What I never understood was the purpose of such a redesign. They made it not armored enough to withstand small blasts and yet armored enough to reduce the famed tactical mobility to a bad joke.The Pinzgauer was introduced to replace the one ton LandRover, which used to be used by 29, 7RHA and other light gun regiments and mortar troops etc. The vehicles cross-country performance is exceptional.
There was never a requirement for it to be armoured prior to Iraq/A-Stan. The UK manufacturer who bought the sole rights to produce the vehicle from the Austrian's simply offered a 'protected' version (same level as Snatch), which provided protection against fragmentation and small arms. It was never intended to be marketed as a full on MRAP vehicle.
The increasing use of sophisticated IED's meant that the Vector became obsolete before it was even deployed, hence the UK's decision to go for the Mastiff's, Ridgebacks etc.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing!
Here is a report of Maj Roy McGriff III, United States Marine Corps updated in late 2005. He analyses very well the role vehicle survilabilty played against guerilla mine-warfare. His conclusions are neither innovative nor surprising.
The American way in Vietnam
MRAP Future wars said:To counter these threats tactically, the Army chose to coordinate and emphasize a prevention and neutralization strategy while virtually ignoring survivability. The results of this policy were catastrophic vehicle losses exceeding 80 percent of six major end items for 1970 and the loss of 68 percent of all vehicle combat losses from 1967 to 1970. The percentage of people killed and wounded from mines and ambushes jumped from 7.2 percent killed and 11.2 percent wounded in 1967 to over 25 percent for both killed and wounded by 1970.i
Culturally, the Army appears to have accepted mine and ambush casualties as the cost of doing business. The U.S. did not possess significant mine and ambush protection of any consequence during the conventional mine warfare of WWII and Korea, and a combined mine casualty rate of less than 5 percent suggests this may have been a necessary and acceptable risk. The Army acknowledges they had three non-removable armor kits for their ¼, ½ and 5-ton trucks but they never institutionalized its use.ii
Failing to harden their vehicles against a threat that produced over 23,000 casualties in three years calls into question their military priorities regarding force protection. Furthermore, this situation presented the enemy an opportunity to cause U.S. losses that undermined our resolve and became the one of the most significant contributing political factors leading to the U.S. withdrawal.
The Rhodesian approach
So there we have the problem in a nutshellFire Force: Rhodesian STOM
In contrast to the U.S. failure to recognize and solve the mine and ambush dilemma in Vietnam stands the Rhodesian victory over mines and ambushes during their Bush War. The Rhodesian Bush War is of particular importance to the Marine Corps for two reasons. First, the Rhodesians developed, implemented and fought using a doctrine similar to STOM they called the Fire Force. Second, within seven years of suffering their first mine strike in 1971, they virtually eliminated mine fatalities and effectively defeated the mine and ambush threat at relatively little financial cost to their government.i
The Fire Force operated out of remote and secure Forward Airfields (FAF) similar to STOM’s sea-base from which the Rhodesians would launch company to brigade-sized combined arms teams directly onto an objective area via air assault. After the air assault force was launched, the “land-tail” would form up and convoy to the objective with supplies and reinforcements.ii Many of these raids took place from STOM-like distances ranging from 20 to 100 miles from the FAFs. Similar to what STOM envisions, Fire Force logistical and support convoys had to fight across large areas of landmine-infested and unsecured enemy-controlled territory. Initially, the Fire Force tactics worked exceptionally well, and the Rhodesians brought ever-increasing pressure upon the communist insurgents.
Then on 27 April 1971, enemy forces adapted and launched an unconventional mine campaign that placed the Fire Force and the Rhodesian government in jeopardy. The communists began mining the roads leading to their strongholds and then spread out to encompass and threaten the whole of Rhodesia’s military and civilian population. This prevented the Rhodesian land-based follow on forces from quickly reinforcing the air assault element and forced the Rhodesians to rely solely upon their limited aircraft to resupply and reinforce the initial waves. The Rhodesians simply did not have enough aircraft to cover, reinforce and sustain their forces via airlift.iii
In short, the Rhodesians could land on the objective, but they could not hold it because the “land-tail” could not survive the mines and ambushes during the convoy from the FAF to the objective. The soft skinned land tail needed to become a protected offensive weapon because in the outnumbered Rhodesian Army everyone needed to survive in order to fight.
Urgent action - brilliant results
Tactical victories, one might add. Still the ability of the Rhodesian to give their troops the tactical and strategic mobility back was certainly amazing given the dire overall ressources. A good deal of the AO in Afghanistan are more difficult to navigate and enforce greater compromises. But it doesn't seem to be that the British Mod has only recently learned the most important lesson: High mine protection is not something you slap on the next vehicle you come across!Rhodesian Army Quarter-Master General, Colonel I.R. Stansfield faced what appeared to be an insolvable problem. First, United Nation sanctions isolated Rhodesia from world markets and restricted him from purchasing the armor from which he might fashion MRAP vehicles. Second, Rhodesia could not afford to buy the armor even if he could gain access to the world markets. These circumstances forced Rhodesia to design, build and field an MRAP vehicle fleet alone.
And less than six years after the first mine strike in April of 1971, the Rhodesians succeeded in transforming their entire vehicle fleet from an unprotected liability into an offensive capability that restored tactical and operational mobility to the Fire Force, virtually eliminated mine related deaths and significantly reduced mine related casualties. Following is a brief synopsis of how this small, financially constrained country sanctioned off from the rest of the world developed an MRAP fleet of vehicles over 25 years ago that, unbelievably, are more survivable than any comparable vehicle produced by the U.S. today.
To counter the successful fire force tactics, the communists began an offensive unconventional mine warfare campaign in 1971. Using mines they quickly began to exploit the unprotected Rhodesian infrastructure, laying mines along roads, city streets, and random open areas of the countryside surrounding farms and villages. In order to protect its citizens and maintain its legitimacy, the government formed a mine warfare committee that included the federal government, police, civil vehicle organizations and private companies. According to Stansfield, the committee’s most important and far reaching decision was to make survivability the most important aspect of mine and ambush protection, [emphasis added] and they laid down very specific criteria for crew protection.i
Next, Stansfield combined Rhodesia’s exacting and exhaustive mine casualty records with the mine warfare committee’s extensive vehicle blast tests to determine the major kill mechanisms associated with mines. Then he used this information to design and build special-purpose vehicles to effectively counter the kill mechanisms.ii Stansfield categorized the principles of mine protection under primary, secondary and tertiary kill mechanisms.
Primary kill mechanisms included acceleration, fragmentation and overpressure. Acceleration is the dynamic vertical acceleration resulting from a mine blast that often produces permanent or fatal neck and spine injuries. Fragmentations are the pieces from the mine itself or other debris propelled by the mine blast that cause massive soft tissue damage primarily to the head, heart and lungs. Blast overpressure is the sudden violent pulse of air generated by the mine blast that destroys the circulatory and respiratory system.
Secondary kill mechanisms resulted from vehicle parts failing under the stress of the mine blast and causing traumatic injury to the occupants. Tertiary kill mechanisms resulted from the various traumatic injuries produced by a vehicle crash often resulting from a mine blast.iii
Successful mine and ambush strikes also score a psychological mobility kill because they degrade the morale and confidence of offensive-minded forces. Successful mine attacks create hesitation, and sluggishness that degrade operational maneuver, while the confidence and high morale derived from knowing the operating force is protected from mine attacks is immeasurable. Stansfield recognized this fact and set about developing a fleet of vehicles capable of defeating each of the mine kill mechanisms listed above. In addition to protecting the operating forces, these vehicles actually changed the character of Rhodesian countermine warfare from passive defense in terms of neutralizing and avoiding mines and ambushes to an active offensive strategy of seeking them out.
The Rhodesians progressed quickly through first and second-generation field expedient and bolt-on protection like the U.S. Army attempted in Vietnam. The Rhodesians understood these methods did not afford them the protection they needed, reduced load carrying capacity, and cost prohibitively. Their third generation vehicles consisted of deep v-shaped blast deflecting hulls welded onto existing truck frames. These vehicles yielded substantial increases in protection from mines and small arms with the added benefit of protecting the occupants during rollovers from vehicle accidents.
Rhodesian design culminated with fourth generation MRAP vehicles designed from the ground up to protect against all three mine kill mechansims. These MRAP vehicles significantly expanded the offensive force options available to the Fire Force. In fact, they were so robust and survivable the Rhodesian Army began using them as offensive mobile fire support platforms in addition to their other logistical and transportation duties. The MRAP vehicles were so well protected and mobile that by the time the third and especially the fourth generation MRAP vehicles were fielded, the Rhodesians no longer attempted to detect and avoid the killing ground of an ambush, they detected and attacked directly into it.iv The Rhodesians had in effect turned an enemy strength into an exploitable vulnerability because the level of protection they enjoyed enabled them to literally drive through an ambush unharmed, then turn and destroy it.
The Rhodesian MRAP efforts to reduce casualties through survivability clearly speak for themselves. Their extremely detailed mine casualty records indicate unprotected vehicles suffered a 22 percent kill rate, while 1st and 2nd generation MRAP vehicles only suffered 8 percent casualty rate. However, 3rd generation MRAP fatality percentages drops to 2 percent while 4th generation falls below 1 percent. Rhodesian MRAP vehicles immediately restored the tactical mobility, and operational maneuver critical to the Fire Force while virtually eliminating casualties. The Rhodesians had effectively defeated the mine and ambush threat with mild steel, a sound design, and a philosophy that protecting their forces to improve their mobility was the key to victory.
Even relative light vehicles with around 7 tons can prove a very high mine/blast IED protection for their weight, as long they were ground up and carefully designed for that very purpose.
The Panther is an Inveco LMV, produced nearby. It should have been built up with overall and mine protection in particular as a priority and can be far more easily upgraded. It has not the protection levels of a "classic" MRAP but a sensible addition for the use in terain where weight restricts the use of heavier ones.The Panther's have now arrived in theatre, these where spec'd prior to the A-STAN conflict, they are not full-on MRAP vehicles and could again end up being the wrong platform, too lightly protected. However They have made some improvements, quote as follows:
"Panther, which was delivered to 1 Mechanized Brigade for training last summer, has undergone design adjustments following a series of hot weather trials to make them ready for operations in Afghanistan. These include:
* rear view camera for improved situational awareness
* protected engine compartment
* the addition of a fourth crew member
* theatre-specific electronic counter-measures"
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Panther arrives in Afghanistan
2006 the MoD still seems to have been thinking "light", while almost all the other nations went "heavy" with Level 4 up with 0,5-1t of important difference. Now given the weight increase of 700 kg I hope it has been brought up to a Level 4 standard.
The MLV Protection system meets various levels, from STANAG level 1 to STANAG level 4, which was required by the Italian Army. The Italian MLVs use the latest version AMAP composite armor, protection while the British version uses lower level of protection. The armoring system uses appliqué armor panels, placed between the inner and outer hull. This concept provides for protection upgrade capability, to meet changing The armor protection of the MLV is concealed under the panels, as shown in this view of the MLV's driver's position.mission requirements, as well as introduction of new, lightweight materials as they become available. The crew is also protected from mines of up to 6kg under the wheels. The MLV can be fitted with a mission configured overhead weapon station, equipped with day and night vision.
Last edited: