5 dead soldiers used unsafe vehicle.

#2
All terrorists learn quicker than we respond. Merely up-grading the vehicle means that they increase the amount of explosive. If, as is suggested, this has a design problem then hanging extra protection will surely upset the dynamics and vehicles will become unstable. Maybe not unstable when operating but when an explosion occurs they may well tend to roll over easier than they are expected to.
I thought the Rhodesians had sorted out the shape of vehicle hull needed to minimise the effects of mines and things?
 
#3
One of its best attributes is its speed. Add more armour- you rob it of its speed, and you end up with a fleet of yet more lumbering and inadequate patrol vehicles. Great.
 
#4
Oh FFS...

While experts praise the Jackal as a fantastic off-road vehicle for Special Forces, they believe that a lack of alternative vehicles have forced commanders to use it for a purpose that it was not designed for.

"The Jackal ignores all five of the basic principles of mine or blast protection and then seeks to overcome the basic design flaws with bolt-on armour, added as an afterthought. It cannot and will not work," said Dr Richard North, editor of the Defence of the Realm blog.

"Not least, the front arches are blast traps, magnifying the impact of the blast rather then attenuating it and, with a cab-forward design on top of the arches, no amount of armour will provide protection."


The instant expert has spoken.
 
#5
OldRedCap said:
I thought the Rhodesians had sorted out the shape of vehicle hull needed to minimise the effects of mines and things?
They did a pretty good job, but I think the size of the IED's in Stan are much bigger than those in Rhodesia

Odo
 
#6
In addition, if you try taking some of the more extreme shapes used in southern Africa against landmines and try using them against roadside IEDs, they won't work.
 
#7
While experts praise the Jackal as a fantastic off-road vehicle for Special Forces, they believe that a lack of alternative vehicles have forced commanders to use it for a purpose that it was not designed for.
As I understand it, they are not saying the Jackal is a bad vehicle, just that we are using it for some jobs it is not suitable for. So we need a few more well armoured vehicles for the road patrols and leave the Jackal as it is for the off-road tasks.
 
#8
Richard North aside for a moment and I know we have discussed the ad nauseum but it seems to make a lot of sense to me when faced with a threat you develop a range of counters and if one of these is exposed then you move quickly to change.

Although the details may be incorrect its hard not to have some sympathy with the general thrust of the article. With only a 100 odd jackals in theatre and for a relatively short time it does seem to be vulnerable, whether that is a design or deployment issue I am not sure.

I cant help but think the protected patrol vehicle debate of mobility v protection still hasnt been settled in the context of Afghanistan and IED type explosions are without a doubt the largest cause of death and injury

It is of course more than an acedemic exercise
 
#9
Odo_de_StAmand said:
OldRedCap said:
I thought the Rhodesians had sorted out the shape of vehicle hull needed to minimise the effects of mines and things?
They did a pretty good job, but I think the size of the IED's in Stan are much bigger than those in Rhodesia

Odo
Indeed. And the key word in the above is minimise - there is no such thing as a 'mine-proof' vehicle.

Whilst hull shaping and so on are all good for protection, no-one has yet been able to produce anything that marries up this type of protection with the kind of mobility achieved with Jackal.

No doubt Dr North will produce a picture of an MRAP driving off-road as definitive proof that this is not the case, and that hundreds of UK soldiers are in fact talking out of their arrses when they state that in spite of better protected alternatives, they need Jackal to achieve their mission.
 
#10
meridian said:
Richard North aside for a moment and I know we have discussed the ad nauseum but it seems to make a lot of sense to me when faced with a threat you develop a range of counters and if one of these is exposed then you move quickly to change.

Although the details may be incorrect its hard not to have some sympathy with the general thrust of the article. With only a 100 odd jackals in theatre and for a relatively short time it does seem to be vulnerable, whether that is a design or deployment issue I am not sure.

I cant help but think the protected patrol vehicle debate of mobility v protection still hasnt been settled in the context of Afghanistan and IED type explosions are without a doubt the largest cause of death and injury

It is of course more than an acedemic exercise
The number of incidents involving Jackal do not necessarily indite the vehicle - consider perhaps that missions that it carries out puts in harm's way on a regular basis?

I think you are right that mobility vs protection hasn't been completely sorted yet. However, I'm willing to believe the soldiers in theatre who tell us that they know the relative protection levels of the range of vehicle available, and yet they still need Jackals to fulfill a range of tasks.

What we need is a purpose-built vehicle that combines the best of both world, but until someone builds one (which with LPPV in the offing, should be sooner rather than later) we have to make do with what we've got. The answer by the way, is not necessarily RG-32M or Cheetah, despite what Richard may think.
 
#11
Is there any particular reason why there isn't a mine clearance vehicle available similar to those used for clearing minefields in Mozambique/Angola/Namibia? or is it a question of speed?

Seems strange that there is no modern day equivalent to the Crab/Rollers that where fitted to tanks in WWII
 
#12
GB
Cant disagree but the wider point is should we solely listen to the guys on the ground or take a wider range of views. The thinking is that the operation consumes the national wealth in terms of blood and treasure so do the bigger picture issues of casualties and cost trump local operational effectiveness. I can the appeal to some extent with that argument especially given the notion of an unclear strategy and the drip drip bad news of casualties. As we all know the currency of an insurgency is casualties so does casualty reduction take a higher priority in the debate.

Interesting to see that the septics have recognised the mobility limitations of current designs and are looking at trying to achieve good levels of protection with much better mobility
 
#13
All vehicle design is a compromise. Design one to withstand mines - high off the ground, wheels away from the crew compartment, V hull and so on and you get something that falls over on rough ground and can't go round corners at any speed. So you can withstand mines, you just can't go off-road to avoid them.

Design something to off-road and drive around at speed safely and you get a vehicle that sucks at mine protection. Any vehicle that places the crew above the wheels cannot offer as much protection as one that doesn't. So you can avoid mines right up until the point the terrain canalises your movements.

The mythical vehicle that does everythibf is just that - it's this kind of wishful thinking that ignores the laws of physics that has wasted so much money on FRES for instance.

To me the real question is why haven't we got more helos in theatre ?
 
#14
pandaplodder said:
Is there any particular reason why there isn't a mine clearance vehicle available similar to those used for clearing minefields in Mozambique/Angola/Namibia? or is it a question of speed?

Seems strange that there is no modern day equivalent to the Crab/Rollers that where fitted to tanks in WWII
The Yanks have got something like that I think its a giant roller fitted to the front of a Hummer, it was mentioned in an article I'll see if I can dig it out.
 
#15
Any article quoting Richard North or Lewis Page as Experts should, IMHO, be treated with more caution than a 5 day old used nappy.
 
#16
One_of_the_strange said:
All vehicle design is a compromise. Design one to withstand mines - high off the ground, wheels away from the crew compartment, V hull and so on and you get something that falls over on rough ground and can't go round corners at any speed. So you can withstand mines, you just can't go off-road to avoid them.

Design something to off-road and drive around at speed safely and you get a vehicle that sucks at mine protection. Any vehicle that places the crew above the wheels cannot offer as much protection as one that doesn't. So you can avoid mines right up until the point the terrain canalises your movements.

The mythical vehicle that does everythibf is just that - it's this kind of wishful thinking that ignores the laws of physics that has wasted so much money on FRES for instance.

To me the real question is why haven't we got more helos in theatre ?
Because they bought a load of them on the cheap and they dont work!. Having said that i saw 4 of them flying over my office (London) in the space of 5 mins last week.

More helos and the problems solved.
 
#17
I heard an anecdote that the ideal Protected Patrol Vehicle incorporating the best possible armour and other attack defeat mechanisms would weigh about 280 tonnes.

Sorry folks and would be armchair pundits, the old survivability vs lethality vs mobility debate always leads to compromise, and sometimes less than optimal equipment - so use kit for what it is designed to do, rather than expect it to do everything.
 
#18
Was it not us on this thread who told Doctor D1ck that regardless of what vehicles are used the enemy will always adapt their weapon systems in order to defeat them.

When will people accept the unfortunate fact that people in Afghanistan are trying to kill British Soldiers. No fancy new vehicle will change their mind, and no fancy new weapons will deter them.
 
#19
After reading many and in a few cases occasionally contributing to some of the numerous threads that deal with the issue of vehicles previously and currently in use on operations, for what it’s worth I’ve finally decided to offer some of my own thoughts.

Having used/crewed CVR(T), Land Rovers, WMIK and Snatch on operations and having being under fire and having being directly involved with a couple of mine strikes. I feel that I, unlike some others who comment on these threads, can post my opinion with the benefit of experience.

As an Army we use the vehicles that we are issued with. As a young soldier the only wheeled vehicles available in my unit were soft skinned Land Rovers and Bedford trucks. In the event of the Russians streaming across the Inner German Border thousands of soldiers were prepared to deploy using them.

When you are deployed on operations you use the vehicles that you have got readily available; you get on with the job in hand and try your hardest to get your mates and yourself through it as safely and as professionally as possible whilst still trying to achieve your mission.

I lost three friends who were in a vehicle that ran over an AT mine and if I could go back to the morning of that fateful day and give them the choice of going out on patrol in the vehicle available or staying behind knowing their vehicle did not have adequate mine blast protection I know what each of them to a man would have chosen to do. They would still go because it was their job of choice and they would not want to let their comrades down, the same choice that I myself would have made.

When I stand by their memorial every year as I did last November, I don’t blame the MOD or the Government. I remember them for who they were, what they did and for being friends and fellow soldiers doing the job they wanted to do and living the life they chose to live. I will always remember and honour them until the time comes for me to join them.

On occasions whilst on operations I have had the choice of various vehicles to take on tasks or patrols. I or the more senior commander of the task chose the relevant available vehicles dependant on the mission as briefed at the time. In most cases we used a mixture of vehicle types to give us some flexibility and the relevant vehicle crews never complained about the type of vehicle they were assigned to use. They just got on with the job knowing fully the risks they were exposed to.

Being a soldier on operations is a bloody dangerous occupation, fact. All soldiers know this and are prepared for it, unfortunately it seems that many other people, not directly involved, struggle to come to terms with this.

I chose to do it, I volunteered and signed on the dotted line, I knew what I was likely to be getting into and I was prepared to accept that risk.

TheBigUn
 
#20
Remember the 'armoured triangle'; mobility, firepower and protection - each being inter-dynamic. I seem to remember from my day a SA veh which was V shaped from the bottom and saved hundreds of lives against conventional mines. Roadside, directional, munitions are a different thing
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top