SAS Land Rover, Jackal Bushmaster

[juddy]

July saw the death of Australian soldier Sean McCarthy killed in a six-wheel Long Range Patrol Vehicle (LRPV), based on the Land Rover Defender Series – not dissimilar to the WIMIK. McCarthy was the second Australian soldier to die in a LRPV. In February 2002, SAS Sgt Andrew Russell was riding in his LRPV when it hit an old Russian anti-tank mine.

Now, perversely, with 24 Australian Bushmasters being supplied to the British SAS - and the Dutch Army having ordered another 13, with another European Army (believed to be Spain) expressing interest in acquiring some - their Australian equivalents are buying 30 six-wheel versions of the Jackal, to be named the "Nary". It is said to be unarmoured, a move that has not met with universal approval. One ex-SAS officer complained, "Wherever you go in Afghanistan you are seen and people can blow you up. How can so little have changed in six years?"

[LR V8]

I'd take a guess and say that the LRPV and its replacement are designed to meet different mission profiles than the bushmaster.

Both types are excellent at what they do, but they are meant to be doing different things.

The job the SASR are tasked with is inherently dangerous - but they trade this off against mobility, concealment, firepower and training. Relatively speaking, the bushmaster is a bloody great beast that simply can't go where the LRPV goes and is a tad harder to conceal.

I wouldn't be doing their job for quids :eek:


RIP Sean, Andrew and David.

[PAT303]

The problem I see is that the LR's are air mobile but the newer vehicles aren't.If it can't fit in a helo it's no good.The ratio of killed is very much to the SAS's advantage. Pat

[DustyDisco]

bottom line in my opinion is this, if you are fighting a war against an enemy whos preferred method of engagement is the road side bomb, a soft skin vehicle is just not an option.End of story.

A mate of mine was killed a few months ago in afghanistan ( british SAS) along with several others, all killed by a road side bomb. they were in a soft skin vehicle. A quick google search will show you that Dozens of british soldiers have died the same way over the last few years.

The ONLY reason Australia has not lost more soldiers in the same fashion is because we are generally operating in less dangerous areas.

[PAT303]

The problem is if you get a stronger vehicle they will build a bigger bomb. Pat

[Blknight.aus]

I'd take a guess and say that the LRPV and its replacement are designed to meet different mission profiles than the bushmaster.

Both types are excellent at what they do, but they are meant to be doing different things.

The job the SASR are tasked with is inherently dangerous - but they trade this off against mobility, concealment, firepower and training. Relatively speaking, the bushmaster is a bloody great beast that simply can't go where the LRPV goes and is a tad harder to conceal.

I wouldn't be doing their job for quids :eek:


RIP Sean, Andrew and David.


Urmmm...

yes and no, there is significant overlap of the mission profile of both vehicles and using the simplified version the key words that seperate them are recon and transport. Both field the same weapons systems on board and are capable of transporting the same number of troops. (if you press the LRPV as a troop transporter)

The IMV is more capable cross country than the LRPV but is slower with a larger signature and is far more dependant on logistical support.

neither Vehicle is designed to get into a fire fight the rounds are only ment to go one way and are supposed to be the "throw lead at him so hes not shooting at me" suppression types of fire and not lets go take on the enemy in a frontal attack. The LRPV seeks protection from hide and flight and the IMV gets protection from its limited armor.

The killer of it is this. Both vehciles massively exceed their intended rolls capability. the LRPV has enough range, firepower and loadability to make it a decisively capable fast attack vehicle and the bushmaster has significantly better cross country capability than its ment to have and the armor exceeds expectations. The crux of this is that people stop using it for what its designed to be able to do and start using it for what it appears to be capable of.

It sort of falls into the catagory of getting your aspirations mixed up with your abilities. Thats a very good way of getting things broken and when the gear thats gets broken is the stuff your depending on to keep you alive thats bad....


Thats very very bad.

[BBC]

bottom line in my opinion is this, if you are fighting a war against an enemy whos preferred method of engagement is the road side bomb, a soft skin vehicle is just not an option.End of story.

A mate of mine was killed a few months ago in afghanistan ( british SAS) along with several others, all killed by a road side bomb. they were in a soft skin vehicle. A quick google search will show you that Dozens of british soldiers have died the same way over the last few years.

The ONLY reason Australia has not lost more soldiers in the same fashion is because we are generally operating in less dangerous areas.

I just love the comments from people about generalizing about what is, or is not, more or less dangerous. How is danger measured? Micro-seconds, kgs, deaths/capita? Something that cannot be compared is the respective capabilities, equipments, TTPs etc of each force and, in kind, their opponents. Very hard to make comparisons.

My point of view has been shaped somewhat by the fact I have spent 2.5yrs out of the last 3yrs working here in Afghanistan and, I have walked the ground in both of the AOs you are comparing.


I'd take a guess and say that the LRPV and its replacement are designed to meet different mission profiles than the bushmaster.

Both types are excellent at what they do, but they are meant to be doing different things.

Close to the mark. What is not being well appreciated here is the composition of what leaves the gates here at Tarin Kowt. There are two task groups here and, in the SOTG there are further divisions between how and what is deployed from both, the SAS and the Commandos. Different roles, different responses.

A patrol, depending on it's task can comprise up to a mix of motorcycles, 6x6 Gators, Toyota Hilux/Surf (yes, I have observed boys dressed in mufti with Dinki Di accents, coming back in through a gate in a couple of 'local' vehicles), LRPVs, and Bushmasters....they are probably yet to use camels and horses but, I would not put it past them, and why not?

[BBC]

July saw the death of Australian soldier Sean McCarthy killed in a six-wheel Long Range Patrol Vehicle (LRPV), based on the Land Rover Defender Series – not dissimilar to the WIMIK.

Small detail...It was a 4x4. I had a coffee with the gunner who was thrown a longway into the air by the blast and suffered a broken leg. It was a Commando vehicle and they are 4x4 as opposed to 6x6s.

[DustyDisco]

fair point BBC, I dont like generalizations either.

How do you know I am generalizing though, Arent you also generalising by referring to me as 'people'.

[DustyDisco]

BBC, not to start a war here:D , but I have a few facts to support my position.

"The number of UK troops killed on operations in Afghanistan since 2001 stands at 120, following the death of a soldier serving with 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment in an explosion in Helmand province, on 13 September".

"The total number of UK troops killed in operations in Iraq has reached 176 after a serviceman died from gunshot wounds during a firefight on 26 March."

Source: BBC NEWS | UK | Q&A: UK military fatalities tables and figures (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6951584.stm)

can we agree that the body count may be a reasonable basis upon which to base my opinion? ( the ratio of Aussie to British troops is approx 1:4, reflecting markedly higher British casualties per head)

If you don't want casualties as a measuring stick, then perhaps we can point to the fact that the mission profile of British soldiers in both iraq and Afghanistan is very different to that of the mission profile of Australian troops.

"In Afghanistan, the (australian ) troops assigned to the reconstruction team operate under strict defensive caveats, preventing them from taking part in counter-insurgency operations. During the occupation of Iraq, Australian troops had similar rules of engagement, with the result that not a single one died in combat."

Source: The Australian

What is undeniable, is that in response to the unacceptably high number of casualties caused by IED's , the british govt bought a bunch of armored bushmasters for their troops, because in both iraq and afghanistan IEDs represent an unacceptable level of danger, which can only be mitigated by by being in an armored vehicle.

[Dorko]

Six-bees are fun to drive, but Bush Masters can take more punishments. a M113A1 can beat any defender or bush master in tight areas and smashing though sand, rocks and trees :D

Pitty the Bush Master replaced the M113's. :(

Anyway im going off topic. A lot of my mates are still in the Army and the work done overseas is not the same as the Yanks or the POMS. For this reason, this is why our casualties are low. Not to mention the Aus Army does not have the cool gadgets like the Yanks :( However generally we have the better trained troops.

I have big respect for our SAS troops.. RIP Sean!

Dam i miss driving armoured vehicles. :angel:

Dorko