The British Jackal

[stoex]

Neat . Thanks flamingknives.

Doesn't seem like a very viable thing to do on the whole, though. Very Science-Fiction-ish somehow. Did this actually make it beyond the prototype stage or is it a unique piece?

But then they had a lot of weird ideas and prototypes for armoured vehicles in WWII, many of which were, well, kind of stillborns.

[flamingknives]

I'm pretty sure that it's just a prototype

[BlackMoria]

From the Tank Museum site (www.tankmuseum.org Search on Praying Mantis

An experimental machine-gun carrier

Praying Mantis was designed by Mr E J Tapp of County Commercial Cars and the original patent dates from 1937. Two prototypes were built of which this is the second. The idea was to create a low profile weapon carrier which could take advantage of natural cover but raise itself up, as necessary, to shoot over walls or other obstacles.

Praying Mantis was based upon the engine and tracks of a Universal Carrier but the crew were expected to lie, face down, inside the armoured body which was elevated by hydraulic controls. The vehicle could be driven with the box at any angle although the approved position was with the box raised slightly. The gunner lay to the left of the driver and operated the twin Bren guns in the rotating 'helmet' above his head. This box also contained a small grapnel.

In practice it was extremely difficult to operate. The driving controls were not at all positive and the whole thing bounced so much it could make the crew seasick. The project was abandoned in 1944 and is now regarded as something of a joke. Even so Tapp's idea of a weapon system that could elevate in this way is now commonly employed in guided weapon vehicles.

Maximum elevation 11.5ft (3.48m). Vehicle could be manoeuvred into a concealed position. The control chamber raised and the MGs fired without disclosing its position. Only experimental vehicles were produced.

[stoex]

Thanks BlackMoria, I missed the link to the Tank Museum on the Wiki page. Just noticed now. Time for bed ...

[HetzerII]

Good documentary - cheers Adam.

Hey, thats unfair..... it was my discovery

I dont think you can compare this to the universal carrier since the universal carrier at least offers protection for driver, gunner and the rest off the crew. It has armored sides and if you stay low you should be save from small arms fire. In the vehicle were talking about youre simply prone to enemy small arms and even against splinters from the falling mortars. Imho if this is "just" a recce-vehicle i would stay completely out of the way of any arms and not try to slug it out.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[HetzerII]

Hey.. you stood up with the wrong leg today?

Just because it fits also to the growler:

here.

[flamingknives]

The Jackal is armoured.

[Sergei]

The Jackal is armoured.

In the same way that a man in his undies but wearing a kevlar helmet on his head is armoured.

[flamingknives]

More in the way that a man in full body armour but no helmet is armoured. Certainly as well protected as a Universal Carrier.

[Lanzfeld]

I wonder why the American ammo wouldnt fire?

[Bobario]

Because Yank ammo is ****. Brit ammo from Radway Green is great. Yank ammo misfires a lot of the time.

[flamingknives]

Welcome to the land of unsupported sweeping statements.

There was a batch of dodgy .50cal ammo a year or two back. I forget the source, but I think it was a tolerance issue with the projectiles or the case and they didn't quite fit.

[Bobario]

I`ve just watched a documentary about the Royal Marines. They engaged the Taliban with .50 cal and Mk 19`s and they cursed the yank ammo all the time.

[flamingknives]

The Royal Marines don't use Mk19s. They use Heckler and Koch GMGs, which are similar but different weapons.

[-Eddie-]

Since when did the RMC get Mk19's?

And to those wondering why the Pathfinders engaged with the Taleban, well they said in the video. It's the British doing recce (reconnaissance). The enemy fires at them when they see them. The Pathfinders get a general idea of numbers, weaponry and tactics. These are things that Special Forces may not be suited for (may have other jobs on, not enough men/equipment, not deployed in Helmand etc).

While UAVs, fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft are nice, they won't really provoke a response. A fast mover may get a SAM lock on, which gives aircraft vital information but not much help for ground troops, Apaches will most likely get either no response or no useful imagery or the enemy will open up with all they have to down one of the kafir's 'Mosquitoes'. UAVs are simply not much use in determining strength, tactics and firepower as the enemy won't mobilise if there's nothing to attack.

[Combatintman]

The Royal Marines didn't get MK19s - the grenade launcher is called the GMG (Grenade Machine Gun) and as Flamingknives said - its made by Heckler Koch.

[-Eddie-]

I know, was typing it out while FK replied:p

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Other Means]

Wow. "But an Osprey can carry it. " :cool:

Looks like a high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle.

...oh, wait.

[simpson22]

Guys i believe the majority of you are wrong in that you say the soldiers would rather be more mobile and theyre easier to deploy and all that rubbish because the majority of people would rather go out in their heavily armoured Warriors as they are definitely fast and mobile enough to fit into that kind of role.

THE REASON is that if your an innocent civilian living in a small village and you have big massive tracked vehicles driving round all day then its going to pee off the farmers and some silly people in the MOD think its better our soldiers die than they pee off the farmers who might join the taliban.

And the reason warriors pee off the farmers and jeeps dont is because first of all warriors are a lot bigger and scarier and were supposed to be on a "peacekeeping mission". Secondly theyre just so big wherever they go they tear up the fields and destroy the roads and farmers dont like their driveway being smashed up. Also they would rather have a lightly armed jackal with a small machine gun shooting the taliban and hitting their houses a bit rather than a massive warrior using its guns and tearing up the whole town and causing a lot of collateral damage.

So thats why we use Jackals rather than armoured vehicles in general, its part of the win hearts and minds policy and it means heavier casualties for us.

[Other Means]

Guys i believe the majority of you are wrong in that you say the soldiers would rather be more mobile and theyre easier to deploy and all that rubbish because the majority of people would rather go out in their heavily armoured Warriors as they are definitely fast and mobile enough to fit into that kind of role.

THE REASON is that if your an innocent civilian living in a small village and you have big massive tracked vehicles driving round all day then its going to pee off the farmers and some silly people in the MOD think its better our soldiers die than they pee off the farmers who might join the taliban.

And the reason warriors pee off the farmers and jeeps dont is because first of all warriors are a lot bigger and scarier and were supposed to be on a "peacekeeping mission". Secondly theyre just so big wherever they go they tear up the fields and destroy the roads and farmers dont like their driveway being smashed up. Also they would rather have a lightly armed jackal with a small machine gun shooting the taliban and hitting their houses a bit rather than a massive warrior using its guns and tearing up the whole town and causing a lot of collateral damage.

So thats why we use Jackals rather than armoured vehicles in general, its part of the win hearts and minds policy and it means heavier casualties for us.

I don't believe that for a second. The logistical tail of a tracked vehicle is huge compared to a wheeled one and for this specific mission a wheeled vehicle is faster, longer ranged and easier maintained. These things are prioritised over armour.

[Dietrich]

US SOF forces in Afghanistan, according to what I've read, prefer unarmored Humvees because they are faster, more maneuverable, and can carry more than their armored counterparts. Heck, they even use Toyota Hilux pickups (with M240s on pintle mounts, among other things) which are not much different from the 'technicals' employed by the insurgents they're fighting.

Another thing to consider is that there are mechanized troops as well as armored troops. Pretty much the same role-wise (especially when they're recon troops), but they go about it in different ways. So there's not one overriding reason for using wheeled/unarmored vehicles over tracked/armored ones.

The point simpson22 makes about armored tracked vehicles being more intimidating and destructive than unarmored wheeled vehicles is true*, there's more to it than that.

Besides, IEDs can kill even the crews of MBTs, so it's as simple as "the more armor, the better."

Regarding the uproar about Humvees being suboptimally armored and thus more vulnerable to IEDs, I've wondered (and I know my musing is that of a relatively ignorant fanboi) that if troops had their boots on the ground more instead of zooming around in vehicles all the time, they might have more of a chance to spot IEDs before driving to within lethal range of them. Of course, moving dismounted means being exposed to small-arms fire, and the relatively few troops have to travel such distances on patrol that not using their vehicles most of the time is just plain impractical.

* For similar reasons, some US commanders in Iraq encouraged their troops to refrain from wearing sunglasses while out on patrol, since such made them look more intimdating to the locals. After all, how often do you see a Middle Easterner wearing shades? :cool:

[Yardstick]

Regarding the uproar about Humvees being suboptimally armored and thus more vulnerable to IEDs, I've wondered (and I know my musing is that of a relatively ignorant fanboi) that if troops had their boots on the ground more instead of zooming around in vehicles all the time, they might have more of a chance to spot IEDs before driving to within lethal range of them. Of course, moving dismounted means being exposed to small-arms fire, and the relatively few troops have to travel such distances on patrol that not using their vehicles most of the time is just plain impractical.

I don't agree with this statement. I have stood on top of an EFP, I nor a single member of my squad saw the EFP. I think that if dismounts spot an IED, they will either be right on top of it, or have gotten extremely lucky. This may not always be the case, but IMO, more often than not, it is. That being said, dismounted and mounted operations both have their advantages, it should not be a black and white argument about "we shouldn't do this because it is intimidating/destroys local infrastructure" or "we should do this because it will put us into direct contact with local nationals and allow them to easily engage us with their concerns/issues". We more or less need to stay in the gray area of doing combined mounted/dismounted patrols. That gives us the flexibility to interact with the locals (SWEAT-T) and easily transition into door kicking and face shooting. Basically, we mix it up and try to avoid patterns. This all made sense in my head, I hope it came out the right way. Sorry for steering off-topic.

[Battlefront.com]

We've had some really indepth discussions here about the pros/cons of wheeled vs. tracked armor before. The fact is that wheeled armor consumes a lot less resources than tracked armor. When you're in some place with practically no infrastructure, no ports, and neighboring countries that like to torch your marshaling yards... logistics becomes a big part of the equation. Not to mention the cost of running a 10 year occupation one way vs. another way.

As for casualties, there's always two sides to any argument and this isn't an exception. One side argues that "winning hearts and minds" is the only way to successfully hold onto a country that has been occupied. Therefore, if you don't win the hearts and minds you might as well pack it up and leave before any more expenses (lives, good will, money, etc.) are incurred. In other words, short term the forces might take it on the chin if they are more constrained, but long term they will suffer fewer casualties AND have a higher chance of making the whole effort worth it.

The worst possible thing to do is be in someone else's country and behave like a drunken bull with three legs and an attitude problem in a china shop. Even if you get out and leave behind a moderately stable government, it is unlikely that the people are going to remember the occupation fondly. That has a bad habit of causing the stable government to become unstable (guilt by association) and the situation goes to crap.

Likewise, "under" occupying a country has about the same net effect. If your forces can't get to where the enemy is, then chances are you aren't winning many hearts and minds because you aren't there AND now you have to dislodge the enemy with something that is likely to piss off the locals. And if you can't garrison the place to hold it, chances are you'll have to come back and do it again. So lives and resources are spent doing the same thing again and again without the situation getting any better. Eventually the domestic forces will win out. That's what the historical record has to say about that.

In the end... let's face it... occupying a country that doesn't want to be occupied sucks no matter what is done But it does seem that the best option is the one that pisses off the locals the least. And if the cost of that is "too high" for an occupying nation, then I suggest that nation shouldn't invade other countries.

Note I'm not singling out any particular country, Western or otherwise. I'm just stating what appears to be rathe obvious historical lessons and a pragmatic approach to it.

Steve