|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Mar 10, 2007 21:10:43 GMT 12
The Hangars at Linton fit now because the floors were lowered slightly. The Info came from OH, but I'm not mentioning any names as he's still in! 30 Sqn you are wrong about some of the sheds, Of course they all fit now, it would be idiotic to suggest otherwise. The error was corrected before the vehicles arrived. My source was impeccable: I don't know you. And if you intend to quote chapter and verse I suggest you check your facts. If it's rubbish, prove it! I stand by my source who was there when the error was realised and corrected. Without getting into an argument I assure I know exactly what I'm talking about. My knowledge is not second hand. I stand by my statement, all the infrastructure that was built for the LAV was the built to the right size including the vehicle hangars. I've added this as we may be talking at cross purposes  Naturally during the initial scoping stage there were changes as the requirements were firmed up but the dimensions were set before any building design commenced and no floors were lowered during or after construction commenced (unless the builders made a mistake on the day and corrected it  . |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 10, 2007 22:02:59 GMT 12
OK guys, lets not get too heated here. Obviously some here have firsthand knowledge, others have second hand knowledge, and some, like me, have little at all.
That doesn't mean we should disrespect what the other person is saying.
30sqnatc - I'd like to welcome you to the forum. Your input is appreciated and certainly seems to tell a different side of the story. May I respectively suggest that you post a message onto the Introduce Yourself thread in the General Board. It seems to me that from this thread you must be in the Army, or the Territorials. And you must have some working knowledge of the LAV's. It would be nice to see where that knowledge comes from.
I noticed you'd joined up with the forum earlier when i saw your post in the Anson thread, and from your user name I'd assumed you were another of our resident Air Training Corp members. It seems from this thread I am mistaken, and I think with all due respect, perhaps a clarification would be appreciated, thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 11, 2007 9:49:45 GMT 12
Obviously they fit the vehicles now, it would be idiotic to suggest otherwise Um....you did suggest otherwise: You can blame the shed size on the vehicles, because they were built specifically to accommodate them but they got the measurements wrong! In reading that, your meaning appeared quite clear: that the sheds are the wrong size. |
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Mar 11, 2007 15:33:10 GMT 12
It was before the vehicles arrived and the sheds were under construction, but clearly the information I was handed from a VERY senior person at OH was wrong, and Paul was right.
Happy now?
Yours pedanticly etc
|
|
|
|
Post by phasselgren on Mar 11, 2007 23:05:36 GMT 12
On issue of Lav in general, what is often lost to observers is that just as the RNZAF lost it's strike capability, how many people are aware that the NZ Army, now nearing the completion of it's motorisation process, has lost it's light infantry capability. Soldiers cruise in the back of Lavs only one in five can read a map properly, when was the last time 1 or 2/1 did a battalion live field firing attack ( in the bush). The skills from S/E Asia are gone (but still need in the long term). Kiwi Army is Mot Inf not Lt Inf. As I understand the situation your army has changed direction. 1 RNZIR will focus on cavalry operations with LAV but 2/1 RNZIR will continue with the light infantry role. Finally QAMR will remain as an independent unit (it was intended to join the infantry units) with LAVs in the recce role and it can also be used for infantry support (transport). |
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Mar 13, 2007 12:06:12 GMT 12
Under what military nessesity would an AFV in the NZDF be carried by a C-130 in Combat Load? The first 4 M113's were deployed to Darwin from NZ by C-130 and then into East Timor (fully combat loaded) by C-130 in 1999. Such a requirement could easily occur again. A non combat loaded LAV would still be close the a C-130's max payload - what are you going to strip off it to lighten it? Just crew, spares, fuel and ammunition I would have though? I agree that the LAV and M113 are designed for different situations, that is why it is odd that we ended up getting 105 LAV's and scrapped all the M113's. A mix would have made more sense - I have spoken to many in the Army who agree. Given that we now only have LAV's, why all of them need a gun is also a bit of a mystery. I would have thought a larger payload would have been more desirable for half of the fleet (that probably explains why we need 105 of them!). Also having an Air Combat Capability to provide additional fire support would make up for not having a gun... I guess that is another reason why they all need a gun now |
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Mar 13, 2007 12:29:15 GMT 12
I thought the NZ Army had 105 LAVs because if you ordered 104 the manufacturer would throw one in for free! ;D
Don, that is a very good point: why did the Army only buy turreted LAVS, and not a mix of unturreted and turreted? Another case of someone wanting new equipment, but not really thinking the whole thing through properly?
Have they got enough drivers for the fleet now?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 13, 2007 14:26:23 GMT 12
It doesn't necessarily have to be assumed that all 105 are in service at the same time. Afetr all several must be stored as attrition surely?
When the Army bought the Unimogs years back, I'm told that they got a good deal so bought well more than they required. There was actually one truck for every four people in the army according to the Herald. But I guess that's why they've kept going so long - as many were bought for attrition.
In general, why are modern armed forces seemingly going more for the wheeled APC's ratehr than tracked ones? Is it purely for the extra speed on the roads?
Also, what happened to the Scorpions when they went out of service? As they're not American-built, I assume they're no silly US Govt requirement for them to be melted down? Have they been sold to museums and collectors?
Does the Army have any tracked vehicles nowadays?
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Mar 13, 2007 17:36:36 GMT 12
Many of the answers to the questions are in the Auditor Generals report at www.oag.govt.nz/2004/lav/part2.htmLess a few for the Army Museum all the Scorpions and spares parts were sold to a UK military vehicle company for refurbishment. Why did NZ buy 105 vehicles? You may remember the original intention was to buy 150+ a mix of turreted and non turreted. Buying all turreted saved a swag of money |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 13, 2007 17:55:06 GMT 12
Crikey, that's a long report. Can someone else please read it and answer my questions? :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Mar 14, 2007 18:40:18 GMT 12
Crikey, that's a long report. Can someone else please read it and answer my questions? :-) Naturally, the AG is paid for reports by the page not the quality of conclusions |
|
Naturally during the initial scoping stage there were changes as the requirements were firmed up but the dimensions were set before any building design commenced and no floors were lowered during or after construction commenced (unless the builders made a mistake on the day and corrected it 
.
