Thread: SAS Land Rover, Jackal Bushmaster

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


RIP Sean, Andrew and David.

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by xxXX_LR V8_XXxx

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


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.

Originally Posted by TEV

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?

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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'.