Interesting sights at the top of the Taka's

[StoneChucker]

I was pretty sick today, so I took the day off. To cheer myself up I went for a quick ride up the hill. I managed to snap two pics of unusual traffic while up there:

Pic 1: If only there was SOME easier way to transport this...... :pinch:

Pic 2: Now boys, lets try to keep this one on the road, no more rolling of military vehicles down hills, like our collegues down south :crazy:

[sAsLEX]

just make sure the boss dont know about this site!

[StoneChucker]

As far as I know, it's none of the employers business what you do on your sick day. And besides, I was sick, and I could either sit on my arse watching tv, or sit on my arse, on my bike for a short while. Where I work (hospital), it's not advised to go to work sick/infectious.

[Blakamin]

I was pretty sick today, so I took the day off. To cheer myself up I went for a quick ride up the hill. I managed to snap two pics of unusual traffic while up there:

Pic 1: If only there was SOME easier way to transport this...... :pinch:

Pic 2: Now boys, lets try to keep this one on the road, no more rolling of military vehicles down hills, like our collegues down south :crazy:

Ahhhh... to be that sick... if i have a sickie the mrs wont let me near the bike..


love the pic 1 bit! :gob:

[Wenier]

Bah a robinson helicopter nooo! Go the army theres a bit of excitement for ppl driving round there

[White trash]

I was pretty sick today, so I took the day off. To cheer myself up I went for a quick ride up the hill. I managed to snap two pics of unusual traffic while up there:

Pic 1: If only there was SOME easier way to transport this...... :pinch:

Pic 2: Now boys, lets try to keep this one on the road, no more rolling of military vehicles down hills, like our collegues down south :crazy:

Listen here, young fellah! I've had just about a gutsfull of your skiving off for a ride in the sunshine while the rest of us work.......

A hospital you say? How about a bogus "note" for the boss and I'll join ya tomorrow?

[Marknz]

A hospital you say? How about a bogus "note" for the boss and I'll join ya tomorrow?

Join the queue fella.... it was Dr. Stonechucker wasn't it?

:scooter:

[Velox]

No wonder the road got ripped up so quickly on those top two corners.

[TwoSeven]

Didnt realise that the army had got those mobile trash cans fitted out already. :)

[wari]

ISAw 1/2 doz of those ARmY thingamajigaviches going through that towne nth of whatstheMAtamata last FRiday ...

OBviously only oneofem has made it to Wellingkton ... :thud:

[F5 Dave]

They are seriously cool, don’t believe the hatchet job 60min/20/20 or whatever the shock-scam journalism program did on them. When you are traipsing around in some dodgy country where people are sniping at the peacekeeping soldiers you have to have something to transport them around in. You can blow a wheel off with a mine & still drive back.

& some clowns wanted to refurbish the old mogs that look like a 30’s truck with a box on the back (‘cause that’s pretty much what they were). :killingme

[James Deuce]

They are seriously cool, don’t believe the hatchet job 60min/20/20 or whatever the shock-scam journalism program did on them. When you are traipsing around in some dodgy country where people are sniping at the peacekeeping soldiers you have to have something to transport them around in. You can blow a wheel off with a mine & still drive back.

& some clowns wanted to refurbish the old mogs that look like a 30’s truck with a box on the back (‘cause that’s pretty much what they were). :killingme
Not quite correct Dave. They don't work well on our terrain at all. They are good value for countries that have lots of nice flat plains, a la Australia, and Nth America. We could very easily have bought BMP2s and BRDMs from Russia, which are rated at 80-90% as effective in modern Battle conditions but substantially more mobile due to being used in places like Afghanistan. They can be fitted with the same armament, comms suite, and accommodation as the LAVs but at a fraction of the cost. We were offered 150 BMPs for 10 Million US.

The US had to refurbish Vietnam M113s they had in storage and National Guard service for service in Iraq, because the Bradley M2A2 programme was 5 years behind schedule and the LAVs they had lasted about 2 weeks in desert conditions. A friend of mine who was to command a Bradley in Iraq ended up in a Hum-V with extra armour plate as protection from mines fitted to the bottom and TOW launcher on the roof, as the LAV temporary replacement for his Bradley ceased to function in transit. A Hum-V has little protection from small arms fire. I'd rather have old reliable, and AK proof than, new, whizzy, and it just stopped working in the middle of this firefight any day.

[F5 Dave]

Our conditions are a bit irrelevant, I mean mostly we’d expect our army to be doing peacekeeping roles in partially developed countries, it’s not like we are ever going to be equipped for ‘battle conditions’ :ar15:

:ar15: :ar15: :ar15: hehe why can't we get these guys to face each other in mock battle?

[James Deuce]

Our conditions are a bit irrelevant, I mean mostly we’d expect our army to be doing peacekeeping roles in partially developed countries, it’s not like we are ever going to be equipped for ‘battle conditions’ :ar15:

:ar15: :ar15: :ar15: hehe why can't we get these guys to face each other in mock battle?

They aren't irrelevant because most of our peacekeeping is done in more extreme conditions on Pacific Islands. The LAVS couldn't have done the job in East Timor because they physically wouldn't have fit on the roads the M113s traversed easily.

[Blakamin]

Our conditions are a bit irrelevant, I mean mostly we’d expect our army to be doing peacekeeping roles in partially developed countries, it’s not like we are ever going to be equipped for ‘battle conditions’ :ar15:

:ar15: :ar15: :ar15: hehe why can't we get these guys to face each other in mock battle?
My brother in law was one of the team that went to canada to try the LAV's
and that was his exact point... its not like the army's going to use them to defend itself on home soil.

[James Deuce]

My brother in law was one of the team that went to canada to try the LAV's
and that was his exact point... its not like the army's going to use them to defend itself on home soil.
See above.My other point would be that as NZ taxpayers you are all happy for the NZ Govt to spend your Tax Dollars on equipment that isn't suitable for use in the country where it may need to be used as a defence item?

Peacekeeping is a misnomer. It is still a warzone where peacekeepers are required. I'm not happy with the Govt's priority spend on non-NZ citizens or sending our troops into dangerous conditions in equipment that has yet to prove itself as wholly reliable.

[Blakamin]

See above.My other point would be that as NZ taxpayers you are all happy for the NZ Govt to spend your Tax Dollars on equipment that isn't suitable for use in the country where it may need to be used as a defence item?

Peacekeeping is a misnomer. It is still a warzone where peacekeepers are required. I'm not happy with the Govt's priority spend on non-NZ citizens or sending our troops into dangerous conditions in equipment that has yet to prove itself as wholly reliable.

But even if they did work here, the "defence forces" haven't got enough personnel to defend waiouru let alone the rest of the country. and they know it so why spend more money than we need to for an impossible situation?

[James Deuce]

But even if they did work here, the "defence forces" haven't got enough personnel to defend waiouru let alone the rest of the country. and they know it so why spend more money than we need to for an impossible situation?
Thanks for finishing my point :)

[pete376403]

Bah a robinson helicopter nooo! Go the army theres a bit of excitement for ppl driving round there
On a trailer, and with no rotor blades, is probably as safe as a Robinson will ever get. They have a shocking accident record. My sons boss binned his new one recently.

[Hoon]

Not quite correct Dave. They don't work well on our terrain at all. They are good value for countries that have lots of nice flat plains, a la Australia, and Nth America. We could very easily have bought BMP2s and BRDMs from Russia, which are rated at 80-90% as effective in modern Battle conditions but substantially more mobile due to being used in places like Afghanistan. They can be fitted with the same armament, comms suite, and accommodation as the LAVs but at a fraction of the cost. We were offered 150 BMPs for 10 Million US.

There is no way the NZ Army could've bought Russian vehicles - that line is often spouted by chest-beating politicians but the fact is it was never an option due to ongoing contractual, supply, maintenance and training obligations from a foreign speaking country in recession not to mention zero integration with our allies.

Sure theres also the wheeled vs tracked debate but the Army is now moving towards a highly mobile more urban type of army. Did you ever see the old M113's rolling along the highways?? We've only had the lavs for a few months and they've already been seen all up and down the countryside.

The LAVs are also high tech, better than the ones the Aussies have and just the same as the US's latest batch so we are right up with the play now. Using the same equipment means we can share the knowledge and integrate seamlessly. NZ Armys strongest asset is its infantry Battalions however if we want to be any use to an Allied force we have to be able to keep up on the battlefield.
The first batch of NZLAV crews fresh out of training have just finished a combined exercise with the Aussies up in Darwin where they worked with their tanks. Early next year there is another big combined exercise in Napier where the Aussies are coming over and bringing their blackhawks too amongst other toys.

The NZ Army has no hope of defending the country on its own - we would need the help of our allies, but if we want them to help us we have got to be of some help to them also.

[F5 Dave]

Perhaps considering the most likely future threat to our shores (ohh I dunno, lets say collection of islands to the left & up a bit becoming increasingly unstable) a bunch of armed coastal boats & some air support would be a start.

[James Deuce]

There is no way the NZ Army could've bought Russian vehicles - that line is often spouted by chest-beating politicians but the fact is it was never an option due to ongoing contractual, supply, maintenance and training obligations from a foreign speaking country in recession not to mention zero integration with our allies.

Sure theres also the wheeled vs tracked debate but the Army is now moving towards a highly mobile more urban type of army. Did you ever see the old M113's rolling along the highways?? We've only had the lavs for a few months and they've already been seen all up and down the countryside.

The LAVs are also high tech, better than the ones the Aussies have and just the same as the US's latest batch so we are right up with the play now. Using the same equipment means we can share the knowledge and integrate seamlessly. NZ Armys strongest asset is its infantry Battalions however if we want to be any use to an Allied force we have to be able to keep up on the battlefield.
The first batch of NZLAV crews fresh out of training have just finished a combined exercise with the Aussies up in Darwin where they worked with their tanks. Early next year there is another big combined exercise in Napier where the Aussies are coming over and bringing their blackhawks too amongst other toys.

The NZ Army has no hope of defending the country on its own - we would need the help of our allies, but if we want them to help us we have got to be of some help to them also.
They weren't from Russia. Certainly originally designed and built in Russia.

I used to see Scorpions and M113s rolling through Glenfield in Auckland on the way to Hobsonville and Whenuapai 4 or 5 times a year as a kid. On road treads too, not on the back of a transporter.The debate isn't about tracked or wheeled, it is the suitability of a weapons platform for it's most common theatre of operations, which in NZ's case is increasingly becoming rugged Pacific and Melanesian islands, not big open flat Australian or North American plains.

The only reason for requiring better urban operational capability from the military in NZ is to quell civil unrest. Bear in mind that the NZ Army is the only arm without a Royal warrant, and reports directly to the Prime Minister's office.

[James Deuce]

Perhaps considering the most likely future threat to our shores (ohh I dunno, lets say collection of islands to the left & up a bit becoming increasingly unstable) a bunch of armed coastal boats & some air support would be a start.You ain't just whistling Dixie.

[TwoSeven]

I am in two minds about the lavs. I got the feeling they purchased them then tried to figure out what to use them for. Some of the justifications I have heard - from a military point of few were just plain rubbish.

However.

If they had said. We want transport for our troops that offers a little more protection than a soft-sided truck, and can perform a similar role as a humvee. Then I would have been ok with that - a LAV is more than ideal.

But - that thing about having a wheel blown off. When troops are in an armoured wheeled vehicle - they have to wear a 4 point seatbelt that straps them into the seat (none do). Because when a bomb (mine) goes off under the vehicle it splatters everyone around inside (think of a person holding a baby in a car crash - then imagine said baby has 60kg of equipment strapped to it).

I dont think they could even afford to outfit them with modern electronics. I would have liked to see a thales contract go out at least.

There were other statements along those lines - that just plain didnt add up and I think thats why people love to hate them.

Background on the LAVIII (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/piranha/)

I do agree with the purchase of the UNIMOGs tho - although they really should address their standard operating procedures and teach the troops how to drive them. Would probably stop the beggers driving over cliffs like they have been doing. I'd would have liked to see them get a few vikings - think they would be better - but would operate along with the UNIMOGs.

I'm not keen on any US equipment - most of it is rubbish at the best of times. All the good stuff they use is european anyhow.

I think a better vehicle to use would have been the british warrior. But like all things - I guess the lavs were purchased because they were cheaper to operate in the long run.

The warrior (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/warrior/index.html)

What really 'p**ses' me off (scuze the language) is that NZ has no defense engineering contracts/firms/industry. Not only do I think that there is a huge market for kiwis working creating defense equipment (not just guns and ammo - but heavy industry vehicles), but I think the knowledge is here for newer and better things to be created. It would majorly benefit the local economy if for example a firm produced military grade trucks, trailors, tractors and other such engineering equipment for civilian use (as most defense contractors do).

Heck - even the kiwi uniforms are just jeans and t-shirt compared to what others are starting to look at.

[Blakamin]

Thanks for finishing my point :)
Any time!! :eek:



What really 'p**ses' me off (scuze the language) is that NZ has no defense engineering contracts/firms/industry. Not only do I think that there is a huge market for kiwis working creating defense equipment (not just guns and ammo - but heavy industry vehicles), but I think the knowledge is here for newer and better things to be created. It would majorly benefit the local economy if for example a firm produced military grade trucks, trailors, tractors and other such engineering equipment for civilian use (as most defense contractors do).

would probably happen if we had more of a need for things... but we can buy them OS cheaper, and stay in other country's good books, so to speak
How many LAV's did we buy???

[sAsLEX]

just a point tiggerz i think it was, the new navy ships coming in soon are being built by some aussy place, with some of the smaller ones being built up north in whagnarai sp? and modules for the other ships being built there to.

Been in a m113 and they were the shit.

[LB]

.
I don't know shit about the army and their vehicles so I won't comment.

Do the guys in the vehicles wear uniforms? :whistle:

Stonechucker: I hope you're feeling better now. It was a great day to be out on the hill.
.

[TwoSeven]

I hope the navy does get some work done here. Dont they outfit the ships here or something ?

Thats why I was annoyed they didnt buy those F16s or whatever they were. The maintenance crews (could have been outsourced to air-nz) would have been able to service other nationalities aircraft as well.

Sometimes I think the government doesnt understand that sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Spending money to build up skills and experience and industry that can then be used later to earn even more money doesnt seem to be a graspable concept for the government.

[Coldkiwi]

my main beef with the LAVatories is
a) damn expensive for a relatively soft vehicle compared to alternatives. I know buying ex-russian equipment would've been a bit of a big finger to the US but the reality is the money saved could've been spent on making the russian equipment even better and replacing any electronics to integrate with the US and Aussie.
b) won't fit in a damn Hercules (still not upgraded despite being wel over the hill) with the standard running suspension setup and apparently it takes over 30 minutes to lower or raise the beast... just what you want when unloading in a hot zone eh Ho-hoon? Maybe we'll just have to ship them by fruit container ships.
c) seems to have an absolutley woeful combat record in anything vaguely resembling and abrasive or non temperate climate.

[Coldkiwi]

just a point tiggerz i think it was, the new navy ships coming in soon are being built by some aussy place, with some of the smaller ones being built up north in whagnarai sp? and modules for the other ships being built there to.

Been in a m113 and they were the shit.

A & G Price in Thames used to do a fair bit of defence engineering for NZ and were casting wheels for Singaporean tracked vehicles when I visited in 2001. But if theres no budget for the work, no ones going to keep the staff and expertise going to try and keep any hopeful jobs on shore I suppose

[Lou Girardin]

What really 'p**ses' me off (scuze the language) is that NZ has no defense engineering contracts/firms/industry. Not only do I think that there is a huge market for kiwis working creating defense equipment (not just guns and ammo - but heavy industry vehicles), but I think the knowledge is here for newer and better things to be created. It would majorly benefit the local economy if for example a firm produced military grade trucks, trailors, tractors and other such engineering equipment for civilian use (as most defense contractors do).

Heck - even the kiwi uniforms are just jeans and t-shirt compared to what others are starting to look at.

We did once, there was the Semple 'Tank'. As fine a piece of No 8 engineering as you could hope for.
If it had been used against the Japs, the ground would have been strewn with their bodies, rolling around laughing.

[SPORK]

We did once, there was the Semple 'Tank'. As fine a piece of No 8 engineering as you could hope for.
If it had been used against the Japs, the ground would have been strewn with their bodies, rolling around laughing.
I think I saw that Semple tank somewhere. Absolutely useless. It WAS rather comical though!

[Hoon]

my main beef with the LAVatories is
a) damn expensive for a relatively soft vehicle compared to alternatives. I know buying ex-russian equipment would've been a bit of a big finger to the US but the reality is the money saved could've been spent on making the russian equipment even better and replacing any electronics to integrate with the US and Aussie.

Unfortunately its not that simple. If we were a non-western country then we would've been onto a bargain. Countries using LAVs are US, Canada, Australia and NZ. Countries using the BTR80/BMP3 are Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, China, Emirates, Hungary and Afghanistan amongst others. Now when you get new vehicles like this you need training and also devise a manual of tactics and procedures (putting aside the language barrier and logistical nightmare of having to deal with a foreign non-ally). The easiest way is to share with allies that already use them however I can't see much chance of any of the above BTR80 countries sharing their SOPs with us let alone any combined exercises.

Likewise the AK47 is a reliable rifle but how many western countries do you see using it?? If a NZ soldier were to start shooting one off in the middle of a battle he would likely find a friendly grenade being tossed his way. Likewise would you trust the identification skills of a US Tank commander or bomber pilot when your russian APC emerges from the scrub?!?

Like I said before, buying Russian APCs was never an option. Only people that have limited knowledge on the subject would consider it. The only real options were to upgrade the M113s or buy the LAVs however I do agree that the LAVs were hellishly expensive but I aint complaining :)

[sAsLEX]

Likewise the AK47 is a reliable rifle but how many western countries do you see using it?? If a NZ soldier were to start shooting one off in the middle of a battle he would likely find a friendly grenade being tossed his way.

in vietnam I know the US preferred the ever reliable AK over the then new M16, just had to watch out for friendly fire due to their unmistakable sound, but the yanks are used to being shot at by their own

[Coldkiwi]

Likewise would you trust the identification skills of a US Tank commander or bomber pilot when your russian APC emerges from the scrub?!?



Mate... I don't think it matters! The US A-10's couldn't identify British Armoured columns, and those f-15's couldn't even identify their own bloody blackhawk choppers before shooting them down!! (yeah... it REALLY looks like a Mil-24 don't it?)

[Wenier]

On a trailer, and with no rotor blades, is probably as safe as a Robinson will ever get. They have a shocking accident record. My sons boss binned his new one recently.

Well the fact that the designer of the robinson, someone robinson i think came to NZ and saw wut the ppl were doin wit them and said no wonder uv got such a high crash rate tells ya somethin. Fact is many NZ pilots over stress robinson helicopters.

[matthewt]

A ex-boss of mine had two copters, a Robinson and a Jet powered one of some sort. His view was that the Robinsons were great copters provided you didn't try and do things they were never designed for. Too many people got them because they are more affordable and then thought they could do anything in them.

[James Deuce]

Like I said before, buying Russian APCs was never an option. Only people that have limited knowledge on the subject would consider it. The only real options were to upgrade the M113s or buy the LAVs however I do agree that the LAVs were hellishly expensive but I aint complaining :)

Gee thanks for the dis bro.

I worked on an appropriations evaluation in '95 on buying what were essentially gutted ex-eastern bloc APCs, command vehicles and amphibs, that were fitted with Cummins diesels and NATO comms suites - like I already said. the BMP came with a 25mm Bushmaster turret option as well, and were a fraction of the cost of the LAVs. We will not be operating LAVs in the terrain they are designed for. We will be attempting to use them in rugged pacific and Melanesian islands. The M113 update was not considered because the US won't, repeat, won't sell it to us due to our lack of a military relationship. The only forces we will be operating our LAVs with will be Australian and only when US forces aren't involved and only in Australia. That won't change unless the government changes, and then the LAV programme is likely to be reviewed to it's detriment. I think it has been a huge cock up. If you have a finite defence budget, a fluid political environment, and little justification for expenditure on force additions that have no practical benefit to local defence or border control, why waste billions?

[Coldkiwi]

Like I said before, buying Russian APCs was never an option. Only people that have limited knowledge on the subject would consider it. The only real options were to upgrade the M113s or buy the LAVs however I do agree that the LAVs were hellishly expensive but I aint complaining :)

But there must be other wheeled APC vehicles with some form of medium calibre turret with similar performance to the LAV's used in western countries? I don't quite understand the insistence of our govt to buy something that was clearly not the best use of money unless it was the only option (seems rather unplausible, especially when we paid so much)

[Coldkiwi]

I think it has been a huge cock up. If you have a finite defence budget, a fluid political environment, and little justification for expenditure on force additions that have no practical benefit to local defence or border control, why waste billions?

now I'm more confused! I thought the LAV buy up was a suck up to the Yanks, hence the huge price tag. But if they've got the pip with us still, then why did we even bother?
Jim, what were the rough figures looking like for converting the BMP's into a Nato compatible format? Would they have still been cheaper than the LAVS after the equipment/comms/gun update?

[Coldkiwi]

and here's some more food for thought:
Excerpt from a US soldiers memo of a recent firefight in Iraq where LAV III's (Aka Strykers in the US) where engaged by rebels as published in the September Issue of Investigate Magazine
"At one time I had to reload the 50 (Cal) with ammo. The ammo was on the outside of the vehicle on the side. Why they effing put it there I don't know!"

I dunno about our soliders but I think if I needed more ammo in a firefight, I'd rather have it right next to me than on the outside where i could get neatly perforated in the process of getting it.

The article also contains a rather disturbing report of a LAV being fully burnt out by a single RPG round.

Whats the point of these things again? 'Bullet magnets' I seem to recall was a catch phrase used in Black Hawk Down

[James Deuce]

now I'm more confused! I thought the LAV buy up was a suck up to the Yanks, hence the huge price tag. But if they've got the pip with us still, then why did we even bother?
Jim, what were the rough figures looking like for converting the BMP's into a Nato compatible format? Would they have still been cheaper than the LAVS after the equipment/comms/gun update?
This was an evaluation run after the National Govt had already turned the offer down, due to the "Suck up to the US" factor, but I believe we were offered 150 powered "shells" (chassis and running gear) for 10 million. The armament and comms options where then ours to order depending on our requirements and could cost up to 5 million per vehicle. Remember it was all NATO standard stuff, and a vast improvement on the Vietnam era comms and armament the Army was using at the time (95-96). I was the NZ Army Data Communications Engineer at the time, and we were attempting to deploy radio LAN connected equipment in APCs and Land Rovers that had no electronic hardening. The RFI made it practically unworkable.

[Hoon]

Gee thanks for the dis bro.

........ We will not be operating LAVs in the terrain they are designed for. We will be attempting to use them in rugged pacific and Melanesian islands.
Sorry no offense. Just that most people are quick to decide from the comfort of their armchair that the cheaper option is better without any consideration for the bigger picture or the soldier riding in it.

The problem with decreased mobility in rugged country would be no better with the Russian APCs either as they are wheeled too so this is getting into the tracked vs wheeled debate.

This is addressed in the Army's Long Term Development Plan which outlines the move to a highly mobile motorized Infantry to replace our light infantry. I guess they weighed up the options and decided the pros of the wheeled APC (better speed, range, maintenance) outweighed the cons (cost, decreased mobility etc). Other countries with bigger budgets have the luxury of maintaining both vehicles types however we can only afford to keep one so I guess wheeled offered the best overall performance.

I doubt the LAV would make much difference to how we'd deploy to the Pacific. The Aussies used their LAVs very successfully in ET. Also in rugged terrain like that, all patrols are done on foot with maybe an APC or helo dropping you off then coming back a week later to pick you up if you're lucky.


The article also contains a rather disturbing report of a LAV being fully burnt out by a single RPG round.

This isn't a LAV problem but an APC problem too. Any APC (without additional armour) and a lot of tanks wouldn't take an RPG shot either. The Chechyans have rewritten the book on infantry anti-armour warfare and are now considered the best in the world after making mincemeat of even the toughest Russian tanks with their RPG tactics.

[James Deuce]

Sorry Hoon I don't agree.

[Coldkiwi]

This isn't a LAV problem but an APC problem too. Any APC (without additional armour) and a lot of tanks wouldn't take an RPG shot either. The Chechyans have rewritten the book on infantry anti-armour warfare and are now considered the best in the world after making mincemeat of even the toughest Russian tanks with their RPG tactics.

soo... errr... whats the point of have a light armoured vehicle if light armour won't even protect troops from one of the most common battlefield weapons employed by every hick two man militia? Isn't it a bit like having a protective mozzie net to keep out the bugs in the bush and saying 'well, at least we're safe from bugs even tho bullets could get us'? Why buy something that can't do the job? We're not likely to have to defend against Tank or artillery rounds but surely RPG's are a common enough threat in peace keeping operations that the equipment should be able to take a hit?

[Hoon]

An APC is only designed to withstand small arms fire, i.e guns grenades shrapnel etc and will involve some sort of compromise between mobility and protection. RPG7s are designed to defeat even the best armour, penetrate 750mm of solid steel and is a problem faced by Armys all around the world - the yanks can't even stop them shooting down their multimillion dollar blackhawks, apaches, chinooks and M1A1 battletanks either!

Some protection (even only against small arms fire) is better than no protection at all.

[Coldkiwi]

ah ha.

So, the question needs to be asked, whats the best way to stop some sneaky bugger from launching a cheap and nasty RPG round at you? Sounds like the APC's would be better off equiped with a Phalanx type gun defence system used to take out sea skimming missiles. Probably a little pricey tho huh?

[sAsLEX]

navys only got two phalanx systems, we only have two Frigates now though, but the size and weight of the system would be prohibitvie to putting it in a APC.

in Iraq the yanks hang their bags etc on the outside of APCs to offer a little more protection.