Mowag Vs Mastiff Vs Ridgeback Vs mine is better than yours etc

[paul g]

This is where I got my figure from, courtesey of ropebag!


Just a point I picked up from the logistics side of things ..the Brits initially bought 108 Cougar MRAP vehicles at a cost of $62 million and within 9 months they were all grounded or laid up because the spares package of 40 Axles had run out...thats serious atttrition



Driver training for the Mastiffs, RidgeBacks took two years, given this is the vehicle type of choice in theatre ...theres your two year run in period



!

[

Is the Mastiff/Ridgback the choice vehicle, or is it the only one that could be acquired at short notice? I've never driven either, but I have driven the South African Buffel, these type of vehicle have a high center of gravity, and are very difficult to drive cross country, as CT has pointed out, there is a problem with roll overs with the MRAPs the Americans have deployed.

Secondly they're very heavy, and unable to cope with a lot of the roads, irrigation canals, and bridges found in the region. They were never really intended to be driven across country. The Maxx Pro Dash that CT 's unit have access to is significantly lighter then its Parent Vehicle, deployed to Iraq. They're essentially armoured trucks, put that much weight on a truck and you will have axle problems if you drive it cross country, and the Americans are upgrading their Cougars with TAK-4 suspension, (which I believe is based on Timoney patents). MRAPs, which the Ridgeback/Mastiff are, (the an American design by a company called Force protection) were fine for Iraq, which had a good highway network and is very urban, but Afghanistan is neither.

Look at the new MATV the Americans have ordered from Oshkosh for service in Afghanistan, it has more in common with the RG-32M LTV then Mastiff/Ridgeback.

http://www.oshkoshdefense.com/defens...~matv~home.cfm

Given a choice I'd take the mobility and protection offered by the Mowag or Rg-32M LTV over either of them, the Mowag was designed from the start to drive away from a mine strike on one wheel. No matter how much armour you have, an IED like an Explosively Formed Projectile will penetrate it, they penetrated MBT in Iraq. The Danes have their mowags in Helmland, and the Americans have just deployed strykers ( a mowag in all but name) to Khandahar, its a good vehicle.

More importantly what type of IEDs are being encountering. In Africa, where this type of vehicle originated, the main threat was conventional mines, especially the Soviet TM-46, which were supplied to nationist groups like Zanu PF/MPLA in great numbers. IEDs in Iraq/Afghanistan are different. For example, if they're 122mm artillery shells rigged up, then they're more likely to be intended against foot patrols then vehicles. What are the Taliban using to detonate them, if its command wires or pressure plates then ECM is not going to help it. Do the Taliban have something similar to TM-46 mines. Lots of unanswered questions

[California Tanker]

For example, if they're 122mm artillery shells rigged up, then they're more likely to be intended against foot patrols then vehicles.

I've seen them used against vehicles. They just use a lot of them. The anti-personnel stuff tends to be 82mm.

What are the Taliban using to detonate them, if its command wires or pressure plates then ECM is not going to help it.

You're thinking far too simplisticly. ECM can help defeat certain pressure plate setups we've seen around here. And the opposition has started coming up with counters to that as well.

Do the Taliban have something similar to TM-46 mines. Lots of unanswered questions

Yes. Plenty of 'traditional' AT mines out there.

NTM

[paul g]

I've seen them used against vehicles. They just use a lot of them. The anti-personnel stuff tends to be 82mm.

:
What sort of quantity. Any use of EFP around your way?

[hptmurphy]

Is the Mastiff/Ridgback the choice vehicle, or is it the only one that could be acquired at short notice? I've never driven either, but I have driven the South African Buffel, these type of vehicle have a high center of gravity, and are very difficult to drive cross country, as CT has pointed out, there is a problem with roll overs with the MRAPs the Americans have deployed.

The British vehicles are of American origin refitted to British requirements, every thing in that class owes its origins to the Buffel...which was initself an over developed Bedford RL 4 x 4..British had adressed the problem in Maylasia and forgotten about the concept until the Americans re sold it to them.

Mighty vehicles but as you say would appear to be a poor mans Mowag.If you added the bar armour to the Mowag you have the same result.

The original concept was to leave them in theatre and gift them to the Afghan armed forces after the war but now they have become a high value commodity and that idea has vanished. They are even looking at a green field war application for them.they are big and slow, slower than a Mowag, but can carry less troops so where was the adavantage in the R and D costs when you could have just bought Mowag from the shelf.

I agree with your conclusion that the Mowag is the more suited vehicle given the 30mm equipped versions have all the requirements plus a serious weapon.

I suppose with some upgrading of the mowag and the RG vehicle we are indeed capable of carrying out some positive role in theatre but the size of the force and the attrition rates of vehicles would still bother me.

Should the scale of threat reduce than the Irish would be the ideal candidates to deploy given past experience ...but it needs to come down a few notches in order to make it feasible.

A role similar to that of UNISOM would be the more desireable role..and politically probably more justifable in that we wouldn't have to spend a fortune on new kit to upgrade to a war enabled force.

Will it happen...I reckon the mission in Chad would have to end first in order for the army to be able to present acse to be deployed in another sizeable overseas misson.

Next question ...and this would be the crux... do the hierarchy in the army want to be deployed in Afghanistan?

Olitically what grounds could it be justified on. I reckon the only way it could be justified would be on humanitarian grounds as oposed to fighting terrorism, if so the war has to be won first.

begs the question , can the war be won?

given the Iraq sitaution became untenable at home when causalties began to rise , will the same happen in Afghanistan/

If the Brits and the Yanks pulled out in the morning the taliban and Al Queeda will ahve won..even morally in that they Coalition were no longer prepared to accept the casualties that were being inflicted on them.

This war is like no other as territorial gains seem to mean nothing..its all about casualty figures. The media seem more intersted inthe resscession as opposed to the war so its not headline news as Iraq was. the focus of attention will probably shift as the economic crises eases.

And the media will be the deciding factor in the outcome of this war.

Interesting conflict where the duration of war is defined by the media coverage.

[Jetjock]

I dont think a UNISOM type role would be feasible in Afghanistan. In fact I think it would be equally or more high risk than an embedded infantry company for example. I would have to ask do ISAF even risk resupply by exposed ground convoys?

You need to consider the Afghan terrain and the Taliban themselves, and their style of hit and run ambush fighting. A ground convoy would be an easy, predictable target. An infantry company might see more actual engagements, but the unpredictability both in terms of direction and time of infantry movements would be a big factor to surviving Afghanistan.

If you look at the weapons employed out there, the Irish Army has comparable weaponary and in some cases better. Personal/Squad type weapons are as good as any. For fire support of infantry actions the Brits are using GPMG,HMG, 40MM Grenade, 81mm Mortar and Javelin-all posessed by the Irish Army. Add to that 120mm mortar and possibly AT-84 and you have a wide range of infantry support weapons available. There could even be a role for artillery(discounting 120mm) supporting any infantry action- a battery of 105's for example. Anything heavier/longer ranged required would of course mean remaining under the force artillery umbrella.

The Mowag does seem to offer the right combination of mobility and protection, but is the .50 cal the right primary weapon for the theatre of operations? The Polish Army's Patria AMV/Bushmaster 30mm combo has earned a fearsome reputation among the Taliban.

The actual nature of the Afghan battlefield is easily misinterpreted. Rather than being a "high intensity" traditional type war, it is in fact a high intensity COIN operation, for which the Irish Army is actually quite well equipped-on an infantry level.

The debate, rather than being based on capability has more of a moral basis. Is it time for us as a country to step up to the plate and contribute to the continued devolpment of the world and the protection of our fellow man, or is this just not our war?

In my opinion Afghanistan needs to be stabilised, but why should it have a higher priority than say Darfur for example?

There is major international political capital to be gained from a deployment I will admit.

I do find the title of this thread quite interesting, especially these five words may be asked to serve. A newspaper headline yes, but I would prefer to see the word "asked" substituted with the word "called". It smacks of "Please will you go to A'stan" which I think is unfair perception of the Army.

[RoyalGreenJacket]

I agree with your conclusion that the Mowag is the more suited vehicle given the 30mm equipped versions have all the requirements plus a serious weapon.

The Mowag is an excellent bit of kit and I have travelled in them often (Stryker and LAV-25) however they do not offer the same level of mine / IED protection as the Mastiff / Ridgeback vehicles - they are after all purpose made MRAP's (Mine Resistant and Ambush Protected) vehicles.

While the Mowag has undoubtedly saved many lives - many soldiers have also died as a result of IED attacks on them whilst to date there have been no fatalities in the many attacks on the Mastiff / Ridgeback MRAP's.

the 30mm cannon is not much good mounted on a flat bottomed hull in an IED attack where the gunner has his legs blown off.

i still reckon you need dedicated MRAP's and the Mowag is less suited to this role.

don't get me wrong - the Mowags of the Irish DF are still better than any wheeled APC we have (eg Saxon) but i don't think it's the be all and end all answer to everything.

[Goldie fish]

The Mowag, while Physically Similar to the LAV and Stryker, is a very different animal.

[DeV]

LAV and Stryker are based on the MOWAG design.

[Goldie fish]

LAV and Stryker are based on the MOWAG design.

Based on, but not the same.

The Volvo S70 is based on the Ford mondeo...
The Flower Class Corvette was based on a Whaling ship.
The FN MAG is based on the MG42.

But they are not the same.

[RoyalGreenJacket]

The Mowag, while Physically Similar to the LAV and Stryker, is a very different animal.

Yes - the Stryker is based on the LAV3 and the LAV3 is based on the MOWAG but what makes this 'animal' the same is the shape of the hull - it is identical in all 3 models and is not protectively shaped. and I think the MOWAG is rated mine protected to an 8Kg blast while the Mastiff / Ridgebacks are rated at <=25Kg but have actually survived much larger blasts.

I still think the Irish DF need to get their wallet out and procure better protected vehicles before any potential deployment to Afghan.

[paul g]

Yes - the Stryker is based on the LAV3 and the LAV3 is based on the MOWAG but what makes this 'animal' the same is the shape of the hull - it is identical in all 3 models and is not protectively shaped. and I think the MOWAG is rated mine protected to an 8Kg blast while the Mastiff / Ridgebacks are rated at <=25Kg but have actually survived much larger blasts.

I still think the Irish DF need to get their wallet out and procure better protected vehicles before any potential deployment to Afghan.

There are lots of vehicles that don't have a V shaped hull serving in Afghanistan, for example CV-90 (Sweden/Norway), Scimtar/Sabre/Spartan (UK), M-113 (various), Fuchs ( Germany), AMV (Polish), Stryker (US) and Fennek/Sisu ( Holland), not to mention LAV-3 and the same Mowag model as ours (Canada and Denemark.

The Mowag is a good balance between mobility and survivability. Ridgeback/Mastiff are essentially trucks with a lot of armour on them not very mobile and good if you're driving on roads, poor cross country. Virtually every western army has a vehicle like the mowag on in service or on order, so clearly there's something right about it. Its also going to be complemented by the RG-32 within the next six months.

Bit of a myth that an MRAP like the Mastiff/Ridgeback are IED proof. People have been killed in them in iraq by IEDs, roll overs, hitting electricity pylons, lots of injuries as well. Tjhe enemy will adapt its tactics to suit your equipment are they not.


MRAPS are a vehicle that best suits an urban battlefield, not a place with poor roads, lots of small bridges and irrigation canals.

[knocker]

Likewise if any mowags were to be used by the irish army there, the enemy would identify its weak points

[paul g]

If irish troops used Maus tanks from WW2 germany, somebody would identify a weakpoint. Therefore mobility is an advantage.

Mowag is a good APC, that sells in large numbers, and was adopted by the US army, and the British for its FRES UV.

[RoyalGreenJacket]

There are lots of vehicles that don't have a V shaped hull serving in Afghanistan, for example CV-90 (Sweden/Norway), Scimtar/Sabre/Spartan (UK), M-113 (various), Fuchs ( Germany), AMV (Polish), Stryker (US) and Fennek/Sisu ( Holland), not to mention LAV-3 and the same Mowag model as ours (Canada and Denemark .

Bit of a myth that an MRAP like the Mastiff/Ridgeback are IED proof. People have been killed in them in iraq by IEDs, roll overs, hitting electricity pylons, lots of injuries as well.


MRAPS are a vehicle that best suits an urban battlefield, not a place with poor roads lots of small bridges and irrigation canals.

What myth?!

FACT:No British Soldiers have been killed in a Mastiff or Ridgeback in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Of course there will be injuries in a massive IED attack - its mine resistant - not mine proof (is anything?). Mastiffs have encountered IED's up to 250Kg and survived - even MBT's have failed against such devices.

Face it - it's the best vehicle out there and probably the only vehicle the troops are happy to travel in given the option. Flat bottom hulls are easily defeated in Afghanistan particularly where EFP's are used as they cannot deflect the blast like a V-hull can.

If a Mowag / Stryker / LAV and a Mastiff / Rifgeback turned up at my location to take me back to base - I know what vehicle I'd get in - you can keep your 30mm cannon, I'll go for the protection of the shaped hull MRAP thank you!

[rod and serpent]

Bit of a myth that an MRAP like the Mastiff/Ridgeback are IED proof. People have been killed in them in iraq by IEDs, roll overs, hitting electricity pylons, lots of injuries as well. Tjhe enemy will adapt its tactics to suit your equipment are they not.

Can you provide a source