Mark Jenkins Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 I found this link interesting: BBC News I was aware that the Snatch Land Rover was vulnerable to roadside bombs/IEDs - my friend Rob has just come back from Basra after working as a combat medic - he saw many guys who've lost their legs after bombs have blown right through the armoured cabs of their vehicles. My cousin Ben is also out there at the moment but he at least gets a Warrior to drive around in. I'm sure there are serving/ex-forces forum members who'll have something to add to this. here's to hoping they all come back soon, in one piece... (however likely that is....) Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02GF74 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 "Thundering down narrow streets with battle tanks was not exactly the particular vision that we wanted to give the people of Basra and other parts of south east Iraq of our troops," said Mr Browne. but this is acceptable then? The Ministry of Defence says about 20 troops have been killed by roadside bombs - but a spokeswoman could not say what vehicles they were travelling in. tw*t! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Simpkins Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Dumb question, but what's the difference between a normal Land Rover and a snatch Land Rover? Unless a snatch Land Rover has armour, then I don't see how it could offer any protection against bombs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulMc Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Dumb question, but what's the difference between a normal Land Rover and a snatch Land Rover? Unless a snatch Land Rover has armour, then I don't see how it could offer any protection against bombs? The vehicle the Army call the 'Snatch' Land Rover is the Courtaulds Aerospace (now NP Aerospace) CAV100 Composite Armoured Vehicle - Details here - British Defence Equipment Catalogue Paul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonb Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Or they could put our troops in bigger armoured vehicles such as APC's/Saxons/Scimitars but then wouldn't the other side just use bigger bombs..... Another thing, wasn't the use of Land Rovers supposed to present a less agressive stance to the people of Iraq, rather than everyone driving round in tanks.... Without going into the politics of it all (this is not the place and its been "aired" enough already), there is a bigger picture to look at.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BogMonster Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Or they could put our troops in bigger armoured vehicles such as APC's/Saxons/Scimitars but then wouldn't the other side just use bigger bombs..... There was an interesting article in LRM (I think) recently about a discreetly armoured Discovery and RR and it said just that - if the oik knows they are attacking a tough target they'll use a bigger bang, but the reason the discreet ones work well is because the effort put into the attack is likely to be gauged on an un-armoured vehicle, so it just bounces off. The Discovery shown in the article was amazing, you really wouldn't know it was any different to any other white 1990s Discovery. The RR was more obvious with split rear doors and heavy duty steel wheels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.