I am aware of two requests from the TF in Kandahar which were denied for the purpose an equipment lifecycle management objective. The AVLB request was denied because sending those to Afghanistan would undermine the argument for their not being replaced, and LAV TUA was not sent because it might undermine continued progress of the tank replacement.
The AVLB justification may be just rumour. I know it was requested and denied, but I was never part of the conversations as to why. I was in the room at a DLEPS Ops brief when instruction was given not to support any efforts to deploy LAV TUA because it could do jobs that CF said only a tank could do, and an in-service vehicle doing those jobs in Kandahar might have taken wheels of the tank replacement cart.
I have mixed feelings on this…
On the one hand, not sending the AVLB just to save some minor face seems mind-boggling. If the TF Commander requests a certain type of vehicle or capability that is in the inventory, give it to them. Period.
On the other hand, I totally understand politicking to buy tanks… can they technically perform the same task as a tank? Somewhat.
But as we all know, they are nowhere near as survivable… we would have lost a lot more people, and ended up with a much less capable vehicle if we had sent the LAV TUA
…
So do we praise the folks responsible for these decisions, because one of those decisions allowed us to buy proper tanks?
Or do we keep scorn upon them for risking our safety due to politicking?