Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Snatch Landys to be replaced?

gobby the system that you describe is known as 'Scalable Armour' and our cousins from across the pond are currently kicking off programmes like this across their Army and USMC.

In essence the vehicle is produced with A Scale Armour and should it be required to operate in a high threat environment it can be reconfigured using B Scale Armour (and I assume a C scale etc).
 
See_You_Next_Tuesday said:
gobby the system that you describe is known as 'Scalable Armour' and our cousins from across the pond are currently kicking off programmes like this across their Army and USMC.

In essence the vehicle is produced with A Scale Armour and should it be required to operate in a high threat environment it can be reconfigured using B Scale Armour (and I assume a C scale etc).

Quite so. But;

1. If we had built/bought FRES when it was required (ie years ago) then we would be in that situation.

2.As it is now, we are buying off the shelf(ish) then doing the add ons.

If you want examples, look at CR2 & WR. In real terms, nailing bits onto an existising ground platform is relatively cheap and quick, but when you have to procure as well...
 
PE4rocks said:
brighton hippy said:
in 2003 air con snatches would have had a role they don't now

Is probably the correct answer.

I wasn't disputing that in the slightest in my post, merely pointing out that the British media (mostly tabloid) seem to have now conveniently forgotten the fact that they were, to a greater extent, responsible for snatch wagons being out there in the first place because they were 'good' (quick) instead of 'the best' (slow).
 
Thunderer said:
PE4rocks

I bow to your greater knowledge since my fighting was done decades ago, but if EFPs are being used then surely nothing can be done?

Heh, so was mine. Something can always be done, if the options are available

Thunderer said:
Can a parallel be drawn with RUC officers getting blown up in unmarked vehicles.

Don't think so.


Thunderer said:
Would placing them in APCs have saved their lives, would they have preferred to have used a more robust machine?

Dunno, was such a beast available?

Thunderer said:
Were the four who died trying to lesson the impact of their arrival in a village by not using war machines as I have seen being argued?

Reverse that argument?
Did using a poorly protected vehicle increase the chance of it being targeted?


Thunderer said:
Before you accuse me of being Sven I am not arguing a government (or quasi government) line, I am just exploring different avenues.

Let he who is without sin... :D So am I, but <rant on> it will take several acts of shocking indecency with the Prostitutes Collective of Central London to convince me that as a direct result of government parsimony, misplaced priorities, lack of joined up politico-military action and political waste on a huge scale that prevents our lads having the accomodation, equipment, vehicles, rations that they clearly need. <r /off>
 
SNATCH didn't come into service until about 1994. SNATCH 2 (the one being used in Iraq and Afghanistan) didn't come into service until about 2000.
From the same article.

I did ask this in the other thread srrounding this subject last night but they are too busy bitch slapping the Civil Serpants around. :lol:

In NI, Were Air Portable landies called "Snap" ?

My memory is not serving me well.
 
:evil: What we need is an independance of sorts from politics

they say stop/go ...........but thats all the say they have
we do the task assigned as we see fit until we are happpy, then tell them its time for talking with locals get over here and be political .

we ask .....
they give ....
end of.

we go and buy /make what we want without some dodgy fat **** who has never been to these places making the decision as whether we get more to buy equipment !
We buy the best when we want it rather than oops crap we need that yesterday.
These wasters are costing brave men and women their lives just because they dont understand the military or what hey do. Dodgy deals regardless of political party because so and so is on the board of directors or will be soon as he voted out .

We need more MRAPS but the enemy will build bigger better ieds, the snatch isnt suited to the task.we need a small well protected vehicle thats not massive but will be more suited to the role .
 
whatnow? said:
:evil:
We need more MRAPS but the enemy will build bigger better ieds, the snatch isnt suited to the task.we need a small well protected vehicle thats not massive but will be more suited to the role .

Therein lies the rub -

The extreme mass of the vehicle is one of the components which can add to its level of protection.

The greater the level of protection further increases the mass, especially when you are talking fitting sloping armour underneath vehicles to deflect the blast.

Mass and bulk limits routes and areas in which troops can operate from well protected vehicles

The characteristics of Blast, Ballistic & Anti-Armour threats all warrant differing armouring solutions. Although armouring solutions alone will not guarantee survivability, blast absorbing crew seating and personal protection are among other areas in which there must be further improvement.
 

New posts

Top