Skippy has some familiarity with the LAV-III;
The CBC report that the LAV-III has a “history of rollovers” is misleading, because in fact all military vehicles have a history of rollovers. These vehicles are operated on poor quality roads in all kinds of weather, by drivers whose visibility is often restricted by armour protection. M113 APCs have a “history of rollovers,” as did the AVGP Cougar and Grizzly vehicles. At least one Canadian soldier, to my recollection, was killed in a rollover accident in Bosnia, involving an M113.
Vehicle accidents do happen, and in fact are more likely to happen where traffic laws are effectively nonexistent and roads are poor. Vehicle accidents are a fact of military training and a fact of military operations. The question is not whether the LAV-III has rolled over in the past, but whether it is especially prone to rollover accidents.
The rest at the Torch.
Logical. I’ve seen two M113’s and even an M1 roll over (the M1 was expensive, crew was fine but it warped the turrent ring which meant a full shop rebuild). Stuff happens, while rollover prevention is important it’s not the primary criteria when designing a combat vehicle.
The LAV is an excellent vehicle; a success story for Canada if ever there was one.
However, it is a heavy, powerful, eight-wheeled armoured vehicle.
I’m always interested in the fact that the same military system that will insist on “crew rest” for pilots will push vehicle operators to keep driving along on operations and exercises even when they haven’t slept for days…
The Caliphate Broadcasting Criminals have a history of finding something negative to say about the Canadian Forces whenever they have a chance.
‘history of rollovers’ – well duh! these things aren’t the family wagon being driven to the corner store for milk. They’re combat vehicles driven over rough terrain in dangerous places by under-appreciated members of Her Majesty’s Canadian Forces.
CBC supplying misleading information?…What a shocker!
I suppose it takes cbc journalism experiance to make a perso not realize that military operations are dangerous.
If anything should be rolled over it is the cbc, your taxes at work for canadian content.
btw: off topic here ctv has reported shapiro to investigate Harper & Emerson, What a joke! was there one on scotty & belinda?
i have an expert’s opinion posted on my blog:
http://ottawacore.blogspot.com/2006/03/real-men-drive-lavs.html
i certainly hope pm harper cuts the cbc budget to pay for increased dnd costs. what an utter waste of our money. what really pisses me off is that the majority of people that watch that crap probably don’t pay taxes.
Have to agree with the CBC on this one. The LAV is top heavy to begin with. Add armour plate and a gun and it is more so. It’s a fine vechicle for nice roads and in a modern city, but as an off road vechicle it sucks. It will bog down in wet terrain and is practically useless in a rugged country like Afghanistan. Being restricted to roads also makes it vunerable to ambush. Take out its rubber and the only thing left is to limp back to base, if you’re lucky. I think it’s the wrong transport for this mission but then again that’s my opinion and others may agree or disagree. Some like Fords, some like Dodge, others prefer Chevys. There is a lot of equiptment out there and Canada has relics from the cold war. Either cough up the bucks or use what you got.
what greg said.
Over my time in the service I’ve dealt with vehicle rollovers in every type of vehicle we had from jeeps/iltis’ up to every type of amoured vehicle.
What we are seeing now is simply consistent with every previous theatre of operations. Remember, in the first gulf war, motor vehicle accidents were the number one cause of deaths to coalition forces. Enemy action was number five. (Part of my job at the time dealt with the reviewing casualty reports).
During my time in the CF I was aware of a rollover of a Centurion — (tank that is, I’m not THAT old) and indeed we were warned of same while training on them. I nearly rolled a jeep myself, and two members of my unit were injured when they did roll their jeep. It’s a function of the terrain and operating conditions as well as the need for high ground clearance and weaponry mounted up high on military vehicles.
Is the LAV-III anything like the LSVW. I never liked the LSVW…saw it roll over once on a training mission for no good reason…
A vehicle with a low centre of gravity will not rollover as easily, true. But if you build a vehicle low to the ground like that it will sustain much greater damage when a landmine goes off underneath it, killing the occupants more frequently. That and its lower profile will make it less effective as a weapons platform.
We could fight the war on terror in Canada on our subways and airliners. That would keep our military safe right now.
Greg:
Please read what what was written about LAV III in the linked article.
“The LAV-III has been operating in Afghanistan throughout the Canadian deployment. One rollover accident occured in late November, and another at the start of March. That’s two accidents in three months. There have been 12 rollovers, in total, since the LAV-III entered service in 2000.”
“The document asserts that the vehicle can handle a 30-degree side slope, which in the CBC report becomes a claim that the vehicle is “limited in the type of terrain it can handle.” Presumably, the CBC reporter who came up with that interpretation was unaware that a 30-degree side slope was specified in the original system specification issued by DND for this vehicle, a matter that could have been cleared up by a simple phone call. What this actually tells us is that the vehicle works as designed.”
Regarding the tires. I believe they are run flat and if you do any research you will find that tracked LAV’s are more vulnerable to damage. The LAV III is not a relic but a modern, well designed vehicle.
The casualty occured by the sentry who stands and looks out the hatch – not much time to respond in case the vehicle swerves off the road.
Greg:
Please read what what was written about LAV III in the linked article.
“The LAV-III has been operating in Afghanistan throughout the Canadian deployment. One rollover accident occured in late November, and another at the start of March. That’s two accidents in three months. There have been 12 rollovers, in total, since the LAV-III entered service in 2000.”
“The document asserts that the vehicle can handle a 30-degree side slope, which in the CBC report becomes a claim that the vehicle is “limited in the type of terrain it can handle.” Presumably, the CBC reporter who came up with that interpretation was unaware that a 30-degree side slope was specified in the original system specification issued by DND for this vehicle, a matter that could have been cleared up by a simple phone call. What this actually tells us is that the vehicle works as designed.”
Regarding the tires. I believe they are run flat and if you do any research you will find that tracked LAV’s are more vulnerable to damage. The LAV III is not a relic but a modern, well designed vehicle.
The casualty occured by the sentry who stands and looks out the hatch – not much time to respond in case the vehicle swerves off the road.
Personally if I want to take out a LAV 3 I wouldn’t use a landmine, I’d just run a taxi into it. But to be serious, wasn’t there a Canadian soldier in Alberta, killed in a LAV 3 rollover a few years ago? Seems as if we have had more than a few accidents with this type of carrier. My nephew instructs new drivers on the operation of the coyote recon vechicle, which I believe is a similar platform as the LAV 3 and he’s never had a rollover, but I don’t believe it has the same weighted armour and the communications tower probably doesn’t weigh as much as the gun turret. A empty LAV is about seventeen tons while an armoured LAV tops the scale at closer to twenty-two. Still it’s a useless transport in rocky rough terrain and if you have to stick to the roads then I guess it’s just a matter of time before you hit landmines and sooner or later it’s going to happen. I’ve got a BAD feeling about this and I’ve learned to trust my intutition. Give me a tracked vechicle any day, low to the ground or not, tracks are tougher than tires and the plate is heavier.
http://one-six-one.fifthinfantrydivision.com/lav3.htm http://www.g2mil.com/LAV-III.htm
John B. I guess it all depends on where you do your research and what you prefer to ride in. I prefer tracked. As for modern. I guess that word is also subjective.
I was directly involved in the developement and testing process of the LAV III. At Diesel Division GMC London (Then) I was the Trial Officer in Charge of Vehicle configuration and internal stowage and I was the Deputy Trial Officer for inital user acceptance trials, Phase I Mobility, at the old LETE site in Ottawa. I have no hesitation in saying that the vehicle met or exceeded all DND Statement of Requirement and Work criteria. It easily passed the 30 percent (side) and 60 percent (front) slope tests – combat loaded with no add-on-armour. This is not as easy as it seems and is not something that the average family car would ever be able to do.
Like anything else in life there will always be trade-offs in the developement and use of any piece of equipment – military or civilian. To reduce exposure to attack, a decision was taken to adopt the driving tactics that we have seen. It is fair to say that these tactics have indeed reduced the effectiveness of terroist/insurgent attacks but have increased the risk of vehicle accidents. Accidents that include rolling or flipping the vehicle. I personaly know some of the commanders in theatre and I have every confidence that our tactics including vehicle driving techniques are constantly being monitored and evaluated and if necessary, appropriate modifications to these techniques will be adopted.
This is an Armoured Fighting Vehicle not a station wagon people. All and sundry need to keep that in mind. It is an excellent vehicle in the provision of mobility, reasonable fire power with its stablized 25 mm Bush Master rapid fire auto-cannon and armour protection from both RPG, IED and sucide bomb attacks. The vehicle’s unique boat shape design is particular adept at channeling mine blasts away from its hull thus providing excellent crew protection.
Finally we must remember that Afganistan represents a totally new and challenging driving environment. There is always a steep learning curve in these type of situations for drivers and crew commanders. Once vehicle crews become used to this environment the frequency of vehicle accidents will fall.
B. A. Veysey
CWO (Master Gunner) Retired
Ya can’t fight physics.
It’s an armoured veheicle on a relatively narrow wheelbase and relatively high centre of gravity. Compared to, say, a tank.
The rest will be left as an exercise to the student.
As usual the CBC is full of it.
As a former tanker, I have to take sides as pro-track but given the many roles LAVs play, wheels work for it.
I’m really surprised nobody has bitched about it’s less than perfect pollution control systems yet. And horrors, there are no airbags! The rollover thing could be overlooked too, if the LAV IV is a “green” hybrid.
Greg
The argument that tracked vehicles are better than wheeled ones is, as you well know, an old one. Tracked vehicles do have better cross-country capability, plus, better stability and more armour protection. However, that doesn�t mean you can go anywhere with a tracked vehicle. During my M-113 �track� course in Victoria back in the late �70’s, we hit some soft sand and managed to bury two M-113’s up to the driver�s hatch! And there�s nothing like changing a broken track when your vehicle is stuck in two feet of muddy water – out with the fins and snorkel!
Disadvantages with tracked vehicles are that they require more training, more maintenance, and make a lot of noise.
You also have to remember that the good old days where we hightailed it across country like central-Germany are long gone. In a lot of the countries Canadians have been employed like Bosnia and Afghanistan, the countryside is liberally sown with landmines – you don�t dare go cross-country! A second reason is that most of the countries where Canada has employed the LAV-III are in the Third World that have poor roads and infrastructure: wheeled vehicles are less likely to tear-up the roads and p***ing-off the locals who depend on the roads for their livelihood.
The fact is that it all comes down to money and Canada cannot afford to field both tracks and wheeled vehicles; the LAV-III is easier to maintain and to train personnel on than tracked vehicles.
Greg,
The Coyote RECCE vehicle has the same gun turret as the LAV III. They both use the delco turret with a 25mm M242 chain gun. The weight difference must be attributed to the armour plating.
The Taliban [Students sect] and Jihad in general use divisive maneuvers from time to time, [ now it is the cartoon], in order to force persons to decide to step aside or commit to Jihad with new and stronger resolve.
It’s called, *Breathing new life into the cause*.
The supply of cartoons at Muhammad*s expense feeds the current cause.
Their whole game is mind control, similar to Dr. Moon, Hare Krishna, and cult leaders like those of Waco and Jonestown.
Children have been programmed by rote and now as teenagers they are given AK47s to do the bidding of Emirs and Mullahs.
How many of these rote trained kids have any concept of freedom, much less democracy?
They do know how to use Ak47s and RPGs however.
The most basic of flyers should be available in the streets.
[ Jihad.] Everyone below the leaders are slaves. This is rule by rifle.
[ Democracy.] Everyone shares the wealth with a car and a house and the people are not slaves. Rifles and weapons are not required.
Keep it simple. TG
Thanks for the info LJ and odie. Sorry I could not respond sooner as I had a date with a V-12 early this morning.