I don't think the Israelis are that fussed about 'hearts and minds'. Frankly, it doesn't seem to get us very far either, and just gives people an excuse to limit the FP available to those on Ops.

Only CR2 will stop a decent EFP. We're not all going to have them. My Coy at the moment have SNATCH 1 in the city. Stick to the back streets and plan patrols intelligently and you're safer than in a WR on an MSR. SNATCH will stop bullets and blast.

The real drama lies with automotive reliability and maneuverability. Mine break down all the time and get stuck in the most minor ditch. SNATCH 2 would do me in the interim. I think there are some around in NI...

Is the Snatch 2 the one with cd player, alloy wheels and body colour bumpers? :D :D :P :P

No you're thinking of the executive version, the 2 has steel wheels and plastic lookalike trims.

Often identified by the names on the windscreen (ie. Tom and Tom!),

P

Originally Posted by Rightful_King_of_Norway

Whilst I'm not so sure about the entirety of the minister's statement, he's correct to say that it's a trade-off of protection against mobility - you'd need an MBT's armour (or maybe more) to protect against the IEDs targetting our forces. Snatch is about as good as you can get at the moment. Science just ain't managed to find a lightweight armour to protect against shaped charge attack.

Really? What's this then? Scotch mist?

R/N these vehicles and all like them are designed to prevent damage from mine strikes, not EFP's set at the horizontal and aimed to kill Dvr/Comd and or Top cover sentries. The MAMBA for example could stop a TMRP-6 strike on the belly which as I've previously mentioned is about the most efective mine currently, but the top armour around the top cover hatches was about 5mm of steel. The frontal 45 was protected up to 12.7mm the rear and sides 7.62 only, I cannot see how any of the new generation of vehicles will provide enough protection from a copper EFP, well aimed and initiated correctly as they are currently in Iraq. Nothing short of CR2 will guarantee crew survival from a EFP device that have so far been come across, however M1 Abrahams has been defeated by both belly attack-blast (picked up and thrown over 100ft) and horizontal EFP attack so watch this space.......

The important thing here is that you are getting the equipment that you need in theatre. It was an obvious fix for the Hercules.Foam, once fitted, will hopefully prevent ground fire from bringing down another aircraft. Having read this thread carefully, there does not seem to be an obvious answer to the current threat. However if there is evidence that the army is not getting the equipment it needs or has requested simply because of cost, different ballgame altogether. The Sunday Times article was suggesting that commanders were having issues with their own conscience when ordering the boys out on the streets. A case of journalistic license?

Originally Posted by slippersapper

R/N these vehicles and all like them are designed to prevent damage from mine strikes, not EFP's set at the horizontal and aimed to kill Dvr/Comd and or Top cover sentries. The MAMBA for example could stop a TMRP-6 strike on the belly which as I've previously mentioned is about the most efective mine currently, but the top armour around the top cover hatches was about 5mm of steel. The frontal 45 was protected up to 12.7mm the rear and sides 7.62 only, I cannot see how any of the new generation of vehicles will provide enough protection from a copper EFP, well aimed and initiated correctly as they are currently in Iraq. Nothing short of CR2 will guarantee crew survival from a EFP device that have so far been come across, however M1 Abrahams has been defeated by both belly attack-blast (picked up and thrown over 100ft) and horizontal EFP attack so watch this space.......

You seem to be dangerously close to arguing that, because there is no complete protection from everything, no protection at all should be provided. I have partially answered some of your points here and will address the others tomorrow, when I've has some sleep.

To continue...

The point made was that suitable armour had not been developed to deal with shaped charges - the link I put up suggests that the technology is available. It cannot be beyond the wit of man - or our wonderful "government scientists" - to devise flank armour from these high-tech composites to afford a degree of protection.

Further, while the implication is that there is "no defence" against these mines (the are no longer "I" and in "improvised" EDs, if manufactured specifically), especially since they are triggered by an infra-red beam, this need not necessarily be the case. Firstly, IR detectors are relatively cheap and well-established technology and it does not seem at all unrealistic to think in terms of a forward looking, wide-angle, narrow-spectrum scanner fitted to a protected vehicle, coupled to an audible or visual alarm to warn of the presence of an IR beam. If said vehicle acted as "point", then this could be a useful defence.

In this context, design of equipment is everything. What about something like this?

My blog linked to the two Sunday Times articles has an interesting comment from Brig Bill Moore, the guy in charge of the programme to find a vehicle that can cope with the problems. Moore was also the commander of 12 Mech during Telic 2 when the first IED went off. His comments came in too late to get into the Focus piece and were subbed right down when the news piece was cut back.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_..._bas.html#more

Isn't the IR device passive? In otherwords it picks up the "heat signature" of a passing vehicle and then fires. I'm sure if it were so simple as to "detect" an IR beam they'd have worked out a way by now.

The shaped charge from underneath is different to from the side. Underneath the V shaped hull directs the force of the blast outwards, I'm sure they could manufacture "v shaped" sides but these would probably make the vehicle far too wide and I'm sure there are other issues I can't think of. Also doesn't protect whoever's up on top cover.

It does seem you take a slightly too simplistic view of the problems faced - an expolsive charge and indeed even 7.62 are far more powerful than most people realise (7.62 can go straight through a house and come out the other side). If you increase the weight of the vehicle you end up also getting less and less people capable of driving the vehicle, as it's harder to drive, slower to react and often classed as an "HGV" etc