Something I noticed on Wikipedia (LAV IIIs)
- Thread starter DirtyDog
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 2,623
- Points
- 1,160
Bzzliteyr said:
Wait for it...wait for it....
with a Francophone Battlegroup getting ready to kick out the door some months from now, methinks that a few francophone tankers may be needed!
Just imagine the irony if I finally get my Leo Crew Commander before leaving the school. Now THAT would be irony! ;D
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,775
- Points
- 1,110
dirtydog,
Afghanistan poses mobility challenges to all vehicles and the LAV is no exception. Mountains, rivers, canals, green zones and cities all present problems for vehicles. All vehicles can get stuck, shred tires or throw tracks as applicable, encounter impassible terrain and get into accidents.
Nevertheless, the LAV has provided excellent service in Afghanistan and should be considered a success story. The LAV has a combination of mobility (both tactical and operational), protection and firepower that has been well suited to Southern Afghanistan. It is one of the core components of the combined arms team required for tactical success over there. It needs the support of other arms and enablers, but that is pretty much true of everything. It can get around, protect the soldiers inside and hammer the enemy when the time comes.
As an aside, in US circles the Stryker debate turned into a bit of a gong show. I think that many people were making the wrong argument. They tended to argue Stryker vs M1 when it should have been Stryker vs HMMVW. The debate got political, acrimonious and polarized and it is hard to get unbiased analysis. This spilled over into Canada to some extent.
Cheers
Afghanistan poses mobility challenges to all vehicles and the LAV is no exception. Mountains, rivers, canals, green zones and cities all present problems for vehicles. All vehicles can get stuck, shred tires or throw tracks as applicable, encounter impassible terrain and get into accidents.
Nevertheless, the LAV has provided excellent service in Afghanistan and should be considered a success story. The LAV has a combination of mobility (both tactical and operational), protection and firepower that has been well suited to Southern Afghanistan. It is one of the core components of the combined arms team required for tactical success over there. It needs the support of other arms and enablers, but that is pretty much true of everything. It can get around, protect the soldiers inside and hammer the enemy when the time comes.
As an aside, in US circles the Stryker debate turned into a bit of a gong show. I think that many people were making the wrong argument. They tended to argue Stryker vs M1 when it should have been Stryker vs HMMVW. The debate got political, acrimonious and polarized and it is hard to get unbiased analysis. This spilled over into Canada to some extent.
Cheers
Similar threads
