Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RG32-best choice by Army

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by apod View Post
    Not true.The lads have Armoured Nissan Patrols out there.(In the public domain already MODS,before ye have a panic attack!)
    i highly doubt these afford much protection other than from small-arms fire or low energy shrapnel.

    the Italians have lost men on the same roads the Irish travel regularly in Kabul.

    the RG32 (or similar) makes sense for anyone in that neck of the woods.
    RGJ

    ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

    The Rifles

    Comment


    • #17
      rg32

      Originally posted by paul View Post
      Flawed how?
      Hi, Paul,

      The main flaws are that the Jackal 2 is basically the same design as the Jackal 1 with the front (drivers) seat sitting directly above the wheels and the lack of a v-shaped hull. However, the makers, Supacat, seem to have now learned their lesson and the new SPV400 will have a v-shaped hull. There were at least 10 deaths in the Jackal in 2009. In one incident with 1 death the 3 occupants were thrown out of the vehicle. This would suggest poor quality-or no- seat harnesses or poor training/procedures.
      Tim

      Comment


      • #18
        The SPV400, though, is not designed for the same mission as Jackal. It's an MRAP-style troop transport. It's a bit disingenuous to say "Supacat have learned their lessons from Jackal" by pointing to a vehicle which is built to a different set of specifications to include being transported in a CH-47, and by the way, an entirely different mission. The difference is even evident in the name: "Supacat Protected Vehicle" vs "Mobility Weapon Mounted Installation Kit" I might as well point to a Scorpion and say it's not as safe as a Challenger. It may be true, but that doesn't mean to say it makes sense.

        NTM
        Last edited by California Tanker; 15 January 2010, 18:19.
        Driver, tracks, troops.... Drive and adjust!!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Victor View Post
          The first sentences suggests you are a largely uninvolved spectator. The second sentence is rather different.

          Part of me is sceptical about motivation.
          No problem,Victor,
          Its just that for 7 years from 2000 I had a job-civilian-where I came across a very large number of very senior British Army Officers. From time to time I mentioned the Rhodesian v-shaped hull experience- this was before the Afhgfan deployment.

          Some of these officers had served in Rhodesia with the Commonwealth Monitoring Force at the time of the Ceasefire exercise. The Rhodesian Army-as part of the ceasefire exercise - had "regrouped" at Independent Company/Batallion level so that the PF forces could gather at designated Assembly Points. THe BSA Police were the only authorised Rhodesian armed force with freedom of movement outside the AP/Army Barracks. Without exception, the Commonwealth Forces,inc. the British, in their Landrovers, preferred to follow behind the Rhodesian Police vehicles when deploying to the bush Assembly Points, at least until it was fairly certain that the bush roads were completely clear of landmines -affectionately known as "Zimbabwe Potatoes" by the Patriotic Front Forces and eventually - us.
          Later, the British Army had a BMATT team in place for about 5 years in Zim.
          It is quite clear that there were no lessons learnt.
          So, no hang-ups about motives.
          Kindest regards,
          Tim

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by apod View Post
            Not true.The lads have Armoured Nissan Patrols out there
            Interesting.... didn' t know that
            "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by ZULU View Post
              Why? there's only a handfull over there and their joyriding is in other forces vehicles.
              No there not! edit..already answered..
              Last edited by Craghopper; 15 January 2010, 21:30.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by ZULU View Post
                Why? there's only a handfull over there and their joyriding is in other forces vehicles.
                I am forever amazed at how someone who was never there- will probably be never there

                can come out with a statement like that-
                Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
                Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
                The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere***
                The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
                The best lack all conviction, while the worst
                Are full of passionate intensity.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The thing is though these vehicles (RG-31 and cougar) are designed for the veldt, Angola and Namibia are very different environments than Afghanistan or down down Baghad. Very top heavy, difficult to drive cross country and lots of bridges won't take the weight. You got to remember that the Americans bought the RG-31 urgently, and it was recognised as being far from ideal

                  As for Rhodesia experience, an army that made AFV out of VW Combis deserve recognition for ingenuity, and devising Mine detection vehicles like the pookie, but they were building on british experience in the first place in what was at the time a unique environment, hard to criticise the british army for thinking about experience in Rhodesia in 2000 , nobody else did, at that time it was a forgotten war, although post 2001 is far more relevant.


                  As for the LPPV project the british are running for which the SPV-400 is a contender, I personally would like to see the DF look at that type of vehicle to complement the piranha.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by timhorgan View Post
                    Thank you, Zone One,

                    I have no idea- I am actually apalled by the fiasco here in the UK concerning the Jackal. Even the Jackal Mrk 2 seems to be seriously flawed.

                    Anyway, if you have time please look up the Marine Corps paper.

                    Kindest regards,
                    Tim Horgan
                    I have posted sometime back the same sentiments on the Jackal. Appalling
                    disregard of its troops by the establishment in Britain.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by hedgehog View Post
                      I am forever amazed at how someone who was never there- will probably be never there

                      can come out with a statement like that-
                      +1
                      Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by sofa View Post
                        I have posted sometime back the same sentiments on the Jackal. Appalling disregard of its troops by the establishment in Britain.
                        Originally posted by timhorgan View Post
                        ...there were at least 10 deaths in the Jackal in 2009. In one incident with 1 death the 3 occupants were thrown out of the vehicle. This would suggest poor quality-or no- seat harnesses or poor training/procedures.
                        Tim
                        sofa / timhorgan - you both haven't a clue what you are talking about.

                        how can you say the Jackal is a result of appalling disregard of its troops by the British establishment when as Cal pointed out - as a weapons platform which can bring the fight to the enemy - there is nothing that can compare with it. to sit inside heavily protected MRAP's is not the solution - it is a defensive measure, but the Jackal gives us the chance to use aggressive measures in suppressing and out manoeuvring the enemy.

                        and having attended a live demo of the Jackal on Salisbury Plain - the fact that soldiers are usually ejected from the vehicle when it hits an IED is actually promoted as the preferable option rather than staying harnessed into the vehicle and having your head and limbs blown off whilst your torso remains in place - it is better to 'go with the blast' than remain strapped to the vehicle.

                        confirmed by my pals in 2RIFLES who used the Jackal extensively and encountered IED's in them, lived to tell the tale and some of them reckon it was the fact that they were ejected from the vehicle that saved them. in one instance a 3 vehicle Jackal patrol with its troops dismounted was manoeuvring when the first vehicle struck an IED. in the confusion a Rifleman from that first vehicle approached the commander of the last vehicle and the commander said to him "jesus - you're lucky - your wagon just got IED'd", and the Rifleman said "i know - i was in it!" - he had been thrown back past 2 other Jackals in the blast and survived.

                        as i mentioned previously - the Jackal is every soldiers best friend, not just of those who travel in them but also of the soldiers on the ground who request their direct fire-power no matter what the terrain.

                        Jackal is an awesome bit of kit, as are the men who patrol and provide fire-power from within them, so comments such as "This would suggest poor quality-or no- seat harnesses or poor training/procedures" are total bo||ox and would suggest absolute clueless ignorance on your part.
                        Last edited by RoyalGreenJacket; 16 January 2010, 02:17.
                        RGJ

                        ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

                        The Rifles

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          A number of recent deaths in Afghanistan have been blamed on inadequate equipment, including those of three paratroopers in a lightly armoured Jackal last week....

                          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-vehicles.html

                          The 4x4 Jackal has been used in Afghanistan to offer troops better protection than the more lightly armoured Snatch Land Rover, but there have still been a number of fatalities involving the vehicle.

                          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8189419.stm


                          It's clear that the Jackal has shortcomings in crew protection to allow for maneuverability. Would there not be a preference for the former, if one had the choice.........live to fight another day and all that. Given the choice I wonder what pers on the ground would pick an MATV Oshkosh / RG 32 with a RWS over the Jackal? Infantrymen would be a lot more maneuverable if they didn't wear body armour and helmets but that's surely not a valid case to remove that protection?

                          I suspect it's another example of Whitehall showing misplaced bias to a British product that has some positive attributes but also some awful flaws. Shades of the SA80 and Bowman, etc. BAE are still slightly persona non grata due to the Saudi bribery investigation and wouldn't be seen as 100% British as Supacat perhaps? Mind you Lockheed Martin have their snouts in the trough there too.

                          Having said all that the mind boggles how a vehicle was selected in the context of mines/ieds etc. where they've gone to all the trouble of a V shaped hull but have the driver and commander sitting directly over the front wheels?

                          "The Jackal is fundamentally flawed ... The driver and commander are positioned over the front wheels, making them vulnerable to mines."

                          http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.co...-were-ten.html

                          It's like the SA 80 all over again, (until 'ze germans' in H&K had to come and fix it). Good, (skip the bad) and downright ugly in the one piece of kit........great sight and bullpup design way ahead of its time but idiotic placement of the magazine release catch, cocking handle on one side, awful reliability and dreadful balance.
                          Last edited by Jessup; 16 January 2010, 03:12.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Obviously the Jackal could never have been a competitor for the LTV. The question is really concerning the choice of the Jackal for the BA above the RG32. I think I might have said it here before, the Jackal just asks for someone to put something nasty close to the front seats, and then some more. Too much of the stage coach about it.
                            You will never have a quiet world until you knock the patriotism out of the human race

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Is it only me and California Tanker who can see that you are comparing two totally different types of vehicles here?

                              Of course the Jackal will suffer casualties - it is NOT as protected as MRAP type vehicles because it is not that kind of vehicle. It is a highly mobile weapons platform and usually operates off the beaten track where the likes of the Panther / RG32 type vehicles operate.

                              The Jackal offers much better situational awareness and interaction with the locals combined with higher mobility and better fire-power than any other vehicle out there.

                              I know I see the world through a tint of 'red, white and blue' but open your eyes lads - you are comparing a Lexus to a Land Cruiser here.

                              The Jackal and RG32 are both excellent vehicles and both have their strengths and weaknesses however they are not comparable because they are not designed for the same role.
                              Last edited by RoyalGreenJacket; 16 January 2010, 02:34.
                              RGJ

                              ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

                              The Rifles

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post
                                The Jackal and RG32 are both excellent vehicles and both have their strengths and weaknesses however they are not comparable because they are not designed for the same role.
                                If that's the case is the role for which it was designed applicable to ISAF? The Jackal and the WMIK before it are no more than updated versions of what the SAS used in North Africa in WWII and in Iraq in Gulf War 1. There aren't too many long rage patrols to attack enemy airfields, destroy fuel dumps or find optic fibre communication cables in ISAF, are there?

                                Surely IEDs is the defining characteristic of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and as such vehicle selection should be fit for purpose in this regard?

                                Is it the right horse for the right course at all?

                                Are any of the other contingents using an open top, lightly armoured vehicle to the extent that the BA are using the Jackal?
                                Last edited by Jessup; 16 January 2010, 03:11.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X