• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Why we need humvs.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since the CF is "stuck" with G-Wagons and MILCOTS for a while, we can look ahead to the next generation of vehicles to offset our logistics and operational woes.

Logistically, we want a common family of vehicles.

Operationally, we want machines with outstanding mobility, the ability to have or accept armour protection and to mount various weapons, information and other systems when needed.

The next generation of CV-90 (a wheeled hybrid electric vehicle prototype) shows one possible way. The lower hull and drive train could be adapted for various sizes and form factors, all sharing the common wheel/motor assembly and the armoured/mine deflecting lower hull form.

A 4X4 version would fill the role(s) of the HMMVW, a 6X6 would be the basis for an MLVW replacement, an 8X8 would replace all the LAV variations and a stretched 8X8 platform would become the new HLVW. It would be possible to specify some of the 4X4 versions be fully armoured to act as local security/convoy escort vehicles as well as the basis for a "mud recce" vehicle.

Some other thoughts are here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27679/post-188549.html#msg188549
 
One of our - and everyone else's - problems is we buy a cat and try to turn it into a dog.  The Iltis was a fair jeep replacement, but was not developed or properly supported.  Any Armoured 4x4s countries buy to avoid mangled unarmoured 4x4s invariably get tricked out as mini-APCs.  Two Humvees are being used to carry a Squad of infantry, when an up armoured M113A3 coud carry them better and save fuel and money.

We replaced our Dodge 3/4 Ton with an interim 5/4 ton Commercial while we took five years to find a replacement.  The five years turned into twenty, and we got the LSVW, which made us wish we had the 3/4 Ton again, but Dodge had just finished scrapping the tooling - finally, after all those years.

The Milverado has about 17 cm clearence under the rear diff and front diff skid plate.  A shade over seven inches.  It is a road vehicle with limited trail capability.  I spent some time last fall chasing two squadrons of Leopards cross country in Wainwright.  I doubt too many people will try that - at the speeds I did - and my main issue was bottoming out after being canalized into following Leo ruts uphill on a trail through some brush.  I doubt 99.9% of Milverado service will be that extreme.

Fleet Management is a form of Witchcraft, and I am glad all I do is use them and recommend modifications.

Humour from one year ago, when I was getting qual the Milverado:

Me: " Where is the button?"

MSE Cpl:  "What button?"

Me: "The button that you push to boost your dead 12v system from the live 24v one, like on the 5/4 ton."

MSE Cpl:  "What's a 5/4 ton?"

So there we go.  As well, some of the guys acquiring and adapting vehs for us have no idea what we have used in the past, and what has and has not worked.  They may not even have been alive when we used them.

Tom



 
Teddy Ruxpin said:
Axeman:   you may have some wires crossed here.

The LSVW is the Iveco model 40.10WM (AFAIK).   Same truck, same roles.   The difference is that we decided to modify it (rather extensively) in a vain attempt to meet the SOR after Mary Collins directed that any truck purchased be built by Western Star in Kelowna (after, if memory serves, the competition was won by Freightliner/Mercedes Benz).

I saw some of this as it was happening - very painful.

The Italians I've worked with seem happy with them.   Of course, it is a somewhat different vehicle than the one we ended up with.   ::)

so what your saying is they are not the same . the only ppl in the italian forces i saw HAPPY with them were the air force and they were useing it as a support veh . we insisted on many canadanizations [sp]and thusly it wasnt the same veh . i had a friend of mine on the production line as they were first rolling off the line telling me what a pile these new trucks are ... sorry to say ive seen em since they first started rolling off the line in kelowna  and saw the italian version when deployed and saw there are differnces subtle but real differnces . the LS's are a pile of crap  sorry that we have this canada first mentality for purcasing some stuff may of been a good idea if we did it rom the ground up but not when we take someone elses ideas and frame and start to change it .. the AVROE Arrow  was a concept that was working but the LS  isnt ..
 
sorry to say ive seen em since they first started rolling off the line in kelowna

As I have - in fact, I was in Kelowna when the contract was let and the PD gave the first (rather sad) briefings - my sources for what I've posted.  Oddly, we might know each other...

No worries, we're saying the same thing.  The LS really isn't the same truck as the Iveco anymore, you're exactly right.  My wording in my last post was a bit unclear.

My exposure to the Italians with theirs was with an Alpini battalion in Kabul...as I said, they weren't slamming their (Italian-built) trucks. Ours, however, is a POS of the first order.

Cheers,

TR
 
I have a somewhat related question:

Is there some reason that we cannot buy/copy a vehicle like the BRDM or even the French VBL? It seems perfectly suited( well armoured, can carry all kinds of weapons, but still light and nimble enough to get in and out of small places) to the kind of things we are trying to do with the G-wagom and the Americans are trying to do with their up armored hummers.

brdm-2-DMST9111764_JPG.jpg
 
The BRDM is almost as big as an M113A3.  A BMP3 would be more flexible, but, if we wanted to look around, the French VBL is probably what we have been trying to do all along.  The French Boeselager Team had it as early as 1992, so the bugs should be identified by now. 

I don't know if it can take an AT mine hit. We know, from Canadian experience, Lynx, Cougars and Bisons can - sort of.  We know an up-armoured Hummer can - 3VP had a hit in one just east of Kandahar airfield in 2002.  One soldier in the back had an injured ankle/leg.  Had it been stock, rather than up-armoured, she would have been soup.

Tom
 
??? not sure it would make sense to copy a BDRM since most of our enemies use soviet-bloc equipment and the fly-boys have a hard enough time telling friend from foe.

just my opinion.... 

ask youself would you wanna be driving in one of those with some guy in a A-10 at 10,000 feet rolling in on ya wondering if it was ours or thiers?  I'll walk thank you very much

hummm these look nice, but then I am bias...


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/aaav.htm
 
"the fly-boys have a hard enough time telling friend from foe."

It doesn't make any difference.  Tarnak Farm was three miles from a brightly lit allied airfield - Kandahar- with four thousand friendlies on it.  Some idiot driving an F-16 obviosly didn't ask himself why the Taliban would park four American style deuce-and-a-halfs in a neat row within sight of that airfield's perimeter defences.

He must have thought they bought them war surplus.

If he's gonna drop, he's gonna drop.  It doesn't matter what we look like.  Buck fever, and all that.

Tom
 
ask youself would you wanna be driving in one of those with some guy in a A-10 at 10,000 feet rolling in on ya wondering if it was ours or thiers?  I'll walk thank you very much

hummm these look nice, but then I am bias...


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/aaav.htm

Good to have you back pappy.

Is this the one you're talking about? Looks like the USAF thought of it already. I couldn't find a more recent report on the incident, but I believe the final tally was 10 Marines in the AAV were killed.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/02/sprj.irq.friendly.fire/index.html
Marines sure they were friendly-fire victims

By Art Harris
CNN
Thursday, October 2, 2003 Posted: 11:57 PM EDT (0357 GMT)

Marines' armored vehicles are battered after a battle in Nasiriya.

CNN's Art Harris talks with U.S. Marines who say they were attacked by an A-10 Warthog in the battle of Nasiriya, Iraq (October 2)

JACKSONVILLE, North Carolina (CNN) -- It was the deadliest day of the Iraq war.

Eighteen Marines were killed in Nasiriya on March 23 as U.S. and coalition forces drove to Baghdad.

Six months later, those who fought alongside them told CNN they remain bitter that an undetermined number of their friends were killed -- not by Iraqis -- but by an Air Force A-10 they hoped was coming to their rescue.

Pinned down on all sides, the Marines were under fire from mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns. Outnumbered, they fought back, their dead and wounded scattered all along the aptly named "Ambush Alley."

With no air support yet, Marine Capt. Dan Wittnam was elated as he looked into the clear skies to see it coming -- a U.S. warplane called a Warthog for its ability to root out and kill tanks.

"The first thought that went through my mind was, 'Thank God, an A-10 was on station," he told CNN.

And then, "the earth went black from the dirt being kicked up. And a feeling of absolute, utter horror and disbelief."

Wittnam, the 33-year-old commander of Charlie Company, said the Warthog fired on the Marines.

The United States Central Command wouldn't comment on the incident other than to say it's still under investigation.

It has been under investigation for six months. It remains "open" and a report is expected to be released in weeks.

The 18 Marines account for 16 percent of all U.S. combat casualties during the war, according to Central Command's official records.

Just how many Marines died from the A-10 is unclear.

"I know it's more than a handful," said Staff Sgt. Troy Schielein, displaying a muscled forearm covered in tattoos of the names of 18 dead Marines. Schielein estimated the A-10 killed five to 10.
Road to Baghdad

On March 23, the battalion got orders to seize two key bridges to help open the road to Baghdad.

By sundown, they'd accomplished their mission.

Marines on the battlefield that day described for the first time what happened in between when they were under fire from the A-10's 30-millimeter, multi-barrel cannon that spits out 3,900 rounds per minute.

"You hear this big, 'Waaah,' and then all you see is, you know, the ground just explode," said Lance Cpl. Edward Castleberry of Mount Vernon, Washington.

Lance Cpl. David Fribley, 26, had enlisted following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Castleberry said he shouted at Fribley to get in his Armored Assault Vehicle. Fast.

Fribley ran.

"I'm turning around, screaming at him, telling him to get in," said Castleberry, who was the AAV's driver.

Fribley almost made it.

"He was trying to climb in, he's got one arm trying to get in, and he just takes a huge round directly through his chest and it blew his whole back out," Castleberry said.

Marines said they are certain it was a U.S. warplane -- the Iraqis did not fly a single combat mission during the war.

Sgt. Jeremy Donaldson of Bangor, Maine, said one round just missed him.

"It came through my turret from an upper angle," he told CNN. "I'm confident it was an A-10. A 30-millimeter cannon, unless the Iraqis grew wings and hung off the clouds with a 30mm cannon."

Sgt. William Schaefer of Columbia, South Carolina, was evacuating dying and wounded Marines under withering Iraqi fire when the A-10 opened up and hit the transmission, he said. The AAV eventually crashed into a pole.

Schaefer keeps a snapshot of an armor-piercing A-10 round, made of depleted uranium, which was found inside his destroyed vehicle.

Those on the battlefield that day said the A-10 pilot -- still not identified -- was told there were no U.S. troops in the area.

The pilot reported back that he saw an Iraqi convoy heading for the city. So the ground controller -- who was never told Charlie Company was there -- gave the pilot the green light to fire.

Marines insist the pilot should have recognized the tub-shaped AAVs as U.S. assault vehicles. Only the Marine Corps has them.

"There is nothing like an AAV," said Schielein, of Peoria, Illinois. "I mean, the biggest vehicle that the Iraqis even had was a pick-up truck with a machine gun in the back."

Even though sources told CNN the A-10 was under anti-aircraft fire and performing evasive maneuvers, Marines said they cannot forget -- or forgive.

"If I could actually find the A-10 pilot, the one that did the shooting, I'd probably break both his knees," said Cpl. Michael Brown of Summit Station, Ohio.


Pentagon correspondents Jamie McIntyre and Barbara Starr and CNN cameraman David Allbritton contributed to this report.

(Bolding mine)

 
I understand where your coming from, even being an American, I feel the pilot got off, he should have at least eaten his own 9mm.

Having been on the reciving end of 155m HE, VT air burst, I do undersatand.  The only reason I'm walking today is the F-ing National Guard Troops couldn't shoot thier way outta of wet paper bag, and that was peace time
Of course that was years ago, when the National Gurad was well of questionalable quality, I'd like to think most of them are better these days.

 
Thanks Brittney    :-*  I do like you better as a brunette

yeah, that's just one.  sad to say blue on blue have been going on since we started chucking rocks at each other.

The Marines rarely if every call for Air support from the other branches, if we have a choice we call in Marine Air. pretty sure after the above "incident" we'll wait, or start shooting back.  That day was truely a Goat Screw to say the least.
 
Well, if anyone was wondering, <a href=http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/scoutcars.html>here's</a> where I got the BRDM idea from. Even if it were the same size as an M113, would it not still be more agile since it's on wheels? Perhaps if we contract the Russians to build us an improved version with better mine protection, like the Mamba and those other South African vehicles where the wheels are designed to blow away?

I think it may have been a mistake for the US to having nothing bridging the gap between the jeep/HMMMV and a Bradley. 
 
"I think it may have been a mistake for the US to having nothing bridging the gap between the jeep/HMMMV and a Bradley."

- It's called an M113A3.  Nothing wrong with it. Cheap and plentiful.  CULTURALLY, we tend to shy away from tracks, in which case a Bison or Grizzly is fine, but, again, we tend to try and turn cats into dogs.

-Your thinking out of the box regarding Commie AFVs is downright subversive and somewhat refreshing.  We have never given a lot of them their just due.  I think the best veh all round for Canada - summer and WINTER - is the BMP3. 

So there.

As to the inevitable hunk of junk stories and how poor it is on road moves (though one DID pass my Coyote going uphill on a road in Bosnia), I would suggest a trial. 

Tom
 
Britney Spears said:
I think it may have been a mistake for the US to having nothing bridging the gap between the jeep/HMMMV and a Bradley.  
Wouldn't that be the much called down Stryker?
 
The US QRF that lived at CJ for the election parked their M113A3's - they used Hummers...

While clankity clanks have their purpose the current roles we/they are doing does not need a track. 

We do need a light recce vehicle - we need a light inf 'support' vehicle - we need a light logisitics vehicle.

We have limited amounts of ATV's and BV206's for Light Inf operations - but need another system for neither are ideal nor fill all the needs.  I won't touch what the Black Hatters want or need since I am not an 011
 
Public Works and Government Services Canada (PW&GSC) seriously considered purchasing the AM
General HMMWV (Hummer or Humvee) to replace the Iltis fleet, but had to opt out because the
Humvee is produced exclusively in the United States, and no Industrial Regional Benefits (IRB's)
would be approved through the US Department of Commerce for the purchase. There were
several supplier options to replace the Ilitis fleet, including a Proposal from the Ford Motor Co,
Canada to provide a vehicle remarkably similar to the G-Wagen, built on a Ford ambulance frame
and equipped with a diesel engine. This Proposal genrated IRB's and focused exclusively on
Canadian suppliers and contractors. It was rejected because we learned later that Ottawa already
knew that GM London, the major producer of military vehicles in Canada was about to be purchased
by General Dynamics Canada (GDC) - focused on the Stryker Contract for the US Army. The irony is
that if the recce platoon of 3PPCLI in Kabul had not borrowed Humvees from the US Army, the
entire Iltis replacement Program would probably still be going on in Ottawa, where it took 20 years
to "buy a truck" because this caught the eye of the international media "Canadians have to borrow
us equipment" etc. MacLeod
 
-Your thinking out of the box regarding Commie AFVs is downright subversive and somewhat refreshing.  We have never given a lot of them their just due.  I think the best veh all round for Canada - summer and WINTER - is the BMP3.

Heh, so the Armrd guy feels we should have a vehicle with trakcs, a stabilized turrent, 100mm gun and a 30mm cannon for a coax? Well who would have thought.....:)  Stack on the ERA blocks and isn't the BMP3 basically a tank?

- It's called an M113A3.  Nothing wrong with it. Cheap and plentiful.  CULTURALLY, we tend to shy away from tracks, in which case a Bison or Grizzly is fine, but, again, we tend to try and turn cats into dogs.

Wouldn't that be the much called down Stryker?

Hmm, I'm not so sure. It would seem to me that both the M113 and the Stryker/LAV3 are more like lighter Bradleys instead of heavier HMMMVs, which is what we need and the US is trying to do with the up amored hummers. I think the LAV3 is actually bigger, if not almost the same size as a Bradley. The "tracked" factor automatically means more maintainance, noise and also more intimidation. The Russians use the BRDM for many of the same things we use M113 and HMMVs for (carrying ATGM, MANPAD,) but an urban patrol with a wheeled 4x4 vehicle just feels different to me from doing it with a tracked M113. 
 
"recce platoon of 3PPCLI in Kabul had not borrowed Humvees from the US Army, the
entire Iltis replacement Program would probably still be going on in Ottawa, where it took 20 years
to "buy a truck" because this caught the eye of the international media "Canadians have to borrow
us equipment" etc. MacLeod"

- You mean 3VP in Kandahar in 2002, right?  At the time, our Bde (3 Bde, 101 ABN Div (Air Assault) Commander said "No one will leave the camp unless they are in an Armoured Veh or escorted by an armoured veh".  This expanded the Coyote Sqn mission somewhat, as three of the Bisons doubled as APCs, and the Coyotes did a 24/7 escort service for 14 countries. 

I understand we all would like our own pet niche vehicles for our own reasons - I myself have been known to hold opinions in this regard - but choosing a fleet of vehicles poses more challenges.  Summer or winter, sand or snow, Brampton, Baffin Island, or the Baskin &Robbins at Kandahar Airfield, the M113 series would be the all round most cost effective and flexible "carrier" that we have.  But, since, as an Army, we have said "NO" to that, and the Grizzly fleet appears to have been souvenired to the Army of the AU (after we take out the TCCCS and weld on a bin to hold shrunken heads), we have only LAVs and Bisons left, and they are the size of deuce-and-a-halfs.  So, we know have the G-Wagon, which has not impressed it's OPERATIONAL users so far.  But, time will tell, and early opinions on it may change.

Next?

Tom
 
We are starting to get a little diverted here. Tha basic HMMVW was designed as a utility vehicle, and in the late 1980s, I doubt anyone ever envisioned it going into war as a front line combat vehicle. The engineers who designed it did a very good job, and the machine is very adaptable to being armoured, festooned with weapons and so on. Since this was never the basic reason for being, the up armoured HMMVWs do have issues with center of gravity, stress on the mechanical components and deficiencies in the armour envelope and weapons coverage.

For mud recce, convoy escort and local security taskings, a purpose built vehicle is a must. If we are "smart" about it, there is no reason it cannot use many of the common components of the utility vehicle (like the Turkish "Otocar Cobra" series). The CV-90 SEV is being developed in a timeframe which would put it into production about the time the G-wagons and MILCOTs would have been driven into the ground (in real terms, not the unnatural artificial life spans that we tend to force on these sorts of vehicles), so a certain consideration should be given to using this as the basis for families of vehicles, including a utility vehicle to replace the MILCOTs and an armoured vehicle to replace the G-Wagon.
 
Right. We do not think the G-wagen is the ultimate answer, and the search should continue for
a suitable replacement - many of the vehicles noted on this post are very impressive. My own
opinion is that if the US Army had it to do over again, they would not have bought the Humvee
-saw litierally hundreds of them at the US Army Vehicle Upgrade and Repair facility at the former
Loring AFB in Limestone Maine- plus many Bradleys, a small variety of tanks, and miscellaneous
pieces of equipment, like ambulances etc. I remember when NDHQ had a five-year cyclical plan
for replacement and upgrades of every item of equipment and facilites owned and operated
by CF, but these excellent, well thought out plans seemed to have vanished with budget cuts.
MacLeod
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top