Military use of Gators outside fortified bases

[daftandbarmy]

This is exactly what happend in the border areas in NI. The IRA became so effective at blowing us up with great big IEDs that all patrol movement was conducted either on foot or by chopper. Would this be acceptable in A-Stan? Not likely, given the distances and conditions there.

 

[Babbling Brooks]

I'm with Teddy on this, and delved into not only DiManno's piece, but also coverage from CTV, the Sun, and the Globe & Mail on this issue <a href="http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/welcome-to-feeding-frenzy.html">at my own site</a>.

The <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070621.AFGHANBASE21/TPStory/">one notable exception</a> to the media feeding frenzy on this came from Graeme Smith yesterday, in an article entitled "Guards felt comfortable with Gators" that reinforces some of the points made here.  What a novel idea: talking directly to soldiers about how they do their jobs.  I'll quote at length:

Soldiers preparing for their guard shift at Sperwan Ghar were very unhappy one day last month when their Gator broke down. The small all-terrain vehicle, manufactured by John Deere in Welland, Ont., looked out of place among the hulking military equipment arrayed on the steep hillside where Canadians and their allies have carved out a strategic base in Panjwai district. One of the nearby Leopard tanks could probably have crushed the little six-wheeled ATV if it got in the way.

But for the young men who make the tiresome trips back and forth between their bunkers on the hill and the guard posts below, it was essential to keep the Gator chugging.

One soldier refused even to consider the idea of hiking out to his next watch shift on foot, saying it was too hot to carry supplies down the hill. He turned the starter over and over, producing a sickly moan from the dust-clogged engine, but no ignition. Cheers broke out among the troops when one of them coaxed the Gator back to life. The next shift of guards roared down the path and disappeared in the dust.

During a journalist's recent visit to the base, none of the soldiers mentioned feeling afraid when riding the open-topped Gators to their watch posts. The zone around Sperwan Ghar is monitored by powerful surveillance equipment, and 2007 has seen a dramatic decrease in the number of violent incidents around the forward operating base, about 35 kilometres southwest of Kandahar city. The trip between posts was viewed as an easy ride, safely in the shadow of the hill.

 

[Bob Terwilliger]

The gist of her article, while a tad shrill, I believe is essentially correct. If one examines the overall number of IED fatalities amongst Canadian troops, its clear that IEDs present by far the largest threat. There is no reason why resupply between OPs should be done with what is essentially a lawn tractor with a coat of OD paint. There is no protection whatsoever for the occupants of that vehicle, and its use should be stopped.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Then what?

You will have to build a road to get the LAV's, Nyala, G-wagons there. Which means more equipment needs to be moved in, which means more fuel, more time, more food, more security, which then means more equipment, more food, more fuel, more, etc,etc

There is no perfect answer. Perhaps the main issue was the lack of alternative routes that allowed the enemy to see a pattern, but even then, sometimes life is like that and you can't have the perfect tactical scenario. Perhaps the lesson is that when geography requires the continued use of a route, sniper teams and ambush teams need to watch likely ambush places and perhaps can be used to lure the enemy to such areas to be engaged.

All those that think getting rid of the gator should first put on full military gear, plus armour, weapon, food & water, then strap on 60-80lbs of supplies and slow jog in a dry sauna for 8 hours, while throwing talcum powder in their faces every 10 minutes.

 

[Pencil Tech]

Look, I don't think it's surprising that the public, or Rosie di Manno for that matter, don't understand why the troops were in a Gator. People see it as a vehicle, and they see a LAV or a Nyala as a vehicle, and can't understand why they weren't in a vehicle that offered some protection vice one that offers none. In one TV report last night, LCol Eyre actually explained pretty effectively that the Gator was being used in a situation where the troops would normally be marching and carrying a large amount of kit on their backs and the Gator basically makes that kind of task easier. Obviously they'd be just as vulnerable if they were humping on foot (and I think the public know that soldiers do that), but the public naturally sees this as a flashback to the Iltis, and so on. Unfortunately the department as a whole is doing what it so often does: banning the vehicle instead of giving a comprehensible explanation of why the Gator is useful and appreciated by the troops who use it.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Gents unless your serving in the unit that is on the ground how about we cease speculation on this particular subject.  It serves nothing but add fodder to those that would have us vacate Afghanistan and seems to be pitting us against each other.  There .are so many variables that if those that have been there in the past can't give much more to the converstation then those that have never been

 

[Babbling Brooks]

Bruce Rolston at Flit <a href="http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2007_06_22.html#006209">weighs in</a>:

The M-Gator, used by the Canadian, U.S. and other militaries, has a ground pressure when fully loaded of 8 psi. Human-foot ground pressure is 9-12 psi. So assuming the IED that destroyed the Gator was detonated by a pressure plate or other independent trigger, it likely would have been tripped by personnel walking from point A to B as well. And if it was command-detonated (ie, someone pressed a button to blow it up) it would also have been equally effective against three dismounted troops.

The general in charge has said the vehicle in question was used in part because of the narrowness of the local laneways, which would seem to rule out the use of any larger, better protected vehicle, regardless of their availability. So there may not have been a lot of good choices here, and given those ground pressure figures it at least seems unlikely the personnel would have been any safer walking that day.

 

[Bob Terwilliger]

Colin, I think we should find a safe alternative to a lawn tractor. Don't get me wrong, I think Gators are fine utility vehicles, so long as they are used in areas that uber are secure ie airfileds, bases etc.  There is no reason why Nyalas could not have been used. None.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

There is no reason why Nyalas could not have been used. None.

Unless of course the roads were too steep or narrow.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well we could go back to Mules and horses, but then I am sure we would be hearing from PETA in no time at all.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Actually on my tour the engineers bought a mule.  don't know  how much they used it.

 

[George Wallace]

I think this puts an end to the speculation and the need for further discussion.  It happened in an Operational Theatre, a war zone.  It could have happened anywhere in theatre.  It happened here. 

Bruce Rolston at Flit <a href="http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2007_06_22.html#006209">weighs in</a>:

The M-Gator, used by the Canadian, U.S. and other militaries, has a ground pressure when fully loaded of 8 psi. Human-foot ground pressure is 9-12 psi. So assuming the IED that destroyed the Gator was detonated by a pressure plate or other independent trigger, it likely would have been tripped by personnel walking from point A to B as well. And if it was command-detonated (ie, someone pressed a button to blow it up) it would also have been equally effective against three dismounted troops.

The general in charge has said the vehicle in question was used in part because of the narrowness of the local laneways, which would seem to rule out the use of any larger, better protected vehicle, regardless of their availability. So there may not have been a lot of good choices here, and given those ground pressure figures it at least seems unlikely the personnel would have been any safer walking that day.

 

[seamus]

Colin, I think we should find a safe alternative to a lawn tractor. Don't get me wrong, I think Gators are fine utility vehicles, so long as they are used in areas that uber are secure ie airfields, bases etc. There is no reason why Nyalas could not have been used. None.

I have seen the gator used in combat situations, when the area is narrow especially in urban areas and the temperature is above 50, you need the support. You cannot carry enough water with mission essential to do your job. The press is looking for headlines and trying to dictate doctrine. We have lost more LAVIII's than gators is the same period of time and no one is trying to keep them locked in KAF. If the IED had been set while they were respplying on foot I doubt the headline would have been to up armour the mark 3.

 

[MJP]

 There is no reason why Nyalas could not have been used. None.

I assume you are operating in that particular region right now and know the current disposition of all the vehicles assigned to both the FOB/Operating base at the time of the incident.  As well considering the narrowness of the lanes as cited by the general in charge, I assume you know the width, turning radius and capabilities of the Nyala?  If not mayhaps I might suggest your out of your lane as are most people speculating on the incident.  

The decision was made by the commanders on the ground at the time to use the vehicles.  Sometimes and I know it's hard to believe some people forget that we are fighting a war.  Casualties and deaths happen and we should not and can not second guess and arm-chair general the soldiers on the ground making the decisions.

 

[Bob Terwilliger]

Nope. I took my release some time ago. But if you are going to present a case for  Gator v. EID, I will gladly stick around and listen. It's  a vehicle designed for sportsmen and hauling yard waste.

 

[MJP]

Sigh....Perhaps it is time to yet again reiterate that the vehicle used doesn't matter.  Bigger/better protected vehicle just results in a bigger and better IED.  In the whole wide world of the military there doesn't exist a vehicle that can't be taken out.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Militaries have used similar vehicles for years, remember the “Mule” here is the DAF version.

http://jalopnik.com/cars/daf/daf-vs-faf-froggy-mehari-gets-whooped-by-daf-pony-military-vehicle-221056.php

The difference is the cost of the gator is much less and parts easier to get thanks to the large amount of civiy sales.

Perhaps in a few years we can have remote controlled ones running supplies, but still the enemy will adapt. They are fighting a media war, destroying a gator or supplies has little meaning for them, they know they must create causalities and get those into our media to have any hope of beating us.

 

[seamus]

Sigh....Perhaps it is time to yet again reiterate that the vehicle used doesn't matter.  Bigger/better protected vehicle just results in a bigger and better IED.  In the whole wide world of the military there doesn't exist a vehicle that can't be taken out.

So you might as well use the one that adapts best to the tactical situation at hand, to augment your ability to complete the mission.

 

[Bob Terwilliger]

Colin, armies have to adapt to the threat at hand. When I was in, the threat was a massive Soviet invasion of Europe. Thats what we trained to deal with. Our training had no focus whatsoever on counter insurgency operations, EIDs or anything like that. I don't expect troops today train to deal with 3rd Shock Army rolling through the Fulda gap. If the largest single threat to soldiers deployed today comes from roadside EIDS, then why the %&#*%& are they driving around in unarmoured, open topped lawn tractors that do not even have a bloody roll cage????

 

[48 highlander]

because it lets you do your job quickly and efficently