How tough are Land Rovers?

If you are a buyer for the US Defence dept why not buy half a dozen of each and do destructive testing to find out. Let us now when you find out.

The Land Rover, Unimog and Hummer are completely different vehicles intended for different markets. Comparison on a 'which is best' basis seems pointless.

M.

Reply to
McBad
Loading thread data ...

No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are. Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other military vehicles like the Unimog.

Would the LR be able to be a cheaper replacement for normal military usage by the US military?

Reply to
R. David Steele

Possibly for the same reason that no one can tell you how long a piece of string is...

Were you to meet an incoming RPG, hit a mine or come under sustained fire from automatic weapons then all 3 you mention would soon be rendered inoperable (as would the occupants). They are all soft skinned vehicles so, in military terms, aren't really that tough. I'd rather be sat in a main battle tank or even a Warrior APC than any of the above in those situations.

The Hummer comes from a country where fuel is cheap and plentiful and where most of the fighting is expected to be in open country or desert ( in someone elses country preferably). It's range is limited by it's thirst for fuel, it's turning circle makes some oil tankers look nimble and you really don't want to try and feed it through the narrow streets of an urban environment. The plus side is that it can follow along in tank tracks as it's about the same width although the benefits of this aren't clear given that, on soft ground, if you drop into a tank track you are pretty much stuck in that track until the ground gets much firmer or you catch up with the tank (at which point you have to sit behind the tank and wait).

The Land Rover comes from a country that has never had it's own supply of fuel and where most of the fighting was expected to take place in urban environments and heavily wooded areas. (Mostly in the Rhine valley as it happens). As a result it is fast (in relative terms), manouverable and narrow enough to be able to navigate through very tight terrain. It also has a strong agricultural heritage where the ability to drive through a gateway is seen as a bonus.

The Unimog is a lorry, more akin to a Bedford truck than a Land Rover. It's used more for supplies and troop transport than as a front line vehicle AFAIK.

As for how tough a Land Rover is in general terms... my LR Defender spent the first 10 years of it's life being abused and thrashed by squaddies. Other than some bodywork damage it survived the encounter well. Since that time it spent 2 years shifting building rubble (more dents and scrapes), had a year off and is now competing in some of the toughest off road competitions in the UK and next year will be competing in one of the toughest off road competitions in the world.

No, I can't see USA politicians going along with that idea, any more than they would have considered the Euro Fighter as part of it's X-Plane programme. It's one thing choosing between the best that the USA can build but it would be political suicide to include products from the enemy (anyone not in the USA).

US Special forces have used Land Rovers in the current Gulf war but had to buy civilian versions, alledgedly because they weren't allowed to buy military ones (politics again).

cheers

Dave W.

Reply to
Dave White

|> Would the LR be able to be a cheaper replacement for normal |> military usage by the US military? |>

|>

| |If you are a buyer for the US Defence dept why not buy half a dozen of each |and do destructive testing to find out. Let us now when you find out. | |The Land Rover, Unimog and Hummer are completely different vehicles intended |for different markets. Comparison on a 'which is best' basis seems |pointless.

The war on terrorism is creating a need for light, low cost (relative speaking) vehicles. The LR might fill that need, even if it needs armor. The Hummer or the Unimog could make a good armored car but are just too big for normal use and too expensive.

Likewise the AH-6J Little Bird helicopter (MD-500) makes a good light attack helo that is a 10th the cost of the Apache.

Reply to
R. David Steele

No, the US military would require that they be reverse engineered and redesigned then built in a US plant by US union works for a total cost for $150,000 each.

Reply to
Chris Phillipo

|> No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are. |> Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other |> military vehicles like the Unimog. | |Possibly for the same reason that no one can tell you how long a piece |of string is... | |Were you to meet an incoming RPG, hit a mine or come under sustained |fire from automatic weapons then all 3 you mention would soon be |rendered inoperable (as would the occupants). They are all soft skinned |vehicles so, in military terms, aren't really that tough. I'd rather be |sat in a main battle tank or even a Warrior APC than any of the above in |those situations. | |The Hummer comes from a country where fuel is cheap and plentiful and |where most of the fighting is expected to be in open country or desert ( |in someone elses country preferably). It's range is limited by it's |thirst for fuel, it's turning circle makes some oil tankers look nimble |and you really don't want to try and feed it through the narrow streets |of an urban environment. The plus side is that it can follow along in |tank tracks as it's about the same width although the benefits of this |aren't clear given that, on soft ground, if you drop into a tank track |you are pretty much stuck in that track until the ground gets much |firmer or you catch up with the tank (at which point you have to sit |behind the tank and wait). | |The Land Rover comes from a country that has never had it's own supply |of fuel and where most of the fighting was expected to take place in |urban environments and heavily wooded areas. (Mostly in the Rhine valley |as it happens). As a result it is fast (in relative terms), manouverable |and narrow enough to be able to navigate through very tight terrain. It |also has a strong agricultural heritage where the ability to drive |through a gateway is seen as a bonus. | |The Unimog is a lorry, more akin to a Bedford truck than a Land Rover. |It's used more for supplies and troop transport than as a front line |vehicle AFAIK. | |As for how tough a Land Rover is in general terms... my LR Defender |spent the first 10 years of it's life being abused and thrashed by |squaddies. Other than some bodywork damage it survived the encounter |well. Since that time it spent 2 years shifting building rubble (more |dents and scrapes), had a year off and is now competing in some of the |toughest off road competitions in the UK and next year will be competing |in one of the toughest off road competitions in the world.

In general terms, is what I was after. How well do they take to abuse by soldiers? We had to go to the Hummer as the troops trashed the commercial trucks by Chevy. Not tough enough.

|> Would the LR be able to be a cheaper replacement for normal |> military usage by the US military? | |No, I can't see USA politicians going along with that idea, any more |than they would have considered the Euro Fighter as part of it's X-Plane |programme. It's one thing choosing between the best that the USA can |build but it would be political suicide to include products from the |enemy (anyone not in the USA). | |US Special forces have used Land Rovers in the current Gulf war but had |to buy civilian versions, alledgedly because they weren't allowed to buy |military ones (politics again).

Land Rover is owned by Ford. That is enough. We are purchasing machine guns made by FN, made in US factories. Now it looks like the US will replace the M16 rifle and M4 carbine with a new battle rifle, the M8, made by HK.

Here is some of the story:

Word is that this is accepted as the M8 battle rifle and will be put into production next year, plant is being built now. As to how fast the rifle is deployed to units is still up in the air. Also the caliber is in question. Is it going to be the 5.56x45mm or the 6.8x43mm Rem SPC?

Wave of the Future: The XM-8 Battle Rifle

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question: Can you build an all-purpose battle rifle that can change colors, barrels, and weapons packages on the fly, comes equipped with a grenade launcher and shotgun that can take out Sigourney Weaver's aliens, and jams far less frequently than the M-16? Answer: The new XM-8 rifle by Heckler and Koch.

XM-8 Rifle: The Skinny

Name: XM-8 Rifle (Heckler & Koch)

Type of Equipment: Battle rifle

Killer Features: Flexible, heavy-duty weapons platform accommodates rifle and grenade launcher Polymer "shell" can be replaced with shells of different colors, to blend in with environment

All weapon attachments, barrels, butts, and optics can be switched out by operator, without special tools or maintenance

Improved "pusher" gas piston cuts down on weapon jamming Armament: Base configuration fires Remington .223 (a.k.a. the 5.56mm NATO) bullets; 20 mm grenades

Attachments include XM320 40mm single shot grenade launcher, and LSS (lightweight stand-off shotgun) 12-gauge shotgun that fires

2.75" and 3" 12 gauge shells Related Links:

More Weapons Equipment Guide

For almost 40 years, the M-16 5.56mm combat rifle, in all its incarnations, has served as the United States military's primary battle rifle. To give you an idea of how long a time that is, the only other long gun with a similar tenure is the .58 caliber Brown Bess musket -- which entered service with the Continental Army in 1776.

The German weapons manufacturer Heckler & Koch believes it's high time for a change; specifically, it would like to see the United States retire the M-16 and replace it with a slick, new, high-speed battle rifle dubbed the XM-8. And boy, what a rifle it is ?

Army of One

The XM-8 weapon system -- for that's what it really is, a family of related weapons -- packs quite an arsenal in its portable shape (6.4 pounds, lighter than the current M-4 at 8.85 pounds). It takes its cue from the M-29 Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW), a $10,000 prototypical technology test bed from the late

1990s. The OICW was a combination of "kinetic energy" projector (a battle rifle that fired the Remington .223) and a semi-autonomous, air-bursting 20mm grenade launcher. The XM-8 is the "kinetic energy" portion of the OICW, plus a receiver to which all other components can be attached or removed.

Complementing the XM-8 are two attachable weapon systems, the XM320 40mm single shot grenade launcher and the LSS 12-gauge shotgun. The XM320 incorporates a swing out barrel design with integrated sight, and is capable of firing all currently manufactured 40mm grenades, while the LSS is capable of firing both lethal and non-lethal shotgun shells, as well as specially-designed breaching shells. Both weapons are mounted forward of the magazine, underneath the barrel, and can be installed by the operator in minutes without tools.

The XM-8 is a model of efficiency in use: its operation controls are ambidextrous, it has three firing modes (single round, three-round burst, and fully automatic), and can handle a variety of magazines, including a 30 round semi-opaque (to allow the shooter to see how many rounds are left in the magazine) hard plastic magazine, which can be rapidly reloaded in close combat situations, and a 100-round drum (for sustained fire), as well as

10-round weapon qualification magazines and M-16 style metal magazines.

Flexible on the Fly

Whether the user is a sniper or part of an attack team, the XM-8 can accommodate all uses. It uses four different interchangeable barrels (a 9" compact, a 12.5" assault, a 20" match grade sharpshooter, or a 20" heavy barrel for sustained high ROF applications), each of which can be swapped out at the unit level in less than 2 minutes. The weapon can also be equipped with a

5-position collapsible stock, a flat butt plate (for an extremely small weapon profile), an adjustable sniper stock, or a folding stock.

Attention has also been paid to look and feel with the XM-8. Forward handguards incorporate non-slip materials to improve weapon handling and retention. The XM-8's non-metallic components are manufactured from fiber reinforced plastic polymers which can be molded in numerous colors, and can be removed or replaced by the operator without specialized tools. In other words, whether you're in the jungle or on the sand, the weapon's "skin" can be changed to blend with its surroundings.

The XM-8 doesn't skimp on optics, either. Its optics/sight package is an "all-in-one" combination: an infrared laser target designator, IR target illuminator and 1x close combat red-dot sight. In addition to incorporating the three sights into one system, the sight is zeroed at the factory and can be removed and reinstalled by the operator without specialized tools, or the loss of zero. Contrast this with the M-16/M-4 series: While advances have been made in their combat optics to improve rifle accuracy, these advances have brought additional issues (increased weight, cost, the need to continuously re-zero the devices when removed).

XM-8 Variations

The XM8 is designed as a modular weapon; different barrels and other modules can be swapped quickly depending on operational requirements. The XM8 will also be lighter and more reliable than the existing M4 carbine and M16 rifles. If this rifle is approved, the Army could field 900,000.

XM-8 Baseline Carbine

? 12.5" barrel ? Common modular assemblies

XM8 Carbine with Add-On XM320 Grenade Launcher

? Side loading 40mm grenade launcher

Compact Carbine

? Short 9" barrel ? Butt cap receiver cover ? Personal defense applications

Sharpshooter Variant ? 20" barrel ? Advanced optical sight (all variants)

Automatic Rifle

? Heavy 20" barrel for sustained fire ? Integral folding bipod ? 100-round drum magazine

Content and graphics from Heckler & Koch USA Website.

How useful are the XM-8's interchangeable parts? Here's a quick look at some of the M-16's problems in this regard: A half dozen incarnations of the M-16/M-4 are currently in service, and none of them have parts that are 100% interchangeable with a different series weapon.

For the M-16, mounting optics requires the use of weapon specific (read: non-interchangeable) adapters.

The M-16A1 (still in widespread service with the National Guard and Reserves) was designed to fire the M198 5.56mm Ball cartridge, while the M16A2 and later rifles (used by Active Duty formations) was designed to fire the heavier M855 cartridge. While both rifles can chamber and fire both types of bullet, the M885 bullet weighs more, and is less accurate when fired from the M16A1.

On the other hand, the XM-8 has: One common component receiver, with the remaining parts (barrel, optics, stock, hand guards, auxiliary weapons) attached as needed.

Combining three optic units into one not only reduces weapon weight, but also simplifies equipment issue, maintenance and accountability.

One common bullet type (5.56mm cartridge) for all models. This is not to say that soldiers are going to enter battle toting a golf bag of rifle barrels and accessories, but rather, replacement parts can be replaced or exchanged at the unit level without worrying about system compatibility. At the end of the day, does any of this make the XM-8 more lethal than the M-16? No, as both fire the same 5.56mm cartridge ? but the XM-8 completely outclasses the M-16 is in reliability, ease of maintenance, and reduced logistical requirements.

Pushing Lead

Of course, all the fancy weapons and attachments on a rifle don't mean much if it jams on the operator. One of the M-16's major flaws is jamming, due to its gas operating system, where propellant gasses are used to cycle the rifle's bolt and fire bullets. In the M-16, these gasses are vented directly back to the rifle chamber itself. This means that every time the weapon is fired, propellant gasses, gunpowder residue, and other particles are deposited directly on the bolt face (this process is called "fouling"). Eventually, the bolt becomes too dirty to fully lock into place, rendering the weapon unreliable.

While no gas-operating weapon (including the XM-8) is immune to the effects of fouling, the XM-8's system presents a clear advantage over the M-16: The receiver utilizes a six-lug rotating bolt that fully supports the cartridge case and is driven by a "pusher" type gas piston. This piston is unaffected by barrel changes, and is even capable of operating if the weapon's barrel is full of water. Most importantly, it eliminates fouling of the bolt face, which dramatically improves the weapon's overall reliability in a sustained firing situation. In short, soldiers using the XM-8 in combat should have one less thing to worry about, and that one thing can mean the difference between life and death.

Goodbye to the Past

If you add up all the M-16's flaws -- its poorly designed gas operating system, its need for constant maintenance and cleaning, its lack of interchangeable parts - it becomes clear that the XM-8 is superior to the M-16/M-4 family in all respects. It is lighter, cheaper, more reliable, and easier to maintain than the current rifle. In short, it surpasses all of the M-16's strengths while eliminating all of its weaknesses, thus earning a spot on our Military Gear Hot List.

XM-8 Prototype Specifications

Caliber:

5.56 x 45mm NATO

Builder: Heckler & Koch

Weight:

6.4 lbs (prototype), 5.7 lbs objective

Overall Length:

33.3 inches (carbine stock extended)

Barrel Length: Assault: 12.5" Sharpshooter: 20.0" Compact: 9.0" Automatic Rifle: 20.0"

Rate of Fire: Cyclic - 750 rpm Sustained - 85 rpm up to 210 rounds

Rate of Twist:

1 in 7 inches

Barrel Life:

20,000 rounds mininum

Muzzle Velocity:

3005 feet/second (M855 Ball) with 20" barrel 2675 feet/second with 12.5" barrel 2365 feet/second with 9.0" barrel

Magazine Capacity:

10 or 30 rounds (magazines can be nested together); 100 round drum available

Stock:

5 position adjustable for length

Bayonet Lug: Yes (12.5 & 20" barrels)

Bipod Interface: Yes (20" only)

Sighting System: Fully integrated red dot with laser illuminator and pointer

formatting link
formatting link

Reply to
R. David Steele

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Much barely on-topic stuff snipped]

Private Simpson, you do _not_ take your rifle apart to pass the time when on guard duty!

As a practical point, a sight "zeroed" at the factory isn't going to match the individual shooter, though a sight being able to hold its settings is a good thing.

Reply to
David G. Bell

Button bashing in practice for another round of Daley Thompson's Decathlon, Chris Phillipo left Shakespeare to the monkeys by typing...

You'd only be able to buy a licence to use the vehicle. It'd be slowww Full of bugs Crash twice a day People would borrow it every night for deliveries Every so often it would head off blindly to pick up passengers without you. it would keep a record of everywhere you'd ever driven in it The back door would never close properly The front door-locks would be made of cheese Only the manufacturer would be able to fit parts (without you watching) (and would mysteriously make other parts break). It would stop every so often, for no reason. It would be built specifically to not match any standards already set, and its own new proprietary set would be defined as the new industry standard. It would work best with vehicles from the same manufacturer, on terrain approved by same, and would even prevent the occupants from seeing other manufacturer's vehicles at all It would have a front steamroller attachment for driving over everyone else's vehicles

A few years ago a vehicle was built to the above specs but it failed instantly on testing - nobody had thought to fit any cupholders

Reply to
weallhatebillgates

Twas Sun, 16 May 2004 23:58:37 GMT when R. David Steele put finger to keyboard producing:

Look around, who uses them and for what?

simple really.

Regards. Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.)

Reply to
Mr.Nice.

Actually we're a net exporter of petroleum and have been for some time.

formatting link

Reply to
David French

Don't you just hate it when facts start getting in the way of a good argument :-)

I think the argument is still valid though given that the basis of the Land Rover pre-dates our oil production.

cheers

Dave W.

Reply to
Dave White

I like that :-)

Reply to
Mother

Ask the US Rangers. They use Land Rover 110s

See

formatting link
Ron

Reply to
The Becketts

You shouldn't worry about that, most politicians don't bother about it in the slightest.

Reply to
David French

And neither do some (ex) newspaper editors!!!

Reply to
hugh

And of course every now and again you'd have to stop, get out and get back in again. After which it would mysteriously go faster for a while, before slowing down again.

Then again, it wouldn't come as a kit.

Reply to
Tim Hobbs

They are not 'tough' in the way an Unimog is tough. For instance, a Unimog can have a lime spreader mounted to the rear body and carry and spread four or five tons of lime over ploughed but uncultivated land. A Land Rover cannot do this. The old Bedford military wagons could do this. Compare apples with apples not oranges.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

|> No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are. |> Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other |> military vehicles like the Unimog. |>

| | |They are not 'tough' in the way an Unimog is tough. For instance, a |Unimog can have a lime spreader mounted to the rear body and carry and |spread four or five tons of lime over ploughed but uncultivated land. |A Land Rover cannot do this. The old Bedford military wagons could do |this. |Compare apples with apples not oranges.

American soldiers abuse their vehicles in ways that European soldiers do not. The Unimog and the Hummer, being used as a reference against what I would compare other vehicles. US trucks will not take the operator abuse that the Unimog or Hummer take. Can the LR take that level of abuse?

Also we have seen Army Rangers go "dune buggying" in Afghanistan. They like to pop the vehicle into the air over the top of low hills. Sort of like Baja. US troops are very rough on vehicles.

Reply to
R. David Steele

I've been reading a livejournal by a US soldier in Iraq. "I can't drive, I don't have a civilian licence, and they want me to drive the Hummer."

Wait until the enemy deploy AA artillery...

I've read articles in the magazines about British military training. We apparently train our drivers not to take wild risks. It's stupid breaking a vehicle you might need to stay alive. The off-road training generally is maybe pretty mild, compared to stuff some of us might do for fun. Maybe it's Ulster again -- the British Army has had to do a lot of potentially-combat driving in the middle of civilian traffic.

Reply to
David G. Bell

And on the troops of other nations fighting alongside them.

Reply to
Steve Firth

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.