# G-Wagon turret



## rick7475 (20 Dec 2005)

Just curious if anyone has any stories or more pics of the new G-Wagon turret. What weapons can it support (C-6 only?).

Article and pic can be found here:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?FlashEnabled=1&id=669


I would be interested if it has been successful, if there are stress problems, if it is practical, etc.

Thanks,
Rick


----------



## CanadianBoy92 (20 Dec 2005)

Those things look way outdated I can't believe we have those.  We should replace them with Humvees ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Dec 2005)

Last chance kid........stop!!!


----------



## Spanky (20 Dec 2005)

From the video, they can mount a .50 cal or a C6.  I believe the armoured school was (is) experimenting with diffeferent grenade launchers and Anti-armour.


----------



## GO!!! (20 Dec 2005)

The G-Wagen turret was "invented" by two Patricias, a Sgt and a CSM, in conjunction with NRC.

It went from concept to deployed in less than two months, no contractors, bids, or government interference.

By all the accounts I've heard, it has saved lives a few times, although it does make the vehicle a little top heavy.

In any event, it is head and shoulders above what we had before - which was nothing.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Dec 2005)

"The G-Wagen turret was "invented" by two Patricias, a Sgt and a CSM, in conjunction with NRC"

Wow.  That's cool.


----------



## rick7475 (21 Dec 2005)

It would seem to me a very practical innovation. Have any other members of foreign militaries commented on it?


----------



## Koenigsegg (21 Dec 2005)

Dont other countries (I guess I mean Germany) have some G-Wagens with turrets?   Nothing fancy, just a gun on a rotating mount.
But I was wondering about a turret ever since they were put into our service.

And CanadianBoy, if you are still lurking around, The G-Wagens are pretty much as old as the HMMWVs, a little older really, but that is for the first of the line stuff that MB was first trying to sell off.   The ones we own were new when we bought them (unless I was lied to by many people).   I know you know nothing, and are just trying to get a rise out of the people who post here, But I will appease you just once.

But, yes, indeed, the turret should be a good addition from what little I have read about it.


----------



## McG (21 Dec 2005)

rick7475 said:
			
		

> It would seem to me a very practical innovation. Have any other members of foreign militaries commented on it?


There was a lot of press when it was first fielded.  Apparently the use of balistic glass to provide improved field of view is pretty cutting edge.

It would be nice to see these for the handfull of Bisons that we have over there.


----------



## Bartok5 (21 Dec 2005)

The G-Wagon gun-shield design was the brainchild of MWO Billy Bolen and Sgt Chris Thombs - both members of B Coy 3 PPCLI, serving with the PRT.  The information above regarding the extremely short-term design refinement, production and implementation is accurate.  Score one for the "end-user".

The only problem is that the gun-shield is quite heavy and therefore stresses the aluminum mounting ring for the standard unprotected G-Wagon turret ring with soft weapon-mount.  The bolts that secure the up-armour package to the G-Wagon turret ring have been stripping the aluminum threads of the mounting ring, leading to failure.  The trick may be to better balance the weight of the up-armour package, thereby eliminating its current front-heavy nature.  The "tech wahlahs" are currently working in conjunction with Mercedes design personnel to address the problem.  

All agree that the gun-shield system is a "must have".  It is already firmly credited with saving at least 2 lives during a suicide bombing and the more recent IED attack.  We simply need to refine the concept so that it is sustainable without unduly stressing the stock turret assembly of the G-Wagon C&R variant.  Failing that, we look at beefing up the turret assembly to properly support the gun-shields.  Either way, those shields are the "cat's behind" and are here to stay in one form or another.   All thanks to "in-theatre soldier ingenuity", combined with a VERY refreshing willingness of the tech development system to recognize, support and immediately implement an identified operational requirement.  

Good news all around.  The minor "teething problems" will undoubtedly get sorted ASAP.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jan 2006)

Nice to hear a good news story and kudos to the frontline guys that did this, to bad the press totally ignores this, think I will ask my politicians tonight at the all candidates meetings what they would do to encourage this type of stuff.


----------



## Armymatters (17 Jan 2006)

Necessity is the mother of invention. There was a need for a armoured G-Wagon turret that didn't impede visability, and we went and developed the turret. Simple as that.


----------



## xxtruthxx (27 Jan 2006)

"Necessity is the mother of invention"
Now if we only apply that theroy to the MGS. Sry about the off topic.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jan 2006)

Waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy off topic


----------



## 3rd Horseman (28 Jan 2006)

Nice modification in short time well done. Looks like an improvement on the Israeli gun ballistic glass turret used on 113s rear gunner position in Lebanon. Cant help but wonder if we are going down a dangerous road by turreting a soft skin veh that is not a true AFV we may and appears are using the veh for tasks that a full up AFV should be doing.


----------



## GO!!! (28 Jan 2006)

RUMINT has us acquiring larger numbers of Mambas/Nyalas for use in A-stan.

These would make the LUVW a useful interim or transitional vehicle, that have performed quite well thus far.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Jan 2006)

hopefully they can forgo all the red tape and get these vehicles out to the boys and girls on the ground.


----------



## Cabose (6 Feb 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> There was a lot of press when it was first fielded.  Apparently the use of balistic glass to provide improved field of view is pretty cutting edge.
> 
> It would be nice to see these for the handfull of Bisons that we have over there.


Cutting edge eh? I would have thought Some one would have come up with that years ago.


----------



## the burkalator (29 Mar 2006)

hey man what garisson are you from with the hasty p's? whats ur last name?  

cheers, 

matt


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Mar 2006)

"hey man what garisson are you from with the hasty p's? whats ur last name?"

Perhaps best left to PM's wouldn't you say.


----------



## lostrover (6 Apr 2006)

As a side note the base GVW rating opt the Glendelwagon is 5423lbs, the armoured version 8900 lbs, approx 10500lbs with pers and kit............add the turret to either vehicle and the average battle load.....the vehicle will be stressed same as the uparmoured M1114's (Humvee.base 7200lbs uparmoured 9800lbs, with pers and kit approx 12000lbs), in adding armour the platform is stressed, on the M114 primarily along the b-channel (regretfully no word is out on the Glendelwagon as yet).  Taking into account the track width of the Humvee at 72" versus that of the Glendelwagon 59", and the operating environment, most mobility/serviceability benefits of the platform are negated, save for the armour.  TLAV = Yes, approx same mileage as an uparmoured light vehicle, increased capacity, more weaponry  options and the list goes on.....something to ponder  (the kit the CF now has is cats-ass better than what we used to..........but so has the theatre of operations)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Apr 2006)

So why don't they use the same turret on the Bison?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (10 Apr 2006)

lostrover said:
			
		

> TLAV = Yes, approx same mileage as an uparmoured light vehicle, increased capacity, more weaponry  options and the list goes on.....something to ponder(



Yeah but T-LAV's *NOT* deployable overseas. I drove 3 or 4 different versions of the T-LAV's and as result of a test done by LFTEU these vehicles are not ready to go overseas. In a 3 month period we went through 15 powerpacks (engine and transmission) when used with max combat weight of the vehicle so there is something wrong with that.

Incidentally when they first trialed the T-LAV the engine used was the CAT engines but when they went to production they dumped in a Detroit Diesel upgraded powertrain with a 400 hp 6V53TIA electronically controlled engine.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> So why don't they use the same turret on the Bison?






By the way the Bison does not have a turret.


----------



## sabot41 (10 Apr 2006)

why would'nt they mount a RWS on top, plenty of spares sitting around??


----------



## Nfld Sapper (10 Apr 2006)

Where would you hide all the hydraulics/electrical motors to allow it traverse and the like? The vehicle is already cramped as it its.


----------



## sabot41 (10 Apr 2006)

all external components are attached to the mount, day camera w/ uncooled 3rd generation thermal sight, eletrical traverse and elevation motors, C-6 MG, about 300 lbs in total. Heads up display and joystick mounted inside, takes up little room at all. Plus it goes with army policy of being able to fight vehicle from closed down position, sounds like current turret option does not allow for this.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (10 Apr 2006)

Like I said earlier, can't really see the RWS platform on these type of vehicles as you still need to be able to access the wpns system to clear jams and to load/unload. This would mean that the system would have to be mounted to one side of the roof and this will result in a stable vehicle (more so that what it is now).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Apr 2006)

Nfld_Sapper said:
			
		

> By the way the Bison does not have a turret.



I know they don't, I am asking why does the Bison's I see only have a MG ring and the G-wagons have a protected weapon station, why not add the same protection to the Bison MG?


----------



## Black Watch (1 Jun 2006)

Spanky said:
			
		

> From the video, they can mount a .50 cal or a C6.  I believe the armoured school was (is) experimenting with diffeferent grenade launchers and Anti-armour.


ERYX?


----------



## Enzo (1 Jun 2006)

Black Watch said:
			
		

> ERYX?



Are you asking which anti-armour option or the ERYX specifically?


----------



## Black Watch (1 Jun 2006)

yes


----------



## GO!!! (3 Jun 2006)

Black Watch,

The Eryx is not used for a number of reasons, most of which are directly related to;

1) Virtually no gunners who have fired a live missile (rounds too expensive)

2) Missile is extremely fragile, making it unreliable even when man - packed. I think that this would be exacerbated if it were affixed to a vehicle.

3) No system (that I am aware of) to fire an Eryx from a vehicle - shoulder and ground mount only.

4) Short range. 

5) Optically tracked (gunner must remain exposed and pointing at tgt until impact)

6) No reliable (or realistic) simulators.

7) No requirement. There is no armour threat in Afghanistan right now, with most veh threats being limited to soft skin vehicles, an Automatic grenade launcher or M2 will work just fine. These are cheap, reliable, proven, and simple to use. The Eryx was made, and purchased for the cold war.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jun 2006)

Here's a pic of a nice RWS that I spied a while back - Javelin + M2.


----------



## combatbuddha (7 Jul 2006)

The Turret ring is a good idea but very, very poor design. We can thank the people at Mercedes for that. The addition of the gunshield and accompanying equipment was not the direct cause of turret ring failures. These items amplified and hastened a condition that would have happened otherwise. This was proven when we "stole" rings off "Op Stock" vehicles that didn't have gunshields, and found the mounting inserts on these to be stripped as well. It was better to have the gunshield kits installed than to leave our gunners exposed, so we stole rings and bastardized things to keep the PRT on the road, in good EME fashion. The greater good. Lets not forget the Mat Tech who was also involved throughout the whole process of procurement, installation and fault finding/ investigation. 
 Once Mercedes or DND find a good turret ring to mount to the roof of not only the G Wagon, but ALL our soft skinned wheeled vehicles, we will be heading in the right direction. Force protection is a defintie need.
 PS we also experimented on an armoured glass windshield for the Bison, and tried to mount a gunshield for the CC, but both these proved ineffective. Best thing we found to work.............eyeball defilade and speed.


----------

