Com-Central.net

Maple_Leaf_Eh · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 517

Last week the Ottawa Citizen reported (front page) that the CF had denied any interest in replacing or adding to the current Leopard 1 fleet. Then someone found documents suggesting there had been talks with Germany and Switzerland for a hundred or so Leopard 2s. The story repeated remarks from the Chief of the Defence Staff about tanks not being relevant if they weren't being used, how the MGS (ie. tank annoyer) would be the answer to the CF's concept of all-wheeled and capable to 95% of the battle. The writer tied in that the C1s are now in AFG and the fleet's disposal was preempted only last summer. The story didn't have much more than that, and never had any traction. Nothing heard. Out.

Today the CBC radio noted that quote Vietnam era armoured vehicles unquote were being investigated for use by the troops. The Mercedes G-Wagons aren't able to do as much or go as many places as the unnamed M113s. No news there. As good an SUV as the G-Wagons are, they are not all terrain rough terrain vehicles. They seem to be suicide bomber magnets. They aren't overly large, and with all the go-to-war gear the boys are hauling, there was even an AD when a fellow got stitched by a C6 7.62mm MG while inside one.

The South African RG-31 seems to be a good vehicle, and are performing as advertised, but the CF only bought a couple dozen. My guess is there are more M113s in storage than money for more RG31s, and their robust-ity trumps the G-Wagon for getting around.

It is important to remember that the LAVIII has proven itself as the preeminent fighting vehicle in the Canadian arsenal, and is very very unlikely to be replaced by M113s.

Doug_Kibbey

- Maple_Leaf_Eh

...today the CBC radio noted that quote Vietnam era armoured vehicles unquote were being investigated for use by the troops. The Mercedes G-Wagons aren't able to do as much or go as many places as the unnamed M113s. No news there. As good an SUV as the G-Wagons are, they are not all terrain rough terrain vehicles. They seem to be suicide bomber magnets. They aren't overly large, and with all the go-to-war gear the boys are hauling, there was even an AD when a fellow got stitched by a C6 7.62mm MG while inside one.

.....My guess is there are more M113s in storage than money for more RG31s, and their robust-ity trumps the G-Wagon for getting around.

I seem to recall (on the old board) a certain Roy What's-his-name and myself floating similar suggestions early on when the recent unpleasantness started...around late '03....and not in regard to Canada, either! Deja-freakin'-vu.

They aren't sexy, and they won't make anybody a lot of money, but M113's are wildly to be preferred to what amounts to uparmored SUV's when things start blowing up near you...especially when you need them in significant numbers that don't call for the investment of, say, a Bradley.

Jason_Bobrowich · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Aug 09, 2006 Posts: 71

Actually the CBC story is lacking in details.

The M113A3 TLAVs will be sent to Afghanistan as a supplement to the G Wagon and LAV 3.

Reasons:

The LAV 3 is having mobility issues in certain areas not favorable to wheeled AFVs.

The G Wagon simply isn't armoured.

For those folks that don't know about the Canadian M113A3 TLAV (Tracked Light Armoured Vehicle) it is an M113A3 with an extended hull so it has six road wheels, the turret from the Grizzly AVGP, 8 x 76 mm Wegmann grenade launchers, a new power pack, new style Diehl tracks, bolt on armour, and additional stowage boxes.

Roy_A_Lingle

Hi Doug, what's your name? Hi Folks!

- Doug_Kibbey

I seem to recall (on the old board) a certain Roy What's-his-name and myself floating similar suggestions early on when the recent unpleasantness started...around late '03....and not in regard to Canada, either! Deja-freakin'-vu.

They aren't sexy, and they won't make anybody a lot of money, but M113's are wildly to be preferred to what amounts to uparmored SUV's when things start blowing up near you...especially when you need them in significant numbers that don't call for the investment of, say, a Bradley.

Let see, keep dropping them in the sea to make new homes for sea life or send them to war where they just might save some lifes?

I remember there was a plan to fix up some U.S. vehicles and send them over. So far I have only seen one photo of an upgraded M113 from that program.

Sounds like the Canadian vehicles are versions of what some folks were calling the M-113A3+ and the M-113A4. I think the builder's name was Mobile Tactical Vehicle Light (MTVL).

It shall be interesting to hear how those vehicles do in protecting their crews and passagers.

Deja-freakin'-vu Confused

Sgt, Scouts Out!

Doug_Kibbey

- Roy_A_Lingle

Hi Doug, what's your name? Hi Folks!

Deja-freakin'-vu
Sgt, Scouts Out!

(They never listen to us, Roy....ever since Sparky jumped the rails, any practical suggestions regarding use of the M113 get dismissed as lunatic ravings)

J.McGillivray · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 149

Google and thou shall find.

www.dewengineering.com.../m113.html

Maple_Leaf_Eh · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 517

Found this story that has other details:
"O'Connor says military 'scrambling' to find soldiers for Afghanistan
Last Updated: Sunday, November 5, 2006 | 6:45 PM ET
CBC News

Canada's military is "scrambling" to find soldiers to send to Afghanistan as it seeks to keep front-line troops from being overworked, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Sunday.

"What we're trying to do in principle is try to avoid having people who are in daily operations to go back [to Afghanistan] a second time before the end of February, '09," O'Connor said, referring to the date to which Parliament extended the Afghan mission.
....

"Our efforts are to look after our men and women, to execute this mission successfully, and to reduce the risk to them as they do that work for us."

He also acknowledged the military was planning to send scores of Vietnam-era M113 armoured personnel carriers to move soldiers around the battlefield.
....

With files from the Canadian Press

There are a few voices starting to ask why the troops aren't flying from one camp to another. They say the military has insufficient and inadequate helicopters, thanks to the previous government's glacial pace with any project on military helicopters and its predecessor's fixation on COTS helos. Old clapped out Sea Kings on the ships, fewer SAR birds than before, and Bell 406's that can't be armoured AND fly in high and hot conditions.

The ripple effect has been the troops in AFG must drive just about everywhere, except when bumming rides on US, UK or Dutch Chinooks, or riding in medevac birds.

Maple_Leaf_Eh · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 517

Here is another take on the German Leopard 2s. Much more detail than I'd seen elsewhere. Only $350,000 a piece.

www.ctv.ca/servlet/Art...hub=Canada

While we are on AFG armour, another forum is suggesting the M113s to be deployed are TOW Under Armour. The news stories are suggesting the infantry are carrying M72s and Carl G's for squad firepower, 60 and 81mm mortars for plunging fire, the 155mm M777 guns are doing a great job, which leaves the 25mm chain gun on the LAV as the only mobile firepower. TUA and Leopards make sense to blast walls and push back the enemy.

In the grand scheme of things, this is an example of how armies typically fight. Make the best plans possible, work the plan, and react both creatively and instinctively when the plan needs more work. It that means 84mm grunt-powered recoilless rifles so be it. Nobody is whimpering that the troops have been hung out to dry or improperly equipped.

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big