# Army trucks stopped in their tracks due to safety concerns



## 57Chevy (17 Jan 2011)

Army trucks stopped in their tracks due to safety concerns

The army has restricted the use of almost 300 trucks because of safety concerns that their turrets could come loose.

The Canadian Forces is now in the process of fixing the problems on 287 of the trucks, known in the military as the Light Utility Vehicle Wheeled (LUVW).

The army has known about the problem since mid-2008 when soldiers at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, N.B., discovered one of their LUVW turrets had become loose.

In May 2010, the service put restrictions on the use of some of vehicles, stipulating they "may only be operated if authorized by area commanders for high priority activities, provided thorough weekly inspections are completed," noted army spokesman Maj. Martell Thompson.

The restrictions affect about a third of the LUVWs, also known as G-Wagons, currently in service.

Thompson pointed out that modifications to the vehicles are ongoing and are expected to be completed by March.

The LUVW fleet is heavily used for training in Canada by both regular force and reserve units, he added.

After the problem was first discovered, the army sent out messages outlining inspection procedures that take around four hours per vehicle.

An army source claimed the situation with the LUVWs was "no big deal."

But documents obtained by the Ottawa Citizen point out that army units were "having difficulty completing the inspections, and in some cases have chosen to park vehicles as opposed to committing four hours per vehicle per week to inspection time. A considerable number of these vehicles belong to Primary Reserve Units."

"The restrictions will have some impact on training at the Reserve Armoured Reconnaissance units," the document added. "Measures are being considered to minimize the impact on training, such as pooling unaffected or modified vehicles at training bases."

Thompson said more than 700 vehicles in the LUVW fleet are unaffected and available for domestic operations, humanitarian missions and training.

The Defence Department in 2003 purchased 802 G-Wagons, as well as armour protection kits, from Mercedes-Benz Canada in a $130 million deal.

In 2004, it spent another $81 million to buy 357 more of the vehicles.

The current restriction on the G-Wagon does not significantly affect the Afghan mission, according to the military, as the LUVW is no longer used outside Kandahar airfield.

In 2006, the use of the LUVW in Afghanistan was restricted after a roadside bomb destroyed a G-Wagon north of Kandahar, killing four soldiers.
                                  (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## brihard (17 Jan 2011)

Do they not teach the troops anymore that for every rotation counter-clockwise they must match it with a rotation clockwise?  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jan 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Do they not teach the troops anymore that for every rotation counter-clockwise they must match it with a rotation clockwise?  ;D



Be careful now.  There is a combination here that is used to remove the turret for maint.  It is twelve turns to the left, sixteen to the right and then three to the left and back to zero.  Then the turret will pop off for maint.  It's true.  I saw a guy one night on Firing Pt Four doing that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jan 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Do they not teach the troops anymore that for every rotation counter-clockwise they must match it with a rotation clockwise?  ;D





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Be careful now.  There is a combination here that is used to remove the turret for maint.  It is twelve turns to the left, sixteen to the right and then three to the left and back to zero.  Then the turret will pop off for maint.  It's true.  I saw a guy one night on Firing Pt Four doing that.



It would be funny except for the fact that we have not been able to do any mounted training or perform our Primary BTS for almost a year. 

There is also the very distinct possibility that the moment they are modified, we will lose them to CTC and RST, for their training. We may be lucky enough to get them back in Sept\ Oct 2011. We'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## brihard (17 Jan 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It would be funny except for the fact that we have not been able to do any mounted training or perform our Primary BTS for almost a year.
> 
> There is also the very distinct possibility that the moment they are modified, we will lose them to CTC and RST, for their training. We may be lucky enough to get them back in Sept\ Oct 2011. We'll just have to wait and see.



Yeah, just watch. You'll be at the end of the line to get your LUVWs back, play dismounted silly buggerfor a few years, and then get them just in time to have them pulled so you can wait in line for TAPVs.  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jan 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Yeah, just watch. You'll be at the end of the line to get your LUVWs back, play dismounted silly buggerfor a few years, and then get them just in time to have them pulled so you can wait in line for TAPVs.  ;D



We spoke about the TAPV and CCV at the Corps Conference last year. The Reserves will only see them on deployment. None will be issued to them. As well, the GWagon is due to enter its slide to complete draw down shortly. Meaning it's being taken out of the system and no replacement has yet been identified.


----------



## brihard (17 Jan 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We spoke about the TAPV and CCV at the Corps Conference last year. The Reserves will only see them on deployment. None will be issued to them. As well, the GWagon is due to enter its slide to complete draw down shortly. Meaning it's being taken out of the system and no replacement has yet been identified.



So what the hell will they give you?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jan 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> So what the hell will they give you?



No idea. The replacement hasn't been identified, or even considered at this point IIRC.


----------



## brihard (17 Jan 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> No idea. The replacement hasn't been identified, or even considered at this point IIRC.



Wanna bet this is going to spark a long, hard, critical look at exactly what it is we expect our armoured reserve regiments to bring to the table? Now, this is just my infantard JNCO perspective, but it seems that the substantial capital investment and doctrinal commitment to a new vehicle fleet would implicitly accept a specific defined role for the trade for the foreseeable lifetime of that vehicle fleet...


----------

