Originally Posted by felixthefox

saw one of these new Pinzgauers on the road near RAF Brize norton this morning 'kin tiny it was! but looked the bees knees
hope they prove to be as good as it looked

Coffins on wheels

Try this:

Originally Posted by Richard_North

Originally Posted by felixthefox

saw one of these new Pinzgauers on the road near RAF Brize norton this morning 'kin tiny it was! but looked the bees knees
hope they prove to be as good as it looked

Coffins on wheels

VECTOR (the 6x6 Pinz) is being completely re-designed from the one already in service with the New Zealand Army. It will offer much improved protection, mobility and capacity over SNATCH (which seems to be what everyone wants). To go into detail in an open forum isn't going to happen.

Survivability is roughly based upon:

Don't be seen (or the converse I suupose - see the threat first)
If seen - don't be hit (or counter the threat).
If hit - Don't be penetrated.
If pentrated - protect the crew.

A lot of discussion in the media is focused upon the level of 'armoured' protection SNATCH provides, without focusing on the survivability the crew and other systems on the the platform afford. Yes, if an insurgent can defeat our attempts to stop an IED going bang, and the successfully attack a SNATCH with an EFP, the vehicle, and most of its occupants, don't stand much of a chance. This may lead us to adopt more heavily protected vehciles (as in the US case). But all this does is present a more challenging target for the insurgent to devise bigger and better IEDs (see the success against M1A1s). Nobody in theatre believes we will ever fully defeat the threat, the best we can ever hope to do is mitigate against it using TTPs and technology. At the moment we (and our vehicles) are doing a bloody good job. If you don't believe me then send me a PM.

This is all very interesting and sadly all too relevant.

Snatchs were designed for use in Northern Ireland.

Warriors were designed for use in full scale warfare in Western Europe

Saxon was designed without any possible use

The Pinzgauer looks like a 1 Tonne LR with little ballistic, IED or mine protection - I would not like to go to war or peacekeeping in one of these

We do not seem to possess a vehicle in the current inventory that is capable of protecting our troops effectively whilst at the same time allowing for urban and "peacekeeping" profiles.

The South Africans have had much experience in providing mine and IED protected vehicles and I understand that the US Army have just given a large order to be provided with such vehicles. However, the UK Govt and MOD seem, with the compliance of senior officers to be stuck in a rut that demands full "procurement proceedure" to be followed before any progress can be made.

I was reading Tank Magazine today, in Autumn 1944 it would seem that a Brigadier and Divisional Commander (7th Armd) were sacked because they complained too much about the shortcomings of the Comet tank. Nothing, it would seem, changes in our "proceedure" entrenched procurement and delivery departments

Originally Posted by Von-Ryan

Originally Posted by Trossachs

Originally Posted by Percy_Pigeon

Originally Posted by sandmanfez

MOD procurement really are a slack bunch arent they? This is rated as an "Urgent operational requirement" and yet they're not capable of rolling them out, for over a year. Its a bloody disgrace!

Ok then were can we get 70 -100 armoured vehicles at the drop of an hat.

Just cos its operational does not make it possible


Its not an exact science and to that end will take time. Better to have a less than perfect solution than a rushed in ill thought out UOR.

I SPEAK FROM EXPERIENCE... TWICE

As has been said elsewhere - LAV is pretty readily available, I've seen the Canadian version and been impressed. We should have bought a Bdes worth years ago. Meanwhile that useless heap - SAXON - is for sale through the surplus chain. See www.witham-sv.com They will also sell you a 432, Sabre, BARV and an armoured mondeo - price reduced....

Next question - when did the UOR go in ? When they started to ship Snatch out ? We had them on TELIC 3 so they have had a while to find something better !

I worked on the "Get some effing Snatch" requirement during TELIC 2. The work to decide what to replace it with started as soon as, if not sooner than, the end of Telic 2. You might notice that the threat has evolved during this period. It has not remained constant - change of means and methods etc. Not easy to design a UOR in these circumstances.

All UORs are a trade off BTW. Buying something that we already have (in another version) is a good idea - think of the other lines of development....

QUOTE FROM 4(T) :
The timescales for rolling out new equipment might be reasonable in a peacetime army on a peacetime procurement cycle.

The trouble is we have a peacetime procurement cycle servicing an army engaged in combat operations - and so servicemen are dying as a result.

The management (sic.) of the armed forces, for whatever political reason, are unwilling or unable to make the bold procurement decisions which are necessary to get the right kit in the right timeframe. The argument that "it takes time" to develop solutions is fatuous: from the beginning of WW2 up until the 1960s, complex weapons projects (including aircraft) were designed from scratch and brought to field issue in a matter of months - and today we have design technology unimaginable in those days.
QUOTE ENDS.

We are, correction, a good number of our troops are involved in combat operations in hostil enviroments at the moment & the peacetime procurement system is letting them down. it is deplorable that if the requirment was seen at or during Telic3 (what Telic number are we on now?), it is only now that the contract is being placed. here, here 4(t). well said mate.

how long does it take someone to decide what type of kit we need FFS!
I could have decided on the correct vehicle to procure in an afternoon, given a PC with internet connection to facilitate some research (& a clerk to make several cups of coffee!).
If we could get LAVs quicker (who gives a f### if they are heavier) & they offer the required level of protection, then why the hell cant we buy a 100 or so as a stop-gap for Iraq & maybe Afgan. they are good vehicles & we could still operate them after the armoured Pinz's come online. Besides, the LAV looks Ally as f###!
(use them then as a cvr(t) replacement?)
are the armoured Pinz's amphibious?

They burn faster than a Landrover!!!!!

Originally Posted by HollowTip

They burn faster than a Landrover!!!!!

The LAV or the Pinz?

Who said LAVs offer the required level of protection? I'm sure the SBCT north of Baghdad will disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Richard_North

Coffins on wheels

Richard, your blog is badly misinformed. The ins and outs of it shouldn't be gone into on a public forum, but you have completely misunderstood the difference between a mine protected vehicle and an IED protected vehicle. They are not the same thing! Some have tried to explain it to you, but you don't seem to want to listen.

Your are also way off the mark in your attacks on DEC(GM). Anyone who knows Brigadier M, would tell you that if there was a quick fix, then he would have moved heaven and earth to make it happen, no matter what the cost.

But please do carry on. There's nothing like a bit of afternoon sport as someone continues to condemn themselves out of their own mouth.

Originally Posted by Gun_Nut

Originally Posted by Richard_North

Coffins on wheels

Richard, your blog is badly misinformed. The ins and outs of it shouldn't be gone into on a public forum, but you have completely misunderstood the difference between a mine protected vehicle and an IED protected vehicle. They are not the same thing! Some have tried to explain it to you, but you don't seem to want to listen.

And the difference between a mine buried in the ground and an IED buried in the ground is?

As for quick fix... the MoD looked at the RG-31 in 2001-2 and rejected it in favour of the Panther. Which is the more pressing need, a FCLV or a mine/IED protected vehicle? If the MoD had picked the (cheaper) RG-31 then, they could have diverted them to Iraq and they would have been entering service now.

lav with bolt on armour ala the striker thingy
can I have my obe now?