CASR

Canadian
American
Strategic
Review

Canadian Defence Procurement  –  Armoured Vehicles  –  07 March 2006 Reviewing the LAV III  –  Rollovers and Suicide Bombers, Are Criticisms of the CF’s Armoured Vehicles Warranted? Stephen Priestley, Researcher, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR) Update (06 Jan 2008): another LAV III rollover in wet terrain resulted in the loss of two more CF soldiers. See: LAV III  in  CF Afghanistan Casualties vs Vehicle Type. The Canadian Forces’ LAV III  light armoured vehicle has come under close media scrutiny  in the aftermath of a fatal traffic accident near Kandahar (02 Mar 2006). The LAV had been struck from the side by a local taxi. The CF driver lost control on the road’s soft shoulder and the LAV III rolled , losing its turret in the process. This was an accident with a tragic outcome but it is unlikely that any blame will be assigned. Still, sensing a story, the conventional media zeroed in on the LAV III’s stability, citing the vehicle’s record of  rollovers and reputation for top-heaviness. [See: Hard Numbers for a listing of Canadian vehicular casualties in Afghanistan.] LAV III Rollovers  –  SUV-like Instability or Considered Design Compromises ? There have been a dozen rollovers involving CF  LAV IIIs, some with fatal results.  The most common cause for these incidents is soft ground, either the shoulder or an embank- ment giving way beneath the vehicle. Once the LAV starts to lean over, momentum and high centre of  gravity  may topple the vehicle. The ‘instability’ theme is a favourite for proponents of  all- tracked armour. The quagmire of LAV vs M113 awaits the unwary. The LAV III is  top-heavy but  journalists announcing this are implying that there is a superior alternative.  Better to ask why LAV IIIs have a high centre of gravity or what the trade-offs were. The answer is simple. Unlike the vehicle to which it is usually compared, the LAV III is armed with a large, turret-mounted 25mm cannon. LAV IIIs are most often compared with the tracked M113s. Invariably, the LAV III is parked beside a turretless M113 for a dramatic height contrast. Good theatre but this comparison completely ignores the great utility of the LAV’s 25mm gun (which is showing itself to be extremely effective in the hills outside  Kandahar.) Once both vehicle types are fitted with turrets, their height difference is minimal.[1] The LAV III still has a higher centre of gravity, though. Here again, there is a trade-off  –  the LAV III also has greater ground clearance. This is important for off-road driving, but CF LAVs spend most of  their time patrolling  on the roads. And road speed is the key difference between a LAV III (which easily hits 100km/h) and the M113 (which tops out at 60km/h).[2] A day after the rollover accident, a vehicle-borne suicide bomber attacked a CF convoy. Other than shredded tires (on which, in a pinch, the vehicle can still be driven), the LAV III was only slightly damaged by a blast  that  left a crater in the road – in similar circumstances the SUV-like G-wagons are destroyed. While the vehicle damage may have been slight, a crew member was severely wounded. The media  faulted  the “exposed positions” of  the crew. LAV III Crew Hatches  –  Dangerous Exposure or Added Situational Awareness? In short, the LAV III’s crew are “exposed” because they have to be to do their job – in the turret hatches, the commander and gunner have a clear view in front  and the sides.  From the aft hull  hatches, soldiers riding ‘air sentry’ cover  the rear quadrant. None of these roles can be performed well with the crew members fully under armour. (Just as important in the hearts-and-minds campaign is to see and be seen by locals.) Unfortunately,  that suicide car bomb was detonated directly below the crew commander’s position which exposed  MCpl. Mike Loewen’s [3] arm to the effects of blast. In this case, the sloped turret side (intended to deflect shot) actually directed the blast. The irony is that  the ‘air sentry’ positions  (below) are actually more open. Rear gunners are exposed from the waist up but luckily the sideways-opening, spring-loaded roof hatch deflected the blast. [The commander and driver of Bison are also vulnerable when exposed as proven by the tragic outcome of a 27 Nov. 2006  suicide VBIED  which claimed two lives.] The LAV IIIs will continue to patrol  Kandahar and environs.  CF convoy tactics will shift  but LAV IIIs  will continue to drive fast  to counter IEDs and other threats. The media has given lip service to the need for high speed operation  in Afghanistan but, evidently, simply questioning LAV III characteristics makes for a better story. This is not the time to be indiscriminately critical of CF vehicles in the field. It may sell newspapers but does no good to Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. Nor does it add anything to the perpetual debate over the ideal light armoured vehicle. The LAV III is an excellent vehicle. Most importantly, the LAV IIIs are better-suited to the current mission than any other existing vehicle. Until a superior light armoured vehicle emerges,  support the troops,  honour the dead, and care for the wounded. [1] For the record, the LAV III is 2.88m high at the top of the turret top. Heights at hull-top: LAV III - 2m, M113 - 1.85m.  Ground clearance: LAV - 52cm, M113 - 41cm. Weights: LAV III - 17t, M113 (max., base model) - 14t  (turreted EIFV variant) - 18t. [2] Road speed aside, tracks are not designed for extended road use.  Shedding of tracks is the most common cause of M113 rollovers  –  although, as with LAV IIIs, a soft shoulder or weak embankment are also danger spots for the tracked vehicle. [Update Dec 2006: M113A3s have deployed to Afghanistan to accompany tanks.] [3] Since publishing, MCpl Loewen wrote to clarify that his arm was injured due to it being “... outside the protected area ...  I was waving a van over to the side. Had my arm been just resting in front of me,  like usual, it would have been fine.  When driving , the gunner and crew commander ride at ‘name tag’ defilade (meaning that nothing below the nametag shows) and keeps them safe. My injuries are more due to bad luck than anything else.”  Our thanks to MCpl Loewen for this clarification.