The Iltis Debate

Cameron · October 9, 2003

http://www.politicswatch.com/afghanistan-oct6-2003.htm

Well, after listening to McCallum speak, I think I'm going to get sick. These small trucks don't seem to be very well equipped to do the job in hostile conditions. I've seen them in person and they aren't much. I say get the Hummers and let our troops work safely.

*side note* When the PC's were going to buy the helicopters in the late 80's, was this a purchase that required them to borrow or was the moneys set aside?

Boydfish · October 10, 2003

The problems with the Iltis are just being scratched towards the surface.

The Hummers are not only better built than the Mercedes units being built and the Iltis, the amount of weapons and logistics support capabilities that it brings are vastly superior. Can the Iltis carry TOW? Nope. Tow even a small howitzer? Nope. Carry an effective amount of equipment and troops? Nope.

The only thing that the Canadians care about when buying kit is that a frog gets to put it together and that the CF resembles anything except a real warfighting force.

KrustyKidd · October 11, 2003

Back in the eighties we tested a square freefall chute called the CT3. Spent two years but not a heck of a lot of money. After that we gave the contract to Grimm Industries who previously had never made a square parachute. They did this at the cost of something like $5 grand a pop. Couple years later we had square chutes.

The Americans had been using them for over ten years and even had steerable remotes for the extra equipment like motorcycles and extra ammo. We were still relying on "follow the cylinder" and hope it lands in a good spot as that's where you're going too. Theyt produced these at a cost of $400 per unit.

Canada will do anything to manufacture it's own. Pay ten times what the unit is worth, lengthen the testing period so long that the item is out of date, accept inferior quality, place the men whose lives it is supposed to save in danger and go against the grain of common sense when it comes to cheap spare parts and interchangeability on the battlefeild.

SirRiff · October 11, 2003

anybody recall they are peacekeepers and want to be seen by the locals?

if we wanted them completely unharmed, they should never leave canada.

even anti tank mines are designed to be tank killers. peacekeepers must put themselves more out in the open then high tech warfare.

SirRiff

KrustyKidd · October 11, 2003

anybody recall they are peacekeepers and want to be seen by the locals?
if we wanted them completely unharmed, they should never leave canada.

even anti tank mines are designed to be tank killers. peacekeepers must put themselves more out in the open then high tech warfare.

SirRiff

That's right. I recall when I was in the Middle East there was a Signals Officer who was making his pet project a United Nations kind of operational code. The idea was that scince both the Egyptians and the Israelis were monitoring our communications (unbeknownst to us wink wink) we could encrypt our location and stuff.

He got squashed pretty quick for the exact reasons you have just stated. We want people to know there is no partiality. Here however, there is partiallity. We are on the side of the ruling government against all others. We are not inbetween two beligerents who are negotiating a ceasefire but rather helping a fledgling government survive against everybody and anybody who threatens it.

Pellaken · October 11, 2003

anybody recall they are peacekeepers and want to be unharmed, they should never leave canada.

my first responce when I heard what happened was "they are soldiers, and sometimes soldiers die. whay do you think soldiers do? go to war and pain pictures?"

SirRiff · October 11, 2003

its a no win situation.

the entire job of a soldier is to die and fight so the rest of us dont have to. they are put in high risk situations because they are teh best trained to do it. in peacekeeping, the risk is that its NOT a war zone, and you cant just kill from afar. you have to walk down streets, and patrol in open vehcicles. there are no tanks to fight in afganistan, just landmines and AK's, which make it all the worse.

SirRiff

KrustyKidd · October 12, 2003

its a no win situation.
the entire job of a soldier is to die and fight so the rest of us dont have to. they are put in high risk situations because they are teh best trained to do it. in peacekeeping, the risk is that its NOT a war zone, and you cant just kill from afar. you have to walk down streets, and patrol in open vehcicles. there are no tanks to fight in afganistan, just landmines and AK's, which make it all the worse.

SirRiff

Riff, the soldiers job is to enforce the will of his government. If he dies then he cannot do that. It is a risk and should be minimized. Where does anybody get the idea (and for that matter where does the logic come from) that it is his job to die? That is the job of Al Queda and Hamas, not the Canadian Armed Forces.

The government's job is to determine where and when they should be deployed. As well, their duty is to provide them with equipment sufficient to provide the force necessary to do the job, a means of getting to the job in relative safety and reasonable protection while doing the job.

If it was a soldier's duty to die then why not retire these fit young men and draft people out of old age homes and terminally ill wards to take on these duties. Shoot, they are going to die soon anyhow.

SirRiff · October 12, 2003

Riff, the soldiers job is to enforce the will of his government. If he dies then he cannot do that. It is a risk and should be minimized. Where does anybody get the idea (and for that matter where does the logic come from) that it is his job to die?

because its a known fact that in war some people MUST die on each side.

the problem is how to reduce that number.

however, since we know in war zones that some people WILL die, we send soliders to reduce the numbers, while KNOWING that still some will die.

it is a job of soldiers to die so others dont have to. if you dont want anybody to die, dont send anyone.

If it was a soldier's duty to die then why not retire these fit young men and draft people out of old age homes and terminally ill wards to take on these duties. Shoot, they are going to die soon anyhow.

because having the best trained men there assures that the least number of people die that are needed to get the job done.

its the ugly part of war, adn why it makes it important that wars are as ethical as possible, ie, doing the most good with the least bad.

SirRiff

KrustyKidd · October 13, 2003

the problem is how to reduce that (dead CDN Soldiers) number.

Exactly. Thank you, that's what I am trying to say. Better equipment greatly enhances this objective as does training.

I know what you mean Riff. You are in agreement with the support of troops but I think your point is that they have accepted risk and should deal with it. That I also agree but I would also point out that they accepted this post and risk with the assumption that they would be given the proper tools to do the job and safeguard their lives where possible.

It's not your job to get run over by a bus but that is a risk you take if you work in the downtown area of some city. It's not an Airline Pilots job to crash a plane but that too is a risk he takes when taking up the controls. Do you see the point I am trying to make? These soldiers are not part of an Iranian "Human Wave" attack where they are all expected to die. They are in a cold war zone where risk, although high, is not continually life threatening and imminent. The soldier does his job and learns and does what he has been taught and ordered to do, the leaders carry out the policy of the government with the troops and equipment available to them. Shit box Iltis's included.

Nowhere in the formula is a soldier "expected to die" as part of the job description. They are expected to live and return home to family and such reguardless of the minimal support they recieve from their own government. Death is always a possibility in every facett of life and more so even in the military. However to be sabotaged by your own government's fiscal ineptness in buying proper equipment to enhance your survivability is ridiculous. They blow billions on this gun bill (C-68) where it is not even doing a damm thing to save anything (political carreers included) and yet do next to squat in upgrading equipment for people to fight with. Something wrong there.

I wonder Riff, what the Department of Natural Resources would say if they had their fancy 4 x 4s taken away and replaced by this hardy little toy? How would the taxation department like it if tommorow all the computor programs used to calculate revenue were replaced by hand held computors and millions of pencils, or simply abbacuses and clay tablets? "Oh well." the government would say "That is why we have hired the best accountents in Canada." and then mumble something about how they will have to tough it out and all. When you do something you do it right. The equipment our guys have is not right, helecopters included lol.

SirRiff · October 13, 2003

the problem is how to reduce that (dead CDN Soldiers) number.

HEY! bad net ettiquete to alter a statement if you are representing it as a direct quotation! even if you perceive it to be identical in meaning.

i try not to talk casually about dead Canadian soldiers, but I was recognizing that in any way death is inevitable, hence the very definition of war.

That I also agree but I would also point out that they accepted this post and risk with the assumption that they would be given the proper tools to do the job and safeguard their lives where possible.

yes but what if its Canadian peacekeeping policy to be right out in the open to make ties to the community? then the proper equipment IS an open jeep.

i must admit however, that policy while admirable, makes me very nervous. i can think of too many situations where it would be worth it to have an official policy of less defence for community relations. especially in afganistan where there are over 1 million land mines and machine guns are more common then street lights.

thus the true concern is peace keeping policy, not equipment per se, as that will determine the defence posture needed.

Sirriff

KrustyKidd · October 13, 2003

I appoligise for altering the quote Riff, there was no intention to alter your message or intent but only to allow others to know what the hell the quote was talking about.

Your thoughts on viewability are correct. Your views on the purpose and glib expendibility of a soldier are wrong. Your views on the Iltis are correct in that the operation it is being used in, no vehicle woulod have saved those people from an anti tank mine. However, smaller fragments and arms fire can be reduced by having a heavier vehicle which can carry sandbags and plates on the floor and sides. While not giving anything close to real protection they help. Of course a vehicle capable of taking this added wieght must be bigger and more expensive but to me the added expense is nothing to the added security of our guys.

SirRiff · October 14, 2003

Your thoughts on viewability are correct. Your views on the purpose and glib expendibility of a soldier are wrong.

whoa, i dont know how you use the word glib, but nothing i said was offhand or nonchalant. just the truth.

the true purpose of professional soliders is to specalize in warfare and defeat other soliders through violence (and thus some must die) so that armies need not be drawn from the civilian population at large like in old times with militias and disrupt the entire nation.

whatever the particular cause of death, landmind or small arms, there is only so much protection a solider can have at any time in war, or even peacekeeping.

100% safety is only secured at home away from the fighting.

thus the mission in any war or peacekeeping operation is to purposly put soldiers in harms way. why is it harms way? because we KNOW there is going to be trouble, else we wouldnt have sent trouble.

in peacekeeping, its a two fold objective, fight the badguys AND help the civilians.

you cannot accomplish the second without mixing with the civilians, especially in such a diverse and traditional culture.

by mixing, you put yourself at higher risks in many ways.

it seems obvious to me that we ARE asking our soliders to take a extra risks that are almost certain to cause some deaths.

we as a nation, have collectively made a decision that these most certain deaths are tolerable in order to achieve a certain goal.

sirriff

KrustyKidd · October 20, 2003

i try not to talk casually about dead Canadian soldiers, but I was recognizing that in any way death is inevitable, hence the very definition of war.

Yes, but it seems like this is an offhand quip when with a little expenditure you can achieve greater protection for you men and still accomplish the same goals. To have a Humvee augmented with sandbags/iron plating and Bison APCs (both afford protection and viewability) is too good for our own troops?

I know that the MND has now, upon advice from the commander of the forces in Afganistan aquiessed to sending armored vehicles in light of what has happened. Unfortunately, because nobody thinks that it was importent enough to have transport capibility for heavy equipment such as this it will take over a month to get there.

What I am trying to say here Riff is that anybody with half a brain knows that you can have all that which you and I desire (viewability, a measure of protection and mobility) if you are willing to put out the money. Our government knows what should have been done and the proof is in the sending of this equipment. The proof that they have placed our troops in harms way with added risk unecessarily is also shown by the fact that we have no way of getting the stuff there.

I am sure that in the meantime our soldiers get a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that there is a reason why they have an even added danger level while in this country. We all know that they should already have the equipment and that it be standard support for any mission in which our men carry guns. We also know that the reason they don't have it today or even next week is that the government, among other money wasting/vote buying shams decided to do crap like give grants to Quebec writers so that they can write "Dumb Blonde Joke Books." You can't tell me that in any scenario that a joke book or lingere store take precidence over giving our guys the equipment they need to give themselves a reasonable amount of protection in a hostile theater.