Bombproof vehicles for troops in Iraq

'MORE than 100 new heavily armoured patrol vehicles have been ordered by the government to protect British troops in Iraq against roadside bombs'

'The latest vehicles will be upgraded versions of the armoured Cougars used by US marines in Iraq. They will have additional armour, making them the most protected vehicles of their kind in the world.',,2087-2281708,00.html
I'll be astonished if they can stand up to EFP. Our Warriors couldn't and I'd be very surprised if these new upgraded Cougars have better armour than that. Still, every little helps and I'm sure the bloke who eventually get to use them will be a lot happier than the poor so and so's who are STILL cutting around the place in Sn1.5!

Why has it taken this long for there to be any movement on the issue of protection for troops serving in such high risk environments? That's an issue that needs to be addressed just as urgently!
Back_at_RD said:
I'll be astonished if they can stand up to EFP.
I've never been to Iraq, so I don't really know, but have EFPs been used much at all against our troops? And if they have, then if you weigh up the percentage of IED/EFP, then I think you'll see what the main threat is.

The Cougar is a pretty hefty vehicle, and I am sure it'd offer a huge improvement on our troops safety against the main threats in Iraq.
It isn't so much the quantity of EFP's deployed. The threat and knowledge that they are out there, may well be enough to warrant potential changes to equipment/tactics.

EFPs are being used as the main charge in IED's so I must confess to being a little confused as to what you mean by "weigh up the percentage."
I dont know why the Government do not look at stock made by Jankel in Surrey??.
apfsdsdu said:
EFPs are being used as the main charge in IED's so I must confess to being a little confused as to what you mean by "weigh up the percentage."
Hmm, I didn't know this. I thought they were different things and arty shells where used in most roadside bombs.
Forks, EFP's are the main threat in MNDSE Iraq at the moment. The percentage of HE only IED v EFP may favour the former but EFP is a K-Kill weapon make no mistake. You only have to look back at how many driver/commander's have been killed or VSI'd over the past 24 months and it will give you a rough idea. The Cougar is fine and dandy and will offer more protection than SNATCH, but until people stop posting pictures of damage from mine strikes and stating that they are the answer to everything the better. TTP's and good use of G2 is still our best form of defence.
Judge_John said:
I dont know why the Government do not look at stock made by Jankel in Surrey??.
I've visited their place in Surrey. I'm sorry to say they didn't win my vote.
So how about we all ride around in convertibles and just wait for the inevitable?
Forks said:
So how about we all ride around in convertibles and just wait for the inevitable?
Or white, battered Toyota's with orange painted wings. Then they won't know who to hit. May be able to make a bit of money on the side giving people rides.

“Alamarah Abdul? Hop in mate. That'll be 20 USD. See that Bin Laden Bloke, had him in my cab once mate. What a gent, heavy tipper an all. Got a bit touchy when I mentioned George Bush though.”

Could go some way to help offset the next round of defence cuts and help pay for the next invasion we need to do. Before any of you lot start, this is my idea. The “Gems” is going in tomorrow.
It's only taken 100 odd casualties - a large proportion of those killed by CWIED. It's nice to see how "quickly" the UOR chain kicks in - is this an admission that we are going to be in the Middle East and Afghanistan for some time to come I wonder or just preparation for our next campaign?

Mr Happy

Just a quick thought....

The newspaper article quoted the father of a lad KIA in a snatch as being one of the motivators for the emergency purchase... he was complaining about the army risking soldiers lives to save money. e.g. not buying the best kit / taking the cheap option. I think therefore that this was included so the spin-bastards could say "look we've bought extra kit to rectify the issue".

I also presume the MOD is paying for these vehicles, rather than that cnt Brown. Therefore it would be so refreshing to hear the MOD say:

"Due to our not having the right kit for the environment and sustaining losses as a consequence we have decided to buy 100 x Cougars @ 400K each. The 40 million bill is coming from the MOD budget. In turn therefore we have decided to drop 10' of the end of one of the new carriers, cancel all training for three months in the UK and delay upgrading of the C2 tanks fire and control systems. The conseuqnece of this action will be that.....

I think we all appreciate that budgets are not infinite, we recognise that sometimes we get good kit (webbing) and sometimes bad (LSW). I appreicate this move by the MOD and I hope that 100 Cougars are enough but what I would like to have pointed out to the public is that the MOD is still paying for this war out of its own day to day budget and therefore needs to have more. If Blair likes he can always just raise the tax on petrol, call it a WAR ON TERROR TAX (LOL!) and use that, the MOD needs the money. I guess what I am saying is that 40million won't have come from nowhere so what are we 'not' paying for down the line that might cost more lives?

Rgds to all,

Mr H

Mr Happy

Another question is:

When are they due?

and the last one is:

Given that a snatch and a Cougar are actually designed for two different jobs (and the snatch is being used for a third). What problems are we going to have using these? I imagine that the Cougars will replace snatches in dangerous locations but in semi-dangerous threat locations the Snatches will still be used. E.g. The head chef will still be driving out to negotiate with the local bakers in a snatch rather than taking a cougar with a section bombed up in it....
Is Cougar the same as RG31 - if so then thye are also taking casualties - the Yanks suffered 4 dead in two different incidents this month

Mr Happy

Sven said:
Do squaddies have confidence in its abilities to protect them - this is the bottom line, after all
I think the ability of the vehicles to protect them is the bottom line.... not the confidence of the squaddies.... 99% of whom won't have seen one yet...
Saw this on the BBC

"More armoured vehicles have been ordered for British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, Defence Secretary Des Browne says.
The move follows criticism that the existing Land Rovers do not offer enough protection and have been blamed for the deaths of up to 18 soldiers.

The Ministry of Defence will buy an extra 100 Vector protected vehicles for Afghanistan, adding to 62 in service.

In Iraq it will deploy 70 extra FV430 vehicles, on top of 54 on order."

Not heard of a Vector - any good :?

Also it would seem we have ordered new 432s!!!! They are only 50 years old (perhaps some may be returning to the area after 30 yurs away! Why not just send Wr and be done with it. Both are heavy armoured vehicles and I would prefer to be in a vehicle that can shoot back if required :twisted: