Norwegians consider G-wagon inadequate

[Kommando]

Hi all,long time reader,first post...Norway decided on the 24th of March to buy up to 72 IVECO vehicles, which are called the Panther by the UK and will also be fielded by the Belgian Army. The initial order is for 25 be delivered in 2006 (15) and 2007 (10), and there is also an option to buy a further 47 vehicles over a two year period.The purchase is said to come as a reaction to experience in international operations where the current inventory, up-armored Mercedes "Gelendevagen" has been proved inadequate, especially after the events at Meymaneh, Afghanistan in early February.The MLV has vastly improved protection against IED land mines,this is achieved through a number of design features...
"The MLV's wheel stations are located away from the crew cabin so that if a wheel detonates an antitank mine, the explosion is vented upwards, leaving the crew cabin undamaged."
"The bonnet is hinged to the chassis to reduce the shock transmitted to the cabin."
"The light alloy rear body is fitted with a canvas roof over a supporting frame. It is sacrificial and severs from the cabin in the event of a mine detonation under a rear wheel."
"The underside of the vehicle is v-shaped and the ground clearance has been maximised to allow maximum dissipation of the blast."
"The location of heavy components under the cabin floor has been avoided because they can be projected through the cabin floor by a mine blast."
"The lower part of the vehicle has a three-layer sandwich structure that collapses on detonation of a mine under the belly, absorbing a high percentage of the energy that has not been vented away laterally."                                      The overall MLV Protection system meets various levels, from STANAG level 1 to STANAG level 4.Italian MLVs use the latest version AMAP composite armor to get to STANAG 4, placing the applique armor panels in pre-set slots between the inner and outer hull. The armor protection of the MLV is concealed under the panels, and can be quickly changed to meet mission requirements, or to make use of better materials as they become available.With Norway taking part in the current expansion and redeployment of the ISAF, defense officials probably saw a need to provide for better mine and small-arms protection, to avoid more pictures of burning Norwegian vehicles as seen in the February incident,where the Norwegian led PRT base in the North-Afghan city was attacked and at least one of their vehicles burned.The procurement process was conducted within only two months, which is quite fast by Norwegian standards.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

                                      Panther Here

 

[Thorvald]

Out of curiosity, what is the status of the new R31 APVs that were supposed to start deliveries in Feb 2006?  Isn't this our current solution to the up armoured G-Wagon's limitations?

By listing the APV as an Immediate Operational Re- quirement,  the CDS was able to expedite this entire program. Delivery of these Off-the-Shelf vehicles is timed to match the CF’s 2006 combat deployment to Kanadahar. A $60M contract was awarded to GDLS Canada “to provide 50 RG-31...with an option for 25 more” in November 2005 with deliveries to begin in February 2006.  Orders were also placed for a RWS (remote weapons station) type, the Kongsberg Protector (in US army service as M151s on Strykers). The same Kongsberg RWS model will probably be used on the proposed CF LARV (Light Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle) project

Quoted from http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehapv.htm

 

[3rd Horseman]

It is still the wrong veh (either of them) for the wrong mission and improper tasks. This is due directly to poor leadership that has never fought and thinks they understand the battle when they learned under the wrong environment and now implement errors in taskings. They only need to read the AARs from the last battles (war) we fought 92-95. The answers are all their.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.  Spent a lot of time in a Nyala, have you?

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

that new pather looks sort of like a hummer but shorter and smaller,  if looks mean anything some one might be on to something here. G4 people should be looking to buy those for the troops.
anything to improve the chance of getting out alive should be looked at.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Out of curiosity, what is the status of the new R31 APVs that were supposed to start deliveries in Feb 2006?  Isn't this our current solution to the up armoured G-Wagon's limitations?

Quoted from http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehapv.htm

There are Nyala's in-theatre now.  Some of the footage of the hit G-Wagen showed Nyalas moving along the same road.

Unfortunately as feared, every once in a while the commander of the bad guys has enough common sense to target the thinnest-skinned vehicles in a convoy to cause maximum casualties....The partial solution remains up-armouring everything including supply trucks because although the enemy can always build a bigger bomb, it requires much more effort, time (increases likelihood of being spotted) and resources (I can't imagine carrying large amounts of explosives like a Sherpa is very easy in the mountains of Afghanistan).  The other component which I contend is more important is absolute 100% overhead surveillance of the area of operations with some sort of high endurance UAV, because if you can see them digging the holes for the IED, you can take them out before it ever becomes a threat to your personnel.  My understanding based on something I just read is that Predator B may not the right solution.  The sound from its engines is loud enough to be detected and so the bad guys scatter, head for caves, etc.  I don't know what the right solution becomes at this point, but I hope we find it and then DND is given fast-track authority to direct-procure what it is we determine we need.

That's just me....


Matthew. 

 

[3rd Horseman]

Teddy as usual you like to sound like you know it all. You dont.

  The light up armoured vehs we are discussing are not suitable combat vehs and this point should be driven home.

 

[COBRA-6]

Teddy as usual you like to sound like you know it all. You dont.

  The light up armoured vehs we are discussing are not suitable combat vehs and this point should be driven home.

So what is the solution then? Have everyone in LAV's?? That's not realistic... Never leave the camp? Then why send troops at all...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Teddy as usual you like to sound like you know it all. You dont.

                                                     

 

[COBRA-6]

:rofl:

 

[3rd Horseman]

;D Very funny

Mike you have a good point. I was discussing the decision of the veh purchase and its usage, I can under stand the can do attitude of you guys over there as it is all you have...and I respect that. My point is that it was the wrong veh purchase for that task and we need to get on top of that quick and get better heavier kit in bound.

 

[COBRA-6]

It's all a mix, LAV's and even Nyalas can't go places the G-Wagon can, and don't forget the GWagon has saved a bunch of lives already, we were using the soft-skinned Iltis before... and if someone packs a culvert with explosives it doesn't matter what you're in...

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

*sigh*

Apparently, I find myself defending my position:

Teddy as usual you like to sound like you know it all. You dont.

In this case, I have time in G Wagons in Afghanistan, and - believe it or not - have spent more time in the very Norwegian G-Wagons that were the original subject of this thread than I have in the Canadian version - again in Afghanistan.  As an armour officer, I have extensive time on AVGP hulls, M113, and Coyote and a fair amount of time "in back" of a LAV III (the latter again in Afghanistan).  I have also been heavily involved in Nyala tasks both Canadian (in Bosnia) and Estonian (in Afghanistan).

So, 3rd Horsey, war hero extrordinare and commentator on everything Special Forces, Bosnian, FOO/FAC, Agent Orange, DU, and operational, what recent (ie: in the last decade) experience do you have to back up your assessment of what vehicle is of best use in the current theatre?  You have NO idea of the tasks being performed or the equipment actually in use.  None of the vehicles you could possibly have any experience on are operational in Afghanistan.  Typically, you're seriously out of your lane and routinely spout absolute nonsense on this site, relying on your mythical "black ops" (yes, I have a long memory regarding your posts) resume from 10+ years ago to back you up.  In this particular case, you're deliberately attempting to reduce confidence in equipment that the troops in contact are required to go to war with every day.

I am loathe to engage in personalizing a discussion, but I have seriously had enough.

TR, out.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Teddy Teddy Teddy,..... I chose not to waste band width trading insults with you. Nice job attempting to character assassinate but my record stands on its own merit.  I stand by my view that the light veh up armour Gwagon and its variants are not the proper veh for the task. Hours of being driven around the countryside in a G wagon does not make one an expert on that vehs capability to withstand a mine blast. As a note I departed the CF in late 03 not that long ago with my last job being heading up tactics, doctrine and procurement for the Artillery.

 

[Koenigsegg]

I must...

My invisible god has a bigger dick than your invisible god.

I support Teddy, and I also think that different people in different positions will have different experiances and knowledge with the same piece of equipment.  The Gelandewagen is fine at what it is supposed to do.  If you want to take troops into battle well protected and provide heavy fire for them, an LAVIII is in order.  But that situation is NOT what the G-wagen is for.  The Americans have, or had, the same worries about their hummers, because they were using the vehicle for things it was not originally meant to do.
Some of the bombs that took out the Iltis, and G-wagens were meant to take out tanks, of course they will destroy a relatively lightly armoured patrol/recce/battle taxi vehicle.
The Gelandewagen can go places, like stated before, that the LAV, and Nyala cannot even ponder about going, for that, it is valuable in theatre.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Agreed, that is what I was arguing. It is the use of that veh in wrong tasks that is the problem and begs a better veh. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So, you admit they have a use over there. What task(s) ARE you envisioning for the G wagon to fulfill over there. Given that it has it's value and unique areas of mobility. Oh, and explain why they couldn't be attacked or blown up in these situations. I will accept some generalizations, given you've never been there on Ops and you would only be making uneducated guesses. But go ahead and give it a shot anyway.




edit for spelling

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I'm not intending to step on any toes here, but is the question being asked not "Is there a better vehicle to fulfil the same roles?"

That could mean welding a steel "V-bottom" (or double V-bottom) on the bottom of the G-Wagen to deflect more of the blast (with the sacrifice of some road clearance) or perhaps a vehicle like the VBL.

In short, if we know we have to put people in harm's way down narrow roads that more heavily vehicles like LAV-III's or Nyalas cannot reach, how do better protect our soldiers while they're undertaking that task?

Respectfully,

Matthew. 

 

[3rd Horseman]

Recceguy,
                I never said nor did I implie that the Gwagon was a bad veh or that it did not have a role in Astan. It is a good veh and so much better than the Iltis it replaced. You are correct any comment I would make on Astan would not be from my direct involvement in theatre. My views would be from my military and civilian experience and my friends who have been in Astan with both the Canadian, USA and British forces and private contractors. I trust you would respect opinions based on training and experience as a general approach and may not be the detailed answer but in general it would have value.