War taking unexpectedly harsh toll on vehicles

[3rd Horseman]

In February, a policy think-tank produced a report that criticized Canada's deployment of tanks to Afghanistan, saying the 1970s vintage Leopard-C2 vehicles were vulnerable to insurgent attacks.

  Were was he when the idiots in the glass palace sent Iltis jeeps in, which begot the Mercedes, which begot the Nayla, which begot the ....Tank. As usual our commanders can never figure out what stage of a war we are fighting. Should have been Tank first then.......finally Iltis when peace came. Just like Yugo when we were fighting we had UNPROFOR when the war ended they brought in IFOR followed by the big force during absolute calm SFOR. Should have been SFOR then....UNPROFOR during peace. You would think that the think tanks could figure this out even if our leaders cant.

 

[MG34]

As long as they don't send the M113s over as troop carriers,now there's a death trap if there ever was one. I loved driving them and running around Hoenfels in them but no way would I go to war in one.
  The upper crust deficated in the bed with not getting LAV replacements earlier,but there is a  bunch of them sitting in Wainwright that could go over instead of being used at the CMTC gong show.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

As long as they don't send the M113s over as troop carriers,now there's a death trap if there ever was one. I loved driving them and running around Hoenfels in them but no way would I go to war in one.
  The upper crust deficated in the bed with not getting LAV replacements earlier,but there is a  bunch of them sitting in Wainwright that could go over instead of being used at the CMTC gong show.

MG34 have you used the new M113's? They do have an up-armour kit to protect the vital parts. The only problem with the vehicle is the location of the fuel cells and the up-armour for that part.

<edited to add>

My first sentence seems a bit harsh MG34 but I don't see any other way to phrase it 

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Nfld Sapper, I'll second that motion. 

The upgraded M113 is a world of difference - for one thing, it can actually climb up some hills!  Between the up-armour, better mobility, better comfort and weapons station options, I think it has a place.  Yes, the fuel cells can be a problem.  However, compared to the old M113...

Tracks can still go a lot of places and cross things that stop wheels (even LAV III) in their ruts.  A skilfully driven M113 could go places that Leopard would fear to tread - the upgraded one is even better.  When the RCD held one for a few weeks for famil/trial, the troops tried their best to find faults with it, including the dreaded Winter Road in Petawawa but all agreed that it was a good vehicle with excellent mobility.

Look at the US in Iraq - in many instances M113 is chosen over Bradley; a number of them have been "recommissioned" for use there.  I'll try and dig up a source, I remember reading it a few months ago.

A related question:  Did we produce a lot of SEV versions of the upgraded M113?  How are they?  I've seen prototypes at Dog and Ponies but never the real thing up close.

I've only dealt with the proto type of a proto type SEV and it was a POS but then again I was more concerned with how the track would perform rather than playing with all the tools on it. [Side note, still waiting to see the report on the tracks that was tested. Geez been almost 2 years now, how long does it take them to write a report  ??? ;D]

WRT a 113 going places where a Leopard would fear to go I would personally choose not believe that IMHO. I spent about 4 to 5 months travelling up and down the Lawfield Corridor and we were able to get them stuck left right and centre. One spot it took 2 MTVLS to pull out my M113 A3 and I think there is pic of it floating around this site.

As for the faults we can discuss that in pm/email if you want CSA.

 

[retiredgrunt45]

As long as they don't send the M113s over as troop carriers,now there's a death trap if there ever was one. I loved driving them and running around Hoenfels in them but no way would I go to war in one.

I concur, just because they have been upgraded, they still have a magnesium aluminum hull. "no thanks" If they sent over the engineer version, fine, but not as a troop carrier. I can remember Americans fired a tow missile at one of their older M113's in Grafenwoehr Germany during a during live fire exercise and it burnt like a torch. You could see the hull glowing brightly from the range control tower for hours.

 

[Babbling Brooks]

According to one source the New Leos have been approved ( for lease ) so that will surely help out.

I'm pretty sure that's only part of the story, Canadian Sig.  But it does give hints as to what the final story will be for our Armoured soldiers.  Anyone want to lay money that our eventual Leo 1 replacement will be anything other than Leo 2's?  I'll take your money.

 

[MG34]

MG34 have you used the new M113's? They do have an up-armour kit to protect the vital parts. The only problem with the vehicle is the location of the fuel cells and the up-armour for that part.

<edited to add>

My first sentence seems a bit harsh MG34 but I don't see any other way to phrase it 

I am familiar with the upgrade,an M113 hull is an M113 hull no matter how it is dressed up,they were great in Croatia and Bosnia but not so much in Astan.
As for the terrain,we didn't encounter any terrain that a LAV could not have passed over without preperation,and no veh short of a bulldozer could operate in the grape fields (I wasn't around when the Leo trials were done in the fields so I'm not sure on that). The M113 has no mobility advantage over the LAV and sacrifices optics,firepower and protection, as a specialist veh sure but not a front line troop carrier.

 

[Loachman]

About LAVs not being manufactured any more: GDLS Canada's website lists a "Canadian APC" under current products http://www.gdlscanada.com/main.html

 

[Jammer]

The LAV III in it's CDN configuration is not being made anymore, however the Stryker which uses the LAV III chassis is still in production.
GDLS London builds the chassis and sends it down to Ohio for wpns fitting

 

[Kiwi99]

But I am guessing that once the plant has finished with the Strykers and whatever other orders they have, they have the capability to revert back to the Canadian LAV III.  Its business, right.  Don't bite the hand that feeds ya, and the yanks spend more than we do, so why stop production to start ours.  Our time will come.

 

[George Wallace]

About LAVs not being manufactured any more: GDLS Canada's website lists a "Canadian APC" under current products http://www.gdlscanada.com/main.html

Then a question could be asked as to when this info was last updated and if the person doing so had the most current info.  Not that it really matters much.

Supply and Services will continue with their current mandate.

 

[3rd Horseman]

I am familiar with the upgrade,an M113 hull is an M113 hull no matter how it is dressed up,they were great in Croatia and Bosnia but not so much in Astan.

I have a problem with this comment, you must be talking about the non combat tours. I cannot argue that the hull is not a problem but when you compare hull to hull you must be speaking only of the issue of IEDs. Obviously the LAV has a sweet optics and gun kit and who would not want the good stuff when going into battle no matter how small and lightly armed the En force. But when comparing the kit to the en you face, the 113 is should have no issue in a technical aspect to A Stan then Yugo where the fighting was against a modern army not just foot borne rpgs, rifles and the odd small size mortar. Don't forget that the IED was first encountered by Cdn forces in Yugo and they were planted by Mujees, back then we called them stacked mines/explosives.
I guess in close I would have rather had a LAV in Yugo if given the choice but I did fight the 113 it was just fine and infact probably better when it comes to economy and mobility. I used the up armoured version and it took some healthy hits and survived.

edit typo

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

With flat bottoms, flat sides and older armour, are the M113's not significantly more vulnerable to IED's/VBIED's.


Matthew.   

 

[3rd Horseman]

I would say yes. But with the up armour and the unique trait of the magnesium the metal plates actually obsorb allot of blunt energy before breaking or spalling. My example was that one should not sell that veh short. Accepting that obviously the LAV is an improvement by far. I would have argued that the 113s should have been doing the duties the ilties and other soft vehs were doing in the beginning and would be a good choice now for the Log train and non front line cbt vehs activities.

 

[MG34]

I have a problem with this comment, you must be talking about the non combat tours. I cannot argue that the hull is not a problem but when you compare hull to hull you must be speaking only of the issue of IEDs. Obviously the LAV has a sweet optics and gun kit and who would not want the good stuff when going into battle no matter how small and lightly armed the En force. But when comparing the kit to the en you face, the 113 is should have no issue in a technical aspect to A Stan then Yugo where the fighting was against a modern army not just foot borne rpgs, rifles and the odd small size mortar. Don't forget that the IED was first encountered by Cdn forces in Yugo and they were planted by Mujees, back then we called them stacked mines/explosives.
I guess in close I would have rather had a LAV in Yugo if given the choice but I did fight the 113 it was just fine and infact probably better when it comes to economy and mobility. I used the up armoured version and it took some healthy hits and survived.

edit typo

The M113 will not take the hits that a LAV will is a fact. As for Yugo service I too was involved in a few scraps and APC did take hits but every M113 that hit a landmine or was hit with an RPG or similar  suffered either unrepairable damage or was penetrated, not so with the LAV. Inone of my Yugo tours we had 4 M113 hit mine/IED ,all were a write off due to the elastic nature of the hull,which caused it to bend and distort rendering it unservicable,a LAV can be repaired and sent back into service and were during my time in A stan. IRDs are the main threat to vehs there,the bottom hull of the M113 will not withstand the same forces as a LAVs due t the design,once again a fact.
  The M113 is a fine specialist veh, it works well but only when escorted by more capable vehs, it is not a good convoy escort or liason veh as it must be stationary to engage targets.
In a non combat role yes the M113 may have a place, but we have specialized vehicles that are better at it.
The M113 was great in it's day ( which was 4 decades ago)but even when brand new t was never intended to serve on the front lines,it's just a taxi to get you there,that point has been lost on the CF for quite sometime as we used the M113 as an MICV,it was wrong in the 80's just as it is wrong to think of attemping to use it as such today.

 

[22B]

MG34 is bang on.  We had this discussion yesterday at the Museum, and it was agreed that the 113 is a fine second line support vehicle, just like the deuce, but it cannot replace the LAV.  Oddly enough, it was the Cougar that was the winner for a stop gap, because of the 76mm gun and the ease of maint and repair.  Who would've thought.

 

[ArmyRick]

I have also extensive expirience with M113 (and Grizzlys). There day has come and gone.  Some people seem to think we should keep them around. Not this cat, send them into retirement. I have very little expirience with LAVIII and I agree 100% that it is a far superios vehicle.

 

[Edward Campbell]

But I am guessing that once the plant has finished with the Strykers and whatever other orders they have, they have the capability to revert back to the Canadian LAV III.  Its business, right.  Don't bite the hand that feeds ya, and the yanks spend more than we do, so why stop production to start ours.  Our time will come.

I'm guessing you're right, Kiwi99.  They still have all the tooling and drawing packages and can restart that line as soon as time/space/labour are available.

I would not surprised if there are several engineers working on an unsolicited proposal for the LAV IV.

 

[a_majoor]

Actually, MOWAG does have a LAV IV (which is even bigger, heavier etc.).

I suspect a better use of the engineer's time and energy would be to go over the AAR's and rebuild the LAV's to a LAV 3.5 standard to improve survivability, firepower, ease of maintainence and wring out all those annoying little glitches.......

 

[tank recce]

MG34 is bang on.  We had this discussion yesterday at the Museum, and it was agreed that the 113 is a fine second line support vehicle, just like the deuce, but it cannot replace the LAV.  Oddly enough, it was the Cougar that was the winner for a stop gap, because of the 76mm gun and the ease of maint and repair.  Who would've thought.

We were discussing this over beer at the Legion Tuesday night, including those of us who've put our names in for the Stream 3 festivities this fall. For all the C&C, weapons, and protection issues that the G-Wagon has, and the "too big to go through here" and "too small gun for this task" issues the LAV has, we kept coming back to ... the Cougar. Fast, moderate armour, and a pumpkin-launcher that will smash anything less than a modern MBT...

The young troopers don't know any different, but some of us with barked knuckles from the turret days are REALLY hoping that when we report for workup, the first courses we get are Cougar related... (Hey, we can hope!  ;D)