Thanks Thanks:  119
Likes Likes:  297
Dislikes Dislikes:  6
Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 439
  1. #76
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    4/5 personnel is probably ok for most roles, in the run about/utility role the more the better though (old Nissan could seat 7, newer Nissan/Pajero can seat 6 (6th is uncomfortable).

    Questions:
    G-Wagon FFR where is the radio fitted? Between front and rear seats or in the "boot"?
    Is the 4 seats because of the cupola?
    Is there a 5 seat version (eg for carrying a 81 and 5 man crew)?

    With we got the better SINCGARS handsets if the radio is in the boot could all the operations be done from a back seat?
    Last edited by DeV; 29th May 2014 at 20:22.

  2. #77
    Friend Saab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    538
    Post Thanks / Like
    FMP,
    The point was g-wagon has many variants.
    The poster shows variants that the DF could possibly use to replace the Transit.
    I am sure there is a role there.

    Then as Dev says we put 5 in and wonder why it is squashed.
    1.8m is more than wide enough for 2 people. That's the narrowest point of the rugby ball.
    Which is granted 50mm smaller than the g-wagon but really are you going to say that you would notice?
    The squareness makes the gwagon look bulkier but it is cosmetic.

    That look does make it a more imposing vehicle and I can see why it would be a military driver's wet dream.
    Also if you use google images you can see it in the soccer mum role too
    But the problem is the Pajero is used on the streets of Irish towns doing many jobs.
    Many more miles are covered with only 2-3 occupants not even armed let alone in full body armor.
    While in a CIT you might want a bulky threatening vehicle you certainly don't want it when nipping down to the local C&C to pick up mess supplies.

    THe problem then is that the DF isn't big enough to have a bolt on kit, let a lone a variant, to have a vehicle for every role.
    So what we do have is a vehicle for Irish roads that meets a little of the spec for each role it has to do.

    It would be nice it this was not the case but then there are a lot of things that would be so.

  3. Thanks FMP thanked for this post
    Likes GoneToTheCanner, sofa liked this post
  4. #78
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,322
    Post Thanks / Like
    Im inclined to agree with Saab. A G-wagon is expensive overkill for routine shuttling about and I'd mirror what he says about them tooling about with a handful of lads in them, plenty of them without FFR aerials fitted. Look at what happened in the past with utility vehicles; landrovers did everything until they were replaced by small commercial vans, which saved a fortune in fuel and maintenance.

    regards
    GttC

  5. Thanks FMP thanked for this post
  6. #79
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    DeV

    RF: Seating. The mods we have been discussing are all four seats. Based on the operators requirements having looked at the role's the G Wagon will undertake in their relevant forces. The station wagon will be employed as C2, FFR, GS, escorts, patrols, recce, Liaison, FIRES, etc. All pretty standard stuff. Operational experience since 2001 has influenced this 4 seats decision hugely. The concept is one soldier one door in light vehicles (and some not so light, think Hummer). Provides all round observation (or as best you can from inside a vehicle) rapid dismount and or bringing weapons to bear. The bod in the middle became redundant as he could do none of the aforementioned.

    Its back to the question, what exactly do we need our vehicles to do? Every unit MT for every army will have in its stables a fleet of vehicles that fit into the transit / bus bracket. Pottering about and general transport outside of primary duties (War fighting all the way down to ATCP. One can never do without these type of vehicles but your operational vehicles need to be able to do whats required of them in many roles and leave the pottering to a few "normal" ones.


    To answer your questions, as best i can.

    1. In the FFR, C2 role radio stacks for Aus and Can mods are in the "boot" . If you look at the Canadian versions you will see the rear left window blanked with a sheet metal panel with louvers in top right corner. The radio stack is against this panel and slaved to the front and or second row.

    2. The Aus Wagon will not have ring mount fitted but is still a four seat in the station wagon / twin cab variant. The Canadian GS model as well will go without. Its only the Armoured / Soft skin Recce, patrol, escort types that are fitted with the ring mount. All are devoid of that fifth seat. For the reasons mentioned above and no doubt fitting three lumberjacks kitted in body Armour, battle vest, helmet and weapon into a single row would be a bit of a squeeze . Saab will love this,,,, it is a tight fit (not with four, but any more, yes) So the long winded answer is all are without but not because of the ring mount, if you chose to incorporate on it does however make the space readily available for the operator.

    3. Yes mate it can be made to carry five, in the same way as most cars / SUV's but that center seat will be a tight fit. The two mobs mentioned wont be doing it so "IF" one was to buy into their production line and required it,,,,it would cost.

    Some limited pics of the Aus C2, no radio stack pic but one or two of their BMS (Blue force tracker by another name) slaved from the "boot".

    Did i mention the Canadian Armour version? Will fire some pics over, interesting story attached to a few of them.

    Cheers.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    We travel not for trafficking alone,
    By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
    For lust of knowing what should not be known,
    We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

  7. Thanks pym thanked for this post
    Likes RoyalGreenJacket liked this post
  8. #80
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like

    Just because its there ;-) im not saying it should replace the Pajero.

    The attached pic's are of the Canadian Armour G Wagon. Its actually very difficult to tell the difference externally as there is almost no difference whatsoever. The windscreen! It looks sunken or as if its got a "picture frame" around it. Easiest way of telling at a glance.

    Pictures Armd 1 through Armd 3 are of the same vehicle. Got smashed by a CWIED under the front axle on the way into Kandahar City. Pic 1 recovery to Kaf, Pic 2 on the ground in Kaf and Pic 3 same wagon in the Canadian armed forces museum in Lumberjack land. Three soldiers and a Journalist on board walked away with minor injuries. I'm not saying its the bestest most protected vehicle in the world EVER! I'm saying you put enough wallop into an IED and you will put a Challenger 2 on its roof. Its all relative. Fact is this time it did its job, other times it did not. Nothing is bomb proof.

    Last two pics are just Armour G Wagons, give you an indication of what i mean about the windscreen. Armour G Wagon,,,,,,,,perhaps another role filled. Were there not some Armour Nissan's kicking about the DF somewhere. Ohhhhh reasons to use the G Wagen as a Pajero replacement, the list goes on lol
    Attached Images Attached Images
    We travel not for trafficking alone,
    By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
    For lust of knowing what should not be known,
    We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

  9. Likes RoyalGreenJacket liked this post
  10. #81
    Private 3* Jungle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,523
    Post Thanks / Like
    That trip from Kabul to Kandahar was probably the last time the (Cdn) G wagons were used outside the wire. The only ones I have seen in Kandahar were in KAF.
    "On the plains of hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions, who on the very dawn of victory, laid down to rest, and in resting died.

    Never give up!!"

  11. Likes RoyalGreenJacket liked this post
  12. #82
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Gttc and Saab.

    Guys, I seem to have missed out on a major point here. From your last two posts I get the feeling we are not talking about replacing the Pajero because it fails in its military role, it simply does not have a "military" role. You are looking for something to cut about the place, with as little impact as possible and no primary operational overseas or home military role? Correct? Something straight forward.

    If that is the case it could in fact then be replaced by any number of vehicles, bring on the transit!! I'm all for that lad's honest to god I am.

    But Soccer Mums? Really? point missed again. Purpose built, ground up, military costumer. Aus and Canadian G's are a lifetime away from soccer .

    Great chatting lads, honest to god it is, but were chatting about two totally different things.

    I shall leave you in peace and I do hope you find the answer.

    Faugh a Ballagh!
    We travel not for trafficking alone,
    By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
    For lust of knowing what should not be known,
    We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

  13. Likes hptmurphy, spider liked this post
  14. #83
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    The benefit of a common chassis to replace all the various makes and models of GS, FFR, panel vans, estate cars, possibly some staff cars, some specialist vehicles would be huge.

    Tender cost - as in cost of arranging the paperwork, trials etc is a once off for a long term contract (instead of 3/4 contracts for GS/FFRs alone
    Supplier management - much easier and cheaper as 1 to deal instead of say 4
    Spares/tools - 1 set of spares to hold instead of 8+, purchase price is lower as you are buying more of a small range, easier to monitor usage and inventory
    Training - training on 1 vehicle instead of 8+ for mechanics and drivers

    As an organisation though the biggest benefit could be deployability (more rugged and capable vehicle) but your panel van (eg Ford Connect replaced with 4x4 panel van), it also means less vehicles are required.
    Monday - collect ammo from Ammunition Stores
    Tuesday - mobile ammo point across broken ground on LLFT
    Wednesday - courier jobs for DFHQ
    Thursday/Friday - Stores vehicle for CQ on Tac ex across broken ground

    The DF should be using a common chassis to replace the vehicles that softskined tactical and the urban runabouts, would save a fortune!

    The idea being to reduce the variety and size of the transport fleet (not add additional vehicled)
    Last edited by DeV; 30th May 2014 at 13:41.

  15. Thanks FMP thanked for this post
    Likes ODIN, FMP, madmark liked this post
  16. #84
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The benefit of a common chassis to replace all the various makes and models of GS, FFR, panel vans, estate cars, possibly some staff cars, some specialist vehicles would be huge.

    Tender cost - as in cost of arranging the paperwork, trials etc is a once off for a long term contract (instead of 3/4 contracts for GS/FFRs alone
    Supplier management - much easier and cheaper as 1 to deal instead of say 4
    Spares/tools - 1 set of spares to hold instead of 8+, purchase price is lower as you are buying more of a small range, easier to monitor usage and inventory
    Training - training on 1 vehicle instead of 8+ for mechanics and drivers

    As an organisation though the biggest benefit could be deployability (more rugged and capable vehicle) but your panel van (eg Ford Connect replaced with 4x4 panel van), it also means less vehicles are required.
    Monday - collect ammo from Ammunition Stores
    Tuesday - mobile ammo point across broken ground on LLFT
    Wednesday - courier jobs for DFHQ
    Thursday/Friday - Stores vehicle for CQ on Tac ex across broken ground

    The DF should be using a common chassis to replace the vehicles that softskined tactical and the urban runabouts, would save a fortune!

    The idea being to reduce the variety and size of the transport fleet (not add additional vehicled)

    DeV.

    Agree 100% with all your comments. You are hitting the nail on the head. You have got it mate. No question. You can see the huge cost benefits and the fact that because "A" vehicle spends one day being a capable military vehicle there is no reason in the world it cant spend the next day collecting mars bars from tescos to stock the camp tuck shop, but you cant do it the other way round. The DF is after all a military body.

    My rather flippant but in good humor comment "Ohhhhh reasons to use the G Wagen as a Pajero replacement, the list goes on lol" I need to rephrase slightly, i was caught up in the Pajero discussion but have been trying to make a bigger point about the procurement/fleet shambles, same as yours actually.

    "Reasons to use the G Wagon as a multi vehicle replacement and standardise the fleet, the list goes on!!".

    One last picture
    Attached Images Attached Images
    We travel not for trafficking alone,
    By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
    For lust of knowing what should not be known,
    We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

  17. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  18. #85
    Friend Saab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    538
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FMP View Post
    Gttc and Saab.

    Guys, I seem to have missed out on a major point here. From your last two posts I get the feeling we are not talking about replacing the Pajero because it fails in its military role, it simply does not have a "military" role. You are looking for something to cut about the place, with as little impact as possible and no primary operational overseas or home military role? Correct? Something straight forward.
    And there lies the problem.
    While the majority of the mileage is as such it is also wanted as a military vehicle. For maybe 10% of its life it will be doing rugged military duties.
    As I said before the main whinge about the Pajero is too low to the ground and can't fit 3 full sized bods in the back.
    As you admit the g-wagon is no different on these two points.

    If we stay with Pajero next time we want a small 4x4 then we will have them standardised. but that ain't going to happen

    IF someone decided that we need a 4x4 panel van and a 4x4 small truck then a whole new discussion would ensue. ie replacing all small vehicles ie under 3500kg with a single chassis capable of doing all roles.
    We are talking about replacing the Pajero and not the transit, transit connect, renault what ever it is, landrover ambulance, transit ambulance, ford ranger, ford mandeo and what ever else comes into that category.
    Single chassis would be the solution.
    Also a rethink of the roles the vehicle is to do.

    The Australians got their 4x4 and 6x6 g-wagons to replace the landrover 110. The life cycle to be 15 years. The average cost per vehicle about €140,000.
    What does the DF spend on such vehicles?
    Last edited by Saab; 30th May 2014 at 17:34.

  19. #86
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    Cost, VFM and ability to do the job are the deciding factor

    If that's the cost, even with all versions and full servicing, no way!

    What do we need?
    A vehicle that can do the job of the 3/4 models of Nissan Patrol (FFR & GS) the Pajero (FFR & GS), the small panal vans (Kangroo, Connect and Feista), some of the smaller specialist vehicles (eg CMU Estate), some of various staff saloons etc

    In the form of 3 versions of a common chassis and engine etc:
    GS
    FFR
    3 door van

    With selectable 4x4 (to keep costs down)
    Seating for min 5 personnel with kit (trailer if necessary)

  20. Thanks FMP thanked for this post
    Likes FMP, hptmurphy liked this post
  21. #87
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    As you admit the g-wagon is no different on these two points.
    From the photo the G wagen certainly looks to have greater clearance than the Pajero.

    Have to suggest that mitsubishi products seems a little 'soft' in comparison to Nissan products. The older generation of Nissan Patrol were very rugged and dependable and god knows I know , I tried hard enough to break them , including trying to drown a few of them. Limited in comparison to the G Wagens pictured but certainly paid for themselves.

    The GRs weren't as capable but the mistake seems seems to have been trying to replace the GR with something cheaper as opposed to emulating the finer points of the earlier vehicle.

    Pajero was wrong choice as was the GR.
    Just visiting

  22. Likes FMP, madmark liked this post
  23. #88
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    From the photo the G wagen certainly looks to have greater clearance than the Pajero.

    Have to suggest that mitsubishi products seems a little 'soft' in comparison to Nissan products. The older generation of Nissan Patrol were very rugged and dependable and god knows I know , I tried hard enough to break them , including trying to drown a few of them. Limited in comparison to the G Wagens pictured but certainly paid for themselves.

    The GRs weren't as capable but the mistake seems seems to have been trying to replace the GR with something cheaper as opposed to emulating the finer points of the earlier vehicle.

    Pajero was wrong choice as was the GR.
    Murph

    Your right. It does look like that does it not .

    General comments now, not aimed at you Murph, or anyone else for that matter, just general chit chat .

    But a better way of putting is the G Wagon is a far more capable off road vehicle than the Pajero or vehicles built like it could ever be. Even if the manufactures stat's on one is "better" than on the other. And here's why. Will try and make this short .

    Ground clearance is a measurement from the ground to the lowest point on the underside of a vehicle (not including the bottom of the tyres (bad joke).

    Gents, sorry if this is egg sucking but some people cant seem to grasp this.

    On the G Wagon that point is the bottom of the diff. (Someone remind me, what was it?)

    On the Pajero its the body of the vehicle itself. I.e. its the lowest visible point.

    Whats the difference you say, the P still has grater clearance than the G?

    The difference is the way the two are put together. The G has an "external" axle, the body of the G sits above the axle. Making it higher off the ground. The P has an "internal" axle, its body is molded around the axle. Making it lower to the ground.

    Despite the "clearance" the G is a better performer because of this. Anyone who has spent time off road will vouch that approach, grounding and departure angles are all important. You keep your track on the path of least resistance. That is, the width of your vehicle from left tyres to right tyres. Stay out of ruts as best you can, don't drive over large boulders or tree stumps,,, if you have to do so do it carefully, your diff and axle can take a knock but not at very high speeds. The body of your vehicle cant, the sump cant.

    On undulating or rough ground, driving up inclines, over ridges, and down declines that "clearance" means nothing, for most off road driving it actually means very little if your vehicle is an "external" axle type. You will never get your diff more than a few hundred mm of the deck unless you fit tyres six foot in diameter on your vehicle, impracticable to say the least. Larger tyres help a bit but you will be restricted by your wheel arch as to how big you can go and the vehicle needs to be set up for it. The benefit of the G Wagon like Landrover, Land Cruiser 70 series and even the old Nissan is that "external" axle. Other makes and models apply but you see what I'm getting at.

    Excuse the "commas " I actually have no idea what the axles are called, but I do know why one vehicle works and the other does not in an off road environment. Hopefully some petrol head out there may be able to tell us the correct terminology, and will correct me here and there. I just drive the bloody things, off road, every day of my work rotation.

    They say a picture paints a thousand words, sometimes I really have my doubts. Plenty posted here and the basic principles of off road driving are being missed. Being able to see why one works and the other does not. At a glance, no manufactures stat's needed.

    Experiment time! Everyone join in, not just Murph.

    Three pics attached. One pajero, one Canadian G and one Aus G. Pics are roughly taken at similar angles but in reality it wont make any difference.

    Get yourself one of those see through plastic rules we used in school.

    Line the rule up on the center of the front wheel hub and the rear wheel hub of each vehicle. One at a time.

    Then, now be honest, tell us which vehicle do you think is by far better built for off road work? More importantly, tell us why the other is not. Remember the closer the body to the hub the less capable the vehicle is off road. If the body is actually lower than the hub,,,,,,it's a car.

    Gents I am having great craic with these posts, its good banter and some great discussions going on here. I wish the DF would listen to what is said on these pages. I am pulling my hair out, don't get me wrong, but that's what a good discussion does to you.

    Murph, you are right again when you say the Pajero and GR were the wrong choice. The task now is not to repeat that mistake, again.

    Cheers
    Attached Images Attached Images
    We travel not for trafficking alone,
    By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
    For lust of knowing what should not be known,
    We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

  24. Likes Jungle, sofa, hptmurphy, apod liked this post
  25. #89
    Private 3* Jungle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,523
    Post Thanks / Like
    I used the Pajero in Cyprus in 1992, as a patrol vehicle. It was ok, adapted to what we were doing.
    THe model shown in the pic above is very different; while the 1992 model I used looked and felt like a Military vehicle, the current model looks like an urban AWD veh, not adapted to offroad conditions. It would not have been useful in the job I was doing in Cyprus in 1992.
    "On the plains of hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions, who on the very dawn of victory, laid down to rest, and in resting died.

    Never give up!!"

  26. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes FMP liked this post
  27. #90
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm not a user of any of the vehicles anymore but Apod has suggested its problematic,that'll do for me.

    The pictures paint the picture as it is, even without the clearance issue looking at the guys sitting in the Pajero they even look cramped.

    the older Pajero was probably on par with the Nissan Patrol GRs, the newer one more like a Nissan Quasqhai.

    Learn from our mistakes, you have got to be kidding me, more often that not we compound them and wander aimlessly into the future .

    That settles it G Wagen or Puegeot P4 it is.....not that we'll see them in this lifetime.
    Just visiting

  28. Thanks FMP, apod thanked for this post
    Likes FMP, DeV, Truck Driver liked this post
  29. #91
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    556
    Post Thanks / Like
    G Wagons really are a great bit of kit.

  30. Likes FMP liked this post
  31. #92
    Private 3* Jungle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,523
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Fridge Magnet View Post
    G Wagons really are a great bit of kit.
    They certainly are.
    "On the plains of hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions, who on the very dawn of victory, laid down to rest, and in resting died.

    Never give up!!"

  32. Likes FMP liked this post
  33. #93
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    If you go for a 4 seater you will need 2 4x4s in a 81 & HMG detachment and 2 drivers in the crew instead of 1

  34. #94
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    If you go for a 4 seater you will need 2 4x4s in a 81 & HMG detachment and 2 drivers in the crew instead of 1
    Holy catfish Batman!!!!

    DeV, that's a 105 crew mate and the rest! How many bod's you got on your tubes and HMG's? SOP in the MOB is 3, on 81's, HMG, GPMG SF, Milan (in its day) and Javelin. And that's in the light role (man pack). If the driver is part of the crew and there not just to drive that still gives you a 4 man crew. Maybe a look at the ORBAT is in order as well as the fleet that transports them. That sounds very manpower heavy mate, what are the reasons for such large crews? (Possibly for a different thread).

    Talking vehicles again and best case scenario The G station Wagon in 4 seat configuration would give you room down the centerline for your tube (HMG, GPMG etc (on a nice bracket to keep it safe) baseplate, legs, sight and ancillaries against the side panels again on nice brackets, and you still have room for bomb's and ammo too. Cut out the trailer where possible. Apply same principle to other CSW's. The only one that would defo need a trailer is Javelin (and RBS 70) due to the massive bloody transit containers for the missile. If a smaller crew was viable of course (again not sure why your crews are so large).

    Then when all that war fighting kit was safe in the armoury you have your GS vehicle to do all your other "light" ATCP/A duties.
    We travel not for trafficking alone,
    By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
    For lust of knowing what should not be known,
    We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

  35. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
  36. #95
    Non Temetis Messor The real Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,186
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FMP View Post
    SOP in the MOB is 3, on 81's, HMG, GPMG SF, ....
    Ministry of bombs?
    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

  37. Likes FMP liked this post
  38. #96
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The real Jack View Post
    Ministry of bombs?
    As in Demobbed, to be demobbed you must have been in the,,,,,,MOB
    We travel not for trafficking alone,
    By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
    For lust of knowing what should not be known,
    We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

  39. Likes The real Jack liked this post
  40. #97
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    3,063
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't know a lot about the current crop of military 4WD (my practical experience ended with Landrover 110's), but I can tell you exactly why the G-Wagen will NEVER be bought - can you see any politician of the current (or future) Dail having headlines "The Army are getting Mercs" while the voters are screaming at them about not getting a medical card?

    Sorry guys, if they were half the cost of the Nissans they are not happening.
    'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
    'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
    Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
    He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
    http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

  41. Likes RoyalGreenJacket, FMP, DeV, pym liked this post
    Dislikes apod disliked this post
  42. #98
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    It would appear from the numbers suggested for crew served weapons that the current vehicle ,the Pajero, is not fit for purpose, but then again the weapons are normally carried as trailer load again a pain in the bum.

    The singular 4x4 in as in service is very limited in that case and we possibly need to look at second level of vehicle for deployment of such weapons, or do we as trailers etc are fine for transport purposes during training and exercise type ops.

    So do we need a second level vehicle something along the lines of ACMAT VLRA or Pinzgauer and retain Pajero etc specifically for ATCP/A and as GS vehicles?

    I would suggest if the Pajeros are suffering broken axles that they are being overloaded and driven over terrain they are suited to while loaded possibly above that which is judged to be appropriate for a vehicle this size.

    One would have to ask did we buy a vehicle with a mil spec that would have taken into account a military work load or did we buy a commercial SUV with a spec more suited to an outdoors type person without. I suspect we bought an SUV that looked good on paper which wasn't subjected to the loads that would encountered by an exercising military force.
    Just visiting

  43. #99
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FMP View Post
    Holy catfish Batman!!!!

    DeV, that's a 105 crew mate and the rest! How many bod's you got on your tubes and HMG's? SOP in the MOB is 3, on 81's, HMG, GPMG SF, Milan (in its day) and Javelin. And that's in the light role (man pack). If the driver is part of the crew and there not just to drive that still gives you a 4 man crew. Maybe a look at the ORBAT is in order as well as the fleet that transports them. That sounds very manpower heavy mate, what are the reasons for such large crews? (Possibly for a different thread).

    Talking vehicles again and best case scenario The G station Wagon in 4 seat configuration would give you room down the centerline for your tube (HMG, GPMG etc (on a nice bracket to keep it safe) baseplate, legs, sight and ancillaries against the side panels again on nice brackets, and you still have room for bomb's and ammo too. Cut out the trailer where possible. Apply same principle to other CSW's. The only one that would defo need a trailer is Javelin (and RBS 70) due to the massive bloody transit containers for the missile. If a smaller crew was viable of course (again not sure why your crews are so large).

    Then when all that war fighting kit was safe in the armoury you have your GS vehicle to do all your other "light" ATCP/A duties.
    This is in the public domain so:
    Crew on a 81 is 5 (including Det Cmdr & driver)

    Changing the crew could be done but it has advantages

    The advantage (bearing in mind I'm not a mortar man):
    - someone else to spare the listening watch with (rotate with crew)
    - someone else to help manpack it (and more importantly the ammo)
    - organic transport for either transport weapon and/or ammo



    The 81 goes in a trailer in brackets for barrel, bipod, baseplate etc (sights are probably carried)
    Same with the HMG

    If you need to get the wpn to somewhere the trailer won't go, open trailer and manpack it

    You will not fit 4 crew, personal kit, 81 and 1st line ammo into a G-Wagen without a trailer (even with the roof rack (which could be good for personal kit)). The first line ammo (in the public domain) is something like 150 rounds (I could be wrong on that).


    It isn't good VFM to have a load of vehicles for the day to day work and then another load (off a different type) for exercises/ops
    Last edited by DeV; 3rd June 2014 at 12:43.

  44. Thanks FMP thanked for this post
  45. #100
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Flamingo View Post
    I don't know a lot about the current crop of military 4WD (my practical experience ended with Landrover 110's), but I can tell you exactly why the G-Wagen will NEVER be bought - can you see any politician of the current (or future) Dail having headlines "The Army are getting Mercs" while the voters are screaming at them about not getting a medical card?

    Sorry guys, if they were half the cost of the Nissans they are not happening.
    Your not wrong Flamingo but it is a crying shame, nevermind eh, It's a great discussion. Maybe long after I'm dead and gone,,,,,,,,,,,
    We travel not for trafficking alone,
    By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
    For lust of knowing what should not be known,
    We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

  46. Likes Flamingo liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •