NZLAV or Patria APC

[NZLAV]

I was just wondering which vehilce would be the most capable in combat. Both NZLAV and Patria APC are wheeled vehicles and armed with a 25mm cannon.

New Zealand, Canada, USA and Australia all use versions of the LAV.

Poland, Finland, Croatia, Slovenia all use versions of the Patria APC

 

[steve33]

LAV111 in combat

New Zealand is purchased 105 LAV111 and views on the merits of the vehicle are mixed depending on who you talk to i have heard people say the can,t go over certain terrain and read a while back of American wheeled APC getting stuck in sand and having to be pulled out by M113 APC.

Does anyone have any information on how the LAV111 has performed in combat.

 

[riksavage]

The following feed-back from Canadian units operating in Afghanistan. Reason for deployment of tracked armour and M113's taken from the following article:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-leopard-tank.htm

"The tracked vehicles address some of the mobility limitations that were encountered with LAV IIIs during Operation Medusa which will be worsened by the winter conditions. More important is the Leo’s greater firepower – within a day of arriving at Foward Operating Base Ma’sum Ghar, the Leopard’s 105s were returning fire on Taliban rocket launcher positions"

Lack of mobility in certain conditions is restricting wheeled armoured vehicles, hence the need to bring back older tracked models (M113's / F432's). The UK still uses CVRT tracked light tanks in direct support of infantry, regardless of age they remain popular - quick, light, 30mm cannon and tracked.

 

[steve33]

By the looks of things the LAV111 was not a good purchase,i personally would have liked to see some thing like the tracked British Warrior AFV but at i think 25 tonnes couldn,t be moved on a Hercules transport plane which is one of the reasons they brought the LAV111.

To late now anyway we will just have to put up with them for the next 20-30 years.

 

[Todjaeger]

By the looks of things the LAV111 was not a good purchase,i personally would have liked to see some thing like the tracked British Warrior AFV but at i think 25 tonnes couldn,t be moved on a Hercules transport plane which is one of the reasons they brought the LAV111.

To late now anyway we will just have to put up with them for the next 20-30 years.

A problem with the NZLAV is that it too, when uparmoured is too heavy to be moved by the C-130. When not uparmoured I believe it is just light enough for the C-130H to carry, but it has a restricted range of only about 1,000 n miles IIRC. Not a great enough range to be really useful.

As for the vehicle itself, it isn't necessarily a bad vehicle, but it needs to be employed properly. Trying to use it as an APC or armoured/cavalry vehicle to be is problematic at best. While it does boast better firepower than an IMV like the Bushmaster, the Bushmaster isn't intended for frontline combat. I'm not so sure that the NZLAV won't see frontline service if it hasn't already.

If there is an expansion of the NZ Army or if the need for something with greater protection and rough terrain mobility is realised, then perhaps NZ could join in an IFV order with the ADF.

-Cheers

 

[steve33]

LAV111 in New Zealand army

I read an article a while back and we were using Hilux utes in Afganistan and it stated that the LAV111 was no good on the terrain they were encountering.

I was suprised to hear this and found it pretty dissapointing after the money we have spent on them you have to wonder what the LAV is good for except a paved or dirt road that isn,t to rough.

Does anyone on the forum have any knowledge of how these vehicles have performed in a combat enviroment.

 

[Sea Toby]

Its not so much the condition of the roads in Afghanistan, its the mountainous terrain. One is better off with a light weigh vehicle, although you want some armor too, especially against mines. Unfortunately, medium armored LAVIIIs find the terrain too difficult. New Zealand is doing a peacekeeping mission in possibly the worst terrain possible.

The press would be singing praises about the LAVIIIs if New Zealand forces were in the Sudan instead of Afghanistan. Frankly, since Afghanistan is so mountainous, one should be better off with more transport helicopters than ANY vehicle. Might as well WALK.

 

[recce.k1]

Does anyone on the forum have any knowledge of how these vehicles have performed in a combat enviroment.

Good question: there's so much anti and pro opinions on the LAV's (probably as part of that tracked v wheeled arguement, see elsewhere in DT's archives and elsewhere on other forums etc), I find it hard to seperate facts from opinions and have seen what appears to be biased or hysterical BS.

However for an interesting link nonetheless on the anti-LAV side, see http://www.combatreform2.com/strykerhorrors.htm

I suppose the NZ Hilux is a good general purpose vehicle suited to the terrain where we operate (after all the Jihadist's and Taliban have used Hilux's, obviously they do the job ), but I would like to see something additional be that Armoured LOV's or LAV's or new Bushmasters etc there in a support role where possible (unfortunately the NZ Army M113's were scrapped a couple of years ago). I would (again) say NZ needs a tracked vehicle capable of transport in a C130 (second hand upgraded M113's?) to compliement the LAV3's - I believe there is a place for the LAV3 in the NZ Orbat - but that is such a highly politically charged issue as you most likely know - that would take a change of Govt to have the guts to sort out.

Note: I've never heard of the Aussies complaining of their ASLAV's (maybe they have but I haven't seen it) but at least they have tracked M113's and ASLAV's as well as the Bushmaster for various tasks (admittedly in different roles though. See Aussie Army thread in DT for more info etc).

 

[Sea Toby]

I would agree with you if New Zealand had a large army. Unfortunately, they don't. Its either tracked or wheeled armored vehicles, not both. For most peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, New Zealand chose correctly, the LAV III.

 

[recce.k1]

I would agree with you if New Zealand had a large army. Unfortunately, they don't. Its either tracked or wheeled armored vehicles, not both. For most peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, New Zealand chose correctly, the LAV III.

Although you may or may not recall the discussions here in the past on criticism by the Auditor General on the LAV3 purchase including lack of detailed reasoning for the final numbers of vehicles chosen (105) compared to earlier proposals throughout the mid to late 1990's. One part of the report that bemuses me was the later reasoning for additional vehicles to replace the 26 or so Scorpion tracked reconnaisance/fire support vehicles, because the LAV3's 25mm bustmaster cannon could also be used for fire support like the Scorpions 76mm gun etc.

If it were me, it would have been say half or two-thirds that amount of LAV3's and the remaining something tracked, be that refurbished M113's or a tracked FSV, depending on what the defined priorities were etc. Anyway this is old stuff being rehashed so I won't go any further.

But I do largely agree with your statement "For most peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, New Zealand chose correctly, the LAV III". This was bourne largely out of NZ's Bosnia peacekeeping experiences and as you say a small army can't have everything, however I feel too the LAV3 choice was good at the time for the UN support that NZ was/is providing, but it should have played out a little differently in terms of final numbers and whether a second type should have been given more serious consideration be that at the time or a few years after enough time was had to assess the LAV3's suitability.

I know it's easy to say that in hindsight of course, for who would have thought pre-9/11 that NZ would find itself in Afghanistan. Especially as NZ's strategic viewpoint post WW2 shifted from the Middle East towards SE Asia etc. But really there can't be any excuses from the pollies on that one, especially post Gulf War 1 and from previous historical experience since WW1 where NZ units have found itself fighting in varied environments, eg Europe, North Africa, Middle East, SE Asia, SW Pacific etc. Funny thing that thing called History! And funny thing how NZ is always under-prepared.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think the NZLAV is a fine vehicle, but agree with the Auditor General that an odd (and obviously politcally capped budget) number was eventually acquired.

The original plan was to acquire sufficient vehicles to allow both regular infantry battalions to be equipped with the vehicle. Except 105x was in-sufficient for this task...

Now I understand they employ the NZLAV's within 1x infantry battalion and within the Queen Alexandra's Mounted Rifles, in a role somewhat similar to Australia's 2nd Cavalry Regt.

The remaining battalions maintains a light infantry / air mobile infantry capability.

This seems like a reasonable compromise, but it's outrageous that they've had to "compromise" on their plans simply because they wouldn't fund the number of vehicles, originally planned for...

Personally I think NZ should have stuck to it's original plan, bit the bullet and bought enough NZLAV's to equip both battalions and the training schools.

In the meantime the QAMR could have been equipped (and is) with LOV's both armoured and non-armoured in the reconnaisance and surveillance role, providing a useful operational capability.

A few years later, when an unexpected deployment came along, a tracked vehicle could have been bought in small numbers (given it only maintains a single Squadron nowadays) to equip the QAMR.

Something like 26 - 30x tracked vehicles would probably be sufficient for QAMR, plus the training school's needs and would be sufficient to mount a battlegroup for operations in more difficult terrain. Something like the Singaporean Bionix IFV should be reasonably affordable and is equipped with the same weapons as the LAVIII, or alternatively a remote weapon station offering a 12.7mm HMG or a 40mm AGL.

The RWS also offers a 7 ton saving, reducing vehicle weight to 16 tons, which would be useful for NZ's purposes...

 

[steve33]

I have to admit i like the British Warrior AFV and would love to have seen the New Zealand army equipped with them but i am guessing they would be deemed too heavy and too expensive.

I like the tracked vehicles because they can go every where the wheeled vehicles can go and more but even the tracked AFV would not be able to cross a lot of the terrain in Afganistan it is just a tough place to fight plain and simple and the helicopter is the best form of transport.

Bottom line it is hard to find a vehicle that is suited to everything you want to do and with the insurgents more often than not hugging civilians in urban enviroments the wheeled vehicle in the long run may prove the best choice.

 

[steve33]

Good question: there's so much anti and pro opinions on the LAV's (probably as part of that tracked v wheeled arguement, see elsewhere in DT's archives and elsewhere on other forums etc), I find it hard to seperate facts from opinions and have seen what appears to be biased or hysterical BS.

However for an interesting link nonetheless on the anti-LAV side, see http://www.combatreform2.com/strykerhorrors.htm

I suppose the NZ Hilux is a good general purpose vehicle suited to the terrain where we operate (after all the Jihadist's and Taliban have used Hilux's, obviously they do the job ), but I would like to see something additional be that Armoured LOV's or LAV's or new Bushmasters etc there in a support role where possible (unfortunately the NZ Army M113's were scrapped a couple of years ago). I would (again) say NZ needs a tracked vehicle capable of transport in a C130 (second hand upgraded M113's?) to compliement the LAV3's - I believe there is a place for the LAV3 in the NZ Orbat - but that is such a highly politically charged issue as you most likely know - that would take a change of Govt to have the guts to sort out.

Note: I've never heard of the Aussies complaining of their ASLAV's (maybe they have but I haven't seen it) but at least they have tracked M113's and ASLAV's as well as the Bushmaster for various tasks (admittedly in different roles though. See Aussie Army thread in DT for more info etc).

I read the link and it sounds horrific but it is to late now we are going to have to make the best of them for the next 30 years.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I have to admit i like the British Warrior AFV and would love to have seen the New Zealand army equipped with them but i am guessing they would be deemed too heavy and too expensive.

I like the tracked vehicles because they can go every where the wheeled vehicles can go and more but even the tracked AFV would not be able to cross a lot of the terrain in Afganistan it is just a tough place to fight plain and simple and the helicopter is the best form of transport.

Bottom line it is hard to find a vehicle that is suited to everything you want to do and with the insurgents more often than not hugging civilians in urban enviroments the wheeled vehicle in the long run may prove the best choice.

It's a hypothetical discussion at best, but I think it should be somewhat reality based. NZDF is not likely to operate a heavy-weight IFV any time soon.

There is a need I think for a tracked armoured vehicle, that can perhaps support a single battle-group on operations for a limited period of time. The LAV vehicles, whilst reasonable off-road vehicles, have distinct limitations.

Something lightweight (in terms of mass, not quality) such as the Bionix or even a version of the Viking as used by the UK Royal Marines (which they absolutely rave about) could be adequate to provide armoured protection, a bit of mobile firewpoer and with an inate ability to travel in places a LAVIII simply cannot.

 

[RubiconNZ]

There is a need I think for a tracked armoured vehicle, that can perhaps support a single battle-group on operations for a limited period of time. The LAV vehicles, whilst reasonable off-road vehicles, have distinct limitations.

Something lightweight (in terms of mass, not quality) such as the Bionix or even a version of the Viking as used by the UK Royal Marines (which they absolutely rave about) could be adequate to provide armoured protection, a bit of mobile firewpoer and with an inate ability to travel in places a LAVIII simply cannot.

I absolutely agree, in the previous numbers you mentioned which were similar to the number of Scorpions, this would provide a very important capability, while recreating the training and expertise of the NZ Army in tracked vehicle operations, and should the need ever arise the QAMR could with the basic cadre be lifted to a full strength armored recce unit.

 

[recce.k1]

I read the link and it sounds horrific but it is to late now we are going to have to make the best of them for the next 30 years.

Re: that link. Clearly the authors of that link/page are anti-LAV but all I'd say is keep an open mind, don't believe the hype when presented with a one-sided bias (from anyone/any-side). Any vehicle - tracked or wheeled - can get stuck (even tracked, but of course tracked vehicles handle ditches/mud a lot, lot better etc), or roll over or be taken out with RPG's etc. The NZ CDF Mateparae stated the NZLAV can keep going if all tyres were deflated if shot at etc, whereas if a tracked vehicle lost a track well it's pretty much immobile. It's almost like comparing apples with oranges etc. As you probably know the NZLAV is a serious piece of kit, fully nuclear-biological-chemical protected, has alot better stabilised firepower then the Stryker battle taxis, i.e. they aren't second rate etc.

I'd agree with Aussie Digger and Robsta83, a couple dozen Bionix types for the QAMR would nicely round off the NZ Army's capabilities at this point in time (thus QAMR LAV's transfer to the Burnham battalion)? The Bionix appears as heavy as a LAV, (pitty a tracked version of the LAV3 isn't available for training and support reasons etc) although it's probably about time NZ forgets the C130 transporability issue (lets face it typical IFV's and LAV's are alot bigger nowadays than the old M113's etc) and purchase or lease a couple of C17's, the A400 is yet to fly and is another 10 years away from entering NZ service etc, plus it lacks the range and capacity to get a couple of LAV3's and equipment from NZ to the Darwin staging post from what I can see. Now that NZLAV recovery trucks are to be procurred this year or so, the logistics and support systems are starting to come together to be able to deploy the LAV's.

 

[RubiconNZ]

I'd agree with Aussie Digger and Robsta83, a couple dozen Bionix types for the QAMR would nicely round off the NZ Army's capabilities at this point in time (thus QAMR LAV's transfer to the Burnham battalion)? The Bionix appears as heavy as a LAV, (pitty a tracked version of the LAV3 isn't available for training and support reasons etc) although it's probably about time NZ forgets the C130 transporability issue (lets face it typical IFV's and LAV's are alot bigger nowadays than the old M113's etc) and purchase or lease a couple of C17's, the A400 is yet to fly and is another 10 years away from entering NZ service etc, plus it lacks the range and capacity to get a couple of LAV3's and equipment from NZ to the Darwin staging post from what I can see. Now that NZLAV recovery trucks are to be procurred this year or so, the logistics and support systems are starting to come together to be able to deploy the LAV's.

The other option is to go back to the fire support option, the Stormer 30, that would be a great piece of kit for the NZ Army and it is C130 tranpsortable, though I don't know about the C130 H's, even without the TOW launchers a very formidable, useful item, though unlikely I will admit.

 

[kato]

Re: that link

It's CR2. Mike Sparks. 'nuff said. Don't read it, don't believe anything on it, discredit statements where possible.

 

[swerve]

...
However for an interesting link nonetheless on the anti-LAV side, see http://www.combatreform2.com/strykerhorrors.htm ....

What kato said. Google "Mike Sparks", or "Sparky". A mentally ill person with a pathological hatred of the USMC (apparently he failed USMC officer training) & all their equipment (hence the LAV, & everything derived from, related to, or resembling it, e.g. Stryker), who has been conducting an internet campaign, over many years, to have the M113 named "Gavin" & made the prime AFV of the US armed forces, preferably equipped with the 106mm RCL. He also has other pet ideas, such as paratroopers carrying folding bicycles, with which once landed, they will pedal across country, carrying full kit, at speeds & over distances I can just about match on roads, on my made-to-measure road bike, carrying little or nothing.

He's been banned from just about every forum on the internet, for foul-mouthed abuse of those who dare to question the Received Wisdom. He's a figure of fun. I won't say you should believe the opposite of everything he says, because among the dross there are a few nuggets of value, but treat it all with disdain unless confirmed by independent (stress that: he has more internet personae than the population of a small country) sources.

 

[kato]

I'll give an example, not using the LAV or "Gavin".

According to Mike Sparks, the German Wiesel weapons carrier:

• is used by German SOF: Simple - no. Paratroopers and Light Inf.
• can be airdropped: well, they did try. Six times.
• is used "en masse" - uh. right. 6 AT and 6 AC vehicles supporting a Infantry Btl.
• should carry a M40A1: Weird how that never came up in over a dozen proposed armament options, despite the predecessor vehicle carrying one?
• uses (rubber) band tracks: first gen did for a couple years - moved to standard tracks due to too many failures in the 80s.
• should in the APC version fight with an open overhead troop hatch: apart from the sheer insanity of that - the Wiesel 2 APC doesn't have one.
• has a consumption of "7 to 13 mpg": sure. actually, it's 6 to 8.5 mpg (considering he's calculating with these values, sorta important)

Just as an example. His stuff on the LAV and the M113 similarly ... confuses stuff more or less intentionally.