PDA

View Full Version : Latest British Army Supacat WMIK



mutter nutter
25th June 2007, 16:03
Latest British Army Supacat WMIK
Latest WMIK Supacat unveiled, looks like a great Wolf WMIK replacement

It looks more like a vehicle from one of Mel Gibson's Mad Max movies.



But this four-ton monster truck is the British Army's new weapon designed to take on insurgents on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan. British-made, the Supacat Weapons Mounted Installation Kit boasts awesome firepower which will be unleashed early next year. British and other Nato troops are being targeted by roadside bombs and daily firefights.


Infantry soldiers have complained existing Land Rovers provide insufficient protection from the bombers.
Now, the Ministry of Defence is buying 130 of the light-armoured beasts – which can reach a maximum 80mph – and will take delivery of the first early next year.
They will use a grenade machine gun which fires at up to 340 rounds per minute, usually in bursts of three to five rounds, at targets up to a mile away. The Supacats will also employ a 7.62mm-calibre General Purpose Machine Gun, which fires 750 rounds per minute with a range of nearly a mile


The vehicles, made at Honiton in Devon, will also have a mounted 0.5in-calibre heavy machine gun, which fires huge rounds more than a mile at a rate of 485 to 635 a minute. They are powered by a 5.9-litre turbo-diesel engine and will carry three or four crew.
One senior Army officer described the new super-truck as a "serious bit of kit", adding it would be a "huge boost to our long-range patrolling capability".
Senior defence sources say the Supacats will particularly come into their own against the Taliban in Afghanistan's Helmand Province, which has no roads.
Defence Minister Lord Drayson said last night: "These vehicles are well armed, swift and agile and will boost our capability with some serious firepower. "The MoD and the Treasury have worked hard to get them to our troops in quick time, and they start going out to theatre early next year."

Link to article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811
Attached Thumbnails
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/5782/supacatmos230607468x362ns8.jpg


Nice

spider pig
25th June 2007, 18:24
That is one pimped out motor!

mutter nutter
25th June 2007, 23:44
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/71A54625-826B-40E2-8827-A123D813B7B5/0/mwmik1.jpg

Aidan
26th June 2007, 12:04
I'll take one!

What chassis are they based on? Interesting to see that they've the 5.9l Cummins motor again. That thing keeps turning up.

turbocalves
26th June 2007, 13:02
looks like a fork lift trucks love child...

yellowjacket
26th June 2007, 13:17
If roadside bombs are the principal threat, how is an open crew compartment a good thing?

thebig C
26th June 2007, 13:31
If roadside bombs are the principal threat, how is an open crew compartment a good thing?


My thoughts exactly...

luchi
26th June 2007, 13:54
If roadside bombs are the principal threat, how is an open crew compartment a good thing?

The idea, I assume, is much like vehicle hardning with sand bags.

If your principal threat is from mines then you need to protect from blasts from below. The weight of the vehicle is also increased to stop you from being lifted off the ground.

The open top and heavy weapons I can assume is for defence much like the old landrover bren carriers.

Together you have a moderatly agile, heavily armed mine proof defence platform. Exactly what someone needs when escourting a convoy through hostile ground

Barry
26th June 2007, 14:12
Together you have a moderatly agile, heavily armed mine proof defence platform. Exactly what someone needs when escourting a convoy through hostile ground
Not much use if a few daisy chained 155mm rounds are command detonated a few metres to the side, thus doing some rather nasty things to the exposed crew, though :rolleyes:

Aidan
26th June 2007, 14:33
If that happens Barry, what would protect them? Apart from, maybe, an MBT.

Barry
26th June 2007, 14:51
True, not much will protect from something that large. But what about a nailbomb, or other device that produces a lot of shrapnel? A nice open vehicle means that the crew would be shredded.

Aidan
26th June 2007, 15:24
Most kinds of IED would kill or seriously injure all of the occupants of a vehicle like that - the key issue is the balance between mobility, observation, and protection.

Deciding on that balance comes down to roles - in the text its clearly mentioned that role of this thing is expected to be long range patrol - the type of role that has always, in recent years, been done by an open vehicle. Same reason why the ARW use the 350 over, say, Pandurs, Mowags or Duro. I've no expertise in the area, but I assume that those who do balance off the lack of protection against mobility, and the fact that the vehicle will generally not be using the same routes, and in the same relatively predicatable patterns, means they can get way with it.

For convoy protection/escort or recce in a more 'intensive' situation, then something like a PIII or Commando would be required obviously. But even then there is a balance between weight and protection. You have to draw the line somewhere.

thebig C
26th June 2007, 15:54
Most kinds of IED would kill or seriously injure all of the occupants of a vehicle like that - the key issue is the balance between mobility, observation, and protection.

Deciding on that balance comes down to roles - in the text its clearly mentioned that role of this thing is expected to be long range patrol - the type of role that has always, in recent years, been done by an open vehicle. Same reason why the ARW use the 350 over, say, Pandurs, Mowags or Duro. I've no expertise in the area, but I assume that those who do balance off the lack of protection against mobility, and the fact that the vehicle will generally not be using the same routes, and in the same relatively predicatable patterns, means they can get way with it.

For convoy protection/escort or recce in a more 'intensive' situation, then something like a PIII or Commando would be required obviously. But even then there is a balance between weight and protection. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Yes, this style of vehicle has traditionally been used for long-range patrols, usually in a desert or other very open environment. The question that occurs to me though, is what is the point of such patrols unless it is to find the enemy, and if and when you do, and they happen to see you too, you have no protection against even small arms fire.

Don't forget we're not talking about the LRDG in the Western Desert back in 1941. What can these patrols see that can't be seen from above - satellites, UAVs, JSTARS, whatever? If their aim is to locate the enemy by provoking fire, then again, the soldiers involved are very exposed - why? And one final point: there are vehicles that provide the same or better mobility than any of these open tops, but that also have armour.

luchi
26th June 2007, 17:19
For convoy protection/escort or recce in a more 'intensive' situation, then something like a PIII or Commando would be required obviously. But even then there is a balance between weight and protection. You have to draw the line somewhere.

That depends what you are protecting from.
I am assuming that they are currently being attacked by fairly light stuff. Bombs that may disable a truck but not destroy it. The sort of thing that might be used as a prelim to an ambush when you need to steal whats in the truck.
THis also assums that the insurgents in Iraq and Afgan have poor supply lines and would need to do such things.

At the end of the day no vehicle is ideal in every situation. And as you say deciding the balance comes down to roles.

DeV
26th June 2007, 17:25
I'll take one!

What chassis are they based on? Interesting to see that they've the 5.9l Cummins motor again. That thing keeps turning up.

Pinzgauer

http://www.pinzgauer.uk.com/

FMolloy
26th June 2007, 17:33
Don't forget we're not talking about the LRDG in the Western Desert back in 1941. What can these patrols see that can't be seen from above - satellites, UAVs, JSTARS, whatever?

The condition of the ground and the stuff that's been camoflagued so as not to be detected from above. They can also offer their opinons on a situation, and act on them if needed, immediately.


If their aim is to locate the enemy by provoking fire, then again, the soldiers involved are very exposed - why?

Who's doing this & where is it going on?


And one final point: there are vehicles that provide the same or better mobility than any of these open tops, but that also have armour.

What vehicles are these and why do you think experienced SF troops with vast budgets don't agree with you?

mutter nutter
26th June 2007, 17:38
Pinzgauer

http://www.pinzgauer.uk.com/
I'm pretty sure it's based on the Supacat HMT chassis

BTW, a variant of this is in service with the British and Aussie SF, the Aussie one is armoured and has a remote weapon station.

DeV
26th June 2007, 17:44
Sorry your right

mutter nutter
26th June 2007, 17:48
Sorry your right
Well theres a first time for everything...:redface:

mutter nutter
26th June 2007, 17:55
Yes, this style of vehicle has traditionally been used for long-range patrols, usually in a desert or other very open environment. The question that occurs to me though, is what is the point of such patrols unless it is to find the enemy, and if and when you do, and they happen to see you too, you have no protection against even small arms fire.

Don't forget we're not talking about the LRDG in the Western Desert back in 1941. What can these patrols see that can't be seen from above - satellites, UAVs, JSTARS, whatever? If their aim is to locate the enemy by provoking fire, then again, the soldiers involved are very exposed - why? And one final point: there are vehicles that provide the same or better mobility than any of these open tops, but that also have armour.
Well the British and Aussie SAS used their vehicles to overrun a vital Iraqi airfield at the start of the last war, generally considered a superb operation of the type, thats what these vehicles do, move fast hit hard and get out, speed is life (hmm cheesy), the USSF in Afghanistan used their humvess armed with Javelin missiles to turn back a Taliban tank attack,
these new supacats will be used to patrol the vast empty parts of Iraq and Afghanistan, where IEDS are almost non-existent, they won't/should not be used in a city/urban area, thats where you use vehicles designed for that area, the new MPAV, ect

just my .02


Wing should get a few:wink:

mutter nutter
4th July 2007, 11:23
http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/8418/p6280700ht2.jpg
unarmoured

http://www.armyrecognition.com/forum_pic/Identify/DVD_2007_identify_003.jpg
armoured up for Carrington ;)

thebig C
4th July 2007, 14:14
Aw, shucks....

hptmurphy
4th July 2007, 22:04
"The question that occurs to me though, is what is the point of such patrols unless it is to find the enemy, and if and when you do, and they happen to see you too, you have no protection against even small arms fire."

Primary objective of recce is gather information and return with it undetected...you can't do that in a 60 ton tank.....think speed...mobility......and the ability to observe and defend...not ment as an offensive weapon.Merely a carriage to get an observation team or recce element to where they need to be and get out.

To be frank and in light of that other thread been closed the ignorance of the recce vehicles roles, is awe inspiring.

Asking a question is one thing, but flogging the shit out of something because your failure to comprehend basic miliatry actions and terms and roles is nothing short amazing.

Realistic or reasonable questions can be answer civily but down right flaming or trolling which has taken place on these threads is unacceptable.

DeV
4th July 2007, 22:30
To back up HPT, most Western armies used recce by stealth as opposed to recce by fire.

hptmurphy
5th July 2007, 01:15
Thank you at least some one is thinking out there.

Goldie fish
13th October 2007, 14:46
Being Built in Devonport at the place that usually builds warships!
Diversify or bust.

Mick O'Toole
13th October 2007, 14:59
I remember the Paras used to use unarmoured Land Rovers in Belfast during the 1970s. Even as a kid it looked somewhat incongruous, their colleagues were in Saracens, Pigs or armoured land rovers, while the ones they had were just like pick-up trucks.(The reason I remember it was the Paras was because they were wearing their berets). I think I read somewhere that the reason for this was that it gave them a much better field of vision. So they were relying on seeing the baddies before they started up. But it all stopped when the Provos invented coffee jar bombs and horizontal mortars attached to lamposts.

paul
13th October 2007, 15:44
what is the size difference between this new WMIK and the old WMIK?

The Thing
13th October 2007, 19:47
If roadside bombs are the principal threat, how is an open crew compartment a good thing?

Thats a fair point, I imagine that it comes down to its light weight, speed and firepower and the fact that it could be transported by air more easily. The Swedes have a lightweight REECE vehicle of a similar design and weapons configuration for some years now and before the Iraqi and Afganastan conflicts special forces had looked into developing more of these types of vehicles.

pmtts
14th October 2007, 20:36
I took this a few weeks back at Marchwood Military Port. All the snatch wagons coming back from Iraq that are no match to roadside bombs!

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc91/pmtts/snatch.jpg

snip1
21st November 2007, 22:04
If roadside bombs are the principal threat, how is an open crew compartment a good thing?

Yellowjacket has a very good point, sorry guys i just don't see how they will help guys in the mid-east, would look good in a hollywood movie tho that about it.