# Brits get new Patrol Vehicle



## Kirkhill (26 Jun 2007)

This was taken from Defense-Aerospace.com - a decidedly Euro friendly site.

The editor added this note:


> (EDITOR’S NOTE: Whatever its other qualities, this vehicle lacks protection for its crew, whether from the elements or from enemy weapons. It also seems vulnerable to land mines, as it appears to have a flat bottom and the crew sits above the axles, which detonate any land mines they roll over. Its weapon stations also lack ballistic protection of any kind, raising questions as to its combat effectiveness.)



Here's the article and a picture.  It will be interesting to here Infidel 6 and Tango 2 Bravo weigh in on this one.  ;D 




> New Patrol Vehicles Will Give Troops Enhanced Capability
> 
> 
> (Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued June 25, 2007)
> ...



By the way - I THINK you are looking at the front end.


----------



## Pte AJB (26 Jun 2007)

Looks like the type of vechicle that would of fit right into the Long Range Desert Group of North Africa fame, but I wonder how it will fare against the type of threats we're seeing nowadays. Though, it will certainly make pursuit of the enemy a lot easier.


----------



## Armymedic (26 Jun 2007)

As a patrol veh, its durability is more important than its looks.

If it can haul a crew of 3 or more, fuel, food, water, etc for 5 or more days and be repaired with relative ease...then it is probably a pretty good veh.

Protection from the elements looks a bit sparse...I imagine there would be a bit of tarping to go with it.


_this is my 3000th post_


----------



## Pte AJB (26 Jun 2007)

I suppose I should clarify a bit, I'm sure it is a great vechicle, however based solely on appearances I wonder about it's ability to withstand the variety of IED threats.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jun 2007)

Fifth Horse - I think you are bang on with respect to the LRDG reference.  To my eye this vehicle looks as if it is designed with the experience in Maysan and Helmand in mind.  The Brits have been doing the LRDG thing in those areas - patrolling open country and keeping off the roads.  In Maysan in particular they have been staying away from population centres to interdict smugglers.

They have also been buying MRAPs for urban patrols and line of communication work.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Jun 2007)

This is the last in the series and they are alll a good read as to the likely tactical use of ths vehicle.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/death-or-glory-part-iv.htm


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jun 2007)

looks like a flat bottom vice a slopped hull which a we know is better for mines etc.  I hear the Americans are looking for something with  a V hull to replace their Hummers as they are taking major damage with their flat bottom floors.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Jun 2007)

likely a step up from blast mats on the floor of a landrover.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jun 2007)

I hope so for their sake.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jun 2007)

http://www.supacat.com/supacat_products_hmt400.htm

This appears to be the vehicle in question.  A bit more from the manufacturer: Supacat.  No word on mine-proofing.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jun 2007)

Disregard previous image with weapons - it was apparently a bad photo-shop job

Sorry.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jun 2007)

Perhaps this is actually a good sign. Rather than reflexively wrapping ourselves in more layers of armour (and eventually shunning going out to further reduce the risks) we should consider means to regain the initiative. Intensive patrolling and getting "boots on the ground" is still the most effective means of controlling the AOR, and vehicles that permit unrestricted mobility and interaction with the population are important pieces of the puzzle.

Not to say we should just drive out the gate in Toyota Land cruisers and Ford F-150 pickups (although that is exactly how the ANA and ANP have to operate), but if there is a permissive or semi permissive environment, then park the heavy stuff and go out on the ground with more user friendly kit. Even in decidedly non permissive environments (i.e. the British unit in Iraq working the Iranian border now, or the exploits of the SAS mobility troop during the Persian Gulf War) light vehicles have shown their worth, and certainly they can get you places heavier armoured vehicles cannot.

As to the mine worthiness of the vehicle, it is hard to say from pictures, and I havn't seen one up close enough to tell. The square sides may be sponsons for carrying extra kit, after all, and the "Dingo" makes use of a flexible bottom plate to protect the crew (although I don't know how well that works either).


----------



## ironduke57 (27 Jun 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> ..., and the "Dingo" makes use of a flexible bottom plate to protect the crew (although I don't know how well that works either).



No. The "Dingo" use an V-shaped bottom. IIRC the bottom consists of the two V-shaped plates with some space between them.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2007)

It seems we are both correct:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-apv-project.htm



> Dingo 2 is the latest version of KMW’s All- Protected Carrier Vehicle. [1]  Unlike the two other APV candidates, Dingos have a frame protected by a belly plate. This arrangement has  fallen into disfavour  for  mine-resistant vehicles in some quarters. But the Dingo has a material advantage: its belly pan uses the unique characteristics of composite fibres to absorb blast energy through distortion – before returning to its original shape.



An interesting idea, and there are several pictures of Dingos that have run into mines or IEDs that would seem to validate the concept. It sounds like it would reduce the overall weight of the vehicle.


----------

