Is The LAV III A Hunk Of Junk?




 
--
 
January 28th, 2010  
Spaniard
 

Topic: Is The LAV III A Hunk Of Junk?


Hi! First this is analyzing these Vehicle proven performance, and the Needless deaths of Canadian Soldiers in the field of Operations.

I was inside and played with CF Grizzlies, Cougars, Huskies. In 80 in a APC I slept for hours, while rolling down the Autobahn in
Germany in Convoy. Like a baby, Out.


IED's and EFP's have become through many years an effective and devastating weapon used by Tango Bravo, Insurgents ++!
It's the number 1 cause of Canadian deaths, a God Done Shame. We have seen how these explosive devices are rigged, while being
very simple to make. Wood some wire you have a Trigger. The EFP traveling at "Mack 6" is more complicated to make but any
good welder or machinist can make one. No Rocket since ICCI!

By using such high explosives, a few Artillery shells you can knock out an Abrams M1A1. There the soldiers are offered some
protection and many survive the Blast. But not on HV's or LAV's. Weeks ago it coasted the lives of 4 more CF Personal and a
journalist.

{A Canadian soldier was killed yesterday and six others were injured when their armoured vehicle struck an Afghan taxi and rolled
off a busy highway just outside Kandahar.} I have many others. The "Roll Overs" have caused many casualties, they also tend to
get stuck in muddy conditions as clearing or ramming obstacles, like you can do with an APC. No fast speed wall Smashing with this
Puppy. The Armour "Stryker's" has been penetrated by 7.62 Full Metal jacket rounds, many times!

The LAV III was never built to withstand an IED Blasts, not even from one shell, the flat bottom in the back where the troops seat is
the death trap, where the majority have lost their lives when it could of been prevented. The wheel shafts have penetrated the bottom
of the hall, as soldiers had there legs blow-off, as the armour around the complete back of the wheel area.

The LAVIII Lacks the V shape bottom Technologies found with the New generation of armoured personal carriers. The Marines &
US ARMY And S.F. Even Canadians have the new South African Cougars, Buffalo's and Huskies. Till these day no Marine Or Army
have died in a Cougar after being hit by IED's. See the picture I provided shows a USMC Cougar Blown to Pieces Look at the Wheels
and Axles, all the Men survived the blast. Not counting the New Honey cone wheel technology.
.

I added some pictures Look at Picture 3, 6 soldiers died in the LAVIII shows how the Men are killed. Look also what happens If you get a
breach from a blast. Remember it's the breach that kills you, even if it's a 1" hole in diameter send the Flash in and uses the objects that are
part of the LAV as projectiles, killing you. The 4th picture was 2 years ago 18 0f February attack on Canadian convoy in Spin
Boldak near the Afghan/ Pakistan boarder. LAV III call Sign 62-D lies inverted in a ditch after an IED Attack on the convoy
it was in.


I found a Spray that you can apply to the Bottom or around your complete car. I'll gladly put 5K of Semtex on the bottom of the drivers
side, blow it up and will not penetrate the bottom floor, it will be bumpy thats it no penetration hole. You will survive the blast with out
injury, Ok a little shaken. Imagine if you applied it to A LAV III as other vehicles, many would survive the Blast from IED's. Yes I saw
this product work with my own eyes, Made in the USA


What do you think and what is your opinion on this matter?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Cougar-Bwreck-B002.jpg (51.3 KB, 14 views)
File Type: jpg mrap_vehicle.jpg (58.9 KB, 13 views)
File Type: jpg Project2.jpg (43.8 KB, 13 views)
File Type: jpg Picture or Video 452.jpg (75.5 KB, 15 views)
File Type: jpg P6.jpg (100.3 KB, 11 views)
File Type: jpg Project4.jpg (91.8 KB, 10 views)
January 29th, 2010  
FO Seaman
 
 
The LAV III was designed to fill a totally different role, the provide relative protection transporting troops onto the battlefield, and supporting infantry, not roll around an urban environment preforming patrols, with IED's lurking under every pile of trash.

Even M113 APC's can't withstand 7.62 M80 FMJ, but that's why they have uparmor packages, the Strkyer can be uparmored against 14.5mm rounds (An old Soviet favorite), what the LAV and Stryker's main purposes were, transport and protection on the conventional battlefield.

It must be remembered bullets and explosives are two totally different weapons that act differently of eachother.

On a side not the Cougar and Buffalo aren't South African, they're American, built on the chassis of MACK trucks, they are simply following the design of the Casspir, the RG-33 is a South Africa vehicle in use by the US Military because it was a stop gap measure for use between the development of the Cougar and Buffalo.

In addition to this an M1 Abrams isn't simply "knocked out "by a "few" artillery shells. Stacking 9 155mm rounds under anything is going to cause it to flip, most enemy hits to M1's are "mobility kills" meaning they have taken away the tanks ability to move, nothing more.
January 29th, 2010  
Spaniard
 
On a side not the Cougar and Buffalo aren't South African, they're American, built on the chassis of MACK trucks, they are simply following the design of the Casspir, the RG-33 is a South Africa vehicle in use by the US Military because it was a stop gap measure for use between the development of the Cougar and Buffalo.

In addition to this an M1 Abrams isn't simply "knocked out "by a "few" artillery shells. Stacking 9 155mm rounds under anything is going to cause it to flip, most enemy hits to M1's are "mobility kills" meaning they have taken away the tanks ability to move, nothing more.[/QUOTE]





Cougar Designer Technical solutions "South Africa" Force Protection Industries.

Used by

Canada, United Kingdom, Iraq, Italy, Poland, Hungary, United States.

Wars

Iraq War, War in Afghanistan

Designer

Technical Solutions (South Africa)
Manufacturer

Force Protection Industries

Unit cost

$475,000

Produced
2002

Variants

Cougar HE



The Cougar was designed in 2004 by a small team at Force Protection. Inc. in the US in response to an urgent requirement for the US Marine Corps. Contrary to common belief, this was not a South African vehicle but rather developed in the US without South African involvement, though based on an evolution of vehicle mine-protection technology used by the UK, Rhodesian and South African forces from the 1950s onwards.

Typically these explosions are from land mines, but they can also be IEDs. This design dates to the 1970s when it was first introduced in 1978 with the South African Buffel (Buffalo) armored personnel carrier (APC). However, the TSG/FPI Cougar (designed by a British-led US team in 2004 for a USMC requirement), departed from much of the older design philosophy; by applying first-world standards and practises, and providing good growth potential from the outset, the Cougar became the springboard from which the MRAP program was launched.

Multiple contracts have been placed by the United States for this type of vehicle in response to the situation in the Iraq War. By issuing contracts to several companies, the Marine Corps hopes to accelerate the rate of production, in order to expedite the delivery of vehicles to deployed forces. However, there are only two steel mills in the United States, Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. and International Steel Group, qualified to produce armored steel for the Defense Department.

In June 2008, USA Today reported that roadside bomb attacks and fatalities were down almost 99% partially due to MRAPs. "They've taken hits, many, many hits that would have killed soldiers and Marines in uparmored Humvees," according to Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Maj. General Rick Lynch, who commanded a division in Baghdad, told USA Today the 14-ton MRAPs have forced insurgents to build bigger, more sophisticated bombs to knock out the vehicles. Those bombs take more time and resources to build and set up, which gives U.S. forces a better chance of catching the insurgents in the act and then attacking them.

See Picture of M1 Abrams Hit by IED Few Shells did That.
--
January 29th, 2010  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaniard
On a side not the Cougar and Buffalo aren't South African, they're American, built on the chassis of MACK trucks, they are simply following the design of the Casspir, the RG-33 is a South Africa vehicle in use by the US Military because it was a stop gap measure for use between the development of the Cougar and Buffalo.

In addition to this an M1 Abrams isn't simply "knocked out "by a "few" artillery shells. Stacking 9 155mm rounds under anything is going to cause it to flip, most enemy hits to M1's are "mobility kills" meaning they have taken away the tanks ability to move, nothing more.




Cougar Designer Technical solutions "South Africa" Force Protection Industries.

Used by

Canada, United Kingdom, Iraq, Italy, Poland, Hungary, United States.

Wars

Iraq War, War in Afghanistan

Designer

Technical Solutions (South Africa)
Manufacturer

Force Protection Industries

Unit cost

$475,000

Produced
2002

Variants

Cougar HE



The Cougar was designed in 2004 by a small team at Force Protection. Inc. in the US in response to an urgent requirement for the US Marine Corps. Contrary to common belief, this was not a South African vehicle but rather developed in the US without South African involvement, though based on an evolution of vehicle mine-protection technology used by the UK, Rhodesian and South African forces from the 1950s onwards.

Typically these explosions are from land mines, but they can also be IEDs. This design dates to the 1970s when it was first introduced in 1978 with the South African Buffel (Buffalo) armored personnel carrier (APC). However, the TSG/FPI Cougar (designed by a British-led US team in 2004 for a USMC requirement), departed from much of the older design philosophy; by applying first-world standards and practises, and providing good growth potential from the outset, the Cougar became the springboard from which the MRAP program was launched.

Multiple contracts have been placed by the United States for this type of vehicle in response to the situation in the Iraq War. By issuing contracts to several companies, the Marine Corps hopes to accelerate the rate of production, in order to expedite the delivery of vehicles to deployed forces. However, there are only two steel mills in the United States, Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. and International Steel Group, qualified to produce armored steel for the Defense Department.

In June 2008, USA Today reported that roadside bomb attacks and fatalities were down almost 99% partially due to MRAPs. "They've taken hits, many, many hits that would have killed soldiers and Marines in uparmored Humvees," according to Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Maj. General Rick Lynch, who commanded a division in Baghdad, told USA Today the 14-ton MRAPs have forced insurgents to build bigger, more sophisticated bombs to knock out the vehicles. Those bombs take more time and resources to build and set up, which gives U.S. forces a better chance of catching the insurgents in the act and then attacking them.

See Picture of M1 Abrams Hite by IED Few Shells did That.[/QUOTE]

Can't believe I'm quoting myself but anyway...

Quote:
On a side not the Cougar and Buffalo aren't South African, they're American, built on the chassis of MACK trucks, they are simply following the design of the Casspir, the RG-33 is a South Africa vehicle in use by the US Military because it was a stop gap measure for use between the development of the Cougar and Buffalo.

Yes, Force Protection makes then HERE in the US, hence "American Made", I said it was based on South African design, so thank you for reinforcing my point.

Yes I see it, it's called a "mobility kill", meaning the engine compartment or tracks have sustained damage, the integrity of the hull and turret are still intact meaning this tank will be picked up and shipped back to be refitted and put back into combat in six months, the nice symmetrical squares you see are the ammo stowage, the M1 Abrams has an automatic munition ejection system that activates a Halon Fire Suppression system and ejects all ammo out and away from the tank and crew to prevent cookoff.

And no my friend, you act as if 155 shells are fire crackers, I don't care if your buried underground, if you sustain multiple hits from 155HE at pointblank range there isn't anything short of divine intervention stopping you from being turned into a fine pink mist.

But all other points aside, the tank preformed it's job 100%, it protected its crew, and will continue on to protect another. For all we know this particular tank may have seen service in Desert Storm and have received battle damaged from the Iraqi's before.
January 29th, 2010  
mmarsh
 
 
Hey FO Seaman

I have a question:

The M1 uses a Halon fire Suppression system? Isnt Helon Gas was supposed to be poisonous for Humans, if it spreyed into the close confines of a tank wouldnt that kill the crew?
January 29th, 2010  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Hey FO Seaman

I have a question:

The M1 uses a Halon fire Suppression system? Isnt Helon Gas was supposed to be poisonous for Humans, if it spreyed into the close confines of a tank wouldnt that kill the crew?
Yes Halon was deemed poisonous, and dangerous because it removes oxygen to stave a fire, but Halon 1301 only fills an area with 7% air to Halon ratio and can suppress fires with as little as 2.9% release air to Halon ratio.

Halon is still in use by many companies and industries, there has been no mandate for Halon to be replaced, it's just simply not being produced any longer, but there is plenty of it still around for older 1301 system to be able to be discharged and recharged.

Tests have also shown Carbon Dioxide fire suppression units are just as harmful or more so because they are more deadly to humans. When discharged CD is released at a ratio of 34% air to CD ratio, but it only takes 3%-4% to cause complications with the body, and 10% causes total respiratory paralysis in a matter of minutes.
But there hasn't been any recommendation to removed Carbon Dioxide systems as there has been Halon systems.
January 29th, 2010  
Spaniard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
Cougar Designer Technical solutions "South Africa" Force Protection Industries.

Used by

Canada, United Kingdom, Iraq, Italy, Poland, Hungary, United States.

Wars

Iraq War, War in Afghanistan

Designer

Technical Solutions (South Africa)
Manufacturer

Force Protection Industries

Unit cost

$475,000

Produced
2002

Variants

Cougar HE



The Cougar was designed in 2004 by a small team at Force Protection. Inc. in the US in response to an urgent requirement for the US Marine Corps. Contrary to common belief, this was not a South African vehicle but rather developed in the US without South African involvement, though based on an evolution of vehicle mine-protection technology used by the UK, Rhodesian and South African forces from the 1950s onwards.

Typically these explosions are from land mines, but they can also be IEDs. This design dates to the 1970s when it was first introduced in 1978 with the South African Buffel (Buffalo) armored personnel carrier (APC). However, the TSG/FPI Cougar (designed by a British-led US team in 2004 for a USMC requirement), departed from much of the older design philosophy; by applying first-world standards and practises, and providing good growth potential from the outset, the Cougar became the springboard from which the MRAP program was launched.

Multiple contracts have been placed by the United States for this type of vehicle in response to the situation in the Iraq War. By issuing contracts to several companies, the Marine Corps hopes to accelerate the rate of production, in order to expedite the delivery of vehicles to deployed forces. However, there are only two steel mills in the United States, Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. and International Steel Group, qualified to produce armored steel for the Defense Department.

In June 2008, USA Today reported that roadside bomb attacks and fatalities were down almost 99% partially due to MRAPs. "They've taken hits, many, many hits that would have killed soldiers and Marines in uparmored Humvees," according to Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Maj. General Rick Lynch, who commanded a division in Baghdad, told USA Today the 14-ton MRAPs have forced insurgents to build bigger, more sophisticated bombs to knock out the vehicles. Those bombs take more time and resources to build and set up, which gives U.S. forces a better chance of catching the insurgents in the act and then attacking them.

See Picture of M1 Abrams Hit by IED Few Shells did That.
Can't believe I'm quoting myself but anyway...




Yes, Force Protection makes then HERE in the US, hence "American Made", I said it was based on South African design, so thank you for reinforcing my point.

Yes I see it, it's called a "mobility kill", meaning the engine compartment or tracks have sustained damage, the integrity of the hull and turret are still intact meaning this tank will be picked up and shipped back to be refitted and put back into combat in six months, the nice symmetrical squares you see are the ammo stowage, the M1 Abrams has an automatic munition ejection system that activates a Halon Fire Suppression system and ejects all ammo out and away from the tank and crew to prevent cookoff.

And no my friend, you act as if 155 shells are fire crackers, I don't care if your buried underground, if you sustain multiple hits from 155HE at pointblank range there isn't anything short of divine intervention stopping you from being turned into a fine pink mist.

But all other points aside, the tank preformed it's job 100%, it protected its crew, and will continue on to protect another. For all we know this particular tank may have seen service in Desert Storm and have received battle damaged from the Iraqi's before.[/QUOTE]


I should of Clarified it on My thread figured many new South African Designer USA Built. Like I Stated this is an analyzes Therefore I confirmed what you stated as being fact.

Well Divine intervention you say, many cougars have been hit at point blank with 155's and the occupants survived the blast, Yes the Vehicle was N.S. the cabin staid in tact. The Key is giving them any opportunity to survive the blast with minimal injury.

Like I said there's a Spray that if you add to both side of the Armour even with 5+++ shells will only make dents, and not breach the Hull.

5k of C-4 under your car and you will survive the blast.

I agree 110% what you stated about the Abrams I even stated that on the Thread damaged but the occupants survived.

And thanks for answering The other individuals question. And your impute or new information is always Valued.

"Cookoff" I read and was told many story's on that, Like being in a pressure Cooker, the gruesome thing is that you disintegrate and only fined scattered pieces of human remains inside. One guy told me a horrific scene.

P.S. I C your well informed.


J
January 29th, 2010  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaniard
Can't believe I'm quoting myself but anyway...




Yes, Force Protection makes then HERE in the US, hence "American Made", I said it was based on South African design, so thank you for reinforcing my point.

Yes I see it, it's called a "mobility kill", meaning the engine compartment or tracks have sustained damage, the integrity of the hull and turret are still intact meaning this tank will be picked up and shipped back to be refitted and put back into combat in six months, the nice symmetrical squares you see are the ammo stowage, the M1 Abrams has an automatic munition ejection system that activates a Halon Fire Suppression system and ejects all ammo out and away from the tank and crew to prevent cookoff.

And no my friend, you act as if 155 shells are fire crackers, I don't care if your buried underground, if you sustain multiple hits from 155HE at pointblank range there isn't anything short of divine intervention stopping you from being turned into a fine pink mist.

But all other points aside, the tank preformed it's job 100%, it protected its crew, and will continue on to protect another. For all we know this particular tank may have seen service in Desert Storm and have received battle damaged from the Iraqi's before.

Quote:
I should of Clarified it on My thread figured many new South African Designer USA Built. Like I Stated this is an analyzes Therefore I confirmed what you stated as being fact.

Well Divine intervention you say, many cougars have been hit at point blank with 155's and the occupants survived the blast, Yes the Vehicle was N.S. the cabin staid in tact. The Key is giving them any opportunity to survive the blast with minimal injury.

Like I said there's a Spray that if you add to both side of the Armour even with 5+++ shells will only make dents, and not breach the Hull.

5k of C-4 under your car and you will survive the blast.

I agree 110% what you stated about the Abrams I even stated that on the Thread damaged but the occupants survived.

And thanks for answering The other individuals question. And your impute or new information is always Valued.

"Cookoff" I read and was told many story's on that, Like being in a pressure Cooker, the gruesome thing is that you disintegrate and only fined scattered pieces of human remains inside. One guy told me a horrific scene.

P.S. I C your well informed.


J
I actually attended the Armored Warfighter Symposium that the Cougar and Buffalo were debuted at, very spacious and well designed IMO.

But, the main difference between the M1 Abrams and MRAP's? The MRAP is designed to withstand IED and mine blasts, the M1 was designed to combat other tanks, infantry ATGM's, ect... it'ss strong suit isn't urban combat or protection against mines, one reason why it has a mine blade and plow.
January 30th, 2010  
Spaniard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FO Seaman
I actually attended the Armored Warfighter Symposium that the Cougar and Buffalo were debuted at, very spacious and well designed IMO.

But, the main difference between the M1 Abrams and MRAP's? The MRAP is designed to withstand IED and mine blasts, the M1 was designed to combat other tanks, infantry ATGM's, ect... it'ss strong suit isn't urban combat or protection against mines, one reason why it has a mine blade and plow.
Yes I know, but the M1 will still provide you protection against Blasts, like the Leopard 2 can withstand mine blasts, well thats one thing CF did right, now if we fix those British Subs.LOL

If your transporting troops into battle for a big Op use the Lav. For Patrols or small engagements, Urbain, in areas of IED activity use the Buffalo or Cougar. Even if it saves one life money well spent.

I think the first ones with the V was in 1940, I think there a great combat Vehicles, someone had their thinking cap on.
January 30th, 2010  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaniard
Yes I know, but the M1 will still provide you protection against Blasts, like the Leopard 2 can withstand mine blasts, well thats one thing CF did right, now if we fix those British Subs.LOL

If your transporting troops into battle for a big Op use the Lav. For Patrols or small engagements, Urbain, in areas of IED activity use the Buffalo or Cougar. Even if it saves one life money well spent.

I think the first ones with the V was in 1940, I think there a great combat Vehicles, someone had their thinking cap on.
Thats because the Leo 2 has a mine protection package.
 


Similar Topics
The Greatest, and not so Greatest, Commanders of History
Canadian Forces News
Air Force's GPS III Contract Looms
Air Force Prepares To Draw Down Minuteman III Fleet By 50 Missiles
Who will be the Allies and Axis in World War III?