The British Jackal

[Noltyboy]

The ability To be armoured is is already a capability in both the BA and USMC arsenal. The growler, the Jackel and The Snatch Landy are being used and asked for by the SOLDIERS themselves. (That news report on the growler was oppinionated, uninformed claptrap)

In the race between armour and penetration, penetration always wins. They will find ways to get through it and kill you. Late last year a warrior was blown up in Afghanistan and a Ghurka Rifleman killed.

There very many places in afghanistan that big and heavy armoures vehicles (both weeled and tracked) cannot go. The ability to go that way instead of this way can be the difference between the taliban ambushing you and you ambushing the taliban.

Oh and on the "missfiring 50.cal ammo" situation was not the americans fault. The ammunition was bought from a pakistani (or indian) company that before hand made russian 12.5mm rounds. A mix up meant that the company put the same propelant used in the 12.5 rounds and it did not leave enough gas left to cycle the M2a2's bolt back. This ammo was bought by british MOD and the whole batch had to be junked and emergancy supplies bought from the canadians. I enjoy yank bashing as much as the next limey but only if they deserve it.

Maybe it would not have happened if the British government didnt keep the funding for the armed forces at peacetime levels and actualy kept our ammunition production capabilities intact.... :mad:

[flamingknives]

Yes, the .50 ammo wasn't US - ISTR that they got replacement ammo from either the Dutch, the Canadians or the US forces.

The footage with the jamming GMG was explicitly blamed on US rounds.

[simpson22]

Sorry but im sure youl find the warrior is extremely manoeverable AND fast in fact tracked vehicles can cross rough terrain easier than wheels!!! They may consume more fuel but i assure you the main reason behind it is because our governments are trying to keep the locals happy!!! They believe armoured vehicles look too intimidating and forceful, plus we need to show we are confident to go out in the open without our tanks. This is the reason!!!

[Elmar Bijlsma]

You are very much mistaken about the advantages of tracked vehicles. In close terrain such as villages, narrow roads or vegetation they can be very much at a disadvantage. Nor are they necessarily faster. The rocky terrain of Afghanistan is VERY bad for tracks. Barrel trough that on a warrior and you'll be spending your time fixing the tracks. Wear and tear is a big, big issue. A tracked APC you use today is one that is probabbly sitting in the repairshop tomorrow. That will cut in to a units ability to operate.

It's not like it's only the UK that fields wheeled vehicles. Just about everyone uses them widely, including the Dutch.

[Combatintman]

Simpson22 - If we boil down to ground truth v game terms at the end of the day I'm sure the reason Jackal has been announced is because Jackal is being used by the British Forces although I accept that not all British kit has been listed.

In terms of the arguments for and against - like it or not there are plenty of people out there (and I'm talking bayonets rather than budgeteers) who prefer mobility versus protection. On top of that there are places that WMIK/M-WMIK can go that Warrior/Viking/Mastiff cannot. Looking at the HERRICK (Afghanistan) force, all of these vehicles are in the ORBAT - why - because they have their own unique strengths and weaknesses and by having all of them it gives the commander the freedom to choose the best tool for the job.

As to the argument about tracks upsetting people - relevant - in certain circumstances yes ... like if you have pavements to clip and road surfaces to trash. Does the average Afghan get bent out of shape about a Warrior turning up vice a Jackal - they might do but I would suggest that they get less bent out of shape than populations that have some form of infrastructure. I do however accept your political point which to my mind is treasury rather than needs driven in that some clown decided that tracked vehicles were 'too aggressive' when they actually meant 'too expensive'. At the end of the day if the British Army has to go somewhere it usually means there's free beer or the situation has gone pear-shaped. When things go pear-shaped the needs of the average civvy boil down to security - convince them that you can do that and they'll accept you.

[hcrof]

Simpson22 - I hope we don't disagree on ther fact that a Jackal needs far less maintainence than a Warrior. If you watch the documentry, the jackals go well off the beaten path in order to establish a presence in 'untouched' villages and to avoid IED's. Two of them break down on the mission and have to be towed back to base.

Imagine that you are the platoon commander - Because the terrain is so rough, Jackals cannot complete the mission properly. What would make Warriors fare even better? If a Warrior broke down there would have to be a huge mission to recover it including at least a company of infantry with air and engineering support! That is not worth the effort considering that the patrol was not expected to get engaged decisively anyway.

In the end consider this. According to the book and TV series 'generation kill', the American spearhed into Iraq was... Humvees, lightly armoured Humvees.

The worlds richest and greatest army still fielded the same kind of vehicle in that mission.

Much of what you read in the news about the military is horribly uninformed and that just makes me very skeptical when they report about things that I don't know about. Honestly, I think that if the officers on the ground want more Warriors they would get them. Its just that a counter insurgency operation is not about force but more about civilian support.