Talk:LAV III

LAV III Crew
Reverted 205.206.153.235's edit to an earlier one and left the following message on his/her talk page:

The LAV III article you edited refers to the vehicle used by the Canadian and New Zealand militaries. As such, the information regarding "7 troops" was taken directly from (and referenced to) the Canadian National Defence website, which I invite you to verify. Upon verification, you will notice that the crew is indeed made up of a vehicle commander, a gunner, a driver, and 7 infantry soldiers — not 8. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of the name 'Kodiak'
I've yet to find an official source referring to this vehicle as 'Kodiak'. The name was proposed, but never adopted. I'm removing references to 'Kodiak' until an official source is cited that describes it as such (DnD, other government sources etc.) - Jonathon A H (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It was adopted, at least insofar as was published in all materials presented to the public when adopted. I'm honestly not sure why the name was dropped as it was convention to name all military combat vehicles since they were first introduced over a century ago (i.e the LAV II is still called the Bison, vehicles introduced after the LAV III were named such as the Wolf. And even variants of the LAV III were named such as the LAV III Nanook. trackratte (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for Merger with NZLAV
See: NZLAV

Articles describe the same vehicle. There are no significant differences between the Canadian and New Zealand versions of the LAV III. Unique elements on the New Zealand page can be incorporated into a section for LAV III in NZ service on the LAV III page. - Jonathon A H (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems sensible. It would be possible to write a full article on the NZLAV as their procurement was controversial and sparked a government inquiry, but that could always be split out if anyone ever writes this. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. While the articles are related, there is actually very little overlap.  Readers interested in the LAV III are very unlikely to care how many NZLAV are sent to which NZ regiment.


 * A merge is a serious disservice to anyone who wants to have NZLAV on their watchlist, but not LAV II, or vice versa. Geo Swan (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As it stands now, half the background and all of the technical information on the NZLAV page is a duplicate of the information on the LAV III page. The only unique pieces information on the NZLAV page are the distribution among NZ military units, and variants in use, so it is, in fact, mostly overlap. All of this information could be easily incorporated into the LAV III article under a separate section for New Zealand.  It isn't a unique vehicle, it doesn't have a unique production history, and most other military equipment articles don't have a separate page for international users simply because that country chose a different name for it.  It's a needless duplication of effort.  Anyone who actually has NZLAV on their watchlist has had ample time to reply to the proposal merger notice, and the NZLAV links will simply redirect to LAV III, so no one will be missing out on information. - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. As it stands, I don’t see why it can’t be a section on the LAV III. If there is some substantial information on its purchase (a controversy) then it might warrant its own article. But not as it currently stands. Chwyatt (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree. I am a New Zealander This page belongs as separate and specific to New Zealand. NZ has a serious transport issue and an armour issue. Due to available limitation of funds, time of aquisition, limited use to date and inability of some government members to forsee there could be a need in the future, politics-always politics, and distance from anywhere else. The Nz Lav is up for change and specifying to this countries unique usage requirements. Further more the page is strikingly shallow in information and this will change. There arn't many of us- i know the other four million by first name- so it will take some time for information to be lodged but it will come. Leave our page alone. To use a New Zealand colloquialism Bugger Off!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.21.202 (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think nationalism is a valid reason for the page to exist separately. The page has existed for over three years now, and the only unique information on the page are the variants, and distribution.  If and when there is enough information to distinguish the NZLAV from the LAV III, then it should have it's own page, not before, and not on the hope that 'there will be more'.  The NZLAV is just a LAV III by another name... it's like making the argument that there should be a page for every international user of the Centurion, or M60, or M113. - Jonathon A H (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "it's like making the argument that there should be a page for every international user of the Centurion, or M60, or M113" Good point Jonathon. Seems to me like this discussion is resolved. Every uniquely NZ point can easily be incorporated into a main LAV article. Chwyatt (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. These IFV aren`t the same vehicle, the specifications on all of them are significally different, don't merge these; because the canadian variant is totally different of tne newzealandese version. Flag_of_ Colombia.svg Pliniochaaaaaaaaaaan!!! (Discussion) 16:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.army-technology.com/projects/piranha/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on LAV III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090706063156/http://www.casr.ca:80/ft-vehicle-casualties.htm to http://www.casr.ca/ft-vehicle-casualties.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on LAV III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120306043746/http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/todays-paper/Somnia/1653152/story.html to http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/todays-paper/Somnia/1653152/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Operators
It is listed here that Saudi Arabia will get 900 modified LAV-III vehicles (called LAV6.0). None of the references state that these 900 vehicles are modified LAV-III. In fact, they are not LAV-III/Piranha III chassis at all, and are not called LAV6.0.

However, the Canadian army has purchased 550 LAV6.0 vehicles (as discussed, but not named in paragraph two of the 'Future' section). These are not the same vehicle/chassis that is being delivered to Saudi Arabia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.4.43 (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on LAV III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101012173921/http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/equipment-equipement/item-eng.asp?product=64 to http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/equipment-equipement/item-eng.asp?product=64
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20131020024825/http%3A//www.defensenews.com/article/20131015/DEFREG02/310150018/US-Israeli-Team-Demo-APS-Canada
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523122143/http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_10/iss_1/CAJ_vol10.1_08_e.pdf to http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_10/iss_1/CAJ_vol10.1_08_e.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=3642
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101012173921/http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/equipment-equipement/item-eng.asp?product=64 to http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/equipment-equipement/item-eng.asp?product=64
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6576%3Acolombia-mod-mulls-order-of-additional-lav-iii-armored-vehicles&catid=35%3Alatin-america&Itemid=58
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://dmilt.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8901%3Acolombia-armored-vehicles-procurement-programs-summary&catid=35%3Alatin-america&Itemid=58
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101012173921/http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/equipment-equipement/item-eng.asp?product=64 to http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/equipment-equipement/item-eng.asp?product=64
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061018102015/http://www.gdlscanada.com/pdf/LAVspec.pdf to http://www.gdlscanada.com/pdf/LAVspec.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204171210/http://www.army.mil.nz/our-army/equipment/nzlav/ to http://www.army.mil.nz/our-army/equipment/nzlav/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on LAV III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090916213738/http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3036 to http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3036
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111228135045/http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/10/21/government-makes-it-official-general-dynamics-land-systems-awarded-lav-3-upgrade-contract/ to http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/10/21/government-makes-it-official-general-dynamics-land-systems-awarded-lav-3-upgrade-contract/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706181657/http://armyapp.forces.gc.ca/ael/pubs/B-GL-321-007-FP-001.pdf to http://armyapp.forces.gc.ca/ael/pubs/B-GL-321-007-FP-001.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501164807/http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/amap-ied.html to http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/amap-ied.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905043839/http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_05/iss_2/CAJ_vol5.2_09_e.pdf to http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_05/iss_2/CAJ_vol5.2_09_e.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090916074640/http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3037 to http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3037

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

LAV VI vs LAV 6.0
I have worked extensively on the LAV Upgrade program. I have never seen the use of "LAV VI". The only terminology I have ever seen is LAV 6.0. In fact, the vehicles themselves have "LAV 6.0" markings. See marketing brochure from GDLS-C http://www.gdlscanada.com/products/LAV/LAV-6.0.html I have gone ahead and change this article to use the proper name. -unsigned comment


 * I think we are confusing marketing brochures with military naming conventions. The manufacturer switched from numerals to "software development" language (ie 6.0) for marketing purposes to appear more "cutting edge", so how the company markets the vehicle externally and refers to it internally doesn't change the fact that military naming conventions for vehicles and equipment is to use numerals (i.e LAV II, Sherman V mk II, etc) and always has been. I mean, it's in the title of the article (LAV III). Look at all of the other vehicles in the same family in the CA for example, LAV I Cougar, LAV II Coyote, LAV III Kodiak (initially, name was dropped in common usage for some reason), and now the LAV VI. Even look at something like the Spitfire article, whose variants are listed as Mark I through XVI. As a result, the proper designation as a military vehicle is LAV VI, regardless of how the manufacturer markets it.


 * You can also see the following with reference links:
 * CBC: "engineering tests are being conducted on the mammoth LAV VI", "General Dynamics Land Systems to support testing of the LAV VI".
 * ADGA case study: "With the upgrade to the LAV VI, the Canadian Army committed...", "The LAV VI and its predecessor, the LAV III, are the mechanized backbone of the Canadian Forces on land"
 * Standing Senate Committee on National Finance: "Did I understand that the LAV VI is a new vehicle, or is it a LAV III that's just been reworked?"


 * You're right though in the sense that the manufacturer's marketing terminology has caused a huge amount of confusion for this vehicle name, as even internally in the Canadian Army they were just putting manufacturer's marketing posters on the walls, and using the manufactuer's language in official documents during the procurement process, so now the LAV VI is the first vehicle since forever really that you see this "6.0" type numbering cropping up. It is still wrong in the sense that the military's naming conventions for vehicles, aircraft, etc is to use roman numerals. trackratte (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You're basing this entirely on speculation. All sources cited use 6.0.  I'll be happy to switch to VI where applicaable (if you find a source designating them as LAV VI for the Canadian Armed Forces, then the CAF variants can be renamed as such) if/when there's a given source.  Until then it should be left as described in the given sources. Jonathon A H (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * What are you going on about? I just put three sources above! Including from Parliament. And as can be plainly seen, all vehicles in the Army use numerals not software development nomenclature, clearly. Further, look at the title of this article! Common sense in conjunction with the above cited sources makes it abundantly clear what the convention is. trackratte (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * And none of them in the actual article. That's what matters, not the talk page. Jonathon A H (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * How Wikipedia generally works is that if you make a change (as you did), and it gets undone (as it was), then you discuss at the talk page to avoid edit warring. The onus is on the person making the change (ie you). So I include the references here for discussion/proof, and have avoided restoring the status quo to avoid edit warring. So it's not entirely relevant at this time if the references are in the article, the point is that they exist, so pretending that they don't because they haven't been added to the article yet is counter productive.
 * So, the naming convention (numerals) is abundantly clear, there are references, and the title of the article also further underlines the convention. Now I will restore the long standing use of numerals in the article, and can add references if the consensus is that they are required in the article. Generally speaking, they aren't required for something as simple and normally not subject to debate but that's fine.
 * I can always add a note with the above referenced plus a reference from GDLS website explaining the situation, which is within the Army it is LAV VI, however, the manufacturer markets the vehicle as the LAV 6.0 ("LAV six point O). That way it's rendered clear, supported by references, and is an accurate account of the reality suitable for encyclopaedic entry. Satisfactory? trackratte (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

History of the LAV series
I've just gone through and cleaned up all of the LAV articles regarding the design history. As per this page, the LAV I (LAV-25) was an in-house upgrade from the AVGP project. From that point forward, all fo the GM Defense (now GDLS) designs were internally developed. While similar to the MOWAG concepts, they used all North American sourced systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codesmith (talk • contribs) 11:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Reduced Saudi Order
https://www.janes.com/article/82959/saudi-arabia-reportedly-cuts-lav-order

Kind of big news, would someone add this to the article? Jurryaany (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Separate LAV VI Variant Section
As the LAV VI is more than simply another variant of the LAV III (it sits closer to a completely new design given the substantial changes to the hull, engine, and suspension), I think it makes sense that a separate section/sub-section in or after the Variants section should be added detailing the LAV VI. It also makes sense to migrate the information contained in the Development section on the LAV VI to the new section. Burnsnet27 (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)