Canadian Military History Volume 20 Issue 2 Article 4 2011 The Success of the Light Armoured Vehicle Frank Maas Wilfrid Laurier University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh Recommended Citation Maas, Frank "The Success of the Light Armoured Vehicle." Canadian Military History 20, 2 (2011) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Canadian Military History by an authorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maas: Light Armoured Vehicle The Success of the Light Armoured Vehicle Frank Maas he seeds for Canada’s purchase Cadillac-Gage, but the owner of of the Light Armoured Vehicle Abstract: Since the 1970s, budget Swiss firm MOWAG, Walter Ruf, T constraints and debates over the (LAV) lie as far back as 1964, when tank’s relevance have prompted came to the Department of National the Defence White Paper called for the Canadian Forces (CF) to pursue Defence (DND) in Ottawa to present the creation of a force equipped with lighter, cheaper, and more flexible his company’s new vehicle design, a flexible, light, and air-transportable vehicles. The Light Armoured Vehicle the “Piranha.”7 DND indicated that vehicle to serve in UN missions. This (LAV), built in London, Ontario, has the vehicle must be built in Canada to been purchased in great numbers resulted in a confused reaction that to satisfy these demands, and it have a chance of winning the bid, and saw the Canadian Forces (CF) looking has largely succeeded. The CF has the Swiss company solicited Diesel for a replacement tank for their troops purchased the LAV as a wheeled, Division General Motors (DDGM), in NATO while also trying to find a multi-purpose vehicle to fulfill a which had no military experience, variety of roles (infantry carrier, vehicle to serve with the UN, while but manufactured heavy equipment, medical evacuation vehicle, etc.), the government was not willing to that is cheaper and easier to maintain to do assembly and steel fabrication make the investment to procure either than tracked alternatives. The CF has work at their plant in London if type.1 Sean Maloney argues that the continued to purchase LAVs because the Piranha was selected. A multi- 1971 Defence White Paper, Defence they have been successful in the field, national competition was launched and they support a domestic producer, in the 70s, released by the Trudeau in 1976 for the Armoured Vehicle General Dynamics Land Systems government, was the turning point Canada (GDLS-C), that cooperates General Purpose (AVGP) program, in the shift from tracked to wheeled closely with the military. a six-wheeled vehicle with four vehicles in the CF.2 The salient point variants, and the Piranha was selected was that the existing armoured dimensional vehicle.4 In this context, in March 1976 for the contract. Only vehicles were nearing the end of the Trudeau government purchased three variants were produced: the their operational life and the military 114 Leopard I tanks in 1978 to replace Grizzly infantry carrier, the Cougar had to have multi-purpose vehicles the 500 Centurions procured by the fire support vehicle, and the Husky that could reduce the pressure on Canadian Army in the 1950s,5 but maintenance vehicle. These vehicles a limited defence budget.3 This was the Army still needed a vehicle for were lightly armoured compared combined with a growing sense in the reserves. to tanks, and were intended to be Canada that the nation should avoid Faced with the urgent need for training vehicles that might conduct high-intensity combat and focus on new vehicles and uncertainty about peacekeeping or internal security humanitarian operations, and the the nature of future operations, the operations. Production began in tank was not seen as a suitable vehicle Canadian military tried to choose a 1977, and DDGM assembled the for these operations. Moreover, the flexible vehicle.6 With a shrinking vehicle and manufactured large steel devastation of Israel’s tank forces defence budget, economy was an components. by modern anti-tank weapons in important reason why in 1974 the CF A total of 269 Grizzlies were the Yom Kippur War of 1973 caused decided to pursue wheeled, light, and built for the AVGP program and the many to doubt the tank’s primacy multi-purpose vehicles. The contract vehicle was used mainly for reserves on the battlefield and whether it was seemed destined to go to the American training in its prime role as an worth the high cost for such a one- light armoured vehicle manufacturer infantry carrier. Some units have been Published© Canadian by Scholars Military Commons History @, Laurier,Volume 2011 20, Number 2, Spring 2011, pp.27-36. 27 1 Canadian Military History, Vol. 20 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 4 life-extended to serve do much of the basic work. Chief alongside the later Warrant Officer Jonathan Kisslinger Coyote and LAV-III of the same unit, who served in as maintenance and Bosnia in 1994 and more recently in recovery vehicles in Afghanistan, added that cleaning of Photo supplied by author supplied by Photo Afghanistan.8 The 195 the weapons systems was also easy. Cougars delivered There were, however, significant were equipped with a shortcomings. Fitz-Gerald described 76 mm main gun and the AVGPs as being physically tight a 7.62 mm machine – for example, the turret was cramped gun to support in the Cougar, and maps, binoculars, infantry,9 and these and other equipment cluttered the vehicles were given space. The smell was often bad, as to reserve armoured soldiers in heavy uniforms sweated regiments, but and the fumes of weapons discharges some were pressed filled the turret. Infantry in the Grizzly into peacekeeping were crowded in the back, and jostled missions. There were because the suspension of AVGP 27 Huskies built and units was primitive compared to later these maintenance vehicles. The vision ports were often and recovery vehicles blocked, and there were no cameras still see active service to give infantry points of reference. in that role.10 All Fitz-Gerald stated that riding in the the AVGP units back of the AVGP was nauseating, were from ten to 13 especially when training runs lasted tonnes, with armour up to two hours. Deployment was protection designed difficult because infantry had to to withstand fire up scramble out of small doors in the to a 7.62 mm machine back, and were disoriented from the gun. 11 lack of reference points within the The AVGP vehicles vehicle. The AVGP did not have any were welcomed by the air conditioning, which made the reserves.12 The First vehicle very uncomfortable in hot Hussars regimental weather.14 Kisslinger said that there history described was limited exterior vision when the Cougar as a the vehicle was “hatches down,” “godsend” because it as Army doctrine dictates, during was a credible tank- combat. Staying coordinated and Canadian Forces Joint Imagery Centre (CFJIC) IVD 2004-0270, Photo by Sgt. David Snashall Sgt. David by Photo IVD 2004-0270, Joint Imagery Centre (CFJIC) Canadian Forces trainer in contrast in line with the other vehicles was to the machine-gun difficult. The Cougar’s gun was not armed jeeps that stabilized, and the vehicle had to be had been used; it fully stopped or moving slowly for improved the morale it to fire accurately. Having only two and retention of steerable wheels hampered the ability personnel.13 Corporal of the AVGP to turn in rutted roads Top: Three variants of the Armoured Vehicle General Purpose Mark Fitz-Gerald of or bad conditions, and also caused (AVGP), a six-wheeled vehicle, were introduced into Canadian the First Hussars, uneven weight dispersal. service in 1976. (l. to r.) the Cougar fire support vehicle, the Grizzly who has deployed Cougars were deployed to infantry carrier, and the Husky maintenance vehicle. to Afghanistan, Somalia and Bosnia, and came under Bottom: Cougar armoured vehicles from the Kelowna- and Vernon- told the author that serious criticism for lack of armour based British Columbia Dragoons drive through the early morning basic maintenance protection, mobility, and firepower, light and dust. The Cougars are in the US Army training area of was easy; drivers hardly surprising in view of their Yakama, Washington as part of Exercise Cougar Salvo held in March 2004. could access the design for training and low intensity engines quickly and operations.15 The vehicles were sent https://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh/vol20/iss2/428 2 Maas: Light Armoured Vehicle into active service with few spare Dynamics Land Systems – Canada restraint.” 20 The White Paper stated parts because as training vehicles, (DGLS-C).19 emphatically that Canada could they did not require the same level of It was Canadian needs that drove not afford specialized equipment, maintenance as a front-line vehicle.16 the most significant development of and would only purchase what Kisslinger, nevertheless, emphasized the AVGP, the LAV-III. As always, was absolutely necessary and easily that the Cougar showed considerable financial considerations played a maintainable.21 robustness in Bosnia. Its armour was leading part. With the end of the Cold Two of the requirements generally proof against 7.62 mm War, the Canadian government was highlighted in the White Paper were bullets (depending on where they particularly determined to realize renewal of the ageing fleet of tracked struck the vehicle and from what a “peace dividend” in the face of armoured personnel carriers and the range), and the vehicle’s high speed soaring budget deficits. This was the replacement of the old Cougars.22 offered a degree of protection from reason for the precipitate withdrawal The most recent American tracked anti-vehicle weapons.