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

The M113A3 is going to Afghanistan

Status
Not open for further replies.

ProPatria Mike

Jr. Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
110
Well, They must be deep in flinch mode in Ottawa if they are bringing out the ole mothbolled M113 APCs they bought in the sixties. They can park em beside those obsolete tanks they wasted a million bucks a pop importing but wont drive beyond the wire.  Have they up armoured those crates or have they been siting rotting in a yard since the wall came down?


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/05/afghanistan.html

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.

"So that's had them scrambling to figure out where all the troops are coming from."

O'Connor said he believes it will be "no great challenge" to avoid sending soldiers back to Afghanistan for a second deployment because recruiting is up.

The military is lowering its fitness standards for new recruits and moving training and administrative personnel into combat units.

In the Canadian Forces, which includes land, air, sea and special operations personnel, there are 62,000 regular members, 25,000 reservists and 4,000 Canadian Rangers. More than 2,000 Canadians are serving in Afghanistan.
Continue Article

On Sunday, Gen. Rick Hillier, Canada's chief of defence staff, confirmed a CBC report earlier this week that the military will send members of the air force and navy to Afghanistan, with some of them serving in dangerous situations.

"Minister O'Connor and I have a unity of thought and a unity of effort on this one," he said. "Our aim is to simply use all the Canadian Forces to do this very complex mission, to use every man and woman in uniform rather than have a small number carry the burden, as we have traditionally done over the last decade."

"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.

In private briefings, senior army officials told CBC News that even with the changes, there are simply not enough troops in the army to sustain the government's foreign policy, which made O'Connor's one-tour pledge unrealistic.

Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh said the plans prove the Afghan mission is too much for the military to handle.

"I don't fault the military; I fault this government," Dosanjh told CBC News Sunday. "They have not done adequate preparation for the extension. They didn't take stock of what we had in terms [of] troops. They simply, blindly, as a cynical political ploy, extended the mission for two additional years."

10 years before Afghan forces ready: military trainer

The deployment plans come as a top military trainer in Afghanistan said it will be at least 10 years before Afghan troops can handle national security without help from Canadians and other foreign soldiers.


British Col. Paul Farrar, deputy commander of the international assistance wing of the Kabul Military Training Centre, said Sunday that the four-year-old Afghan National Army is making real progress, but it is painfully slow.

The assessment isn't exactly good news for countries, including Canada, who pin their exit strategies from Afghanistan on the ultimate hand-over of security duties.

Forty-two Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have died in the country since 2002.
 
Wow! Mike.  You really have been away for a while and aren't having a good time filtering out the crap that the ignorant civie Reporters are spewing.  The Leopard C2 that we are sending is up-armoured and has some of the best sights available and will be outside the wire.  The M113's is an interesting concept in the news, but they are being used as training platforms in the Training Center in Wainwright.  There are also M113's that have been upgraded to what is now called the TLAV - definitely not your Vietnam era M113.  I have yet to hear of any of them being slated to go to Afghanistan.  (Same goes for CF 18's.)

I find it interesting how that idiot of the Liberal Defence Critic is spouting off on how ill-prepared the Government is for the continuation of the Afghan deployment, when it was successive terms of Liberal Governments who put the CF into such a sad state of affairs.  It was the Liberals who created 'Force Reduction', did not make any major Defence purchases, etc. not the Conservatives.  Ujjal Dosanjh can stick his head back up that orifice that it has been hiding in and keep it there.
 
And the TLAV's are fairly kick-as@. Never worked on one (that engine compartment is even more cramped than it was before), but got to tool around in a few. Go like stink! Definetely not the old APC.
 
Well, They must be deep in flinch mode in Ottawa if they are bringing out the ole mothbolled M113 APCs they bought in the sixties. They can park em beside those obsolete tanks they wasted a million bucks a pop importing but wont drive beyond the wire.  Have they up armoured those crates or have they been siting rotting in a yard since the wall came down?

You really have no idea do you?  You're so far out of touch that you're singularly ill-equipped to be commenting on current operations.  "Mothballed", "ole" "obsolete", "won't drive beyond the wire", "crates", "rotting"... can you fit more nastiness into a single paragraph?

Again, you have zero idea of what you're talking about.  None.  If you're going to see fit to comment on current operations, as least do us the courtesy of doing some background reading and research before doing so.

TR, out.
 
Wookilar said:
And the TLAV's are fairly kick-as@. Never worked on one (that engine compartment is even more cramped than it was before), but got to tool around in a few. Go like stink! Definetely not the old APC.
To add to your post, those "new" M113s, not only having better armour protection than previously, now have the benefit (some of them, anyway) of a Remote Weapons station (RWS) or the old Grizzly "1 metre" turret.  And yes, they definately go like stink!  I was amazed the first time I saw one flying by!
 
ProPatria Mike said:
One thing is certain, those tanks that have been delivered to Astan were brought out of mothballs to do the job and, contrary to your inane ramblings, have yet to be used operationally. 

And those APC's were taken out of the line for a reason.

The tanks were definately not mothballed (the ones currently over there).  Yes, they were checked and maintained, and add-on armour, well, added.
They (the tanks) were used operationally in Europe from about 1977 (or so) until 1994.  Also, used in Kosovo, and they were "there", behind the scenes, at Oka (but never used).
Those old APCs were taken out of the line for a reason, that's true.  EVERYTHING is done for a reason.  For starters, we got ourselves new APCs (LAV 3: google it).  Now, the current M113s you see "out there" are definately not the same as the ones I jumped out of back in the 80s and 90s (and until 2000, actually).  The have a vastly improved power plant, they have extra armour protection, and they have newer weapons stations.  Also, Canada is NOT the only nation still using the M113s.   The M113 is being used as an APC (battlefield taxi with some armour protection) whereas the LAV 3 is being used as an IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle), though it really is just a heavily armed APC.  Anyway, I digress.

The point is, the M113 of old is definately not the T-LAV we see today.
 
ProPatria Mike said:
the ole mothbolled M113 APCs they bought in the sixties
It is not.  It is the new (upgraded in the last 6 or so years) TLAV that was only recently through fielding to CERs and Armd Regts.

ProPatria Mike said:
Have they up armoured those crates or have they been siting rotting in a yard since the wall came down?
They have done more than that in the upgrades.
 
von Garvin said:
Those old APCs were taken out of the line for a reason, that's true.  EVERYTHING is done for a reason.  For starters, we got ourselves new APCs (LAV 3: google it).  Now, the current M113s you see "out there" are defdefinitelyt the same as the ones I jumped out of back in the 80s and 90s (and until 2000, actually).  The have a vastly improved power plant, they have extra armour protection, and they have newer weapons stations.  Also, Canada is NOT the only nation still using the M113s.   The M113 is being used as an APC (battlefield taxi with some armour protection) whereas the LAV 3 is being used as an IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle), though it really is just a heavily armed APC.  Anyway, I digress.

The point is, the M113 of old is definately not the T-LAV we see today.

Well yes and no to the M113's Von Garvin, the power plant on the new M113's (read MTVL/T-LAV FOV and M113-A3) is essentially the same as the the M113-A2 only thing they have added to the new one is a computer control to boost horsepower. Did a trial about a 2 years ago with them, and well I found the powerplants just don't work very well. Ended up changing about 15 power packs in a 3 month period mind you we were pushing these apc's to the max with max weight and hp.

Mind you the inclusion of the Grizzly turret T-LAV/MTVL FOV seems IMHO to be a plus gives CC abit of protection and the ability to use the wpns while in a "hatches down" environment.

But essential Von Garvin is right the MTVL/T-LAV FOV are essentially battlefield taxis pure and simple.
 
From what I understand, only five of the tanks have been upgraded and then with only medium armour. As for the APC's the modernization plan went out the chute once the government changed direction. Four hundred million was spent, if you recall, before they were officially mothbolled the fleet and put up for sale. No body would buy em cause they are obsolete.  Now we are sending them to Astan.

Stop.  For the love of god, you have no idea what you're posting about.  All tanks headed to Afghanistan have been fully modified - period.  All are Leopard C2s with the massively upgraded fire control system, new turrets and very effective add on armour.  

Second, you're confusing the OLD M113s and TLAV.  It is TLAV that we are currently planning on sending.  TLAV was NOT in service when you were in.  The modification programme did go ahead for these vehicles.

::)
 
ProPatria Mike said:
From what I understand....

Oh, well there's the problem right there! You're not getting it, are you? There are people here - - with current information and operational experience - - trying to gently and loving tell you that you don't know what you are talking about. I'm not saying that Cyprus and the Reeperbahn aren't valued experiences in today's army, but in this particular matter, you've shown that your opinion is sorely lacking.

Again, I'm speaking only about  "the poster's position, not the poster."

So please, let it end there. Read...and maybe, learn.


edit - - damn TR.  Outdrawn. ;) 
 
http://www.dewengineering.com/military/m113.html

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_display.asp?product=58&more=58

http://www.dewengineering.com/military/leopard.html

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_display.asp?product=55&more=55

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-leopard-afghan.htm
 
You act like I said this and not the minister of National Defense before committee.

I did not,

He did!
 
cplcaldwell said:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-leopard-afghan.htm

Cplcaldwell:  as is typical with CASR articles, this one has significant errors...  FYI.

Cheers,

TR
 
TR: Yes.

<In a shameful act of self defence he retorts>
The pix do show the up-armouring quite clearly though 8)

And in an act of contrition I would add: http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Leopard_MBT
 
The difficulty is arising from taking a CBC report of what was said by the MND.  It would be better, by far, to wait until we hear the actual, operational communications from the military.  As has already been pointed out, the "Vietnam-era" M113 is essentially a non-issue; it's actually the TLAV being discussed--a very different vehicle.  So there's an inaccuracy in the CBC report right there; perhaps understandable, because to the average CBC reporter or member of the public, the distinction is largely invisible.  But it's an inaccuracy nonetheless.  And as for the Leopards, they have been heavily upgraded, and have been exercising quite vigorously in Edmonton (I employed Leopards in my company group on Urban Ram in 2001, and I know they've been busy since then).

Perhaps any reaction based on a CBC news report should be more...measured.
 
Thank you Teddy! As I said, only five or six have been upgraded with the Mexas system..... Also relevant .... some of  the CF’s 28-year old  tanks were being reconditioned and  B Sqn of  Lord Strathcona’s Horse (Royal Canadians) trained for their deployment to Afghanistan at CFB Wainwright.

Reconditioned??? But I was just told they are are up to standard, ready to go? However can this be? 

Tell me, your a tanker, what was B sqn using prior to this? 
 
Okay one last time....

The second generation of Canadian Leopard tanks was presented to the Army at CTC Gagetown November 23, 1999. The Leopard C2 sports a new thermal sight and enhanced digital fire control system upgrade. The improved operational capability over the old Leopards is like night and day-literally. The old Leopard C1 tanks had serious deficiencies when operating during conditions of low visibility due to night, smoke, dust and fog.

DND purchased 123 surplus Leopard 1A5 tanks from the German Ministry of Defence in order to put their turrets on the chassis of 114 Canadian Leopards. The remaining nine turrets are being used for spare parts, test equipment and training aids while the contractor bought back the German chassis.

At a cost of about $139 million, this was the first major upgrade on the Leopard C1 tanks that were purchased in 1978. Swapping turrets was found to be the most cost-effective way of addressing the deficiencies of the Canadian Leopard.

The Leopard C2 boasts a much more accurate weapons system; it can accurately engage targets on the move at twice the range of the C1. A computer in the tank monitors the target's range and factors that affect the flight of the round such as wind speed and air temperature. Then it does all the necessary calculations to get the round on target.

In addition to the tank upgrade, 18 Leopard Crew Gunnery Trainers were purchased under the Leopard Thermal Sight Project. The Armour School at CTC Gagetown received six of these, while regiments across Canada received four each.

Even with all of the improvements, the Leopard's life expectancy has been stretched only to about the year 2010. The long-range future for the tank in Canada is still not certain. Analyses of alternate options, fleet rationalization and operating costs are ongoing. 
 
http://www.army.dnd.ca/GGHG/OpsTrg_files/AFV/AFV_L1/leoC2/Info_leoC2.htm (How the Horse Guards relate to this I dunno.. noethless a DND site...
 
My last word and last try:

As I said, only five or six have been upgraded with the Mexas system.

Not correct - all the tanks were uparmoured before deployment.  None of the tanks had the system installed before the Sqn was warned.  This is SOP, as there are limited numbers of uparmour kits in the system.

Also relevant .... some of  the CF’s 28-year old  tanks were being reconditioned and  B Sqn of  Lord Strathcona’s Horse (Royal Canadians) trained for their deployment to Afghanistan at CFB Wainwright.

B Sqn was training in Wainwright when they were warned for deployment.  They completed their training, shipped their tanks back to Edmonton for maintenence and pre-movement checks, had the uparmour installed and away they went.

Reconditioned??? But I was just told they are are up to standard, ready to go? However can this be?

Nice, but inappropriate, use of sarcasm.  As I just said, the tanks were in use in Wainwright immediately before the deployment.  Essential maintenance was performed, along with the pre-movement preparations, then the armour was installed.  We could have shoved them on to an aircraft "as is", but the movements people wouldn't have liked that very much - to put it mildly.

Tell me, your a tanker, what was B sqn using prior to this?

B Sqn was using the tanks that they currently have in Afghanistan.  Same vehicles (with some minor switching of CFRs for ones in slightly better shape for deployment)...

Stop taking media reports as being true.

 
CBC News said:
He also acknowledged the military was planning to send scores of Vietnam-era M113 armoured personnel carriers to move soldiers around the battlefield.
ProPatria Mike said:
You act like I said this and not the minister of National Defense before committee.
...
He did!
The MND did not say this.  A reporter wrote the sentence in order to paraphrase the MND; the reporter added his own bad information.
 
I only caught the end of this on the CBC yesterday or the day before (when babies are teething the days run together)

What I thought I heard was we are sending or thinking of the sending the M113 overseas.

Is this the case? If so the story mentioned the M113A3.    What seperates the A3 from the other variants?  Also, would be interested in opinions on this decision.  These were old vehicle back in the early 90's.....

If I miss heard let me know. 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top