Another LAV III rolls - is the Stryker just as bad?

[Grapeshot]

Here is a question, where do these casulities occur? Is someone halfway out a hatch when it rolls over? I would not think that you would be killed if you were inside a AFV when it rolled over.

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Just a few weeks after a LAV III rolled in Wainwright and killed its driver from the Royal 22e Regiment, a LAV turned over today in Afghanistan and killed a corporal from the 2nd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment. It would appear that the LAV may be susceptible to these - especially in adverse conditions. Scott Taylor - famed media pundit and ex-corporal - is throwing out a red herring about "crew training" possibly being the cause.

Have there been similar "problems" with the Stryker?

I havnt read of any sich incidents, but Im sure it happens. Something to keep in mind is that the LAV as a significantly heavier turret than the Styker, which in turn would raise its centre of gravity and make it less stable.

Dan

[Kwazydog]

[ November 27, 2005, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by Grapeshot:

Here is a question, where do these casulities occur? Is someone halfway out a hatch when it rolls over? I would not think that you would be killed if you were inside a AFV when it rolled over.

Crews of armored vehicles practice roll-over drills, just like I posted earlier. Everyone ducks down into the vehicle and holds onto something when commander yells "Roll-over!"

Most casualties occur when the vehicles rolls over into a canal or other body of water, and crew (mostly driver or gunner) drown. This is because it is the hardest for them to get out

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Grapeshot:

Here is a question, where do these casulities occur? Is someone halfway out a hatch when it rolls over? I would not think that you would be killed if you were inside a AFV when it rolled over.

If you've never been inside an AFV, I think anyone that has will tell you they are not build for comfort. Almost everything inside is metal, with sharp corners, and if you're not wearing some sort of restraint (and try doing that with a flak vest and full tac gear/webbing), it would be very easy to snap your neck or suffer multiple internal injuries.

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Grapeshot:

Here is a question, where do these casulities occur? Is someone halfway out a hatch when it rolls over? I would not think that you would be killed if you were inside a AFV when it rolled over.

If you've never been inside an AFV, I think anyone that has will tell you they are not build for comfort. Almost everything inside is metal, with sharp corners, and if you're not wearing some sort of restraint (and try doing that with a flak vest and full tac gear/webbing), it would be very easy to snap your neck or suffer multiple internal injuries. </font>

[SgtMuhammed]

I have actually had to use the roll-over drill. My 113 rolled off the side of a hill when we slid during a highspeed turn. I could see that we were about to hit the edge and so dropped down out of the TC hatch. My driver hit his seat release and dropped down a split second later. I grabbed onto the column that the TC seat is connected to and held on for dear life. My driver wedged himself in his compartment somehow and we both rode through a couple rotations, can't remember how many.

Luckily I was one of those who enforced the load plan and all the big things were strapped down but a few loose tools and our rucks and stuff were flying about. Good thing we didn't have any dismounts.

I remember staring at my driver and thinking "Great, the last thing I am going to see is his ugly face."

We were both a little bruised and battered but otherwise ok. The only things that actually broke were my favorite thermos and the track's heater.

I was just lucky that nothing caught on the hatch as I was getting down. I only had a light flack vest, a MILES harnes, and my CVC but I have had all of them get hung up before.

Anyway, rolling isn't fun but if you get inside your chances of survival are pretty good. There were three other roll overs while I was with that unit and no one was hurt. Tragically though, a friend of mine was killed when the side of a fighting position collapsed under his track and he fell into the hole. He never had time to get inside and was crushed against the other wall.

There was also an M1 driver who was killed when they hit a pond they didn't know was there. The M1 nosed in with the turret turned so that the driver couldn't go out the back and he couldn't get his hatch openned either. The kid drowned before they could pull the tank out of the mud.

[The_Capt]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander: Crews of armored vehicles practice roll-over drills, just like I posted earlier. Everyone ducks down into the vehicle and holds onto something when commander yells "Roll-over!"

Most casualties occur when the vehicles rolls over into a canal or other body of water, and crew (mostly driver or gunner) drown. This is because it is the hardest for them to get out [/QB]

Of course this is just about as effective as the old "Duck and Cover" drills of the 50s. You can brace all you want...if the **** flying around in the inside of one of these beasts doesn't get you, the very hot oil coming out of the engine will. If you are the C-9 gunner out the back (which our latest casualty was) or in one of the cuppolas you are really screwed.

Having spent some time in LAVs and 113s the problem is twofold.

Originally there was a driver issue in that a lot of our lads tried to do the same stuff with the LAV that they did with the 113...very bad idea. Our drivers are a lot better now, most of them hacing never seen a LAV but we aren't particularly good at training them on the types of road ones sees in Afghanistan, so there is an element of crew training that is an issue.

The other issue is that as decent as the LAV is, it wasn't designed for goat tracks in the mountains of Afghanistan. More likely flat plains and roads. So when we take the thing into really mean country the risk always goes up.

Truth is fellas we've been rolling just about everything they have issued us (I've even seen pictures of a Leopard) and guys have been getting killed doing it. The LAV may have a high center of gravity but the damn thing a) can actually stop a bullet, return fire with a decent cannon and c) get the hell out of dodge at about 110 kph. I'll take my chances in the hills and whack my driver with a camel stick now and again to get him to slow down (or not swerve when some crazy moolha decides to test Allah) but when the fur is flying I would bet my life in a LAV versus an old 113 any day...and I am talking from experience here.

Now I am sure there will be another "cover up" that will need to be uncovered, just in time for the election but it is all smoke and mirrors at this point. Our lads are in outstanding vehicles these days compared to what we used to move around in.

[Kozure]

Story I heard is that the LAV III swerved to avoid a Afghani civilian vehicle driving without headlights at night.

Any hard collision-avoidance manoeuvre at night, on a urban road, would probably result in an accident more often than not.

[MikeyD]

Yes, to answer your question the Stryker's notorious for being very VERY roll prone. Even worse than the Hummer (Actually, the old Vietnam era Mutt was also roll-prone, which is one reason why it never made it to the civilian market).

The Stryker roll problem was immediately discovered and repeatedly experienced during initial capabilities testing. If you see any news footage of a Stryker taking a corner at anything above crawl speed you can see it leaning hard over. Easy enough to lift the wheels on one side and send it rolling. The troops in the field have joked(?) that the heavy slat cage actually helps instead of hurts with its tendency to tip, because with the cage it'll only roll onto its side instead of doing a full 180.

I heard just yesterday a couple congressmen were injured on the road to the Baghdad airport when their transport rolled over. That was more likely a M1114 armored Hummer than a Stryker doing shuttle service.

[ November 28, 2005, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[SgtMuhammed]

From the description I think it was one of those civilian armored vehicles. The reports said they were in a large box-like vehicle in the middle of the convoy. They have been using specially made civilian vehicles to transport VIPs and such.

[MikeyD]

I don't want to single-out Stryker for rollover problems. If its wheeled, all-wheel-drive, and sprung for cross-country travel its going to be more-or-less rollover prone. Just the nature of the beast. I seem to recall hearing someone complain that the Italian Centauro may have similar problems. I've heard of a couple M1117 ASVs being overturned in Iraq. And Hummers are notorious. I used to own a little Suzuki Samurai (used for troop transport in India, i believe), that felt like it really wanted to roll-over sometimes.

[Peter Cairns]

I know some vehicles have the ability to drop their suspension, so given that this tends to be a road problem, perhaps looking at the option of lowering ground clearance for wheeled vehicles and hence centre of gravity might be one possible solution.

Peter.

[MikeyD]

Collapsed suspension for shipping purposes only.

Not advisable for diriving over bumpy ground!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Yes, to answer your question the Stryker's notorious for being very VERY roll prone. Even worse than the Hummer (Actually, the old Vietnam era Mutt was also roll-prone, which is one reason why it never made it to the civilian market).

Canada used the MUTT briefly, and they were all ordered destroyed. Cut in quarters and then crushed. They also had independent suspension that folded up if the vehicle was made to go airborne, didn't they? Making for a rather unsmooth landing.

[Peter Cairns]

Can you collapse one side and not the other, it could be used as a form of anti-role mesure of last resort, though it would need to work like an airbag, by a sensor, rather than manually.

come to think of it why not at least have crew airbags, if not ones on the antiRPG cages.

Peter.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Can you collapse one side and not the other, it could be used as a form of anti-role mesure of last resort, though it would need to work like an airbag, by a sensor, rather than manually.

come to think of it why not at least have crew airbags, if not ones on the antiRPG cages.

Peter.

So you get hit by a non-penetrating round and the driver gets a big airbag in the face when he's trying to read his guages?

I think maybe the rationale is that most armies realize wars are somewhat dangerous for the participants and seek to maximize crew comfort and survivability but not at the expense of operational requirements.

Kind of like why they put gasoline in gas tanks in combat zones...

[Thomm]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Collapsed suspension for shipping purposes only.

Not advisable for diriving over bumpy ground!

WOW! Finally a photo that looks like a screenshot!

[Peter Cairns]

Michael,

If I break hard my airbag doesn't go off, nor does it in a low speed bump like in a car park, If I get hit mid left (UK right hand drive) my side air bag goes off to protect the passenger, but my driver airbag doesn't.

Anti roll or impact airbags would be set either to only go off at a major impact ( put the sensor internally, or if the vehicle pitched beyond a certain limit at a certain speed. also they would be detachable, so that if one did go off, you just unhooked it threw it out and plugged in anew one.

At the end of the day the most important, valueable and effective piece of equipment in a Stryker, are the guys inside it.

Peter.

[olduvai_again]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Michael,

If I break hard my airbag doesn't go off, nor does it in a low speed bump like in a car park, If I get hit mid left (UK right hand drive) my side air bag goes off to protect the passenger, but my driver airbag doesn't.

Anti roll or impact airbags would be set either to only go off at a major impact ( put the sensor internally, or if the vehicle pitched beyond a certain limit at a certain speed. also they would be detachable, so that if one did go off, you just unhooked it threw it out and plugged in anew one.

At the end of the day the most important, valueable and effective piece of equipment in a Stryker, are the guys inside it.

Peter.

How often is your car shot at with 7.62mm rounds and/or rpg warheads? I would think until those tests are made, any comparisons between airbag sensors on civilian vehicles and theoretical deployment on combat / mout vehicles is questionable.

[Peter Cairns]

olduvai_again,

I don't see why, just because the object causing the impact is differnt doesn't mean the physics cahnge, an airbag doesn't go off why a windscreen shatters, so why should it go off when a 7.62mm hits the side of a Stryker.

Every day of the week in ever developed country in the world, cars drive safely without airbags going off at random. They are in cars, SUV's trucks,

If you can drive a Landrover with airbags at 50mph across rough ground without the airbag going off I doubt that hitting armoured plate would be a problem.

As to an RPG, well as its not a kinetic penetrator I doubt if the force would be enough to rock the vehicle, and even if it was and set the airbags off for the crew, is that a bad thing, lets face it which is best the crew on the opposite side getting a n airbag in the face, or flying forward and headbutting the inside of an armoured hull.

Airbags are remarkable things, they are incredibly effective and incredibly reliable. One of the reasons that so much military kit is so expensive is that they keep reinventing the wheel rather than lifting a tried and tested solution off the shelf.

Look at Drops vehicles, they have revolutionised artillery logistics and they're over glorified skips.

Peter.

[Guest Mike]

Let's face it - civilian $WD's are more prone to roll than sedan cars due to height - why would you expect a Stryker or LAV to be different?

they carry all that armour way up high and have high ground clearance so of course their CofG is higher.

It's only high school physics!!

[olduvai_again]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

olduvai_again,

I don't see why, just because the object causing the impact is differnt doesn't mean the physics cahnge, an airbag doesn't go off why a windscreen shatters, so why should it go off when a 7.62mm hits the side of a Stryker.

Every day of the week in ever developed country in the world, cars drive safely without airbags going off at random. They are in cars, SUV's trucks,

If you can drive a Landrover with airbags at 50mph across rough ground without the airbag going off I doubt that hitting armoured plate would be a problem.

As to an RPG, well as its not a kinetic penetrator I doubt if the force would be enough to rock the vehicle, and even if it was and set the airbags off for the crew, is that a bad thing, lets face it which is best the crew on the opposite side getting a n airbag in the face, or flying forward and headbutting the inside of an armoured hull.

Airbags are remarkable things, they are incredibly effective and incredibly reliable. One of the reasons that so much military kit is so expensive is that they keep reinventing the wheel rather than lifting a tried and tested solution off the shelf.

Look at Drops vehicles, they have revolutionised artillery logistics and they're over glorified skips.

Peter.

It is quite possible I underestimate the sophistication of airbag sensors. My gut tells me the requirements for an airbag sensitive enough to deploy in military accidents (rollovers, collisions) but not in combat conditions are different than the requirements of civilian airbags. However, my gut is relatively uninformed.

[MikeyD]

Of course civilian injuries in traffic accidents would be reduced if we all wore kevlar helmets too!

There's probably all sorts of factors in this discussion we're not taking into account. Airbags rely on compressed gas. Combining a HE flash with that extra burst of compressed air doesn't sound like a particularly good combination. Plus military cross-country vehicles are probably prone to more violent shocks and jars than most civilian vehicles. The airbag sensor would have to be set to such a high tolerance that they probably wouldn't deplay in half the accident scenarios!

[Michael Dorosh]

Who is talking about 7.62mm rounds? Certainly not me.