Guest Guest Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Its a balance between missions and capabilties, the Brits have their own peculiar theories about warfighting (born of several centuries fighting small foreign conflicts) and must work within their limited war budget to field equipment appropriate to their theories. There's a BIG tradeoff - speed, stealth, deployability, affordability and range versus armor protection. Each extra pound limits the vehicle's capabilities. The M1114 armored Humvee for example has half the load capacity of its unarmored cousin. At one end of the scale is the giant mine-protected MRAP (I forget the Brit designation), at the other end is the inconspicuous little landrover, which may carry about the same number of troops if not more, I think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theFightingSeabee Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 MikeyD is exactly right. But we have the HMMWV. When I driving hummers back in the day, our doors were canvas with zip up windows! Zero protection! Our combat hummers (the ones we mounted weapons to) had solid doors but they were thin aluminum. A bullet would go right through. It wasn't until a brave soldier stood up and asked old Don Rumsfeld why the hell they were having to weld steel plates to their vehicles that we started giving our guys "up-armored" vehicles. That said, light vehicles are still needed. We even have special ops dune buggies. Heavily armed but no armor at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Rat Patrol! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiny_tanker Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 They were also designed more for the special ops type units, which the pathfinders fall into. I think the idea was to get good armament with ied protection and good load carrying capacity. From my understanding the snatch landrover is still the main mode of transport for your standard troops and its pretty comparable to HMMWV. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSY Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Can you tell me why the British troops use that lightly armored/ protected vehicles? I mean there's almost no protection for the driver and front gunner at all... even small arms can cause wreak havoc. Even a Humvee should be equal or better for this.... I actually thought the exact same thing when I watched that documentary. It seemed like they were nuts just sitting out there stopped in the open, trading shots with the Taliban who were shooting at them from somewhere behind cover. Anyway, I have no idea how the off-road performance of a Jackal compares to that of a Humvee, but I found this article (which I suspect I originally found by someone posting it somehwere on the Battlefront bboards) pretty interesting. It talks about how the uparmored humvees and MRAPs are too slow to chase Taliban raiders: On a sunset patrol here in late December, U.S. Marines spotted a Taliban unit trying to steal Afghan police vehicles at a checkpoint. In a flash, the Marines turned to pursue, driving off the main road and toward the gunfire coming from the mountain a half mile away. But their six-ton vehicles were no match for the Taliban pickups. The mine-resistant vehicles and heavily armored Humvees bucked and swerved as drivers tried to maneuver them across fields that the Taliban vehicles raced across. The Afghan police trailed behind in unarmored pick-up trucks, impatient about their allies' weighty pace. The Marines, weighted down with 60 pounds of body armor each, struggled to climb up Saradaka Mountain. Once at the top, it was clear to everyone that the Taliban would get away. Second Lt. Phil Gilreath, 23, of Kingwood, La., called off the mission. ... Even the Humvees, finally carrying heavy armor after years of complaints that they did little to mitigate the impact of roadside explosives in Iraq, are proving a liability. Marines say the heavy armor added for protection in Iraq is too rough on the vehicles' transmissions in Afghanistan's much hillier terrain, and the vehicles frequently break down — so often in fact that before every patrol Marine units here designate one Humvee as the tow vehicle. ... In Iraq, armored vehicles could travel on both the roads and the desert. Here, the paved roads are mostly for outsiders - travelers, truckers and foreign troops; to reach the populace, American forces must find unmapped caravan routes that run through treacherous terrain, routes not designed for their modern military vehicles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Recce units are issued thermal imagers and other ISTAR kit. There's alot to be said about taking the path less travelled to avoid ambushes and IEDs, and you can't do that with however many tonnes of armour. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 PSY, Interesting article! There's a pun lurking somewhere around the 'designated tow vehicle'...something like: Interviewer: "Major, what would you say was the most important asset to your troops in the asymmetrical conflict in Syria?" Major Tom: "I would have to say it was our tow vehicles." Interviewer: "Ah, you're referring to the ATGMs that took out so many of the Syrian tanks?" Major Tom: "Uhm, actually....*sigh*...." Sorry about that, just came to mind. I'm sure it's been done before, too. Couldn't resist... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 * You can always build a bigger mine. * Recce isn't done by vehicles, recce is done by men carried by vehicles. * The Jackal isn't meant to shoot it out, it's meant to see and get out. * If you've got to cover the wide open spaces of Afghanistan the worst thing you can get is a stopped vehicle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 With regard to the WMIK or M-WMIK the general opinion is that manoeuvrability and reach have their own advantages versus shedloads of protection and limited manoeuvrability. WMIK and M-WMIK are well-regarded by those who use them despite them not being heavily armoured - for evidence of this read 3 Commando or Blood Clot - these books tell the story of the Marines on Herrick 5 and the Paras on Herrick 4. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSY Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 * The Jackal isn't meant to shoot it out, it's meant to see and get out. * If you've got to cover the wide open spaces of Afghanistan the worst thing you can get is a stopped vehicle. That's great and makes sense, but in the Documentary Video linked by Adam they stop in the wide open when they know enemies are present, and decide to shoot it out with Taliban who are taking shots at them from behind cover (see video at 35:20 and again at 38:40 for example). Does this mean that the Pathfinders are not following their own doctrine, or is something else going on that we're not understanding. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spindry69 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Very interesting video, the Brits do make good docos. Maybe they were counting on their superior firepower and accuracy. The sound of that RPG flying past really was an "Oh crap" moment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondbrooks Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 That's great and makes sense, but in the Documentary Video linked by Adam they stop in the wide open when they know enemies are present, and decide to shoot it out with Taliban who are taking shots at them from behind cover (see video at 35:20 and again at 38:40 for example). Does this mean that the Pathfinders are not following their own doctrine, or is something else going on that we're not understanding. Well soldiers shouldn't cluster either. But they do. I've seen documentary of Royal Marines doing it and enemy wasn't longer than 100-150 meters away fortified in buildings. They even got RPG-7 or other loud projectile flying over them but that didnt' have effect (it seemed like they didnt' even register whole thing). Grenadier walking relaxed to spot, preparing his shot while stading clearly visible, taking shot and calmly walking away. Took about 10 seconds. Looks like absurd thing when enemy is so close and can open fire anytime at them from buildings, but i guess they are enough experienced to tell the truth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 * The Jackal isn't meant to shoot it out, it's meant to see and get out. Is it successful in this role in the beta (supposing it is in already)? Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I'll have a look at the vid when I get home. Is it successful in this role in the beta (supposing it is in already)? Best regards, Thomm I can neither confirm nor deny that this kick-arse beautifully modelled vehicle is currently in the testing process. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 A year ago I started a thread talking about the Jackal: The British need no protection! http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=76170&highlight=The+british+need I think they can be very effective. And the Jackal was meant to be a replacement for the WMIK Land Rover. So apparently the British were happy with this sort of vehicle but needed it to be more robust and faster. As for the fact that they are engaging enemies I think it´s probably because they thought it was only a small group of enemies with small arms so it was worth suppressing. - 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Something like this alternatively, comes to my mind: http://www.army-technology.com/proje...es/fennek1.jpg There is a high chance that the Fennek will be in the NATO module. If so the in the future we will be able to compare those two vehicles in the game! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I've heard comments from armour types that a weapon can be considered to equal a substantial amount of armour. If that's the film I think it is then the bloke gets shot through a gap in the armour panels while his GMG is jammed and he's trying to clear it. The commentary at the time does mention that such close quarters are far from ideal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I read a really good account a while back of a British engineering recce group in WMIK's who advanced past some American armour who had stalled after losing a few Bradleys. Although it was at night, they drove through 6 ambushes, each one worse than the last due to communication between the ambushing troops. After a while it was clear that they were not going to get to their destination and they were being hunted down by some Iraqi technicals so they thought about it and.. Drove right back through the 6 ambushes! Some medals were won after that but it proves that speed and firepower can keep you alive - some of the enemy were less than 100m away! I think the book was called 'In foreign fields', It is a collection of personal stories from British medal winners in Iraq and Afghanistan - a really good read. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Good documentary - cheers Adam. That's great and makes sense, but in the Documentary Video linked by Adam they stop in the wide open when they know enemies are present, and decide to shoot it out with Taliban who are taking shots at them from behind cover (see video at 35:20 and again at 38:40 for example). Does this mean that the Pathfinders are not following their own doctrine, or is something else going on that we're not understanding. Yep. An armoured HMMWV would have been better in the shootout - but how many would have got there? How many missions would need to be abandoned? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I said it before, I'll say it again - the Jackal looks soooo much like a wheeled Universal Carrier! That absurd little WWII vehicle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I said it before, I'll say it again - the Jackal looks soooo much like a wheeled Universal Carrier! That absurd little WWII vehicle. I grew to love them. When I first started playing CM:AK I'd curse them but when I realised how flaming useful they were I really liked them. Especially with a 6pdr attached. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Yeah I liked them as well...seemed like ants on the battlefield and fled from anything they saw. On the other hand, they could tow heavy stuff pretty fast and were hard to hit since they were about the size of a modern day Mini Cooper. You can buy them as a model kit where they are described as 'Forced Recon' on the box . Now there's a pun. You'd almost have to force anyone to go out on the battlefield in that tin can... Isn't she cute? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Here's another one since I'm in the swing (credits to Hohum at WikiMedia): Probably one of the weirdest things I think I've ever seen...what the heck does it do? Anyone? The description says it's a prototype, but that's all... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 The box-like main section elevates to allow the armoured top to peek over walls. IIRC it has mounted flamethrowers/machine guns to then engage whatever is on the other side. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.