A Snatch in Afghanistan has been attacked with a rocket-propelled grenade

formatting link
Had to read that one twice.

So when were Army Defenders dubbed "Snatch Land Rovers" and anyone know why? Or is this just a passing buzzword that the journo has excessively latched onto?

I've seen vehicles that are blast-proof, based on large haulage trucks with V-shaped bodies to disperse the blast, and no real protection against RPGs to which they offer a much larger target.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings
Loading thread data ...

|| So when were Army Defenders dubbed "Snatch Land Rovers"?

Today, as far as I can see. All over the World At One this lunchtime, but never heard it before that.

|| Or is this just a passing buzzword that the journo has || excessively latched onto?

Looks likely.

Reply to
Richard Brookman

Lada Riva, theyre cheap and parts in Gan probably easy to get hold of. Lets not take any notice of the users they dont count !!!

Reply to
Hirsty's

Superb vehicle! My first car (estate version!) and bloody bomb proof believe me!! I tried my hardest to make the thing explode, but it just kept going and going despite having an eager 18 year old at the wheel regularly revving the bollocks off the engine getting 80 in 3rd from a 1.5! Rear wheel drive - what a laugh I used to have in that with 4 mates in the car and a wet road - anyone who says you can't get a Lada to powerslide round a roundabout is not trying hard enough!!

Matt

Reply to
Matthew Maddock

The yanks get the humvee, which also has the same problem, just not designed to withstand explosions. I've got no idea what makes someone join the army (I'm crap at taking orders, not to mention fond of living) but I don't see how any government could send troops in lightly, it's a huge thing to ask of anyone. If anyone ever thinks they've got a stressful job, being a soldier has to ace them all.

Sending tanks in might make it worse, that seems to be what's being said, but who's saying it and what they are saying it for is a question that's hard to answer; is it an attempt to "explain away" the decision, or is it genuinely inappropriate to send in large armoured vehicles.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

How would you feel towards an "occupying force", even if you supported their presence, if they routinely drove around town in a battle tank?

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

I get sick of them reporting stuff about people dying in wars on the news. I heard them saying earlier on TV that '8 british soldiers have died in landrovers in iraq so far'

Its a war!, theyre in the army!.. dying in the line of duty is surely one of the associated risks of being a soldier!

why do they always report when soldiers die in wars like its a surprise or its wrong? its obviously not very nice, but its not unheard of!

Reply to
Tom Woods

Agreed, however as they are the best trained in the world perhaps untying their hands and allowing sensible military descisions would help. B.........Ks to the polltitions ? They fight for the next vote and abandon the PBI at the first hint of trouble

Reply to
Hirsty's

ISTR tanks being extremely vulnerable in towns too, easy to pop out of a house behind the tank and plant an explosive charge, much more accurate than trying to hit it with an RPG.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

It's not that kind of war, the casualties on our side are relatively rare so more deaths is an event, especially as so much of the country doesn't agree with the invasion in the first place. Would you prefer not to hear anything at all?

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

Its still a war though!. Even if its not a 'proper' war its still a situation involving lots of armed people with conflicting viewpoints - its not hard to see where that could end up.

You choose to be a soldier you run the risk of getting killed, part of the job description isnt it?. I dont want to face the risk of getting shot at work so i didnt choose to be a soldier!

I think the main thing that annoyed me was that they were saying 'those soldiers got shot and died because their landrovers wernt bulletproof', wheras i'd have though that 'these soldiers got shot and died because they were in a war' would have been more appropriate.

Reply to
Tom Woods

Dave Liquorice uttered summat worrerz funny about:

Yep, Part of me think if the Bro's on the street corner began to dis me with there RPG I'd not want to be there even in a tank.

There is a fine balance to be met for the "World Police"... one minute wandering around in Soft hats to look less like a bunch of blood thirsty war lords then Trundling around in an APC. Either looks pretty dammed intimidating.

Sadly alot will boil down to cost. I understand Morph when built in 1978 I think it was (In his Ambi incarnation - not his baby days as a GS) over £80,000 was spent on him as a softskined vehicle. How much would an Armoured vehicle cost in todays money, and how much for an armoured vehicle capible of withstanding RPG, Landmine?

I'd suggest a change in Tactics personally accepting money is an issue as is keeping Personnel alive. Aerial insertion would be my favoured option but even choppers as has so often been seen are vulnerable. There comes a time sadly when you have to face facts that there will be casualties.

The sooner we can run cars on water the better, we can all get back to loving.... unless you live in an area where of course there is a hosepipe ban.

Lee D

Reply to
Lee_D

Equally silly reporting traffic accidents, don't want to die in a crash, don't drive!

You're entitled to an opinion, even if you decide to misuse it ;-)

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

It depends what you want to do. The Army has certainly been looking at a larger vehicle, more in the class of the 101, which would have light armour. The wheels of procurement grind slow, and the odd little bits I recall suggest that the specification had no input from Iraq, but was meant for the sort of large-scale warfighting that was associated with the invasion, where protection from shell-splinters rather than RPGs was more significant.

A modern 101--diesel engine, coil springs--might not be a bad vehicle, but the cost to the manufacturers of submitting a design these days is so high that Land Rover was squeezed out of the market. The Wolf isn't really a new vehicle.

When the Defender line is replaced, Land Rover are going to be starting from scratch on military sales, and, even with Ford money, it's going to be hard.

Reply to
David G. Bell

Would that be the Iveco LMV, known in British variant as the Panther? It's armoured and is designed to withstand a six kilo landmine underneath but certainly isn't an armoured car. It looks bigger than a Defender but isn't a forward control.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

It's already be widely said that Ford are not interested in the military market and have no intention of competing for military contracts for any new vehicles. That's very believable bearing in mind LR's move away from "off-road first" designs. Sadly.

Now, with new version of the JCB Fastrack whizzing round here, looking very much more Unimog-like, I can't help wondering if JCB could resurrect the 80's plan to take over Defender, presumambly under a new name, when the current model dies and leave LR to play with their urban 4x4's?

Richard

Reply to
beamendsltd

No it isn't, it's a conflict. Don't confuse a conflict with a war.

In which case I'm currently at war with the Planning Department of Sheffield City Council. (Not armed, yet, though...)

No. TBH I don't know anyone in the forces who signed up in order to kill anyone. The JD is primarily about ensuring peace and security - not killing thousands of innocent people on some misguided lie of a political agenda.

Reply to
Mother

The US military actually used to tell their recruits that the HumVee was armoured - they soon learned the truth!

The use of a main battle tank (like Challenger or the Abrahms, for example) is pretty much unrealistic. They are designed for open, rolling country (like Europe or the deserts of the Gulf) warfare and do not perform well in either mountainous regions or urban areas.

Reply to
SteveG

On or around Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:16:54 GMT, SteveG enlightened us thusly:

AIUI the SAS go around in a stripped-down roofless vehicle for maximum visibility and angles of fire...

Reply to
Austin Shackles

On or around Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:43:47 +0100, Tom Woods enlightened us thusly:

"If you can't take the heat..."

but seriously, you join the army knowing full well that you may in the line of duty get fired at and killed. Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't belong there in the first place.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.