Wasn't the Iltis that sack of sh!t vehicle the Canadians ditched (read, didn't even bother to give to the ANA) after a mine-strike or IED/SBIED in Kabul that cost the lives of several Canadian soldiers (RIP to them)?
I remember seeing heaps of them rusting outside Camp Julien back when i worked in RC(C).
I can't recall one single Canadian soldier praising the Iltis, and they were all pretty happy to have received the Mercedes GDs instead...
Originally Posted by Marsuitor
You do realize that the Iltis is a soft skin vehicle never designed for mines, or to have blast protection. Just like any jeep or land rover. And that Canadian Iltis's, by the time they were sent to Kabul were way past their sell by date and totally wore out. Canadian governments ( mostly Liberal) have had a long stand policy to totally wear out any military purchase before buying something new and they never enough, nd they always buy the first gen.
Probably because they're older than Cher and were designed as a quick transport vehicle for European woodlands and not for the bomb-plagued deserts of Afghanistan.
Our Iltises (Plural?) were disbanded and either sold or scrapped in the mid 80s already.
Found one on a trail awhile back.
There are some out there that like it and still defend it. Personally I think the G-Wagon we got is a piece of Sh!t.
They actually weren't to bad for what they were designed to do. Fairly fast, nimble and easy to maintain. I spent a lot of time behind the wheel of many of them, even in Kabul.It wasn't so bad, you just hope that you have time to tuck your arms and legs in around the blast blanket. It doesn't matter what you're in, if there is enough explosives under you and it's your time to go; you are going to go. It's plain and simple. We actually should have kept them for transport inside the wire.
As for not giving them to the ANA, I believe the main reason was because the Iltis uses unleaded fuel and in an AO that primarily uses diesel; it would be stupid to equip a "new" Army with a vehicle that causes fuel "problems". We were trying to move away from being a mixed fuel Army ourselves.
Totally agree! It was a complete waste of money and it's already nearing it's "lifecycle".
having spend quite a lot of time driving that uni-bodied, 1 speed dif with bull low gear (wtf is that good for) electric cooling fan that gives your position away piece of ****... all i have to say about them is good riddance.
same for the LSVW and any other brilliant piece of kit the dumb ass liberals saddled us with because they got a deal on it
LOL.... Yeah. It's funny that all of the logistics vehicles we have had in the past 20 years till now are not even employed overseas....
HLVW excluded.
For all its shortcomings, the Iltis had very good off-road capabilities. It's quite difficult to get this vehicle stuck. Here's a Belgian Bombardier Iltis in Africa.
That's not true! In 1998 there were still a lot (hundreds) of Iltis parked in a German military depot near the base I was stationed. I was told that most of them were revised to get sold to Poland for a symbolic 1,- € each but the Polish military didn't wanted them (don't know why).
@ Pete031 & gdamadg:
You're the first people I hear complaining about a G-Wagon. Would you be so kind and tell me why, please?
Btw, I was told the Iltis was a nightmare to maintain in comparison to a G-Wagon for example.
Greetz
Plage
Because they're soldiers. Soldiers HAVE to complain about their equipment
The G-Wagon gets stuck too easily and once uparmored you cant roll down the windows. Nothing like rolling in a vehicle you cant fight from without opening your door.
The Iltis was an awesome little bush buggy for use in Petawawa. I was just never that comfortable with it over here.
People bashing their equipment should look at what the equipment was designed for and not what they are told to use them for. Often the equipment is just fine, but due to lack of funding and other proper equipment, vehicles are pushed to their very limits and are used for jobs they were never intended for.
Good example is the armoured HMMWV's. The HMMWV is an outstanding vehicle, but it was never supposed to be heavily armoured. The heavily armoured HMMWV's are doing an average job, but they have serious disign flaws and it's a stop-gap vehicle until other vehicles take over the job (like the various MRAP vehicles)
Canadian G-wagons are being armoured and have an armoured gunners station. The G-wagon was designed as a soft-skin jeep, not as an armoured vehicle with a gunners station. No wonder some people think it's a piece of sh!t. The original soft-skin g-wagon is one of the best off-road general purpose vehicles there is though (although the landrover 110 is still better IMO)
same can be said for a garden tractor, but for the iltis if you want to go "anywhere" you need to stop to put it in "bull low" gear then drive over your little patch of really bad "anywhere". then stop again if the ground improves a little or just keep moving along at 5km/h. Why? because it doesn't have what every other useful 4x4 has, a 2 speed differential so you have a full range of gears to use at the low end as well.For all its shortcomings, the Iltis had very good off-road capabilities. It's quite difficult to get this vehicle stuck. Here's a Belgian Bombardier Iltis in Africa.
and would a somewhat quieter cooling fan be possible? for those of us who had to do recce in it that was a constant pain in the ass.
my old Suzuki samurai had better off road capabilities
it did have a nice low profile and was pretty easy to cam up though
View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
Reply With Quote
Visit Homepage
