Canadian deaths in Kabul not preventable, says report
- Thread starter Pieman
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
As a soldier who has seen what a mine can do to a veh i can state an Iltis is not a veh. to be taken on some of these goat tracks . If some one wants to defeat armour wellthey will defeat it but there are ways of defeating mine the NYALA / MAMBA are PROVEN to defeat mines so are the lavs. the up armoured HMMVW are pr oven to defeat mines up to a point and i have seen what that point is . the ILTIS while a good veh are old and are generally good for utility reasons should not have been used for the patrols . I've spoken to members of the patrols they agree the Iltis should not of been there . The higher ups can always say that well they worked up till then could also say "well the lsvw worked on the Apollo tour also" but they needed a lot of help to work . I hate to say it but sooner or later someone will have to realize to save lives costs money and its not cheap to save lives. we don't need veh that are approved because of money reasons we need veh that are approved because of safety . the NYAlA would be a good troop transport. so are the HMMVw with the up armour kit. some one has to say enough is enough you politicians buy the right kit now. as to the LAVS not being able to take a mine strike we had one strike a mine at approx 0700 and by approx 1800 that night they had it out on the patrol route . , the up armoured HMMVW while written off saved lives also .
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Axe I agree and also disagree.
The Iltis is a light jeep or a light recce vehicle nes pass?
What do you expect from alight vehicle?
What type of patrol would you expect from a vehicle with every one buttoned up?
What impression would the civies get if we ran around all buttoned up?
The only trouble with the Iltis is it's old and burnt out.
Too do proper patrols you need a open vehicle with all around view and non restrictive egress for the patrol and crew and the only way to do that is with a Jeep or a Iltis type of vehicle,so sad but that is reality for vehicle patrol.
Open Jeep's are a necessary but we must over come those fears that come with riding in open vehicle's if we can't we may end up being none effective when it comes to what may come down the pipe in the futuire.
The Iltis is a light jeep or a light recce vehicle nes pass?
What do you expect from alight vehicle?
What type of patrol would you expect from a vehicle with every one buttoned up?
What impression would the civies get if we ran around all buttoned up?
The only trouble with the Iltis is it's old and burnt out.
Too do proper patrols you need a open vehicle with all around view and non restrictive egress for the patrol and crew and the only way to do that is with a Jeep or a Iltis type of vehicle,so sad but that is reality for vehicle patrol.
Open Jeep's are a necessary but we must over come those fears that come with riding in open vehicle's if we can't we may end up being none effective when it comes to what may come down the pipe in the futuire.
- Reaction score
- 20,796
- Points
- 1,260
When we took over from the 3R22eR recce pl they prefered the Iltis to the GWagon...
The Belgians and Germans are using the Iltis on the same goat tracks etc.
All of us over here understand the threats - there is no way to eliminate it - FACT. There are different approaches to dealing with it - Armour up and button up - while this might be the "Safe" answer it is not very effective for you cannot patrol some the roads - the Jowz valley area goes from open to tight village roads. Clearly the LAV does not fit well down those roads - so you need to dismount or go in a lighter (smaller and less armoured) vehicle. The other problem is posturing - you cannot get the locals to tell you jack shit when you are all buttoned up inside a box.
The Iltis allows for unrestricted 360 degree vision for the driver and crew - the LAV and Coyote (and GWagon) do not.
The trade off is you are more vulnerable to both SA fire and mines - but you will diminish the threat for you can interact with the locals and determine threats at a greater distance and degee of accuracy.
The Nyala is a Engineer vehicle - we dont have enough to go patrolling in them and once again it is the 'Enter the Box' mentality - they are a great asset for proving a route - but they are not a patrol vehicle.
Before everyone condemns the Iltis - take a look at what our allies are using...
Other than the Americans everyone else is out in Light skinned vehicles - yes they have armoured vehicle available, but not used for genral patrolling.
The Belgians and Germans are using the Iltis on the same goat tracks etc.
All of us over here understand the threats - there is no way to eliminate it - FACT. There are different approaches to dealing with it - Armour up and button up - while this might be the "Safe" answer it is not very effective for you cannot patrol some the roads - the Jowz valley area goes from open to tight village roads. Clearly the LAV does not fit well down those roads - so you need to dismount or go in a lighter (smaller and less armoured) vehicle. The other problem is posturing - you cannot get the locals to tell you jack shit when you are all buttoned up inside a box.
The Iltis allows for unrestricted 360 degree vision for the driver and crew - the LAV and Coyote (and GWagon) do not.
The trade off is you are more vulnerable to both SA fire and mines - but you will diminish the threat for you can interact with the locals and determine threats at a greater distance and degee of accuracy.
The Nyala is a Engineer vehicle - we dont have enough to go patrolling in them and once again it is the 'Enter the Box' mentality - they are a great asset for proving a route - but they are not a patrol vehicle.
Before everyone condemns the Iltis - take a look at what our allies are using...
Other than the Americans everyone else is out in Light skinned vehicles - yes they have armoured vehicle available, but not used for genral patrolling.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I would like to back up Kevin B on this one. While I have not driven the Jowz valley route, I have surveyed it from the OP (now unoccupied) that overlooks the valley. Unless you guard a route like that constantly you just cannot be sure it has not been re-mined.
Kevin rightly points out that the threat from VBIEDs, IEDs and suicide bombers is like the weather: it's there, but there isn't much you can do to stop it. The traffic in Kabul is atrociously bad, and pedestrians of every description are constantly scuttling in an and out between the vehicles with packages, boxes,etc. Large commercial vehicles (including lots of POL tankers-good VBIEDs) are everywhere and any one of them, or any one of the many vans, taxis or cars could be aimed at you. Especially when you are stalled in traffic, there isn't alot you can do.You have to get on with the mission. You can mitigate with ballistic protection, stay vigilant, use good tactical driving skills, but these only reduce the risk they don't remove it. As far as the mines go, the baddies are not stupid. If they want to kill an up-armoured HMMVW, they will just stack the AT mines, if they get the chance.
The only way we will reduce the VBIED/IED/suicide bomber threat, at all, is as KevinB suggests to build the trust of the locals by presence patrolling and showing that we are not afraid. If they trust ISAF and OEF, then maybe (just maybe) they will be less receptive and supportive to those who plan these attacks like the one against the DYNCORPS building last week (VBIED). There is no guarantee of this outcome (there is no guarantee of anything here...) but I can't think of a better way. LAVs and other APCs/IFVs have their very important uses but they are not the be-all, end-all and they are unsuited to this type of work.
This patrolling, with 360 degree vision and good hearing, is also the best way to gain HUMINT which is the most vital kind of int in these operations. Rumbling around in LAVs or packed inside the tight confines of a G-Wagen doesn't really cut it. While everybody was keen to get the new G-wagen, now that I've seen it I'm not so sure it is that superior to the Iltis in all respects. The best judges are the soldiers using it. Cheers.
Kevin rightly points out that the threat from VBIEDs, IEDs and suicide bombers is like the weather: it's there, but there isn't much you can do to stop it. The traffic in Kabul is atrociously bad, and pedestrians of every description are constantly scuttling in an and out between the vehicles with packages, boxes,etc. Large commercial vehicles (including lots of POL tankers-good VBIEDs) are everywhere and any one of them, or any one of the many vans, taxis or cars could be aimed at you. Especially when you are stalled in traffic, there isn't alot you can do.You have to get on with the mission. You can mitigate with ballistic protection, stay vigilant, use good tactical driving skills, but these only reduce the risk they don't remove it. As far as the mines go, the baddies are not stupid. If they want to kill an up-armoured HMMVW, they will just stack the AT mines, if they get the chance.
The only way we will reduce the VBIED/IED/suicide bomber threat, at all, is as KevinB suggests to build the trust of the locals by presence patrolling and showing that we are not afraid. If they trust ISAF and OEF, then maybe (just maybe) they will be less receptive and supportive to those who plan these attacks like the one against the DYNCORPS building last week (VBIED). There is no guarantee of this outcome (there is no guarantee of anything here...) but I can't think of a better way. LAVs and other APCs/IFVs have their very important uses but they are not the be-all, end-all and they are unsuited to this type of work.
This patrolling, with 360 degree vision and good hearing, is also the best way to gain HUMINT which is the most vital kind of int in these operations. Rumbling around in LAVs or packed inside the tight confines of a G-Wagen doesn't really cut it. While everybody was keen to get the new G-wagen, now that I've seen it I'm not so sure it is that superior to the Iltis in all respects. The best judges are the soldiers using it. Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
You guys have brought up some very pertenant points about what is required in a Recce Vehicle. If the Iltis is too lightly armoured to serve effectively as a recce vehicle and the GWagen and LAV variants are too 'enclosed', what should we be using?
Recce operators need to use their eyes and ears to be effective. With CIMIC and MOST roles to be filled we need to be 'out there' and able to 'mingle' with the population.
Do we now come up with a different format for our patrols? One to include a couple of Iltis and an armoured vehicle like a Bison or LAV? Would the presence of an armoured vehicle in patrols deflect the interest of a suicide bomber or IED from a soft skinned vehicle to a more heavily armoured one?
GW
Recce operators need to use their eyes and ears to be effective. With CIMIC and MOST roles to be filled we need to be 'out there' and able to 'mingle' with the population.
Do we now come up with a different format for our patrols? One to include a couple of Iltis and an armoured vehicle like a Bison or LAV? Would the presence of an armoured vehicle in patrols deflect the interest of a suicide bomber or IED from a soft skinned vehicle to a more heavily armoured one?
GW
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
This is an excellent question. What Canada is missing, in my opinion, is an intermediate vehicle that lies between the LUVW and the LAV. The French Cavalry Squadron here uses a small, fourwheeled AFV called the VBL-it seems better suited than a LAV, but offers more protection than LUVW. There are other similar things about in varoius countries contingents here but in the end, if you want eyes and ears on the ground, you are going to accept some degree of risk. Zero risk acceptance, in my opinion, means Zero mission accomplishment, zero knowledge, and in turn a much higher risk because your are cut off from info.
We are soldiers in a dangerous place: we (especially we leaders) have to do all that can reasonably be done to reduce the danger, but we cannot make it go away. God forbid that we lose one more soldier, but there is no way to promise Canadians that all their sons will come home. Cheers.
We are soldiers in a dangerous place: we (especially we leaders) have to do all that can reasonably be done to reduce the danger, but we cannot make it go away. God forbid that we lose one more soldier, but there is no way to promise Canadians that all their sons will come home. Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Reports aside, for those of us that were there, a patrol route that is used on a daily basis with options of taking secondary routes is obviously going to be termed low risk based on recent intel reports.I challenge you to find me a vehicle anywhwere in the world that could prevent death/injuries from a mine, keeping in mind no army is rich enough to deploy a battle group of wombat mine vehicles.Ask any Athena vet and they will tell you that the iltis was a superior vehicle for the narrow streets of Kabul.If they had hit the mine in our "new" LAV 3's, the result would be the same, with the exception that the media wouldn't have a story scapegoat.
- Reaction score
- 20,796
- Points
- 1,260
Personally - I would prefer to still be using the Iltis - having the Gwagon and LAV as an option if the threat/mission dictates.
The French VBL (which in my understanding translates to LAV - Vehicle Blinde Leger - well the Vandoo Recce guys kept calling the LAV a VBL3...) Is a noteworthy item - a neat little fast Armoured Recce Vehicle.
But I dotn think it is the ticket either for once again you are boxed up.
Now YOU won't see ME preachign for larger soft skins - as some contingents here have done. The idea of mountign troops ina HL or ML is to me a suicide bomber pinic - 20 for the price of 1...
The French VBL (which in my understanding translates to LAV - Vehicle Blinde Leger - well the Vandoo Recce guys kept calling the LAV a VBL3...) Is a noteworthy item - a neat little fast Armoured Recce Vehicle.
But I dotn think it is the ticket either for once again you are boxed up.
Now YOU won't see ME preachign for larger soft skins - as some contingents here have done. The idea of mountign troops ina HL or ML is to me a suicide bomber pinic - 20 for the price of 1...
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
In November 1959 a two-jeep patrol was ambushed while patrolling along the demarcation line in the Sinai as part of UNEF. Tpr R.H. Allen in the easily-identifiable lead vehicle was wounded and later died of his wounds. This is only one of the many tales of troops being wounded or killed in soft skinned vehicles. Earlier, again in the Sinai, on 1 Mar 1959, a RCD Ferret was blown completely off the road when its' right front wheel hit a mine causing injuries to the three man crew.
It is clear that over the last fifty odd years of "Peacekeeping" we have suffered loses in the performance of our duties. Some are unavoidable and a hazard of our profession. However, with better equipment, those losses may not have occured. The Ferret was a Recce Vehicle. Today we do not have a Recce Vehicle. Not only for the protection of our troops, but also to truly define the role of the Armour Regiments, both Reg and Res, we need a Recce Vehicle.
After saying that, then one must honestly say that those deaths were avoidable, had the Government properly equiped the CF with the vehicles to do the job of Recognnaissance in the first place (a long time ago).
GW
It is clear that over the last fifty odd years of "Peacekeeping" we have suffered loses in the performance of our duties. Some are unavoidable and a hazard of our profession. However, with better equipment, those losses may not have occured. The Ferret was a Recce Vehicle. Today we do not have a Recce Vehicle. Not only for the protection of our troops, but also to truly define the role of the Armour Regiments, both Reg and Res, we need a Recce Vehicle.
After saying that, then one must honestly say that those deaths were avoidable, had the Government properly equiped the CF with the vehicles to do the job of Recognnaissance in the first place (a long time ago).
GW
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
There are roles for soft-skins and roles for armour. We have a couple of recce vehicles George, though no equivalent to the Ferret - for which we haven't had an equivalent since it was retired many years ago. Under the right conditions a jeep-like vehicle is suitable for recce.
Acorn
Acorn
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
On the issue of light armoured vehs for ptl ops on overseas missions, the Germans here in Afgh are operating an interesting machine called DINGO: it resembles a NYALA but with less exposed glass. The other day I was talking to the driver of one, who told me that the Germans bought it specifically for ops like Afgh, etc: it would not normally be on the TOE in Germany, which saves them having to buy them for the entire Army. This might help us cover the recce veh gap. Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
Acorn said:
There definitely are roles for soft skinned vehicles, but they should not be for Recce in a hostile environment as we are using them now. They are a good training aid for Recce training. They are effective in non-hostile environments. They make good Logistic/Liason vehicles.
The Canadian Forces have no Armour Recce vehicles in their inventories for Armoured Reconnaissance. The Engineers have some equipment, but it is in very limited quantities.
DO NOT EVEN THINK TO REPLY THAT THE COYOTE IS A RECCE VEHICLE. IT IS NOT. IT IS A SURVEILLANCE VEHICLE. The only vehicle of that size that I would ever think of doing Recce in would be the old German Luchs. At least it was quiet (They did solve their problems with the brakes.) It could drive just as fast in Reverse as forward (as the Ferret was capable of doing), and that was aided by having two driver stations. It had a 20 mm cannon, as the German philosophy was to fight for their info. The Coyote is noisy. It makes 20+ point turns to turn around on roads. It is too large and heavy for Recce. The turret is on the rear third of the vehicle, limiting the vision of the CC on Crest Drills and Blind Corners. Its' cross-country capabilities are very limited. It 'cannot' do self recovery (even though it has a winch).
The GWagen is a 'soft-skinned' vehicle that offers marginally better protection to its occupants, but at the same time restricts the use of some of their abilities to do their jobs, should that be patrolling or Recce. The uparmoured versions further restrict the abilities of the crews to efficiently do those jobs. It will make a good Adm/Liason vehicle in relatively safe environments.
GW
- Reaction score
- 20,796
- Points
- 1,260
The unarmoured ones have that feature (most of the nations [that are not using Hummers] have those here)
IMHO the only thing the Iltis needed was a midlife refurb program rather than spending hard fought defence dollars on the Armoured Gwagons (which have An ENORMOUS Price Tag).
I'd rather money go into range time - weapon refit - and a LSVW replacement
IMHO the only thing the Iltis needed was a midlife refurb program rather than spending hard fought defence dollars on the Armoured Gwagons (which have An ENORMOUS Price Tag).
I'd rather money go into range time - weapon refit - and a LSVW replacement
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I tend to agree with Kevin B and J. Gayson, especially if you need to do "eyes and ears" veh patrols (ie: too big an area to cover with foot ptls, but can't just rumble around in a tin box). Having now been out on a ptl with US MPs in up-armoured Hummers, I'm really not so sure those vehs are the answer either. Only the gunner can hear/see reasonably well, and it is rather awkward to use wpns from the inside (although not impossible).The people inside contribute little or nothing to info gathering.
I like the idea of the "stripped down" G-Wagen too, but I'm wondering now if maybe there actually is no 100% solution to the desire to have both "360 eyes and ears" and high levels of force protection on the same veh. Cheers
I like the idea of the "stripped down" G-Wagen too, but I'm wondering now if maybe there actually is no 100% solution to the desire to have both "360 eyes and ears" and high levels of force protection on the same veh. Cheers
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
PBi I agree with you and Kevin B. I think our Iltis was a good piece of kit but old and tired . if we coulda gotten something like it but with an up armoured bottom i'd be happy rather then another veh that is a box with no chance of removing the armoured top . maybe if they did like land rover and jeep just did and introduce a stretch version with a truly removable top , as long as it had the ponies to pull itself around . and done this not in the usual canadian way of taking the old tired bodies and cut them and strech em out , I mean purchase new iltis bodies with this stretch and new engines . :-\
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Yes--I think you are on the right track, but I think that the Iltis was just a bit too small. I would like to see an operational trial done with stripped down G-wagens with floor plates, roll cage and maybe a C9 and C6 mounted, or whatever systems you can think of (maybe one veh in the ptl with a .50?). We have the vehicle and it's brand new, so we should try to make the best of it. Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 5,692
- Points
- 1,060
Like the one that's already available?
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/daimler_chrysler/daimler_chrysler5.html
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/daimler_chrysler/daimler_chrysler5.html
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
What Recceguy has linked to is the "Command and Reconnaissance" variant of the G-Wagon. We are buying them for our Infantry Recce Platoons and other organizations as part of the overall procurement package. If you draw a mental picture of the SAS "pink panther" landrover, then you have a good idea regarding the capability of the G-Wagon "gun truck".
The German KSK had the C&R G-Wagons in Kandahar a couple of years ago. They were seriously kick-arse vehicles - ideally suited to the role. We will be well-served indeed. It is unfortunate that the G-Wagons which have ended up in Afghanistan due to the "rush fielding" are the more conventional hard-top configuration. Once the C&R variants come on line, we will have a vehicle eminently suited to the light patrol task.
We can argue all day about armour protection for peace-support patrolling. I saw a borrowed U.S. up-armoured HMMVW take an AT mine-strike in Kandahar, and everyone walked away. The vehicle was written-off, but it did it's job. In my view, that is the type of protection that we need to be striving for. Underbelly armour to defeat mines and buried IEDs, but unrestricted arcs of observation and fire for the crew. I remain convinced that the ability to apply 360-degree vigilance (and firepower) is the best form of crew protection from surface threats. Coincidentally, the "open concept" allows the crew to perform the vital function of civilian interaction and accrue all of the CIMIC/HUMINT benefits which flow from same. Fully-armoured AFVs are NOT the answer, even if they do afford a moderate degree of additional crew protection. You can't do your job as a soldier from an enclosed tin can... The C&R G-Wagon with belly-armour will serve our needs ideally. From what I saw of the KSK gun trucks in Kanadahar, it is "good to go" as a patrolling platform with "defensive teeth".
The German KSK had the C&R G-Wagons in Kandahar a couple of years ago. They were seriously kick-arse vehicles - ideally suited to the role. We will be well-served indeed. It is unfortunate that the G-Wagons which have ended up in Afghanistan due to the "rush fielding" are the more conventional hard-top configuration. Once the C&R variants come on line, we will have a vehicle eminently suited to the light patrol task.
We can argue all day about armour protection for peace-support patrolling. I saw a borrowed U.S. up-armoured HMMVW take an AT mine-strike in Kandahar, and everyone walked away. The vehicle was written-off, but it did it's job. In my view, that is the type of protection that we need to be striving for. Underbelly armour to defeat mines and buried IEDs, but unrestricted arcs of observation and fire for the crew. I remain convinced that the ability to apply 360-degree vigilance (and firepower) is the best form of crew protection from surface threats. Coincidentally, the "open concept" allows the crew to perform the vital function of civilian interaction and accrue all of the CIMIC/HUMINT benefits which flow from same. Fully-armoured AFVs are NOT the answer, even if they do afford a moderate degree of additional crew protection. You can't do your job as a soldier from an enclosed tin can... The C&R G-Wagon with belly-armour will serve our needs ideally. From what I saw of the KSK gun trucks in Kanadahar, it is "good to go" as a patrolling platform with "defensive teeth".
Similar threads
