CASR

Canadian
American
Strategic
Review

Armoured  Vehicles  –  G-wagon Casualties in Afghanistan  –  August  2006 Ugly Truths and Tragic Events: CF G-wagons in Afghanistan Opinion and Analysis by Stephen Priestley, CASR The ‘New’ CF G-wagon LUVW  –  the Perfect Vehicle for a Different Conflict? On 11 August 2006 another  Canadian soldier was killed  in southern Afghanistan. Cpl  Andrew Eykelenboom  (a medic with 1st Field Ambulance) was travelling in a G-wagon as part of a resupply column returning from the Pak/Afghan border. Just outside Spin Boldak, an explosives-laden pickup truck veered into the convoy and detonated as it struck the armoured G-wagon. Cpl Eykelenboom died at the scene. At a first glance, there is nothing unusual about this tragic story.  The Taliban and other insurgents in SE Afghanistan have correctly identified the light utility G-wagon as the weak link in CF convoys and  target them accordingly.  Some confusion arose from media reports describing G-wagons as “heavily-armoured”. Nothing could be further from the truth  – ‘armoured vehicles’  have structures  created from armour plate. The G-wagon is simply an SUV with armour panels attached  to a mild steel body. When  G-wagons, clad in their  “armour protection systems”, first appeared in Afghanistan, they were rightly hailed as a great advance over the aged and unarmoured [1] Iltis jeep.  The enclosed G-wagons (armour-glass windows are part of the APS add-on package) prevented the type of suicide attack used on the Iltis in Kabul.  However, Kandahar presents a more hostile environment and  praise for the new G-wagon light utility vehicles began to wane as the Canadian casualties mounted. Questions arose about the stability of  G-wagon C&Rs ( the Command and Reconnaissance variant ) with their roof-top gun mounts and shield.  But it was not until 22 April 2006 when four elite soldiers were killed in a single G-wagon outside Gumbad that the unsuitablity of using light utility vehicles for patrolling southern Afghanistan was seriously addressed by the new government,  DND,  or in the Canadian press. How Well Protected? –  Public Perception, Media Reports, and the Official Line The response from the Minister of National Defence, Gordon O’Connor, was swift. By the end of  May 2006,  the Minister was announcing that “most” CF G-wagons were to be restricted to camp in Afghanistan. It sounds like a sensible precaution but was it realistic? DND purchased 1,159 G-wagons for the CF. Those in southern Afghanistan were to be replaced in the field by larger, fully-armoured vehicles – the LAV IIIs, Bison, or the new Nyala Armoured Patrol Vehicles. Alas, none of the heavier vehicles were available in nearly sufficient numbers and the vulnerable G-wagons continued to operate “outside the fence” in some of the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan. There was no choice. The Army knew this. DND insisted that G-Wagons will “operate when and where deemed appropriate... based on threat assessments made in theatre.”  So G-wagons stayed on the road. Until this week, they were lucky.  Now, it seems, the media have noticed the discrepancies. Dean Beeby of CP reports that an Access to Information Request showed that Army commanders were caught off guard by the MND’s 30 May announcements.  The G-wagons in southern Afghanistan had not been ‘restricted’ to base. And how could they be? The first of 50 new Nyala APVs had just begun arriving in Kandahar – the Minister had wisely filled the option on an additional 25 APVs but even when they arrive this will be but a drop in the bucket. If the G-wagon was unsuited to conditions in southern Afghanistan, why was the Nyala APV not ordered earlier and why have further orders for this blast-resistant vehicle not been placed? In response to press questions about the G-wagons, Mr. O’Connor said that “we try to learn from these incidents...We found out now from actual experience that these Nyala[APV]s work. I’ll spend more to give protection. If I have to buy more Nyala[APV]s or more LAVs [the LAV III or Bisons?], I will.” Two  Views   –   Defence  Minister  O’Connor   vs   Opposition  MP  O’Connor Did the shortcomings of  the G-wagons  really come as a surprise to the new MND?  Did  it take CF fatalities to show the new Minister  the value of  Nyala APVs ? No. Speaking to the press as an Opposition MP in  October 2005, Mr. O’Connor criticized the choice of  G-wagons. He  insisted  that  such vehicles were not suited  to  the Afghan mission. “The government basically committed our  troops  to  fight  guerillas  in  Afghanistan  without making sure they  had  the equipment.”  Events have proven that Opposition  MP O’Connor was spot on about  the G-wagons.  The question is:  Why was nothing done about the G-wagons when O’Connor became Minister of National Defence? Just over a month after Mr. O’Connor’s comments about  the inadequacies of  the G-wagons, an IOR for 50 APVs was announced – General Hillier had provided the answer for patrolling in southern Afghanistan.  All that was required was to place more orders for APVs (Nyala type or otherwise) and  withdraw the G-wagon from the hot spots.  Instead, we got a flim-flam “restriction” of the G-wagons in theatre. Cpl. Eykelenboom  died  in  a  G-wagon  while  returning  from  Spin  Boldak, close to the  border with  Pakistan  –  one of  the most dangerous  places  in  the  region. Why  is  the  safety  of  our  troops  not  at  the  top  of  the  MND’s  priority  list ? Surely there are few  purchases more urgent  than the provision of  blast-resistant vehicles,  such as Nyala APVs.  Has the  Conservative government  forgotten the safety of our troops in the rush to to spend taxpayers’ dollars on vanity projects? [1] In media reports, the Iltis was often described as “lightly armoured”.  This was a misleading reference to the ‘blast blankets’ lining its mild steel floorboards. Such retrofits may help to contain smaller fragments and perhaps even deflect the blast. (‘Blast blankets’ are better than nothing but they hardly qualify as ‘light armour’.) By contrast, the G-wagon’s APS system consists of individual composite armour panels which bolt onto the body (including the floor).  Although an improvement, bolt-on armour has severe limitations –  built-in ‘blast traps’ can be dangerous on large LAVs but are potentially deadly on ‘soft-skinned’ vehicles like the G-wagon.