# Article: General defends armoured vehicles after deaths in Afghanistan



## vonGarvin (23 Jul 2006)

From http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/23/troop-carrier060723.html 1300 22 July 2006.
As relatives in Canada await the arrival of the bodies of two slain soldiers, military commanders in Afghanistan are again defending the vehicles supplied to Canadian troops. 

Corporals Francisco Gomez, 44, and Jason Patrick Warren, 29, died on Saturday when a suicide bomber rammed their eight-wheeled Bison troop carrier near the coalition base in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

The Bison is one of the more heavily armoured vehicles used in the Kandahar area, where suicide attacks and roadside bombs make every patrol potentially deadly.

But the Canadian military has faced some criticisms in the past from people who said its vehicles weren't sufficient to protect troops against the dangers they faced. Some of Canada's early casualties in Afghanistan were in Iltis light utility jeeps, which were dismissed by at least one grieving father as "made of pop cans."

Brig.-Gen. David Fraser, the commander of the Canadian-led multinational brigade based in Kandahar, said the troops are not being short-changed on armour.

The vehicles now used by Canadian troops include the Bison, the LAV-3 (another eight-wheeled armoured troop carrier) and the Mercedes-Benz G-Wagon heavy jeep.

"We have mitigated the risk, I think, as best any nation can," Fraser said.

"Our soldiers' protective equipment … has saved lives. We are second to no one in the world, and second to no one in this theatre [of battle], in what we've done to mitigate and provide our troops with what we can."

The bodies of the two corporals are to be flown home on Monday. Six Afghans were also killed in the attack, and eight other Canadian soldiers were wounded.

I'd have to agree that the armoured vehicles have been instrumental in saving lives over there.  Not to mention the PPE (Ballistic eye wear, armoured plates, etc).  Let's just hope that the media starts asking the wrong questions.  (Ha!  Like that _ever _ happens!)


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Jul 2006)

No amount of armor can provide 100% protection if the bomb is big enough. Even 70t tanks are not bomb proof. Best defense is to be alert and rely on your training.

http://www.blastinjury.org/

http://www.dvbic.org/blastinjury.html


----------



## pbi (23 Jul 2006)

Anybody with half a schmick knows that the LAVs and Bisons, since we bought them, have probably saved many more lives than have been lost. By way of comparison, (for those of us that remember serving in them), just think what the results in an AVGP or M113 might have been.

Cheers


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jul 2006)

Actually, the AVGPs performed very well to mine strikes in Somolia and other locals.  That whole family of vehicles is well designed and only getting better.


----------



## HDE (23 Jul 2006)

It'd be useful to see the credentials of those offering the "criticism" and what evidence they offer to support their claims.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jul 2006)

I doubt any are from MOWAG, GM Diesel, or General Dynamics.


----------



## GK .Dundas (23 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I doubt any are from MOWAG, GM Diesel, or General Dynamics.


>..........Can you say......<looks around> Sparky?<whisper>


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jul 2006)

You would have to mention that twits name.......now quickly now erase all mention of it.....


----------



## GK .Dundas (23 Jul 2006)

We could build a thousand tonne APC and sooner or later someone would find a way to kill it. It is and always been a race between armour developers and Anti-Armour weapon designers.


----------



## MasterStryker (25 Jul 2006)

Our LAVs are very well protected. Just look at the way they can take a direct from an RPG. It still doesn't matter though because it all depends on the amount of explosives they pack into an IED.


----------



## Red 6 (25 Jul 2006)

It's the old argument with armored vehicles of mobility vs protection. The reality is that you can't engineer a vehicle to protect against every single battlefield threat. The Bradley went thru several years of media stupidity int he early to mid 80s. There was even a 60 Minutes story about what a lousy vehicle it was. You guys know the routine— an "expose" on cost overruns, weak armor protection, maintenance nightmares— blah blah blah. But after Desert Storm, when the Bradley proved itself a capable and reliable combat vehicle, all the naysayers shut up. Don't worry, this business will blow over to.


----------



## C/10 (26 Jul 2006)

so how does the Nayla ( not sure on spelling) hold up compared to the rest.


----------



## Jammer (1 Aug 2006)

Awesome...one took an IED hit in May...everyone walked away from it...albeit with their bells rung a bit.


----------



## MJP (1 Aug 2006)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Awesome...one took an IED hit in May...everyone walked away from it...albeit with their bells rung a bit.



They didn't all walk away......they driver was still pretty badly injured in the sense he is just walking again right now.  The vehicle did what it was suppose to and deflect the killing blast away from the occupants.  Totally demolished the front of the vehicle but left the crew compartment together.


----------



## Jammer (1 Aug 2006)

Rgr that...I was on site for that one...thanking our stars it wasn't a G..


----------

