Thread: G wagon hopeless

They are for in country I think any way. The second alternator is an add on the Army added, not a standard Merc thing. Once again the defence buy something and get there sexy fingers on it.

Originally Posted by F4Phantom

fuel economy

umm., no, nearly double the fuel of the 110 for not much more planning range.

Right! That settles it.
Now I'm not re-enlisting in 51. If the not-LRPVs are going to let me create lovely big sprays as I charge into the Mitchell at patrol speed!!
;-);-)

Originally Posted by juddy

More so than Land Rover????

Yes more that Land Rover, after all the main customers for Land Rover were former British commonwealth countries and even Australia is replacing them. The Yanks and Canada don't use them so if you were to count the number of Land Rovers being used by militaries anywhere, you'll likely find that the number of HMMWV used by the US alone outnumbers them.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Yes more that Land Rover, after all the main customers for Land Rover were former British commonwealth countries and even Australia is replacing them. The Yanks and Canada don't use them so if you were to count the number of Land Rovers being used by militaries anywhere, you'll likely find that the number of HMMWV used by the US alone outnumbers them.

I was under the impression the HMMWV was being phased out?
Technically the yanks have one or two Land Rovers, custom built for the 75th Rangers, do they not
Of course I'm just splitting hairs here
Hi-Lux packed to the gunwales with rent-a-goon squads and outdated weaponry is a pretty common sight in quite a few parts of the world

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

umm., no, nearly double the fuel of the 110 for not much more planning range.

so the 2 door army landy non turbo uses 12L/100, I expect the sixby uses more being turbo and heavier so at a guess 14L, the mercedes uses more than 12L? sounds very high for a modern fancy diesel.

Hi Muppet

The real issue is that given the nature of assymetrical warfare in war zones in the future, soft skinned vehicles do not provide sufficient protection for troops. Therefore the major western militaries are purchasing purpose built armoured personnel carriers.

With that in mind our Army would be better off buying 4X4 Cl vehicles from local dealers the same as other government departments and saving the money for armoured vehicles where it is needed in war zones.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Hi Muppet

The real issue is that given the nature of assymetrical warfare in war zones in the future, soft skinned vehicles do not provide sufficient protection for troops. Therefore the major western militaries are purchasing purpose built armoured personnel carriers.

With that in mind our Army would be better off buying 4X4 Cl vehicles from local dealers the same as other government departments and saving the money for armoured vehicles where it is needed in war zones.

An excellent point.
It's one of the points raised in the sand pit that we can't be expected to win an unconventional war, using conventional methods such as light skinned vehicles in IED prone areas.
Now the Bushmaster....THERE'S a nice vehicle