# To Armour or Not to Armour ....... Armoured Vehicles



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2009)

Interesting article from the Brit MoD.

There have be ongoing complaints about the use of a lightly armoured, totally enclosed Landrover variant called the Snatch.  It was designed for the agressive policing in Northern Ireland and was then exported for use in Iraq.

In the early days in Iraq the Snatch was the only option available to the Brits unless they wanted to go with heavy tracks.  Many troops died in them.  That prompted the Brits to play around with Vikings and Bulldogs and Mastiffs and uparmoured FV432s and Warriors.  They now have a pretty full slate of options for the ground commanders to choose from.  But the Snatch is still in use........and 37 troops have died in them.



> Hutton: Snatch essential to operations
> An Equipment and Logistics news article
> 16 Dec 08
> 
> ...



This seems to me to be in keeping with the discussion that the US Army and Marines are having wrt body armour.  Now people have been given the opportunity to increase their armour protection to a level that they feel is commensurate with the threat level they seem to be starting to opt for lower levels for tactical reasons.

A continuation of the discussion over range, mobility, firepower and protection - all of them dependent on the limited carrying capacity of platforms (soldier, horse, mule or AFV) and terrain.

Apparently Commanders and Soldiers still have to make hard choices.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jan 2009)

The thing about "armour" is that there is always a weapon that can defeat it.  The more armour that is added, the larger the weapon to defeat it becomes.  More armour; more powerful mines/IEDs.  The job of a Commander is to decide which type of "armour" is best suited for the task.

Back when we first got the AVGP family of vehicles, we were looking at a "Training Vehicle" for conventional warfare.  The Armour was designed to defeat small arms fire up to 200 m (approx) and also had a "Swiss Cheese" type of philosophy in the design, in that larger calibre anti-armour wpns would penetrate and pass through, rather than ricochet around inside turning the crew and passengers into hamburger meat.  The AVGP had a rather good anti-mine design to it and that was perpetuated in the LAV series.  Although not designed as an "Operational" vehicle, the AVGP family was eventually sent on "Low Intensity", Peacekeeping missions overseas.  At the time, and under those circumstances, these vehicles proved to be adequate for the job.  Would they have survived for long in a High Intensity situation?  No.  It would have been suicide to have committed them to such danger.


----------



## geo (17 Jan 2009)

The base "snatch" is pert much an equivalent of the "GWagon" we've gotten from Mercedes.
Both are good vehicles.... but they have their limitations.  If you are going into any area where the threat level is high.... you might want to reconsider what to use for your ride.

We started Afghanistan in the tired old Iltis.  A vehicle that I still consider to be a good little utility truck.... but it will not do as an armoured car.   It was small & could travel the small narrow lanes of Kabul.  The open cab was a two sided blade.  You were exposed BUT your "feel" for the local population was greater.

At present, the family of vehicles we currently use in & around KAF are right up there with the best of them... IMHO


----------



## gregroberts@sympatico.ca (18 Jan 2009)

Who is our leading expert in the area of light aroured vehicles?


----------



## geo (18 Jan 2009)

all depends... 
but George has served & is a fairly knowledgeable fella in the Armoured corp.
Hales & overwatchdownunder hail from the Australian military / armoured or armoured related
Ironduke 57 is right up there... but is a member of the German army
Bunch of fellas from the American military

Fill your boots - what's your pleasure ???


----------



## gregroberts@sympatico.ca (18 Jan 2009)

Thanks - but George who? - and do you know if i can contact him and if so do you have an email address or contact info?


----------



## Mike Baker (18 Jan 2009)

gregroberts@sympatico.ca said:
			
		

> Thanks - but George who? - and do you know if i can contact him and if so do you have an email address or contact info?


George Wallace, who recently posted in this thread.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (18 Jan 2009)

gregroberts@sympatico.ca said:
			
		

> Thanks - but George who? - and do you know if i can contact him and if so do you have an email address or contact info?



If I may, I think you might want to change your screen name unless you want to be flooded by spam mail.


----------



## gregroberts@sympatico.ca (18 Jan 2009)

Thanks for the tip - I changed the screen name.  What I am interested in learning, from someone who really understands the issues - is whether our troops have the best light armoured vehicles in the field - or whether the troops feel that the government could do a better job in providing a safer vehicle?  Specifics would be great if someone has the time.


----------



## geo (18 Jan 2009)

Before asking tons of questions you should do a little bit of reading... cause these questions have been asked and answered umpteen times before.

All the info you ever wanted to know about the Armoured branch is here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/board,3.0.html

Then you can read about world news & international affairs here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/board,61.0.html


And then there is always Military current affairs & news found here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/board,6.0.html

Once you've done a bit of reading & start posting, you'll find George Wallace & he might even be willing to talk to you.

BTW - Welcome to Army,ca


----------



## gregroberts@sympatico.ca (18 Jan 2009)

Thanks - I'm on it...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2009)

Until some true advances in materials science come to fruition, armouring a vehicle has to be done on a basis of your mission requirements. Without going into too many details, I know that the British forces in Afganistan use Land Rover 110s with nothing more than Kevlar blankets on the floor in some situations since anything larger or heavier will either get stuck or not be able to navigate through the narrow roads/trails where they are operating. The British also brought "Jackal" patrol vehicles for Helmand province, which can carry add on armour panels, but are often seen in their bare-assed state; essentially open platforms with multiple crew stations and weapons mounts.

You can also look at the MRAP Light thread to see some other ideas along these lines.


----------

