I,m well in touch with reality we have purchased the Lav111 and we are not going to see any other armoured vehicles purchased for the New Zealand army for at least two decades so we will have to make the best of them.
NZLAV or Patria APC
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Thanks Kato and Swerve for clarifying the background to that Sparks chappy, I thought the bias was a bit over the top (although I'll read anything just to see what it is about etc) and with your information I (and no doubt other kiwis) will now know to disregard his writings next time etc. Yup, I hadn't heard of an M113 being called a Gavin before, it seemed odd too because it was so matter of fact.
In NZ there have been a few vocal critics of the NZLAV purchase, but I notice that they rely on overseas information (next time I see written criticism, I'll take note to see whether it was sourced from the likes of Sparks etc) and in particular, the Stryker and nothing so much from Canada, the other big LAV3 operator and early adopter etc, from which I understand NZ liaised quite heavily when assessing the LAV3. I also note when NZ media report on the LAV3 criticism, they sometimes follow up with a report on the NZLAV's by sending a reporter to spend a day with the NZ Army and the LAV's. Funnily enough the reporter doesn't report on or find anything to actually criticise, so I have yet to be convinced by the NZ anti-LAV critics that we have a lemon.
My only issue is the numbers - either should have bought less to operate as battle taxis like the M113's and to ensure the Scorpions were replaced by dedicated tracked FSV's later or bought more to ensure two battalions were fully equipped with them etc.
In NZ there have been a few vocal critics of the NZLAV purchase, but I notice that they rely on overseas information (next time I see written criticism, I'll take note to see whether it was sourced from the likes of Sparks etc) and in particular, the Stryker and nothing so much from Canada, the other big LAV3 operator and early adopter etc, from which I understand NZ liaised quite heavily when assessing the LAV3. I also note when NZ media report on the LAV3 criticism, they sometimes follow up with a report on the NZLAV's by sending a reporter to spend a day with the NZ Army and the LAV's. Funnily enough the reporter doesn't report on or find anything to actually criticise, so I have yet to be convinced by the NZ anti-LAV critics that we have a lemon.
My only issue is the numbers - either should have bought less to operate as battle taxis like the M113's and to ensure the Scorpions were replaced by dedicated tracked FSV's later or bought more to ensure two battalions were fully equipped with them etc.
Singapore's experience with wheeled vehicles was not good.
We had in the 70's the V-200 (a member of the V-150 or V-100 family). I'm sure its cross-country ability was only so-so as Singapore has tropical downpours nearly every day where the V-200's four wheels will make it only as mobile as a truck, probaly worse. And it also developed a reputation for fatal rollovers.
Fast forward to now, Singapore has developed a 8-wheel AFV called Terrex. It is fully-C-130 transportable, amphibious and has a v-shaped hull to deflect mine blasts. But SAF has not officially announced any adoption plans to my knowledge.
Before I left Singapore 12 years ago, my reservist unit was starting to trial with the mothballed V-200 again after decades of all infantrymen riding only in tracks.
The global trend has been to switch over to wheels as it is accepted that it is better, cheaper etc for urban war.
But you have to look at the IDF - These guys do a lot of urban combat for decades but still prefers tracked vehicles. I wonder why? In fact, I think they trialed and rejected the Stryker.
We had in the 70's the V-200 (a member of the V-150 or V-100 family). I'm sure its cross-country ability was only so-so as Singapore has tropical downpours nearly every day where the V-200's four wheels will make it only as mobile as a truck, probaly worse. And it also developed a reputation for fatal rollovers.
Fast forward to now, Singapore has developed a 8-wheel AFV called Terrex. It is fully-C-130 transportable, amphibious and has a v-shaped hull to deflect mine blasts. But SAF has not officially announced any adoption plans to my knowledge.
Before I left Singapore 12 years ago, my reservist unit was starting to trial with the mothballed V-200 again after decades of all infantrymen riding only in tracks.
The global trend has been to switch over to wheels as it is accepted that it is better, cheaper etc for urban war.
But you have to look at the IDF - These guys do a lot of urban combat for decades but still prefers tracked vehicles. I wonder why? In fact, I think they trialed and rejected the Stryker.
winnyfield
New Member
The Canadians have been using LAV IIIs in Kandahar Province (much flatter terrain).
Browse here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=gnqlljff7qbg1nhn56la5jstb7&board=34.0
Browse here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=gnqlljff7qbg1nhn56la5jstb7&board=34.0
LAV and future combat
Although the LAV's are proven to be less of a cross country machine than that of the m113 or most other tracked machine. The future operations and area of combat may prove to be bread and butter for the LAVs.
With the americans using the Stryker variant of the LAV in urban arenas, Many soldiers/marines perfer the wheeled vehicle to that of tracked.
This being due to the agility in and around tight urban streets and mostly the much quieter appround noise of the vehicle. (wheels and rubber as apposed to metal and tracked). With a quieter approach, hostile forces get lesss warning and less time to organise a counter attack, effectively catching them off gaurd. Also the LAVs do far less damage to roadways leaving the local populace with less of an opposition to occupying forces.
Although the LAV's are proven to be less of a cross country machine than that of the m113 or most other tracked machine. The future operations and area of combat may prove to be bread and butter for the LAVs.
With the americans using the Stryker variant of the LAV in urban arenas, Many soldiers/marines perfer the wheeled vehicle to that of tracked.
This being due to the agility in and around tight urban streets and mostly the much quieter appround noise of the vehicle. (wheels and rubber as apposed to metal and tracked). With a quieter approach, hostile forces get lesss warning and less time to organise a counter attack, effectively catching them off gaurd. Also the LAVs do far less damage to roadways leaving the local populace with less of an opposition to occupying forces.
Lav111
For the roles the NZLAV will see, I think it is an appropriate purchase by the nzdf. I dont think frontline combat for these was ever totally intended considering New Zealands role on the world stage, and its overly PC government.
The idea the NZDF and minstry of defence have for this platform is use in the modern day battle arena, Urban combat.
Obviously not an over country vehicle, the combat seen in todays world is moving to that of built up and urban areas. With its quiet noise profile from the rubber wheeled set up, and agility around tight streets, the NZLAV seems suited to this role with a offroad capacity aswell.
Having the bushmaster gun, with both AP and HE rounds enables it to have the choice and capacity to engage both vehicles and buildings in urban areas with minimal collateral damage. Though also retaining the ability for extended targeting and engagment over rough terrain and distances.
As a whole package, maybe not the best APC out, but for New Zealands requirements for such a small land force, it seems appropriate in my mind
For the roles the NZLAV will see, I think it is an appropriate purchase by the nzdf. I dont think frontline combat for these was ever totally intended considering New Zealands role on the world stage, and its overly PC government.
The idea the NZDF and minstry of defence have for this platform is use in the modern day battle arena, Urban combat.
Obviously not an over country vehicle, the combat seen in todays world is moving to that of built up and urban areas. With its quiet noise profile from the rubber wheeled set up, and agility around tight streets, the NZLAV seems suited to this role with a offroad capacity aswell.
Having the bushmaster gun, with both AP and HE rounds enables it to have the choice and capacity to engage both vehicles and buildings in urban areas with minimal collateral damage. Though also retaining the ability for extended targeting and engagment over rough terrain and distances.
As a whole package, maybe not the best APC out, but for New Zealands requirements for such a small land force, it seems appropriate in my mind
LAV vs PATRIOT
I think until both platforms in all variants have served in similar conditions for extended periods of time it will be hard to tell.
Both have ther inherrant pros and cons and I feel, operators of both will have their opinion on their systems and thus an pre defined bias.
Personally I would say maybe a LAV but this is only due to what I currently know, which bias's the LAV
I think until both platforms in all variants have served in similar conditions for extended periods of time it will be hard to tell.
Both have ther inherrant pros and cons and I feel, operators of both will have their opinion on their systems and thus an pre defined bias.
Personally I would say maybe a LAV but this is only due to what I currently know, which bias's the LAV