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

No more patrols for G-Wagons in Afghanistan?

mcchartman

Jr. Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
60
Full article can be found here:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1149027011878&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

Military parks G-wagons as Afghan danger grows
Light jeeps no longer going on patrols

Ottawa favours new armoured vehicles
May 31, 2006. 01:00 AM
BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU


OTTAWA—In a nod to Afghanistan's growing dangers, Canadian troops are pulling their light G-wagon jeeps off patrol and will now only venture outside their Kandahar base riding in heavily armoured vehicles, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says.

And he says the federal government is buying 25 more South African-made Nyala RG-31 jeeps, specially designed to resist bomb attacks, on top of the 50 it has already purchased for the Afghan mission.

"As our soldiers leave the base, they will be in armoured vehicles," O'Connor said yesterday.

While a step up from the maligned Iltis jeeps they replaced, the G-wagons have proven vulnerable to attack in Afghanistan. Four soldiers and one diplomat riding in G-wagons have been killed by bombs this year.


Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh said it was never thought the violence would get this bad when his party first sent the military to Afghanistan.

"When this mission was dispatched, one didn't believe ... that the resistance or the violence would be escalating to the level that it has. I think that's a concern," Dosanjh said. "We are in the middle of a tense patch."

O'Connor told the Commons defence committee that military commanders in Kandahar have decided to restrict "most" of the G-wagons to camp.

Instead, patrols will be conducted using LAV IIIs, large eight-wheel armoured vehicles, and the Nyalas, which resemble a beefed-up jeep, both of which have proven resistant to the kind of bomb attacks favoured by insurgents.

The defence department website boasts that the Nyala, able to carry six, is "specifically designed to resist under-wheel and under-belly mine strikes to enhance crew survivability."

The vehicle, fitted with bullet-resistant windows, also protects against small arms, hand grenades and anti-tank mines. Indeed, a Nyala jeep was credited with saving the lives of two soldiers earlier this month when it was hit by a roadside blast.

O'Connor later denied the decision was an indictment of the safety of the G-wagons in the dangerous territory.

"We adjust to whatever is going on on the ground. If we have incidents, we try to learn from these incidents and what we try to do is improve," O'Connor told reporters.

"We found out now from actual experience that these Nyalas work. I'll spend more to give protection. If I have to buy more Nyalas or more LAVs, I will."

One of the selling points of the G-wagon was that it was able to get into neighbourhoods not accessible to the bigger armoured vehicles and provided a better opportunity for troops to interact with Afghan residents.

But O'Connor said Canada's "hearts and minds" mission would not be deterred by the swap in vehicles. "When you get to the town, you get out of your vehicle and you talk to the people. But between the villages, they're in their vehicles."

O'Connor appeared before the committee for an hour yesterday afternoon to discuss Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

In a surprising comment, O'Connor said he welcomes the big firefights of the kind that Canadian troops have faced in recent weeks, including one that killed Capt. Nichola Goddard.

"I don't mind those tactics because they're playing into our hands. If (insurgents) concentrate, you can defeat them," said O'Connor, a retired army veteran. "Lately they've been concentrating against our militaries in our area, they've been taking very large casualties and I don't know how long they can keep up this intensity."

Meanwhile, it was revealed yesterday that Governor General Michaëlle Jean, the commander-in-chief of Canada's armed forces, has twice been rebuffed in her attempts to visit troops in Afghanistan. Security concerns were cited as a reason for Jean not to make the trip, even as O'Connor, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay have all visited the country.

with files from Canadian Press

What do you guys think? I may be off track, and correct me if I am, but isn't it somewhat foolish to stop sending G-wagons on patrol before the Nyalas are actually received? In my humble opinion, the worst thing that the Forces could do right now is to decrease the number of patrols as it would also mean a decrease in the monitoring of insurgent activity. Please enlighten me.
 
I am not a soldier and never been to Astan but the article stated that they where removing the G-wagon from patrols didn't say that they where reducing the number of patrols It probably means  that  until these new armoured vehicles are delivered the soldiers in Astan will have the same work load but fewer assets to conduct them in
 
There are Nyalas on the ground in theatre now.  This was widely reported when they arrived.
 
Right now, with the opposition hammering them, optics are everything. To get around that, they ordered more Nyalas, and reduced the visual exposure of the GWagon. Makes good political sense. Because of the recent deaths in a Gwagon...they (MDN and CF)don't need more bad publicity.
 
I doubt that they have enough Nyla’s and LAV to replace them entirely. Anyone know if they are planning to buy more LAV’s?
 
There are some pretty good videos on the Nyala's on the web some where. Shows them in testing. I think they tried 6kg -12 kg of Explosives and the truck held up pretty good. Only seem to lose a tire or two. They seem like really good trucks plus everyone can see whats going on inside and out cause of the windows all the way around. I think its a great buy.
 
No word on new LAVS but they are getting another 25-50 of the Nyalas to help ease the burden on the LAV's in theater. 

Good link on them here.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehapv.htm
 
Politicians trying to avoid bad photo ops of coffins coming home by using G-Wagens less should remember the words of the CDS after the 4 soldiers were killed by the IED; roughly that no matter how much armour you put on a vehicle the insurgents can build a big enough bomb to kill people inside.  It's the job of the higher ups to reduce casualties while working towards the mission accomplishment, but politicians should never get into the trap of thinking that military operations can be successful witout suffering casualties.
 
Be great to hear some feedback from the troops overseas right now with our OPSEC concerns....Very true with the comments from CDS....
 
When I read the article for the first time, I was also under the impression that this move was based on home politics more than anything else. Now I don't want to start talking too much of politics around here, but this really came as a surprise to me considering how the Harper administration has already acted on several issues despite outcries from the opposition in the few months since it was elected.

It is true however that feedback from troops overseas would be a great asset to this topic.
 
I was in Kandahar on the last roto, and I'll defiantly echo the CDS' statement that no matter how much armour you put on a vehicle, the insurgents will just build a bigger bomb.....
 
And no doubt they will.

I bet that within one yr, they do an IED large enough to flip a LAV (If they have not already).
 
~RoKo~ said:
I was in Kandahar on the last roto, and I'll defiantly echo the CDS' statement that no matter how much armour you put on a vehicle, the insurgents will just build a bigger bomb.....

exactly. However, we also have a history of adapting tactics and sensibilities to overcome deficincies in equipt. See the Sherman tank debate in Normandy for one example. As long as we don't fall into the trap of confusing firepower with sensible operations; not to suggest we ever have.
 
Armymedic said:
I bet that within one yr, they do an IED large enough to flip a LAV (If they have not already).


Just to put it in a bit of perspective here troops.....

Insurgents are taking M1s out in Iraq with IEDs......they just keep adding in explosives until they reach the desired effect.

Taliban have access to internet sources in Afghanistan also....I'm sure they are in touch with one another as to how to take on infidels.

My $0.02 worth

Regards
 
The mojies were building stacked mines big enough to take out armour as early as 94 in Bosnia. Obviously anyone can build bigger bombs to combat armour, the difference is it takes more effort, sophistication and longer to do it. Light fighters doing hit and run attacks cant do the big stuff easily thus the tradeoff. And most important larger devices leave bigger marks in the ground or culverts when laid thus easier to detect. Potential larger explosives is not a tactical reason to omit armour to protect troops. Nylas are a better choice but still IMHO the wrong veh for the task.

Recce BD -  is that photo of the M1 struck by IED, a mobility kill that was later killed by US fast air or is it a complete IED kill? It looks like the M1 that was hit day one on the assult into Bagdad that was taken out by US forces to deny it from the EN.
 
Recce By Death said:
Just to put it in a bit of perspective here troops.....

Insurgents are taking M1s out in Iraq with IEDs......they just keep adding in explosives until they reach the desired effect.

Taliban have access to internet sources in Afghanistan also....I'm sure they are in touch with one another as to how to take on infidels.

My $0.02 worth

Regards

Looks like that abrams was disabled not destroyed by an IED.  You can see the hole left by a Maverick missile which destroyed it.
 
Just read this article.  It says that the G-wagons will no longer be driving off the base in Afghanistan.

http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=2&nid=39626

G-Wagons Parked in Afghanistan
Josh Pringle
Wednesday, May 31, 2006

The Canadian military's light-armoured G-Wagons are remaining on the base in Afghanistan.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says the jeep-like wagons are no longer venturing off the military base in Kandahar.

O'Connor told a Commons committee that soldiers will now venture out in armoured vehicles.

O'Connor would not say whether the G-Wagons are too light to be used in Afghanistan.

Canada is buying 25 more Nyala jeeps, which are specially designed to resist bomb attacks.
 
Armymedic said:
And no doubt they will.

I bet that within one yr, they do an IED large enough to flip a LAV (If they have not already).

They have mate, seen the video (terr propagand type with snake charming music added etc), not a pleasant sight. Pretty scary.

Wes
 
Back
Top