# Floor cracks plaguing new military jeeps



## Spartan (6 Dec 2004)

ctv.ca

Floor cracks plaguing new military jeeps
CTV.ca News Staff

Canada's new armoured jeeps are popular with troops for the protection they afford and their air-conditioned interiors. But it appears they have developed a disconcerting problem - cracks in their floors.

Lt.-Col. Jacques Beaudoin, the jeep project manager, says 85 per cent of the Mercedes G-Wagons sent to Canadian troops in Afghanistan have developed cracks in the floorboards.

CTV's Matt McClure, reporting from Kabul, says he had a look at the cracks Monday afternoon.

"They're not very visible to the eye in most cases. But there are holes in the floorboards beneath the passenger and driver side that are about the size of your finger," he told Newsnet.

"These have developed apparently because of the stress the vehicles are facing on the rough terrain here, and also perhaps because of the heavy armour these vehicles have been equipped with to protect the troops."

Beaudoin says the cracks are of a cosmetic nature and are not compromising the safety of the occupants. 

"They have no impact on the structural integrity of the vehicle and no impact on occupant safety or mine protection. This is not a major concern at this point.''

He says tests conducted on prototypes last year uncovered floor cracking at the 80,000-km mark. 

The problem seems to have only arisen in vehicles with the 700-member Canadian NATO contingent in Kabul. 

About one-third of the 1,000 vehicles Canada has ordered have been delivered, and about 100 of them are now in Kabul.

Officials from the Defence Department and Mercedes-Benz have visited Kabul and assessed the problem. Because the vehicles are still under warranty, Mercedes says every single one will be retrofitted with an improved floor at no cost to taxpayers. 

They will be fitted with a double floor extending to the vehicle's firewall. Beaudoin says the correction will be tested and implemented on the production line.

The military sped up delivery of the vehicles last year, after two Canadians were killed by a land mine while driving an unarmoured Iltis jeep near Kabul. 

Canada has also bought 1,060 GM Silverado utility vehicles.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Dec 2004)

> Beaudoin says the cracks are of a cosmetic nature and are not compromising the safety of the occupants.



That line scares me.   How can a crack in an 'armoured' vehicle floor no compromise the safety of the occupants?   Doesn't this guy drive a car?   If he does, I want to know what he's driving so I can stay well clear of him.

GW


----------



## dodge01rt (7 Dec 2004)

Do we have another Iltis on our hands? :


----------



## 043 (7 Dec 2004)

That line scares me.  How can a crack in an 'armoured' vehicle floor no compromise the safety of the occupants?  Doesn't this guy drive a car?  If he does, I want to know what he's driving so I can stay well clear of him.

Well for starters...............the vehicle is not armoured at all. It is a standard vehicle that has been given add-on Armour in order to give more protection to the passengers.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2004)

So do we take from this that the G-wagen can protect against Small-Arms and maybe some distant Arty bursts, but not the Mines that were the primary concern with the Iltis as well as being vulnerable to the ubiquitous RPG?  

I know. Nobody said it was supposed to be RPG proof.  It was supposed to be mine-resistant and I, like George, have difficulty believing that the floor of the vehicle can crack, destroying structural integrity, and the vehicle will still protect the occupants against a mine-strike.

Better they should have bought a vehicle with a mine protected base and leave off some of the top-hamper for the light patrol role.  Then buy something like George's Ferret mk 101 or 12A's Fennek for medium armoured recce work.


----------



## Gunnerlove (10 Dec 2004)

If stress is causing the floors to crack where is that stress now being transfered to?

If the floor is stressed by the rough terrain then it must be load bearing and thus structural (it is the floor).


A cosmetic failure is something like paint delamination not cracks you can see through. 


But thats just my opinion.


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (10 Dec 2004)

Now, there is German manufacturing for you. its too bad the gov't didnt get better jeeps.
but then again they always seem to not be able to buy the right kit for our nations best.
a crack in the floor must mean that the vehicle has a structural problem, lets hope something real actually gets fixed here.


----------



## Armymedic (11 Dec 2004)

Without diving into the pool of speculation that everyone seems to be swimming in here...

The cracks are very small, no more then 3-5 cm long, not big gapping holes.
They are in the floor boards, not the armour protection. 
The vehicles are protected again rounds and fragments up to and including 7.62mm, the LUVW is NOT mine resistant as I am sure any Sapper will tell you. If your not sure what I mean, research what happens to the up armoured Hummers in Iraq that hit anti tank mines.

Holes in a floor of a vehicles body does not necessarily mean its not structurally sound...cracks in the frame, on the other hand would. 

The good news of this is, the problem was found early, and measures are being taken to correct the problem.

BTW,


			
				dodge01rt said:
			
		

> Do we have another Iltis on our hands? :


I hate comments like this.. :rage:..any piece of equipment can be garbage if it used in the "it'll do cause we have nothing else" role. If you never drove one, then sum it up.


----------



## armybuck041 (15 Dec 2004)

Mike Cotts said:
			
		

> That line scares me.   How can a crack in an 'armoured' vehicle floor no compromise the safety of the occupants?   Doesn't this guy drive a car?   If he does, I want to know what he's driving so I can stay well clear of him.
> 
> Well for starters...............the vehicle is not armoured at all. It is a standard vehicle that has been given add-on Armour in order to give more protection to the passengers.



And to add to Mikes point.... The part that really picks my ass with all of this is that a Nyala (Mine Protective Vehicle used by Engineer Recce) is only a couple of thousand more than an "Up Armoured" G-Wagon and the mine protection value is much better than a Bison and almost double that of a LAV III. In addition, the Cab/Body is designed to protect from sustained 7.62 fire and RPG-7 below the Glass. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RG-31

http://www.unomig.org/event_gali_hq.html (Lots of pics)

Add on armour packages are bandaid solutions.... Anyone remember those "Up Armoured" LSVW's they cobbled together for IFOR? What a waste of $$$$


----------



## ArmyRick (5 Jan 2005)

"crack in an 'armoured' vehicle floor no compromise the safety"
Absolutely correct. 
Once we ground the whole fleet, the cracks will not present any danger to anybody while they sit in an empty parking lot.


----------



## armybuck041 (7 Jan 2005)

IMO there is nothing you can bolt onto a LUVW sized vehicle to make it mine resistant from an ANTI-TANK mine threat.

The reasons why the Nyala, Mamba and the Bison to some extent, are so effective against mine strikes is because of the shape of the hull. They also have a great deal more mass and rigidity. A great deal of the injuries sustained in a Mine Strike are caused by the actual forces placed on the Vehicle and not just the blast and frag itself. So, that being said the lighter/smaller the vehicle, the more catastrophic these effects will be. Even in true MPV's, crew's sustained serious injuries from the rapid lift of the vehicle during a minestrike.

The whole purpose of a Bolt on Armour package (Except for the LAV III under-armour package) is to deal with the RPG, Small Arms fire and Arty - Bomb Fragment threat.   

EDIT: although I have not personally read the specs on the G-Wagon Up-Armour package, if it does say anything about mine protection, i'm sure the word "limited" is close by.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Jan 2005)

To add to armybuck041's statement; the suspensions are also designed to absorb a lot of the blast and blow off as opposed to further damaging the vehicle by tearing the hulls apart.

GW


----------

