Two mines struck

[garett]

A LAV III and a Bison hit mines in Ethiopia. No serious injuries.
http://www.dnd.ca/menu/press/index_e.htm

[Cree Warrior]

I wonder how long it will take for everyone to realize that these LAV III's are not the be all and end all of the CF?
Seems like alot of people are really buying into the General Motors hype.

Sua Sponte

[Reverend B]

I don't know Cree, I am sick of hearing all this "LAV, LAV, LAV" bullshit myself, but, when you are playing with rocks all your whole life, suddenly getting a cool-looking brick is all there is to life.

[towhey]

I don't know... two direct minestrikes under the driver... no serious injuries.

Same story for most bison/AVGP mine incidents in Somalia and FRY.

Got my vote!

[Reverend B]

No, don't get me wrong,they are a good peice of kit, but it seems that the LAV is all that everyone is concerned about...a little bit of tunnel view perhaps. Everyone wants the new "HotRod".

[towhey]

As a light infantryman at heart, I hear you. My most important vehicle was the two size-10s strapped to my tired feet.

How you get to work is not the same as what you do at work.

[garett]

Having been in a LAVIII and seen it at work I'd have to say its pretty damn good and light-years ahead of the M113. Yet its new and there are going to be a lot of problems emerging over the next few years. I guess they're having problems with the breaks in cold weather. There are a lot of electronics and that leaves a lot of room for problems. The magazine for the 25mm cannon isn't very large and I question the usefulness of a C-9 instead of a C-6. Those 25mm round do cut through brick like a hot knife through butter. My friend is either on his LAV Drivers course or he just finished it so I'll ask him about the vehicle.

[TonyM]

Any armoured vehicle=TARGET

[Marauder]

Can't speak to the effectiveness and what-have-you of the LAV III, but I agree with Mr. Towhey.
2 Mine Explosions = O Casualities is to my mind excellent math to have on the CF's side.

[Cree Warrior]

Agreed about the mine protection. If that were say a HUMVEE that hit any mine similar to an M21 they'd all be toast.
However, it seems that when an organization has a moral problem, they always look towards external things as "fix its". "Oh just wait till the LAV III's get fully implemented them we'll have no probs", there are other examples.
After being on course with a guy from General Motors and having met some officers from the evaluation team, I think they are buying into the sales hype way too much. If you're in a LAV you're a Mech pogue. The blood and guts of the Army is and always will be Light Infantry.
The more gizmo's we get (Coyote) the more we move away from an effective light infantry force. 3PPCLI the exception, they seem to have their shit together.

Sua Sponte

[towhey]

As a light infantryman (retired) myself, you know where my heart is...

However, I feel compelled to confess that there is no such thing as an "effective light infantry force"

In the days of yore, when light infantry was first defined, "light infantry" meant highly-mobile infantry capable of skirmishing, fighting on the run and moving quickly from point A to point B on the battlefield, as required to meet a dynamic combat situation. As opposed to "heavy" infantry that was less well trained and practically immobile in its rank and file formations once engaged with the enemy.

Alas, in the latter part of the 20th Century, the definition of "light" versus "heavy" infantry did a 180 degree flip flop.

While I like to think that light infantry are better trained, this is probably not factual. What is factual is that "light infantry" now means "infantry with less stuff that are cheaper". The consequence of this is that what we now consider "heavy" infantry -- aka mech infantry -- are now the infantry who have battlefield mobility and are able to disengage from the enemy, redeploy on the battlefield and reengage.

Modern light infantry, once engaged in battle, is virtually immobile in a large scale sense.

The roles have reversed.

The plain truth is that Canadian infantry units are all the same quality and have, essentially, the same capability. The only difference is in how they get to work: in their own vehicles, or in someone else's vehicles. Once the boot leather touches the ground, they're all the same.

Although I do think that the 3VP soldiers I commanded were far better dismounted troops than the mech warriors I commanded -- simply because the mech warriors spend 2/3 of their training time "torquing track" and maintaining their vehicles -- not practicing dismounted tactics.

[Cree Warrior]

Very true. I,m just try to rationalize my long time dislike for Mech guys. After passing a Mech platoon PT formation (in PTs) with our rucks on, running, up a hill, Ive hated them ever since. I have no doubt they hated us that morning as well.

Sua Sponte