Thread: on the replacement for the perenties

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.

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

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

(P.S. I like BFG's - had them on my first 110 - just didn't think they are tough enough for MIL standard. )

Originally Posted by dm_td5

One more question to someone: I'm assuming the spoked rims are steel and not alloy's

Yes, they are alloys. The theory is that they are more frangible than steel under IED attack. Also seen here



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.



More info here:
http://australiangelandewagenownersa.../topic/882/WOW

Originally Posted by isuzubob

Yes, they are alloys. The theory is that they are more frangible than steel under IED attack. Also seen here



Rob W

I would have thought being more frangible to be an undesireable quality. Why would you want even more metal flying around in an explosion?

Originally Posted by ugu80

I would have thought being more frangible to be an undesireable quality. Why would you want even more metal flying around in an explosion?

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?

Cheers
KarlB

Originally Posted by ugu80

I would have thought being more frangible to be an undesireable quality. Why would you want even more metal flying around in an explosion?

Originally Posted by KarlB

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?

Cheers
KarlB

The reason is something along the lines of what Karl has said.

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 . 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.