of Afghanistan.  The G-wagon is a good buy and will fit our role nicely, in pretty much any theatre.  Canada will never buy hummers, besides, they‘re not that cool, and the "cool factor" is not a specification.  Grow up and realize that there is a lot more to being a soldier then "looking cool".  That one of the biggest problems with our army today, fighting to be "cool"
There are more important issues facing us, equipment wise, then what new vehicle we get.  I mean, the new MNVG‘s are great, but poorly constructed, durability wise.  The new PRR is a valuable tool, but there‘s nothing to replace it if it breaks, too bad for you.  And what‘s with the winter jackets that we have?  What a waste of money, don‘t get me wrong, I like CADPAT (that‘s right, it‘s called CADPAT, not CANPAD or CANPAT) but what were they thinking?  Like a respectful friend of mine said, "It‘s great for walking from the car to the building, but that‘s about it"  Anyone who knows outdoor clothing knows what I‘m talking about.  And the new gloves?  Come on....useless, but I‘m sure they cost a lot of money.  Time to replace the sleeping bag with something a little more modern as well.  The Tac Vest would have been 100% better if it was made completely modular, but we all have to look the same, right?  What a load of crap!  Too many "people" at the top without any forward vision.  So sad.....so sad.......


----------



## Da_man

i know being a soldier isnt about being "cool" , but it does help with recruiting.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Ah yes.. let‘s base all of our equipment procuring on the basis of increasing recruiting!! That makes a lot of sense!! Hey, if we paint all of our vehicles in the latest "cool" colours, we might even get more recruits!! I am sorry, that is a weak argument for buying the HMMWV.

Bzz


----------



## hoganshero

I don‘t really know if the size comparison holds up for not replacing the iltis with the hmmwv.
according to iltis.ca the size of th eiltis is as follows:
H:1.84m
L:3.97m
W:1.52m
Not huge by any stretch.
According to global security.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m998.htm)
the size for the Hmmwv is as follows:
H:1.83m (reducible to 1.37m apparently)
L:4.52m
W:2.16m
the diferrence is roughly 60cm to the width and the length.
I measured the width out as after all thta is what people are really arguing about with the size from the sounds of it. If I were to walk side by side with an iltis with about 6 inches of clearance between me and it together we would be as wide as a Hmmwv. Although this can make all the difference when attempting to navigate a tree filled forest then under that same argument a motorbike is apparently the perfect vehicle for military operations. 
Perhaps someone can set me straight however it is my belief that if the coyote is our best tool for reconaisance and it is also very large yet very successful... it stands to figure that the size trade-off between the hmmwv may well be worth it. 
It would replace both the LSVW (which is universally loathed) and the Iltis which is past prime and as "da_man" said would serve a valuable PR function. At no point was anyone suggesting that it was worth switching because of the cool factor alone. I think what he was suggesting is that it is an extra benefit.


----------



## kurokaze

> Originally posted by axeman:
> [qb]  http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m119-specs.htm
> This will clear up if a hmmv will tow a gun or not . It will . [/qb]


This isn‘t the same gun as a C3 (it‘s closest match), which is a full 300kg heavier.  Also, the M119 was manufactured by Royal Ordnance, Nottingham, England and the C3 by  RDM Manufacturing of Rotterdam Netherlands.

Besides, it‘s a moot point, since the hummer doesn‘t have the internal capacity to carry all the rounds that an ML can, which means we would need a second truck for ammo and crew.  

And from what I‘ve seen of civilian hummers (they are the same size correct?) they don‘t have the same internal capacity to setup a command post like the LSVW (at least not as comfortably).

So at the very least, we‘re stuck with LS and MLs in the artillery.


----------



## Cadet810

Why focus on Hummers when are Armoured vechicals can‘t function. What is the real use of a Hummer ?
Transportation?

How are you going to move in the battle field?

How are you going to distroy charlie?

Unless we get better combat equipment or essental equipment such as functioning ships , airplanes and Armoured vechicals why have hummers.

I love the hummers and I think that it would be great to have but not in the situation the military is in now.

With respect of the two soldiers who died in the land mine in 2003 Sgt Short and Cpl Beerenfenger .


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Destroy charlie? I think you have been watching Tour of Duty far too much.


----------



## Cadet810

> Originally posted by Ex-Dragoon:
> [qb] Destroy charlie? I think you have been watching Tour of Duty far too much. [/qb]


Unfriendly‘s , meanies ,crazy people and charlie
is what my old Army Cadet Corps used because we are not allowed to say the enemy on FTX .


----------



## jrhume

This is an interesting thread.  Given the differences of opinion, it‘s easy to see why procurement groups never seem to buy the ‘right‘ equipment.      As an equipment buyer, I can sympathize.

During my time in the Army, I routinely drove the M-151 jeep, which we disliked because of its tendency to roll (due to the swing-axle design) and because it had some chronic engine problems (I can‘t recall any specifics about those).

I also drove the 1-1/2 ton and 5-ton trucks and tractors.  The duece-and-a-half was probably the single best vehicle the Army procured in the 50s and 60s, bar none.  I‘ve seen it walk away with fantastic loads and take all the abuse your average GI could dish out and survive.

At that time we still had the old Dodge 3/4-ton carryalls.  The Hummer was designed to replace the jeep and the old carryall -- along with other misc vehicles.  The Hummers had and still have some drawbacks, depending on your needs and the particular situation, but the Army has fiddled with the original design long enough to have worked out the bugs and adapted it to a multitude of uses, as others have mentioned.  It‘s a good vehicle.

That said, I think the more basic issues have to do with investment, practicality and operational requirements.  The US Army can and does purchase all sorts of vehicles.  While some don‘t work out, those that do are constantly undergoing modifications and changes designed to suit them for new uses or to improve existing capabilities.  My impression is that Canada can‘t afford to purchase several different vehicles in the hopes that one or more might eventually work out.  While that approach is certainly not official strategy in the US Army, they are in a position to take more chances than the CF is.

The Hummer would almost certainly perform most of the CF functions and it is a proven unit.  I‘m not familiar enough with some of the other rigs mentioned here to know for sure, but some of them must have been around long enough to be considered fairly mature, developed vehicles.  It seems to me that Canada would be best served by selecting one or two good vehicles which other services have worked the bugs out of and standardizing on those -- whatever they may be.  

Even then, I‘m sure, as the artilleryman pointed out, there will still be a need for some special vehicles for uses the standard rigs can‘t handle.  The idea would be to minimize those odd units by adapting standard vehicles to as many roles as possible.

One thing should be clear just from the discussions on this board.  No single vehicle, nor any two or three vehicles will ever be able to satisfy the requirements of all users.  Like the 2-1/2 ton trucks we used in Vietnam -- many rigs will have to be field adapted for special purposes.  There‘s no such thing as one size fits all in anything military -- though so-called professional military planners will persist in trying to find such an animal until **** freezes over.

Jim


----------



## Cadet810

Well said.


----------



## Slim

Jim
That is one of the most well thought out posts that I have read to date. Thanks you for your post.
Slim


----------



## combat_medic

Cadet810: Since you are neither in the army, nor old enough to get a driver‘s lisence, it really doesn‘t matter if you like them, since you‘ve never driven one, have never driven an Iltis or any other military vehicle, and therefore have no experience of basis of comparison on which to draw. 

And as for referring to the enemy as "Charlie"; we are neither Americans, cadets, nor are we in the Vietnam war, or making a movie. If you want people to respect your posts, then try to keep in mind what your genuine military experience is, and speak from that. If you keep up the way you‘re going, people will just think of you as an ignorant child, and will ignore or burn you.


----------



## Slim

> Originally posted by combat_medic:
> [qb] Slim: Having a Hummer doing Recce is like shoveling your driveway with a snowplow. It‘s large and cumbersome, and (I believe) even wider than a Coyote, which is only a long range Recce vehicle.
> 
> [/qb]


Medic
I‘m not slamming you but you‘re off a bit. the Armoured corps used to do recce in Lynx and m113‘s b4 the lavs came along ( Lavs are way bigger than hummers). Those vehicles are both bigger than hummers. the hummer would be great for recce as they could carry way more kit and ammo ( I know they‘re not supposed to fight but I wouldn‘t bet my life on it!)
As for using them for cp‘s and box ams, well the U.S seems to do just fine with them. The modular concept is a good one.
this is my opinion...feel free to jump on it with both feet.


----------



## Staff

Don‘t forget, there are two types of recce. The armored recce squadron are the eyes or the brigade. Recce platoon are the eyes of the battallion. 

Recce squadron does almost all of it‘s work with coyotes. They cover the AO of an entire brigade an their take goes directly to the brigade commander. They require the big stuff. I don‘t think size is really a factor for them. (Insert joke here).

Recce platoon does most of it‘s work by inserting small sections on foot to get "eyes on" for specific targets or AOs. They are usually dropped off somewhere relatively close and walk in.

I know most of us know this, I just thought i‘d point this out to the people here who think that recce is all snoop and poop.


----------



## axeman

kurokaze I do not know why you  want the hmmer to pull the guns anyway , as the LS and Iltis do not 
anyway. the BV206 the MLVW and a few others are considered the Prime movers for the guns other then moving them by heli mode which is really stupid as you need 3 lifts to move 1 gun. but if required do so . but right now , the arguement is that it wont move the guns well yes that is correct it will haul alot more then a LSVW. and is a lot more user friendly then either the LSVW
which is a hunk of well every one has an opinion and the ILTIS wich is just worn out .


----------



## kurokaze

axeman, I agree.  I was re-inforcing medic‘s opinion that a hummer would not be a good platform to tow the 105.

I personally have nothing against the hummer.  I see it as a good, general purpose jeep.  As for whether or not we need them, well I‘m not going to comment on anything outside my area of interest, since I‘m not well-versed enough to do so.


----------



## chrisf

> Originally posted by combat_medic:
> [qb] And as for referring to the enemy as "Charlie"; we are neither Americans, cadets, nor are we in the Vietnam war, or making a movie. If you want people to respect your posts, then try to keep in mind what your genuine military experience is, and speak from that. If you keep up the way you‘re going, people will just think of you as an ignorant child, and will ignore or burn you. [/qb]


I used to know this guy... named Herman...


----------



## combat_medic

I was trying to point out that a HMMV is nearly twice the sixe of an Iltis, so replacing it (in Recce purposes) would not be a fair comparison, as it‘s the size of a small APC. Using a HMMV in a similar vein to a LAV or Coyote would be a fair comparison, but I was comparing it to the Iltis, as far as recce.

I would be all for replacing the LSVW with the HMMV, but it was suggested that the CF replace all the Iltis, MLs and LSs with HMMVs, and I was pointing out why that would be a bad idea, and the roles that a HMMV would not be able to fill.


----------



## axeman

I agree with you . I never thought that some one would think that an Hummer would be able to replace the MLVW.the weight capacities are totally differnt a hmmvw would never be able to replace it as a prime move or even asx a ultility veh. theres simply no way , you can replace the versatility of a MLVW.  with the multi task of a hmmvw. now i understand where your coming from .
 :akimbo:


----------



## humint

Here‘s why the HMMV is not always the best choice for ops.

 http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/photoarchive/HiRes/%212003/091003/KA2003-A057D.jpg 

The Iltis may be tin on wheels, but it fits in the tiny lane ways that we patrol. Good luck in getting the HMMV in there.


----------



## Brock

HUMINT:  Pictures can speak a thousand words.  I agree that the HMMVW althought a very capable vehicle is not the best option.

The Mercedes-Benz Geldenwagen tenatively chosen for the Army is a great choice.  However, my problem is that it is only being purchased in small numbers and primarily for operations.  The Geldenwagen or "GWagen" is a modular vehicle like the HMMVW, it can replace the LSVW too, but more importantly it does not suffer from the same problems associated with large physical dimensions.  M-B makes a variety of models in long and short wheelbase, armoured, command & recce, special operations, and others.  For those who think it is too small to replace the current LSVW as an ambulance think again.  I can‘t seem to find a GWagen Ambulance picture, but it is very similar in set up and size  to the British Army‘s Land Rover Defender ambulance.  see this pic:  http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/muv/muv_bamb.htm


----------



## Bzzliteyr

http://www.geocities.com/Baja/Outback/9186/Gwolfc.JPG 

GWagen Ambulance...found one.

Bzz


----------



## humint

Although I like the Mercedes Mil vehicle, Land Rover also seems to be a good choice. Has the CDN Army every considered Land Rover as an option?


----------



## L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan

They pulled out of the competition for the replacement for the Iltis.  So did another vehicle I believe (4 x 4 Yugo?).  So the G-Wagen was the only vehicle left standing.


----------



## koalorka

I think the German bulit LKW Wolf would best suit Canadian Forces (the germans are succesfully using it in Afganistan, check out the last pic on this page, also note how well-equipped the germans are, great desert kit). The Wolf is a Daimler Chrysler model of the Mercedes-Benz MB 290 GD 1.5 ton truck.


----------



## Mazdarules

> Originally posted by humint:
> [qb]  Land Rover also seems to be a good choice. Has the CDN Army every considered Land Rover as an option? [/qb]


Land rovers are really unreliable. They don‘t have good powerplants, crappy lucas electrical systems and they are subject to build quality problems. The MB is a great Vehicle, and the correct option for our requirments. I wish we were buying enough to equip the whole military. Toyota Landcruiser 70 series would be really sweet too.
Toyota 70 series military 
The Hum-vee cannot replace the MLVW, whoever said that doesn‘t know anything about the specs of either Vehicle. the Civy Hummers have proven to be extremely unreliable (hummer had to buy back a bunch of the early ones). I would assume that the service versions suffer from the same issues.


----------



## Mazdarules

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb] Toyota,
> you say?  Hmmmm, I wouldn‘t want to be in a Toyota truck driving around Afghanistan.    There would be definite problems with vehicle recognition....
> 
> Since it seems Canada only likes to buy made in Canada, [/qb]


The new MB will be made in Germany. US special forces have been using toyota Tacomas overseas with great success lately, and the landcruiser is 4X the vehicle when compared with the tacoma. The Landcruiser 70 series is probably the toughest light vehicle currently available anywhere in the world, do some research before you speak from now on.


----------



## Marauder

Anything that could replace the LSVW would be better. The LS is of little if any value off road. I hate being stuck driving those pieces of ****.
As far as the Iltis goes, well, yeah, it‘s great that its tiny and can fit in between trees and samll alleys, but that‘s the problem. They‘re clown cars, an affront to the notion that four full size human adults can fit in them. And without jury-rigged C6s, they have no way to return a decent volume of fire, unlike Humvees equipped with a .50 or a Mk 19 fitted in the top turret. Plus the Iltis has no way to uparmour. Yes yes, I can hear all of you out there thinking me an idiot, but I realize that Hummves won‘t be rolling away from a mine strike. However I have talked to a USMC LT who was in an uparmoured Humvee that hit an IED in A‘stan. He walked away unscathed, and the worst injury of the four in the vehicle was a concussion and small cut from hitting the roof melon first. The picture he showed me revealed that everything from the front axle forward was mangled beyond recognition. Not a bad survival rate for such a strike, I‘d say.
As for recce veh‘s, I don‘t understand why they wouldn‘t be asking for something like the American Fast Attack Vehicle used by the American SOF types. It‘s basically a three man dune buggy equipped with a .50/Mk 19, and C6, and a C9. Add in a few outriders on heavily muffled motocross or trail bikes, and bang. Can "sneak and peek" most tight spaces while having organic heavy weapons. But I‘m no zipperhead, so there ya go.


----------



## rcasc

It‘s my understanding that the original specs for the ILTIS replacement called for a design already in use. The contenders were Hummer, Land Rover and Mercedes. Western Star (LSVW) wanted to offer a new variation on the LSVW so the specs were changed to allow them to bid. Hummer and Land Rover then decided that the bidding was fixed so they pulled out. Western Star later went out of business and Mercedes won by default. To mitigate the high cost, the contract was split, 1/2 for deployment, the rest for the reserves. 

I‘d be interested in any procurment people out there can verify this.


----------



## Danjanou

Major baker, do you think we could get it in CadPat? Otherwise I don‘t think NDHQ would go for it. 

Then again the official final (built in a Liberal riding) issue version will probably have monkey bars, a banana seat and a pink basket.


----------



## Mountie

Here's just a few of the G-Wagon posibilities.


----------



## a_majoor

rcasc said:
			
		

> It's my understanding that the original specs for the ILTIS replacement called for a design already in use. The contenders were Hummer, Land Rover and Mercedes. Western Star (LSVW) wanted to offer a new variation on the LSVW so the specs were changed to allow them to bid. Hummer and Land Rover then decided that the bidding was fixed so they pulled out. Western Star later went out of business and Mercedes won by default. To mitigate the high cost, the contract was split, 1/2 for deployment, the rest for the reserves.
> 
> I'd be interested in any procurment people out there can verify this.



There was another vehicle out there called the "Brute" by GM Defense. I also believe that Styer offered a r 4X4 utility truck as well. The reason that all these contenders dropped out (at least from what I could tell) was a combination of the ever shifting requirments and the decision to allow Western Star to submit their bid. Once Western Star was allowed to bid, the other companies felt the contest was rigged (as mentioned above) and so left...

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehluv2.htm for more


----------



## Lost_Warrior

Why does everyone keep calling it the LSVW?  The iltis is the LUVW....


----------



## axeman

the lsvw is the the western star truck that looks "european " is the only way to say it not the iltis . the lsvw is the 5/4 cucv replacement veh that only last what was it 10 yrs ? the 5/4 was a 5 yr veh and it lasted 20 or so . the iltis is the veh that looks like a open top "clown car "to use a quote.


----------



## Long in the tooth

After over 25 years I've resigned myself to the fact that equipment will be purchased for political, not military reasons.  Whatever we get will be over budget and not up to mil specs.  We can't buy American 'cause Maude Barlow and the NDP wouldn't approve.  So just be prepared for some noisy, unreliable piece of cr*p from West Star or that great example of Canadian political pork - Bombardier.


----------



## Da_man

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> After over 25 years I've resigned myself to the fact that equipment will be purchased for political, not military reasons.   Whatever we get will be over budget and not up to mil specs.   We can't buy American 'cause Maude Barlow and the NDP wouldn't approve.   So just be prepared for some noisy, unreliable piece of cr*p from West Star or that great example of Canadian political pork - Bombardier.



The same goes with the american military and the XM-8.  They dont need this crap, they just want to buy from H&K.


----------



## Long in the tooth

I recall driving 20 year old 5/4 tons and 35 year old trailers with bald tires through the rockies.  The tacit concensus in the convoy was that we'd make a quick prayer for any civy who got in our way, 'cause we sure as heck weren't stopping!  Especially as we were packed to the nuts over factory specs.


----------



## bossi

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> I recall driving 20 year old 5/4 tons and 35 year old trailers with bald tires through the rockies.   ...



Ah, nostalgia ... I remember the deuces (made in the 50's) when I joined in the late '70's ...
(heck - never thought I'd survive to see a camo uniform, either ... but I had to wait 25 years ...)


----------



## old medic

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> I recall driving 20 year old 5/4 tons and 35 year old trailers with bald tires .....



I remember the last one I drove, I could view the pavement through floor, and the sun through the rust
around the windshield where the sun visors were missing.  One smashed out no-draft window to boot.

I still liked it better than the LSVW.


----------



## Crimson Army

I think we need some more of these!  

http://www.armee.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_20.asp?uSubSection=20&uSection=5


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Alright CA. I think it's time you slowed down and moved into your very narrow lane for awhile. You've been all over the board posting pretty usless stuff. So.... before someone gets really ticced off at you.....

Welcome to Army.ca. Please read and follow the guidelines. Use the "Search" function. It's great and works well. Fill in your profile, sit back and read a bunch, get the hang of what we're about and enjoy. Contribute when you can add something substantial to the subject, and please refrain if you can't. Witty contributions are accepted in relation to your TI. Please act accordingly.


----------



## edadian

I am going to commit a great act of hereasy and say lets just build our own. I know people with the Canadian inferiority complex want what ever the big countries have but seriously why? Yes new kit is political and our politicians are ignorant of the military's needs, partly because they are mostly lawyers & accountants and partly the military doesn't tell/show them anything. Take the MPs out on an information weekend or two.

Canadian soldiers know better than anyone else in the world what kit the Canadian Army needs. So lets design the Iltis replacement and have bids to make it. The airforce did that once and they haven't had plane equal it since...of course they got stabbed in the back by politicians with inferiority complexes and lack of vision. Rene Levesque was right, and thats scary, the English Canadian inferiority complex will destroy this country.

to the US Army Major...fords? you mean it isn't amphibious? Why do your Marines have it?


----------



## Michael OLeary

edadian said:
			
		

> *I am going to commit a great act of hereasy and say lets just build our own.* I know people with the Canadian inferiority complex want what ever the big countries have but seriously why? Yes new kit is political and our politicians are ignorant of the military's needs, partly because they are mostly lawyers & accountants and partly the military doesn't tell/show them anything. Take the MPs out on an information weekend or two.
> 
> Canadian soldiers know better than anyone else in the world what kit the Canadian Army needs. *So lets design the Iltis replacement and have bids to make it.* The airforce did that once and they haven't had plane equal it since...of course they got stabbed in the back by politicians with inferiority complexes and lack of vision. Rene Levesque was right, and thats scary, the English Canadian inferiority complex will destroy this country.
> 
> to the US Army Major...fords? you mean it isn't amphibious? Why do your Marines have it?



That's exactly the issue that got us where we are today with some of our equipment. Emphasis on "Canadian content," requirements for manufacture and assembly in Canada, Canadian design elements, etc., have all contributed to very high unit costs because we are required to underwrite industry costs for the production of very small orders when sales to other nations to offset manufacturing investment have not occured.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

edadian said:
			
		

> I am going to commit a great act of hereasy and say lets just build our own.



We've done this before. Western Star LSVW (Loud Squeeky Vehicle Wheeled).


----------



## mover1

Just a bit of UFI. The airforce Tactical Training Center in Cold Lake got in major trouble because they went out with their own budget and bought a threat emitter mounted on a HMMV. It's an SMP vehicle with a CFR and at the time it was the only one we had in the inventory. 

This was done around the 1999 2000 timeframe if I remember correctly. 

Like I say just a bit of UFI


----------



## KevinB

Hummers have been in inventory before that...


----------



## MJP

But where Kev?   :blotto:

They are hard to drive up ski hills....


----------



## KevinB

;D


----------



## mover1

Surface Threat Electronic Warfare

http://www.airforce.forces.ca/4wing/training/training7_e.asp

Here is a picture of the Hummer in Cold Lake  its small and crappy but its a pic of it none the less.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

11servhopeful said:
			
		

> Land rovers are really unreliable. They don't have good powerplants, crappy lucas electrical systems and they are subject to build quality problems. The MB is a great Vehicle, and the correct option for our requirments. I wish we were buying enough to equip the whole military. Toyota Landcruiser 70 series would be really sweet too.
> Toyota 70 series military
> The Hum-vee cannot replace the MLVW, whoever said that doesn't know anything about the specs of either Vehicle. the Civy Hummers have proven to be extremely unreliable (hummer had to buy back a bunch of the early ones). I would assume that the service versions suffer from the same issues.



The modern Defender TDI landrover is as reliable as it's contenders. The only major issue is the timing belt in the engine and there is a gear set to replace it. The Dutch marines had problems with theirs because the Dutch government modified the axles with a lighter unit to save costs and ended up spending twice as much fixing them.

Most of the electrical are now Bosch. The body lasts a long time and vehicle comes in many different combinations. 

The G-wagon is good, but it has flaws also, I understand the first batch we got had floor cracks that required modifications. Also Mercedes has been rumoured to be dropping the line. I suspect that the armoured version as used by France and Germany suffering from overweight problems and limited mobility.

Toyotas landcruisers trucks are also good, drove some in Venezuela. Drive train is very tough and the N/A diesel is reliable. However rust and body failures under fully loaded conditions are still problems.

The Humvee certainly makes a good weapons platform, but is very wide, will not fit into a Chinook (not that is a problem for us anymore) The engine which I believe is now the 6.5 diesel is marginal and would need replacing. Many of the Humvees in Iraq have shown that the up armouring of standard vehicles is overstressing the frames and drive train.

There is nothing wrong with our choice of the G-wagon, except that we did not buy enough. My heart is for the Landrover however. If were to buy the Humvee I would like to see us go for an upgraded version with a better engine and beefier suspension. Any of the vehicles mentioned above would be good for us. Funny how Hezbollah and Iraqis can find ways to mount a 14.5mm HMG or RR on anything (including a motorcycle) yet our government can't figure out how to mount a LMG on a Milspec truck, sigh...

I haven't heard any complaints from the Italians about their Ivecos, which we knocked off. I have


----------



## mover1

Colin P said:
			
		

> I havenâÃ‚ Ã‚â„¢t heard any complaints from the Italians about their Ivecos, which we knocked off. I have



No but I don't think the Italians have seen how we screwed them up.


----------



## axeman

the ivecos are a runway supprt vehicle . we have modified them and are not useing them the way the italians are ...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Axeman:  you may have some wires crossed here.

The LSVW is the Iveco model 40.10WM (AFAIK).  Same truck, same roles.  The difference is that we decided to modify it (rather extensively) in a vain attempt to meet the SOR after Mary Collins directed that any truck purchased be built by Western Star in Kelowna (after, if memory serves, the competition was won by Freightliner/Mercedes Benz).

I saw some of this as it was happening - very painful.

The Italians I've worked with seem happy with them.  Of course, it is a somewhat different vehicle than the one we ended up with.  :


----------



## KevinB

IIRC Kim Campbell was the MND for the LSWV fiasco - for which we signed the contract prior to testing the vehicle   :

G Wagon is not a good vehicle - sorry I have used them operationally.

HMMVW's are an excellent choice for certain roles - however while they would be an excellent LSVW replacement that could not replace all the Iltis/LUVW and MLVW requirements.

 A Mix of ATV's, DPV's/ASLV's chenowth.com Hummers and HLVW's would be required to phase out the LUVW, LSVW and MLVW.


----------



## 1feral1

In Australia the only fuel for SMP type vehs in service is strictly distillate.

The fol vehs are used:

Land Rover 4x4 Perentie 110 (LUVW/LSVW role

Land Rover 6x6. Comes in many formats, cargo, amb, RAEME pods, etc)

UNIMOG 4x4 trk (MLVW role); and

Mac Trk 6x6 for much larger jobs (HLVW role)


So, logistically things flow pretty smooth here. Not much complaints as the vehicles perform very well under the most intense conditions you can imagine (even Antarctica).

BTW,     ;D the heaters in the Land Rovers and UNIMOGs would suit Canadian winters, and are a million times better than thoe MLVWs. 

I have driven the US Humvees before, I found the brakes sensitive, but the vehicle went well. The advantage to using a universal military vehicles is parts can be procured thru Allied forces in operational environments, as opposed to being 100% reliable on your own suppy system, which I view as not a good idea.


----------



## pappy

how about these lil puppies:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

As their civvie cars prove. Japan can make some good vehicles.


----------



## pappy

I think the US DOD should be buying these as fast as the Japanese can make them, or better yet start building them here too.


----------



## KevinB

Looks like half a Hummer  ;D


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

KevinB said:
			
		

> IIRC Kim Campbell was the MND for the LSWV fiasco - for which we signed the contract prior to testing the vehicle   :



Right and wrong at the same time!  Mary Poppins was the Associate Minister at the time and happened to be from BC...  Her only other claim to fame was to ban strippers from messes after a visit to Calgary.


----------



## a_majoor

Since the CF is "stuck" with G-Wagons and MILCOTS for a while, we can look ahead to the next generation of vehicles to offset our logistics and operational woes.

Logistically, we want a common family of vehicles.

Operationally, we want machines with outstanding mobility, the ability to have or accept armour protection and to mount various weapons, information and other systems when needed.

The next generation of CV-90 (a wheeled hybrid electric vehicle prototype) shows one possible way. The lower hull and drive train could be adapted for various sizes and form factors, all sharing the common wheel/motor assembly and the armoured/mine deflecting lower hull form.

A 4X4 version would fill the role(s) of the HMMVW, a 6X6 would be the basis for an MLVW replacement, an 8X8 would replace all the LAV variations and a stretched 8X8 platform would become the new HLVW. It would be possible to specify some of the 4X4 versions be fully armoured to act as local security/convoy escort vehicles as well as the basis for a "mud recce" vehicle.

Some other thoughts are here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27679/post-188549.html#msg188549


----------



## TCBF

One of our - and everyone else's - problems is we buy a cat and try to turn it into a dog.  The Iltis was a fair jeep replacement, but was not developed or properly supported.   Any Armoured 4x4s countries buy to avoid mangled unarmoured 4x4s invariably get tricked out as mini-APCs.  Two Humvees are being used to carry a Squad of infantry, when an up armoured M113A3 coud carry them better and save fuel and money.

We replaced our Dodge 3/4 Ton with an interim 5/4 ton Commercial while we took five years to find a replacement.  The five years turned into twenty, and we got the LSVW, which made us wish we had the 3/4 Ton again, but Dodge had just finished scrapping the tooling - finally, after all those years.

The Milverado has about 17 cm clearence under the rear diff and front diff skid plate.  A shade over seven inches.  It is a road vehicle with limited trail capability.  I spent some time last fall chasing two squadrons of Leopards cross country in Wainwright.  I doubt too many people will try that - at the speeds I did - and my main issue was bottoming out after being canalized into following Leo ruts uphill on a trail through some brush.  I doubt 99.9% of Milverado service will be that extreme. 

Fleet Management is a form of Witchcraft, and I am glad all I do is use them and recommend modifications.

Humour from one year ago, when I was getting qual the Milverado:

Me: " Where is the button?"

MSE Cpl:  "What button?"

Me: "The button that you push to boost your dead 12v system from the live 24v one, like on the 5/4 ton."

MSE Cpl:  "What's a 5/4 ton?"

So there we go.  As well, some of the guys acquiring and adapting vehs for us have no idea what we have used in the past, and what has and has not worked.  They may not even have been alive when we used them.

Tom


----------



## axeman

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Axeman:   you may have some wires crossed here.
> 
> The LSVW is the Iveco model 40.10WM (AFAIK).   Same truck, same roles.   The difference is that we decided to modify it (rather extensively) in a vain attempt to meet the SOR after Mary Collins directed that any truck purchased be built by Western Star in Kelowna (after, if memory serves, the competition was won by Freightliner/Mercedes Benz).
> 
> I saw some of this as it was happening - very painful.
> 
> The Italians I've worked with seem happy with them.   Of course, it is a somewhat different vehicle than the one we ended up with.   :



so what your saying is they are not the same . the only ppl in the italian forces i saw HAPPY with them were the air force and they were useing it as a support veh . we insisted on many canadanizations [sp]and thusly it wasnt the same veh . i had a friend of mine on the production line as they were first rolling off the line telling me what a pile these new trucks are ... sorry to say ive seen em since they first started rolling off the line in kelowna  and saw the italian version when deployed and saw there are differnces subtle but real differnces . the LS's are a pile of crap  sorry that we have this canada first mentality for purcasing some stuff may of been a good idea if we did it rom the ground up but not when we take someone elses ideas and frame and start to change it .. the AVROE Arrow  was a concept that was working but the LS  isnt ..


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> sorry to say ive seen em since they first started rolling off the line in kelowna



As I have - in fact, I was in Kelowna when the contract was let and the PD gave the first (rather sad) briefings - my sources for what I've posted.  Oddly, we might know each other...

No worries, we're saying the same thing.  The LS really isn't the same truck as the Iveco anymore, you're exactly right.  My wording in my last post was a bit unclear.

My exposure to the Italians with theirs was with an Alpini battalion in Kabul...as I said, they weren't slamming their (Italian-built) trucks. Ours, however, is a POS of the first order.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## Britney Spears

I have a somewhat related question:

Is there some reason that we cannot buy/copy a vehicle like the BRDM or even the French VBL? It seems perfectly suited( well armoured, can carry all kinds of weapons, but still light and nimble enough to get in and out of small places) to the kind of things we are trying to do with the G-wagom and the Americans are trying to do with their up armored hummers.


----------



## TCBF

The BRDM is almost as big as an M113A3.  A BMP3 would be more flexible, but, if we wanted to look around, the French VBL is probably what we have been trying to do all along.  The French Boeselager Team had it as early as 1992, so the bugs should be identified by now.  

I don't know if it can take an AT mine hit. We know, from Canadian experience, Lynx, Cougars and Bisons can - sort of.  We know an up-armoured Hummer can - 3VP had a hit in one just east of Kandahar airfield in 2002.  One soldier in the back had an injured ankle/leg.  Had it been stock, rather than up-armoured, she would have been soup.

Tom


----------



## pappy

??? not sure it would make sense to copy a BDRM since most of our enemies use soviet-bloc equipment and the fly-boys have a hard enough time telling friend from foe.

just my opinion....  

ask youself would you wanna be driving in one of those with some guy in a A-10 at 10,000 feet rolling in on ya wondering if it was ours or thiers?  I'll walk thank you very much

hummm these look nice, but then I am bias...


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/aaav.htm


----------



## TCBF

"the fly-boys have a hard enough time telling friend from foe."

It doesn't make any difference.  Tarnak Farm was three miles from a brightly lit allied airfield - Kandahar- with four thousand friendlies on it.  Some idiot driving an F-16 obviosly didn't ask himself why the Taliban would park four American style deuce-and-a-halfs in a neat row within sight of that airfield's perimeter defences.

He must have thought they bought them war surplus.

If he's gonna drop, he's gonna drop.  It doesn't matter what we look like.  Buck fever, and all that.

Tom


----------



## Britney Spears

> ask youself would you wanna be driving in one of those with some guy in a A-10 at 10,000 feet rolling in on ya wondering if it was ours or thiers?  I'll walk thank you very much
> 
> hummm these look nice, but then I am bias...
> 
> 
> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/aaav.htm



Good to have you back pappy.

Is this the one you're talking about? Looks like the USAF thought of it already. I couldn't find a more recent report on the incident, but I believe the final tally was 10 Marines in the AAV were killed.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/02/sprj.irq.friendly.fire/index.html


> Marines sure they were friendly-fire victims
> 
> By Art Harris
> CNN
> Thursday, October 2, 2003 Posted: 11:57 PM EDT (0357 GMT)
> 
> Marines' armored vehicles are battered after a battle in Nasiriya.
> 
> CNN's Art Harris talks with U.S. Marines who say they were attacked by an A-10 Warthog in the battle of Nasiriya, Iraq (October 2)
> 
> JACKSONVILLE, North Carolina (CNN) -- It was the deadliest day of the Iraq war.
> 
> Eighteen Marines were killed in Nasiriya on March 23 as U.S. and coalition forces drove to Baghdad.
> 
> *Six months later, those who fought alongside them told CNN they remain bitter that an undetermined number of their friends were killed -- not by Iraqis -- but by an Air Force A-10 they hoped was coming to their rescue.*
> 
> Pinned down on all sides, the Marines were under fire from mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns. Outnumbered, they fought back, their dead and wounded scattered all along the aptly named "Ambush Alley."
> 
> With no air support yet, Marine Capt. Dan Wittnam was elated as he looked into the clear skies to see it coming -- a U.S. warplane called a Warthog for its ability to root out and kill tanks.
> 
> "The first thought that went through my mind was, 'Thank God, an A-10 was on station," he told CNN.
> 
> And then, "the earth went black from the dirt being kicked up. And a feeling of absolute, utter horror and disbelief."
> 
> Wittnam, the 33-year-old commander of Charlie Company, said the Warthog fired on the Marines.
> 
> The United States Central Command wouldn't comment on the incident other than to say it's still under investigation.
> 
> It has been under investigation for six months. It remains "open" and a report is expected to be released in weeks.
> 
> The 18 Marines account for 16 percent of all U.S. combat casualties during the war, according to Central Command's official records.
> 
> Just how many Marines died from the A-10 is unclear.
> 
> "I know it's more than a handful," said Staff Sgt. Troy Schielein, displaying a muscled forearm covered in tattoos of the names of 18 dead Marines. Schielein estimated the A-10 killed five to 10.
> Road to Baghdad
> 
> On March 23, the battalion got orders to seize two key bridges to help open the road to Baghdad.
> 
> By sundown, they'd accomplished their mission.
> 
> Marines on the battlefield that day described for the first time what happened in between when they were under fire from the A-10's 30-millimeter, multi-barrel cannon that spits out 3,900 rounds per minute.
> 
> "You hear this big, 'Waaah,' and then all you see is, you know, the ground just explode," said Lance Cpl. Edward Castleberry of Mount Vernon, Washington.
> 
> Lance Cpl. David Fribley, 26, had enlisted following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
> 
> Castleberry said he shouted at Fribley to get in his Armored Assault Vehicle. Fast.
> 
> Fribley ran.
> 
> "I'm turning around, screaming at him, telling him to get in," said Castleberry, who was the AAV's driver.
> 
> Fribley almost made it.
> 
> "He was trying to climb in, he's got one arm trying to get in, and he just takes a huge round directly through his chest and it blew his whole back out," Castleberry said.
> 
> Marines said they are certain it was a U.S. warplane -- the Iraqis did not fly a single combat mission during the war.
> 
> Sgt. Jeremy Donaldson of Bangor, Maine, said one round just missed him.
> 
> "It came through my turret from an upper angle," he told CNN. "I'm confident it was an A-10. A 30-millimeter cannon, unless the Iraqis grew wings and hung off the clouds with a 30mm cannon."
> 
> Sgt. William Schaefer of Columbia, South Carolina, was evacuating dying and wounded Marines under withering Iraqi fire when the A-10 opened up and hit the transmission, he said. The AAV eventually crashed into a pole.
> 
> Schaefer keeps a snapshot of an armor-piercing A-10 round, made of depleted uranium, which was found inside his destroyed vehicle.
> 
> Those on the battlefield that day said the A-10 pilot -- still not identified -- was told there were no U.S. troops in the area.
> 
> The pilot reported back that he saw an Iraqi convoy heading for the city. So the ground controller -- who was never told Charlie Company was there -- gave the pilot the green light to fire.
> 
> *Marines insist the pilot should have recognized the tub-shaped AAVs as U.S. assault vehicles. Only the Marine Corps has them.
> 
> "There is nothing like an AAV," said Schielein, of Peoria, Illinois. "I mean, the biggest vehicle that the Iraqis even had was a pick-up truck with a machine gun in the back."
> 
> Even though sources told CNN the A-10 was under anti-aircraft fire and performing evasive maneuvers, Marines said they cannot forget -- or forgive.
> 
> "If I could actually find the A-10 pilot, the one that did the shooting, I'd probably break both his knees," said Cpl. Michael Brown of Summit Station, Ohio.*
> 
> Pentagon correspondents Jamie McIntyre and Barbara Starr and CNN cameraman David Allbritton contributed to this report.



(Bolding mine)


----------



## pappy

I understand where your coming from, even being an American, I feel the pilot got off, he should have at least eaten his own 9mm. 

Having been on the reciving end of 155m HE, VT air burst, I do undersatand.  The only reason I'm walking today is the F-ing National Guard Troops couldn't shoot thier way outta of wet paper bag, and that was peace time
Of course that was years ago, when the National Gurad was well of questionalable quality, I'd like to think most of them are better these days.


----------



## pappy

Thanks Brittney    :-*  I do like you better as a brunette

yeah, that's just one.  sad to say blue on blue have been going on since we started chucking rocks at each other.

The Marines rarely if every call for Air support from the other branches, if we have a choice we call in Marine Air. pretty sure after the above "incident" we'll wait, or start shooting back.   That day was truely a Goat Screw to say the least.


----------



## Britney Spears

Well, if anyone was wondering, <a href=http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/scoutcars.html>here's</a> where I got the BRDM idea from. Even if it were the same size as an M113, would it not still be more agile since it's on wheels? Perhaps if we contract the Russians to build us an improved version with better mine protection, like the Mamba and those other South African vehicles where the wheels are designed to blow away? 

I think it may have been a mistake for the US to having nothing bridging the gap between the jeep/HMMMV and a Bradley.


----------



## TCBF

"I think it may have been a mistake for the US to having nothing bridging the gap between the jeep/HMMMV and a Bradley."

- It's called an M113A3.  Nothing wrong with it. Cheap and plentiful.   CULTURALLY, we tend to shy away from tracks, in which case a Bison or Grizzly is fine, but, again, we tend to try and turn cats into dogs.

-Your thinking out of the box regarding Commie AFVs is downright subversive and somewhat refreshing.  We have never given a lot of them their just due.  I think the best veh all round for Canada - summer and WINTER - is the BMP3.  

So there. 

As to the inevitable hunk of junk stories and how poor it is on road moves (though one DID pass my Coyote going uphill on a road in Bosnia), I would suggest a trial.  

Tom


----------



## McG

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I think it may have been a mistake for the US to having nothing bridging the gap between the jeep/HMMMV and a Bradley.


Wouldn't that be the much called down Stryker?


----------



## KevinB

The US QRF that lived at CJ for the election parked their M113A3's - they used Hummers...

 While clankity clanks have their purpose the current roles we/they are doing does not need a track.  

We do need a light recce vehicle - we need a light inf 'support' vehicle - we need a light logisitics vehicle.

 We have limited amounts of ATV's and BV206's for Light Inf operations - but need another system for neither are ideal nor fill all the needs.  I won't touch what the Black Hatters want or need since I am not an 011


----------



## jmacleod

Public Works and Government Services Canada (PW&GSC) seriously considered purchasing the AM
General HMMWV (Hummer or Humvee) to replace the Iltis fleet, but had to opt out because the
Humvee is produced exclusively in the United States, and no Industrial Regional Benefits (IRB's)
would be approved through the US Department of Commerce for the purchase. There were
several supplier options to replace the Ilitis fleet, including a Proposal from the Ford Motor Co, 
Canada to provide a vehicle remarkably similar to the G-Wagen, built on a Ford ambulance frame
and equipped with a diesel engine. This Proposal genrated IRB's and focused exclusively on 
Canadian suppliers and contractors. It was rejected because we learned later that Ottawa already
knew that GM London, the major producer of military vehicles in Canada was about to be purchased
by General Dynamics Canada (GDC) - focused on the Stryker Contract for the US Army. The irony is
that if the recce platoon of 3PPCLI in Kabul had not borrowed Humvees from the US Army, the
entire Iltis replacement Program would probably still be going on in Ottawa, where it took 20 years
to "buy a truck" because this caught the eye of the international media "Canadians have to borrow
us equipment" etc. MacLeod


----------



## Britney Spears

> -Your thinking out of the box regarding Commie AFVs is downright subversive and somewhat refreshing.  We have never given a lot of them their just due.  I think the best veh all round for Canada - summer and WINTER - is the BMP3.



Heh, so the Armrd guy feels we should have a vehicle with trakcs, a stabilized turrent, 100mm gun and a 30mm cannon for a coax? Well who would have thought.....  Stack on the ERA blocks and isn't the BMP3 basically a tank?



> - It's called an M113A3.  Nothing wrong with it. Cheap and plentiful.   CULTURALLY, we tend to shy away from tracks, in which case a Bison or Grizzly is fine, but, again, we tend to try and turn cats into dogs.





> Wouldn't that be the much called down Stryker?



Hmm, I'm not so sure. It would seem to me that both the M113 and the Stryker/LAV3 are more like lighter Bradleys instead of heavier HMMMVs, which is what we need and the US is trying to do with the up amored hummers. I think the LAV3 is actually bigger, if not almost the same size as a Bradley. The "tracked" factor automatically means more maintainance, noise and also more intimidation. The Russians use the BRDM for many of the same things we use M113 and HMMVs for (carrying ATGM, MANPAD,) but an urban patrol with a wheeled 4x4 vehicle just feels different to me from doing it with a tracked M113.


----------



## TCBF

"recce platoon of 3PPCLI in Kabul had not borrowed Humvees from the US Army, the
entire Iltis replacement Program would probably still be going on in Ottawa, where it took 20 years
to "buy a truck" because this caught the eye of the international media "Canadians have to borrow
us equipment" etc. MacLeod"

- You mean 3VP in Kandahar in 2002, right?  At the time, our Bde (3 Bde, 101 ABN Div (Air Assault) Commander said "No one will leave the camp unless they are in an Armoured Veh or escorted by an armoured veh".  This expanded the Coyote Sqn mission somewhat, as three of the Bisons doubled as APCs, and the Coyotes did a 24/7 escort service for 14 countries.  

I understand we all would like our own pet niche vehicles for our own reasons - I myself have been known to hold opinions in this regard - but choosing a fleet of vehicles poses more challenges.  Summer or winter, sand or snow, Brampton, Baffin Island, or the Baskin &Robbins at Kandahar Airfield, the M113 series would be the all round most cost effective and flexible "carrier" that we have.  But, since, as an Army, we have said "NO" to that, and the Grizzly fleet appears to have been souvenired to the Army of the AU (after we take out the TCCCS and weld on a bin to hold shrunken heads), we have only LAVs and Bisons left, and they are the size of deuce-and-a-halfs.  So, we know have the G-Wagon, which has not impressed it's OPERATIONAL users so far.  But, time will tell, and early opinions on it may change.

Next?

Tom


----------



## a_majoor

We are starting to get a little diverted here. Tha basic HMMVW was designed as a utility vehicle, and in the late 1980s, I doubt anyone ever envisioned it going into war as a front line combat vehicle. The engineers who designed it did a very good job, and the machine is very adaptable to being armoured, festooned with weapons and so on. Since this was never the basic reason for being, the up armoured HMMVWs do have issues with center of gravity, stress on the mechanical components and deficiencies in the armour envelope and weapons coverage.

For mud recce, convoy escort and local security taskings, a purpose built vehicle is a must. If we are "smart" about it, there is no reason it cannot use many of the common components of the utility vehicle (like the Turkish "Otocar Cobra" series). The CV-90 SEV is being developed in a timeframe which would put it into production about the time the G-wagons and MILCOTs would have been driven into the ground (in real terms, not the unnatural artificial life spans that we tend to force on these sorts of vehicles), so a certain consideration should be given to using this as the basis for families of vehicles, including a utility vehicle to replace the MILCOTs and an armoured vehicle to replace the G-Wagon.


----------



## jmacleod

Right. We do not think the G-wagen is the ultimate answer, and the search should continue for
a suitable replacement - many of the vehicles noted on this post are very impressive. My own
opinion is that if the US Army had it to do over again, they would not have bought the Humvee
-saw litierally hundreds of them at the US Army Vehicle Upgrade and Repair facility at the former
Loring AFB in Limestone Maine- plus many Bradleys, a small variety of tanks, and miscellaneous
pieces of equipment, like ambulances etc. I remember when NDHQ had a five-year cyclical plan
for replacement and upgrades of every item of equipment and facilites owned and operated
by CF, but these excellent, well thought out plans seemed to have vanished with budget cuts.
MacLeod


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Pappy
Is that one of the Octokor vehicle from Turkey?

People are right when they say no one vehicle can fit all roles. I would like to see Recce get a mix of Open 4x4 (armed of course) Modern VBL type vehicle and a LAV vehicle with turret mounted 25/30mm gun and perhaps put portable ATGM somewhere in the mix. This gives your recce a great deal of flexibility and offers a good force mix for â Å“other than warâ ? operations 

All vehicles need to be able to accept weapons and armour kits. The M35 design and layout is still a good design and does not require reinventing the wheel (despite the screwups of Bombardier) There are also armour packages for it in production. I also prefer the 6x6 over 4x4 for vehicles 2  ½ tons and up.

Yes the jump start option in the 5/4 ton was one of the better points of that vehicle.

I drive a Tahoe over Northern BC for work, it gets stuck in places where I would not even engage the 4 wheel in my range rover. It also breaks easily and is expensive to fix. It likes to pick up rocks between the hub and caliper leading to Banshee opera.

The noise problems with the LSVW appears to be from sub standard brake linings easily fixed if someone very high up in HQ felt like kicking over a few desks and dumping the lot of them onto the local MP desk where they came from.


----------



## jmacleod

Vehicles for the Canadian Army are not selected by the Canadian Army - they are selected by Ottawa
based bureaucrats who have absolutey no knowledge, or the desire for knowledge about the 
Canadian Army. They are picked for their jobs primarily because they are "bi-lingual" - what has the
facility to speak in two officials languages to do with vehicle selection for the Canadian Forces?
nothing. We used to piss them off by writing letters through a friend in Dalhousie University from
France. Most of the bureaucrats could not respond in French of course - what a surprise! The choice
of the disgusting little vehicle built be Bombardier, the Ilitis, was a political decision. When we first 
saw it, everybody laughed. All military purchases are driven in Canada by politics. They are not in
the US, the UK, France, Germany and Israel. Despite all the political nonsense, the Canadian Forces
have survived, and are highly rated where it really counts -in the US, UK, France, Germany, and Israel
- getting a positive from the IDF is very difficult - a real, fighting army. MacLeod


----------



## pappy

the 4x4 wheeled vehical I posted is a Japanese design, "Light Armored Vehical"   

the link I posted was to the web site discussing the possible USMC AAV-7 replacement


----------



## edadian

purchases in other countries is political. The US Army was forced to buy the Abrams because the purchase would save Chrysler, the competition won the competetion. The US marines never bought the Canadian version of the V-22 Osprey because they just bought the British Harrier and couldn't get Congress to approve another foriegn purchase. The British Army and the SA-80 is another example (can't stiff Enfield two rifle purchases in a row).

As for reliability of supply, buying from GM might not be an option. Economists are suggesting they file for bankruptcy protection.


----------



## prom

edadian said:
			
		

> purchases in other countries is political. The US Army was forced to buy the Abrams because the purchase would save Chrysler, the competition won the competetion. The US marines never bought the Canadian version of the V-22 Osprey because they just bought the British Harrier and couldn't get Congress to approve another foriegn purchase. The British Army and the SA-80 is another example (can't stiff Enfield two rifle purchases in a row).
> 
> As for reliability of supply, buying from GM might not be an option. Economists are suggesting they file for bankruptcy protection.



i have a cousin who is head of a parts plant that supplies them..... and from what he has gotten from GM them seleves is not going to be a full BR, however it will be one where no new benifits or wage increases can be allowed..... thats what they have been feeding out to suppliers.... so its not as bad as that. plus even if they did go under, there are plants that do do the production for the milcot parts.... so they could be open still...

But look right now..... so long as we got away from politicans making the decsion on what we get, we should design one ourseleves.... well between us and the US, as we both are going to ahve the same requirements, then tender out its construction over NA with to final assembly areas. it can have 3-4 varriants that the main basic camoing out would be the same for them all. its not that hard...... in about 20mins you can fire out a rough idea of what it could look liike heck i got one fired out now sitting in my head that it would sit in about the same foot print of a humvv though it would not be as wide when it comes down to drive train/ supension.... you can easily grab 5 people that are extreme 4x4 builders and tell them your specs and they will make it for you..... hecki bet for 10-15 million in r&d we could have 8 prototypes out within 18 months another 6-8 months of retooling/ feild testing..... and well you could start rolling them off the line withing 26-30 months total........ ground up built to fit the needs of the modren urban/offroad enviroment.


----------



## edadian

The Humvee foot print is part of the problem because it can't fit in chinooks. We always hitch rides in our allies even our old ones in Dutch service.

It would take a lot longer to plan a vehicle than 20mins because it would have to modular, flexible and easily repaired in field conditions. Slapping something together will ultimatly lead to problems. An example would be the German Panther in World War 2 it was thrown together to be a copy of T-34 but lacked the ease of repair and reliability.

We have requirements for a vehicle family that the US don't have, such as extreme cold conditions for our artic, extreme heat for tropical deployments etc. We have in the past designed a vehicle that met our needs and was loved by friend and foe, the Canadian Military Pattern Truck. If we design in the military and put out bids to make it the savings and profits could be spent in the military.


----------



## KevinB

edadian said:
			
		

> We have requirements for a vehicle family that the US don't have, such as extreme cold conditions for our artic, extreme heat for tropical deployments etc.



I TOTALLY disagree - the US does more cold weather ops than us (Alaska, and Thule) 

Due to our low volume of buying we are much better off buying versions of what they get - simple due to economies of scale and parts overseas.


----------



## prom

edadian said:
			
		

> The Humvee foot print is part of the problem because it can't fit in chinooks. We always hitch rides in our allies even our old ones in Dutch service.
> 
> It would take a lot longer to plan a vehicle than 20mins because it would have to modular, flexible and easily repaired in field conditions. Slapping something together will ultimatly lead to problems. An example would be the German Panther in World War 2 it was thrown together to be a copy of T-34 but lacked the ease of repair and reliability.
> 
> We have requirements for a vehicle family that the US don't have, such as extreme cold conditions for our artic, extreme heat for tropical deployments etc. We have in the past designed a vehicle that met our needs and was loved by friend and foe, the Canadian Military Pattern Truck. If we design in the military and put out bids to make it the savings and profits could be spent in the military.



 ill do up everythign i have done and ill even scan in my drawings for it........ just give me a few hours to type it all out and ill show ya what i mean....... not a bad idea but it is rough and like i put in time lines you would have several months to work out the small details


----------



## ArmyRick

Extreme cold and tropical heat? Royal Marines Viking (BV206 armored or BV210 I beleive its called)...


----------



## prom

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Extreme cold and tropical heat? Royal Marines Viking (BV206 armored or BV210 I beleive its called)...




BV206 armored


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

It's called an S-10.  http://www.haggve.se/default.asp

This is being extensively discussed here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28436/post-239370.html#msg239370


----------



## prom

ahh ok....


http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehbv206.htm


i just checked it from here......


----------



## gaix

Here's a possible alternative to the Swedes....







http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/detail.aspx?pdid=128

http://www.one35th.com/attc/attc_intro.htm

Interesting comparisons to the BV S-10:
> Bronco offers better protection...
> ...higher payload (5T)... vs S-10's 2.8T...
> ... more space (larger cabins)... 
> ... lower price... cheaper parts... (S$ vs Euros!)...
> ... lower life cycle costs (possible... reasoning from lower parts costs)...
> ... equal performance on snow/artic conditions...
> ... greater number produced (several hundred Broncos have been produced)... more proven?

Just thought it is interesting that the asian Bronco could give a Swedish S-10 a run for it's money....


----------



## ThatsLife

I, myself as a 17 year old have my license, but have no experience driving the hummer. But from what i've read, not only will the hummer be cheaper on parts..when the hummer gets a flat tire, there's a button that will inflate the tire back up. I'll try and get some more specs on it. 






I'd pretty much feel safe if the hummer ever broke down and had angry civilians kicking and jumping all over it.


----------



## the 48th regulator

kewl,

is that u??

dileas

tess


----------



## Spanky

tess,
Do I detect a note of sarcasm?


----------



## Britney Spears

I also have a driver's licence, and I'd feel better if you just. stop. posting.


----------



## ThatsLife

No that's not me. And I love sarcasm, keep it up, it turns me on


----------



## ThatsLife

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I also have a driver's licence, and I'd feel better if you just. stop. posting.



Why? 

- Because i'm 17 and you're older which makes you superior to me?

- Because I don't have as many posts as you do which makes me unable to participate in any discussions?


----------



## the 48th regulator

> Why?
> 
> - Because i'm 17 and you're older which makes you superior to me?
> 
> - Because I don't have as many posts as you do which makes me unable to participate in any discussions?



naw I think it is because we find it odd you would post that pic, is all.

dileas

tess


----------



## Danjanou

ThatsLife said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> - Because i'm 17 and you're older which makes you superior to me?
> 
> - Because I don't have as many posts as you do which makes me unable to participate in any discussions?



 Nahh I think it's more you attitude here that is ticking people of. We were all 17 once, although for many of us that was a long time ago, and bear in mind that there are people here who we in the military when you were still an evil in Mommy and/or Daddy's eye (hey guys look I used the nice version of that phrase for once). That kind of counts for something on a military internet forum at least I tend to think so.

Might also have something to do with the info in your public profile too. Maybe it's just me but stuff like "couter-terrorist-dude007" and "DrKillyourself" and/or ninja references ad museum, tend to downgrade the credibility factor of a poster here irregardless of age.


----------



## Britney Spears

> Nahh I think it's more you attitude here that is ticking people of. We were all 17 once,



But did you have a DRIVER'S LICENCE?  

I mean, I'm the nicest person around the boards, and I applaud him for being so forthcoming with his credentials, but really, that only get's you so far.....


----------



## ThatsLife

I said I have my drivers license because some other 16/17 year old was talking about it the Itlis and the Hummer and some guy said "Well you don't have your license so it doesn't matter what you think"   i'm sorry I forgot to quote the guy, so shoot me.

And since when does my username  "counter_terrorist_dude007"  or "DrKillYourself"  have anything to do with what i'm posting. It's a screen name for an instant messenger. I don't know why people tend to bring that up.

And as for the ninja quote, so what? I think something is funny and automatically it ends up labeling me as an idiot? I don't get it, really..I don't.

And I post a pick of a hummvee. I'm automatically an idiot for posting it. Nice.


----------



## the 48th regulator

> i'm sorry I forgot to quote the guy, so shoot me.



nope you just did that, in the foot.



> And I post a pick of a hummvee. I'm automatically an idiot for posting it. Nice.



What do you think? Does it have anything to do with this thread?

Listen, I was 17 too, in fact I was 17 when I joined the 48th.  I was cocky, and thought the world shined on my aise!!

Your post, although done in earnest, well looked silly.  Let's be candid here, it is not the first time you have received this kind of attention, correct?  You have pressed the old post button and got the flak before....

Just take a pointer from us mate, and you won't see the response you got from this thread.

dileas

tess


----------



## ThatsLife

> What do you think? Does it have anything to do with this thread?



Well the fact that the thread is titled "Why we need humvs," and the fact the picture that I posted was a hummv, I fail to see where I went wrong.

But you know what? I'm a nice guy, I don't try to degrade people over the internet. You would think with age came maturity. But I guess in this case, the 'mature' regulars of the forum are turning that but of a teenage community forum, flaming people over the internet.

I'll let this go though, because I think I handled the situation quite well as opposed to random sarcastic remarks topped off with a rolling eye smiley.


I'm sorry on my behalf for being a 17 year old that enjoys playing video games, so allow me to delete my instant messenger user names. I mean, "Counter_Terrorist_Dude007" that was created years ago because I had just received te game "counter-strike", why does it still have relevance when it comes to posting? I remember someone already pointed this out, and I replied back "Well your screenname is "star wars (something)," I suppose because your screenname has reference to Star Wars, you think our air force trains in X-Wings and Death Stars and our army consists of storm troopers. 

I'm probably one of the nicest people you'd ever meet, peoples feelings comes before mine. But in this case, I can make an exception.

I'll stop responding to this threada now because I don't want it to be locked for getting off topic.


----------



## ThatsLife

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Nahh I think it's more you attitude here that is ticking people of. We were all 17 once, although for many of us that was a long time ago, and bear in mind that there are people here who we in the military when you were still an evil in Mommy and/or Daddy's eye (hey guys look I used the nice version of that phrase for once). That kind of counts for something on a military internet forum at least I tend to think so.
> 
> Might also have something to do with the info in your public profile too. Maybe it's just me but stuff like "couter-terrorist-dude007" and "DrKillyourself" and/or ninja references ad museum, tend to downgrade the credibility factor of a poster here irregardless of age.



One last thing.

You guys are ranting about my screen names and my forum signature tends to downgrade my credibility factor. Yet there is a user by the name of BRITNEY SPEARS with a picture of Britney Spears. Something tells me some people just enjoy bashing the teens.


----------



## George Wallace

If I recall correctly, he took quite a razing for it, until the story behind it was told.  So your point is.....?


----------



## Britney Spears

> until the story behind it was told.



It was? When was this? I never told any stories about it!   ;D


----------



## George Wallace

Ah!  The wonders of eating out of alluminium Mess Tins....  ;D


----------



## super_pookie

Well then i came here to post about the merits of Hummers and instead find no one is even havin a pissing contest, Cool.
Anyway what i wanted to say I prefer the G-Wagon over a Hummer heres why;

1) Im biased, Ive been a turret gunner in the G-wagon for the last six odd months
2) Over seas the americans were breaking down all the time and the only problems we had is one vehical's air conditoner went down

I would like to hear what everyone else thinks, but in my opinon we have no need for humvs.


----------



## ArmyRick

I remember the old Iltus quite well (and I was not fond of it). However I am waiting until I get qualified on G wagon before I pass judgement.


----------



## KevinB

I am NOT Garbage Wagon fan (credit to paracowboy for Garbage Wagon).

 When we took over from the Vandoo's they told us some horror about the "Fishbowl" (cant see out or hear etc..)

With the C&R varient it made an already tippy vehicle worse.

For what we do - I'd rather have the Iltis - nice and open and you can easily get out and 'smell the roses'.


----------



## Infanteer

Yeah, I loved the Iltis too - one step up from an ATV, but as good as you could get for having your nose to the ground.


----------



## super_pookie

KevinB said:
			
		

> I am NOT Garbage Wagon fan (credit to paracowboy for Garbage Wagon).
> 
> When we took over from the Vandoo's they told us some horror about the "Fishbowl" (cant see out or hear etc..)
> 
> With the C&R varient it made an already tippy vehicle worse.
> 
> For what we do - I'd rather have the Iltis - nice and open and you can easily get out and 'smell the roses'.


----------



## TCBF

I don't know why we just don't buy 400 VBLs from France and get it over with.  Proven vehicle. Can equip our Militia recce Regts (who can then supply drivers for missions) reasonable armament packages, nice and small.  I first saw them on Boeselager 92 in Germany.  Thought they were cute, but effective.

We seem to have this insane notion that we should buy a 'jeep' then throw armour on it.  Why not just buy an armoured car?  

Tom


----------



## baboon6

I'm sure this has been asked before but why in God's name did the CF buy hard-top G-Wagens? The Germans (and pretty much everyone else who uses them-Norwegians, Danes etc) have open-top ones with a ring-mount for a .50 Browning or Mk19, an MG3/C6 for the co-driver and even some with a second 7.62 machine gun pointing out the back. 

VBL- good idea Tom


----------



## ArmyRick

How about the DURO LTV by general dynamics? Its new, It can be fitted with the same 50 cal or MK19 PWS as the stryker APC has and it has a Kick *ss suspension? Check it out under products - tactical vehicles at www.gdls-canada.com


----------



## TCBF

They build the RST-V as well.

Meanwhile, the USA is sending 734 up-armoured M113A3s to Iraq.  Not getting much coverage...

http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/m113combat.htm

Tom


----------



## Steel Badger

I like the VBL idea........a much better veh than the G wagoon or the HMMV....


Can't see the reserves getting any (of a hypotheical buy)  but look what you can find on E-Bay!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

VBL is great, anything is great, as long as it's off the shelf and available now. It has to be bought for fair market price, from the manufacturer. The Canadian lobbyists, politicians, industrialists, etc, have to be kept out of the picture. The CDS has to go to the grass roots users, ask what they want for the mission he's given them, get their feed back and buy, off the shelf. The politicians need no part in the process, except to release the funds. Anything else comes at the risk of overspending, over analysing, over thinking of the situation, for years on end. The worst case scenario, is the loss of life on operation, due to the procurement and financial gain for a pandering, pompous politician and his riding because "we need things Canadian" .


----------



## paracowboy

it's been explained to me many times (and on here once or twice, I believe) but I still fail to understand why we waste so much time/money "researching" these things. The research is being done by the grown-up armies in the UK, the US, Oz, and Israel. 

Here's my research plan: "Is it working right now, for somebody in an actual theatre? Cool! Call 'em up an' ask what's good/bad about it. Get back to me. And gimme my damn porn mag back!"


----------



## ArmyRick

Grown up armies, LOL.

Canada "Hey big brother america, can we come on this op?"
America "Only if you want to be serious, little canada, this is not one of those token missions!"


----------



## doka_man

hey.i highly agree.one of you were saying that they are too hard on gas but the Ilits are very old therefor the engines use a lot more gas then they used to wether its a new injector or not.the Humvee is tre cool.but like he said they arnt landmine proof.it wouldn't be the most practical thing to get but would be great because how often do u find the Canadian military driving through a land mine Field.in the end it would be cool and it might encourage more people to join the forces but we should save the money and put it towards new hercs because they are way to out dated.if we dont get the Humvees we should do a lot of repairs to the other vehicles like rebuilding the engines and replacing parts they will be more efficient and last longer.AND NOT THE NEW EDITION THAT SOMEONE HAD THE PICTURE OF.too much money and not as cool as the original humvee.


----------



## RequiemVK

Effort to replace Humvee sped up
By Steven Komarow, USA TODAY

The Pentagon is accelerating its search to replace the Humvee after two years of roadside bomb blasts and suicide attacks in Iraq that have killed hundreds of soldiers in a vehicle not designed for urban combat. 

the rest here : http://feeds.afghanistannews.net/?rid=333aa522c693019f&cat=6e1d5c8e1f98f17c&f=1


----------



## TN2IC

Da_man said:
			
		

> I think that if we had humvs, life would be better.   You dont have to worry about a wheel to come off or something.   Its armored and landmine proof, so no more you know what.





Ah.... I know I"m late in this game... but I do know that the wheel can come off. I drove these Hummers and they are crap...IMO.


----------



## Wolfe

The new hummers they want to build look pretty nice....

Wolf


----------



## Kyle

super_pookie said:
			
		

> Well then i came here to post about the merits of Hummers and instead find no one is even havin a pissing contest, Cool.
> Anyway what i wanted to say I prefer the G-Wagon over a Hummer heres why;
> 
> 1) Im biased, Ive been a turret gunner in the G-wagon for the last six odd months
> 2) Over seas the americans were breaking down all the time and the only problems we had is one vehical's air conditoner went down
> 
> I would like to hear what everyone else thinks, but in my opinon we have no need for humvs.



We don't have the budget to buy and run both jeeps and 4x4 armoured vehicles, and I don't think that we can simply discard jeeps (yes, France does have the VBL, but they also drive the VLTT - Peugeot P4), so I think we made the best of a situation where DND wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Besides, the Americans must have seen something in the G-Class, because the USMC bought the G-290 for their Force Recon operations.

But getting back to your original quote, if it came to having a jeep and an armoured 4x4, I think I'd skip the HMMWV and go right for the Panhard VBL.  ;D



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yeah, I loved the Iltis too - one step up from an ATV, but as good as you could get for having your nose to the ground.



This made me think of an interesting question. How do you in the Combat Arms feel about the trend towards vehicles with more armour? Do you feel that it's a good thing because it protects better against small arms fire and anti-personnel mines, or that it's counterproductive, because it isolates you from the local population and environment around you?


----------



## axeman

Quote from: Da_man on January 03, 2004, 10:25:00
I think that if we had humvs, life would be better.  You dont have to worry about a wheel to come off or something.  Its armored and landmine proof, so no more you know what.





Ah.... I know I"m late in this game... but I do know that the wheel can come off. I drove these Hummers and they are crap...IMO.

Every one has an opinion im in favor of the hummers but i know they are mine RESISTANT not mine PROOF,, mine proof means you'd never have to worry about wacking a mine .. being mine resistant means you may get lucky in a mine strike case ..
VBL's are mine resistant as are the hummers  gwagons are also. it all depends on ho.w the drivers use and abuse them and the maintaners work on them .. i had a flat and a pan leak on the one i had in Afghanistan before it became scrap metal due to a mine strike . im very pro hummer  but i'd like to see the vbls in use as ive seen them used in bosnia with great results
thats my IMHO


----------



## Kirkhill

baboon6 said:
			
		

> I'm sure this has been asked before but why in God's name did the CF buy hard-top G-Wagens? The Germans (and pretty much everyone else who uses them-Norwegians, Danes etc) have open-top ones with a ring-mount for a .50 Browning or Mk19, an MG3/C6 for the co-driver and even some with a second 7.62 machine gun pointing out the back.
> 
> VBL- good idea Tom



CF and PWGSC trying to be all things to all people, end up penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Infantry types seem to just want a vehicle to move their tails from point a to point b.  Somebody starts shooting they would rather get out and walk (rapidly) to the nearest hill or other solid object.

Armour types seem to want a vehicle that will bounce bullets so that they don't have to move too far from their boiling pots while exiting the area. (Presumably there are other tactical advantages to not having to get out and walk).

Cheers ;D


----------



## AoD71

You know what I think would be cool?! That new Jeep Commander!

http://www.jeep.com/commander/home_flash.html?section=&edirect=

Come on, how cool is that?! I know the G wagon is small and will fit in tight places, but the thing looks like it would be easy to roll in an accident. The Army should have the Commander cuz its a friggin beast, and IMO we all need one of those. Look, you could take out the back seats and put in a dance floor! You just have a removable top, and you can school your buddies while on tour overseas. Good moral-booster! What do you guys think?


----------



## Timex129

Being a tech myself, I feel we don't need Humvs in the CF. For the following resons;
1 They're too wide to have on most operations oversea's to be useful. (hint narrow roadways BAD)
2 The transmission that are in them are not the greatest (from what I heard from other techs that put time on them)
3 They have worst fuel milage than a wreacker with a vehicle on the back. (the HL weacker get about 2/k highway with a causality)

Although I would admit it would rise our look cool factor, The LUVW that replace the Iltis is a well rounded rig that is better suited for the job than an humv.


----------



## Koenigsegg

In my opinion the hummvs are too stretched out in terms of their jobs and capabilities.   They came into service as an unarmed personnel carrier(to replace the jeep that was in service since WWII), then it got a machine gun mounted.   Now adays they come with Grenade launchers, rocket launchers, jamming, anti-aircraft, new microwave technology, mobile command (I think) station, and ambulances.   It does not no do any these armed jobs very well, but it pulls them off adequately.   But when it is an American vehicle, and they have tons of them, they feel that they can lose a few doing jobs the vehicle was not meant for.
I would prefer to have a vehicle better to do all these tasks, or better yet, although it would cost a lot more, have specialized vehicles meant for each one of these jobs.


----------



## 2Charlie

Read through the various posts in here and it blows me away at how many folks with little or no exposure to a vehicle can talk of it.

The HMMWV High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle was designed to replace two types of vehicles and has done so well.  The old venerable jeep and the so called light vehicle role, with a level of medium lift being absorbed.

It had always been designed as a multi-use, multi-weapons platform.  

It was designed to survive threats akin to Soviet doctrine.  Nowhere in that doctrine did IEDS exist.

Some of you have pulled proverbial fecal matter out of your backside on the HMMWV.

I work in an operational theatre and have seen the effects of IEDs on G-Wagons and up armoured HMMWVs.  Sorry folks I will take the ill named Hummer.

All the BS about to wide etc, you have operated these where and gone where with them?  Exactly.

The IED's being used can bore a hole into and in one case through a heavily armored vehicle.  Neither the G-wagon or Hummer would stand a chance.

From a platform standpoint, the Hummer is far superior, has a heavier payload (ammo) capability and can muscle through when needed.  G-Wagons, glad the CF got them, time will tell if it was money well spent.  

As for the comment about the US offering equipment.

The US did offer to outfit a Brigade with heavy armour, light armour and wheeled vehicles on a quasi loan lease one for one deal.  It was an offer to help us maintain our NATO capabilities.  The Tories where in hot water and it was kept low pri.  When the Tories got crushed, so did many of the military initiatives.  And yes the parts and service contract was US based.  Even though they would have most likely outsourced to Bombardier.  A big reason it was squashed was it would have been seen as a pro-US move by a government that has been waving an anti-Merican flag since they busted the Tories out of power and cancelled the maritime helicopter program.

But hey, central Canada will re-elect the Liberals and they will continue their financial rape and pillage unchecked.


----------



## GO!!!

I patrolled extensively around K-har in 2002 in up-armoured Humvees - no real complaints - it got us everywhere we wanted to go, but we did'nt get hit with VIEDs/IEDs.

Maintainers hated them, said that they were hard to work on and unreliable. The dust, heat and a thousand km over broken ground or crappy roads every three or four days might have had something to do with that too though. 

The new G-Wagens are not too bad, but seem to be very top heavy - and I imagine will be more so with the turret. And sure they are reliable now - but wait until they have 5 years of hard use on 'em.

As for all the "look cool" statements about how humvees would help recruiting - sum up - kit is for using, not showing off.

After the suicide bombers and IEDs in Afghanistan, the LUVW seems to be doing alright, If we had to choose between them, I'd say that the humvee is probably the better choice, given the high price of the G-Wagon and it's components.


----------



## Koenigsegg

When the vehicle was first brought into service, it was for the mostpart unarmed, shortly after its introduction they planted a machine gun ontop.  And as things came up, they thought, Oh, let's do this, Let's do this, Let's do this.  One of the things I was getting at was, almost no vehicle that remains the same, only modified in minimal ways as it must, will be as good in any job as a vehicle made for that job.  Such a thing was very evident in WWII among other conflicts.  It would be like Canada mounting a bunch of guns on the Iltis, it would work, but not as well as it probably should.  As in the Vietnam War, they placed a machine gun on the M113, thinking it would all the problems.  It by no means did, It helped, provided cover for the troops while they left, and saved some lives.  But it did not do all they said it would for protection, and was not an all fixing addition.  Aslo like using F4 Phantams for the close air support role.  It worked, but they moved too damn fast to be trully effective when compared to the Douglas aircraft mainly meant for the job.

The HMMWVvs do a good job when used correctly, and are useful.  However I feel they should not be adopted into our services.


----------



## a_majoor

Like so many other things, the HMMVW is designed to meet certain parameters, and does them well. It is NOT a combat vehicle, recce vehicle, gunship or anything along those lines, the fact it can do these roles is a testament to the designer's good sense. I defy you to take your car/pickup truck/SUV and add over a tonne of extra armour and other devices on it, plug in 2 or 3 times the number of electronic systems that were origionally installed, then lend it to all your friends for several years to drive like maniacs and not wonder why the thing looks like it is worn out.

This defines the parameters of the "new" vehicle, it needs to take the same footprint as the HMMVW or smaller, yet do all the things the HMMVW can do as well as act as a fighting vehicle when needed. I still think a common chassis which is armoured and "mine proofed" to the door sills would be a good start, the utility version can have a soft top, while things like Recce platforms, ATGM/AA, LO vehicles etc. would have a fully armoured shell.


----------



## CanadianBoy92

Humvees are amazing trucks.  They can be used for all kinds of roles.   I think we should trade in all of our trucks and buy som Humvees.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

CB92,
You should be listening to the teacher right now while in your computer class and if you won't listen then you should do some reading here first before you post.


----------



## CanadianBoy92

Ha  your really smart because im in computer class!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I know where also so start folowing the site guidelines or you will be gone.....


----------



## CanadianBoy92

I was just doing some research on dimensions on the Humvee compared to the lav 3.  I keep hearing people say that the Humvee is to wide and to big to do its job, well the lav 3 is alot bigger then the Humvee. The lav 3 is 2.7M in width, and the Humvee is 7.08ft.  Also i hear people say the Humvee is a gas guzzler well it can holds 25 gallons and can travel 350 miles on a highway. That sounds a bit better then the lav 3, wouldn't you say?


----------



## TN2IC

Ah.. ain't the Humvee and LAV III a totally differnet class? I really don't know anything that much  for SMP's... so I am going to stop now ... *sigh*


----------



## Slim

CanadianBoy92 said:
			
		

> I was just doing some research on dimensions on the Humvee compared to the lav 3.  I keep hearing people say that the Humvee is to wide and to big to do its job, well the lav 3 is alot bigger then the Humvee. The lav 3 is 2.7M in width, and the Humvee is 7.08ft.  Also i hear people say the Humvee is a gas guzzler well it can holds 25 gallons and can travel 350 miles on a highway. That sounds a bit better then the lav 3, wouldn't you say?



How many times do you need to be brought up by your tail and told to knock it off. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. There are plenty of serving and retired soldiers who have driven one or the other (or both) that are on thi site. let thenm do the talking.

For Heaven's sake you just got off C&P today! And you're alreaqdy back at it!

You stay quiet and listen and learn.

last chance


----------



## 48Highlander

I can't beleive this thread is still going...

Even the yanks are planning on replacing the HMMWV, so I really don't understand those who advocate us aquiring them.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Yep,
Time for a break.


----------

