Will they run the BFG AT's as standard? I would have expected something a little more LT than AT?
Printable View
Will they run the BFG AT's as standard? I would have expected something a little more LT than AT?
you can have LT in AT...
LT designates Light truck construction and refers to the construction of the tyre.
AT designates All Terrain, MT Mud Terrain and HT highway tyre all of which referes to the tread pattern and shoulder layout.
I suspect that this tyre is specified as its wider in foot print than the steeltrek to deal with the extra base weight of the vehicle.
Yeah, my query wasn't all that clear Dave but thanks. I was thinking more of your Steeltrek 7.50x16s rather than the poufy BFG's:wasntme:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blknight.aus
(P.S. I like BFG's - had them on my first 110 - just didn't think they are tough enough for MIL standard. )
Yes, they are alloys. The theory is that they are more frangible than steel under IED attack. Also seen hereQuote:
Originally Posted by dm_td5
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
Rob W
It looks like this might be the replacement for the SAS LRPV. I thought they were going to get some armoured Pommy Bushmaster thing (Ocelot?) but have read that the smaller shape (and radar "footprint") of a Land Rover with no windscreen is still preferable in certain situations.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
More info here:
http://australiangelandewagenownersa.../topic/882/WOW
I would have thought being more frangible to be an undesireable quality. Why would you want even more metal flying around in an explosion?Quote:
Originally Posted by isuzubob
I would have thought in the break-up into smaller pieces, the frangible metal "absorbs" more energy thus limiting the extent of the explosive force. Another consideration would have been what is the most destructive: many small pieces of metal with relatively lower potential energy; or fewer large pieces with higher potential energy?Quote:
Originally Posted by ugu80
Cheers
KarlB
:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugu80
The reason is something along the lines of what Karl has said.Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlB
All the UK Wolfs in Afghanistan have been fitted with aluminium alloy wheels as they are far less dangerous to the the driver/passengers when hitting an IED or mine compared to steel wheels which become shrapnel and kill.
This happened pretty quickly after a major inquiry into deaths from IED's in the Landy's.
my ASM (boss) told me the G-wagon is not going over seas, so the rover will still be used as the deployed vehicle. So the SASR vehicles will still be playing in the sand pit, can be fixed with wire and leatherman :p. To clear somthing up too, we currently have to many rovers, and wont be replacing all the rovers with G-wagons.
Some one said will they come with computors so the operators can fix them, NO BLOODY WAY do you want operators with computors, you will have experts every where then, I have to fix the problems the operators create, dont need bigger ones.
Drivers are known as zipper heads. (where they pull there brains out)
hope no truckies are on here.:p
You know we make a lot of the issue about the Perenties being replaced, however as far as I can see a lot of the transport on various bases in Oz is in civilian contractor vehicles. Last year we were in the transport compound at Kapooka and all the vehicles, buses and range control vehicles were civilian Land Cruisers and Japanese trucks and buses. There was not an Army Perentie to be seen anywhere.