M113 Lynx photos needed for book project

[maple_leaf_eh]

There are a few Lynx on display in Canada. The one closest to me is an outdoor display at Connaught Ranges. I attached a snap.

One interesting user of the Canadian Lynxes is the Islamic Republic of Iran. When the brigade closed down in Germany, the Lynxes were deemed surplus (they were going to be retired in Canada anyways). They were stripped of the engines, because these parts had a civilian application. At some point the vehicles were sold to a Dutch scrapyard. From there the Canadians had no more interest or issues. From there the Iranians somehow got their hands on some or all of the Lynxes. I attached the only pictures I have.

Finally, spend $5 and request all the vehicle information from the Department of National Defence. There is a more expansive instruction on the CFR request thread.

[rob love]

Originally Posted by maple_leaf_eh

They were stripped of the engines, because these parts had a civilian application..

To the best of my knowledge, it was not a civilian application, but rather the DND provided used engines for the remainder of the M113 fleet. I noted a few TFRs from Bosnia where they complained of receiving used engines which were unserviceable as replacements for the M113s.

This source of supply remains today with used parts being removed from LSVWs and MLVWs during the dismantling process at the prisons. From my experience, the guys signing the condition and serviceability tags are not too discerning.

[Ed Storey]

The Lynx was not a standardized U.S. Army vehicle, therefore it did not have an M number, even though it did share a number of components with the M113, M548, and M577 series of vehicles. I own a number of Lynx publications and have yet to find one that refers to the vehicle as M113 1/2.

The correct name for the vehicle is: Carrier, Command and Reconnaissance Full Tracked, Armoured, Lynx.

[SilvioI]

Originally Posted by Ed Storey

The Lynx was not a standardized U.S. Army vehicle, therefore it did not have an M number, even though it did share a number of components with the M113, M548, and M577 series of vehicles. I own a number of Lynx publications and have yet to find one that refers to the vehicle as M113 1/2.

The correct name for the vehicle is: Carrier, Command and Reconnaissance Full Tracked, Armoured, Lynx.

Interesting, I can however tell you that our data plate shows M113 1/2 or Recce vehicle or something similar, will check tomorrow.

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by Ed Storey

The Lynx was not a standardized U.S. Army vehicle, therefore it did not have an M number, even though it did share a number of components with the M113, M548, and M577 series of vehicles. I own a number of Lynx publications and have yet to find one that refers to the vehicle as M113 1/2.

The correct name for the vehicle is: Carrier, Command and Reconnaissance Full Tracked, Armoured, Lynx.

Agreed. I have seen the EDR pages. The name is CARRIER RECCE LYNX
The VMO name is CARRIER COMMAND AND RECCE ARMD LYNX FULL TRKD
The Vehicle Class is ARMOURED COMBAT VEHICLE
The Vehicle type is LYNX.

If it was going to have a fraction M-series number, it would have been listed there.

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Ed Storey

The Lynx was not a standardized U.S. Army vehicle, therefore it did not have an M number, even though it did share a number of components with the M113, M548, and M577 series of vehicles. I own a number of Lynx publications and have yet to find one that refers to the vehicle as M113 1/2.

The correct name for the vehicle is: Carrier, Command and Reconnaissance Full Tracked, Armoured, Lynx.

Looking up the designation on Google, it appears on a number of hits, and from this link below, it indicates that M113 1/2 was given by the makers, FMC and not a US military designation.
http://tanknutdave.com/armoured-comm...sance-vehicle/

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by rob love

To the best of my knowledge, it was not a civilian application, but rather the DND provided used engines for the remainder of the M113 fleet. I noted a few TFRs from Bosnia where they complained of receiving used engines which were unserviceable as replacements for the M113s.

This source of supply remains today with used parts being removed from LSVWs and MLVWs during the dismantling process at the prisons. From my experience, the guys signing the condition and serviceability tags are not too discerning.

What is a TFR?

[rob love]

Originally Posted by maple_leaf_eh

What is a TFR?

It is a technical failure report. They are like a Unsatisfactory Condition Report (UCR), but for the technical end. I had to fill out a number of TFRs over my military career, and even did one as a civilian contractor. The good thing with them is that they let a Life Cycle Material Manager know when there are repeated failures in a fleet that will demand their attention. As well, it can be a way for the mechanic in the field to get a higher level of technical expertise and investigation to result in solutions to technical problems.

While they are often replaced these days with an email query, those do not end up on a TFR summary. The summaries came out every quarter and listed all the TFRs submitted in that quarter along with the solutions if they were already found. By reading the TFR summary, a mechanic could occasionally quickly solve some of life's mysteries.

An example of this was when I worked in 2PPCLI tool crib. A fellow mechanic came to me asking for the front axle engagement (air) switch on the MLVW dash because it was leaking oil on the driver's foot. I told him that instead of the switch, what he needed to do was change the breather on top of the transfer case. He did that and it worked. I then had his MCpl at my counter asking how come I knew this crap. It was in the TFR summary for that quarter. Apparently, the main gaskets on the transfer cases were de-composing and plugging up the breather (vent) valve, causing pressure to build up in the transfer case. This in turn caused oil to run out the change switch on the dash. A new switch would do nothing.

How I do ramble on......I must be getting old.

[Ed Storey]

Rob, it was not rambling but an excellent example that highlighted the reasoning for all of the reporting and the various levels of reporting.

[rob love]

Well then I'll ramble a little more.

TFRs are now submitted electronically, and the summaries are also shown electronically.

On the one I submitted in theater, we had a preliminary answer a month or so later. I had observed a very dangerous condition of unusual failure on several pieces of a new type equipment. We would repair the problem, but did not know the cause, nor if the problem was going to re-appear. So when I brought it up at the weekly production meeting, I was directed to submit the TFR. A month later we emailed to find if there was a preliminary finding. The LCMM had Petawawa check for the same condition on their vehicles, and the same problem was there, although yet undetected. There was a powder around the worn area. The powder was submitted to a lab along with the failed parts. It turned out the manufacturer of the vehicles had done something that did not have a purpose, and it was causing the failure. The solution given was to remove the part, clean the area of an epoxy, and install new parts.

So this example shows the importance of the TFR. A fleetwide problem was found early, a solution was found using a lab instead of guesswork, and a solution was fielded in less than a month.

Two years later I returned on my third contract to theater, and out of the blue one day I received an email that the solution to my TFR had been found and the case was to be considered closed. So apparently the need to "tidy up" was not as pressing as the need to find the solution.

We normally had the direct ear of the LCMMs when in theater, so the TFR chain was not always followed. Often, solutions to smaller problems were found in hours if not days. However the problem with that was that the same problems could likely be at units on Canada, so the distribution of information was not quite as simple. These days, with DRMIS, it appears the LCMMs open work orders for special inspections for each vehicle in a fleet of vehicles with results posted to the work order. The LCMMs can then review the work orders and poll for their answers.

Am I rambling now Ed?

[Ed Storey]

No not at all, but if you have time and if there is one in your area can you crack open a Lynx and take a photo of the data plate?

[SilvioI]

Originally Posted by maple_leaf_eh

There are a few Lynx on display in Canada. The one closest to me is an outdoor display at Connaught Ranges. I attached a snap.

One interesting user of the Canadian Lynxes is the Islamic Republic of Iran. When the brigade closed down in Germany, the Lynxes were deemed surplus (they were going to be retired in Canada anyways). They were stripped of the engines, because these parts had a civilian application. At some point the vehicles were sold to a Dutch scrapyard. From there the Canadians had no more interest or issues. From there the Iranians somehow got their hands on some or all of the Lynxes. I attached the only pictures I have.

Finally, spend $5 and request all the vehicle information from the Department of National Defence. There is a more expansive instruction on the CFR request thread.

I did a site search but with no results, where is the CFR request thread?

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by SilvioI

I did a site search but with no results, where is the CFR request thread?

http://www.mapleleafup.net/forums/sh...ad.php?t=14402

(People with legitimate access can access a maintenance record database. As of a few weeks ago, disclosure rules were reinforced and those people should not misuse their privilages.)