Armor Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
The Swedes Conquer Afghanistan
   Next Article → PROCUREMENT: Buy Cheap, Buy American
February 24, 2009: Afghanistan is SUV country. Heavier vehicles, like armored ones, run into lots of problems. Afghanistan is generally roadless, and contains numerous deserts, hills and mountains. Most of the roads are dirt, often just tracks across plains and hills. This situation is bad for trucks and wheeled armored vehicles. American and NATO troops have found that the best way to get across this terrain is with tracked vehicles. Canada, for example, first sent it's wheeled LAV armored vehicles along with its troops. The LAVs had a hard time with all the nasty terrain. So Canada sent some Leopard tanks, and suddenly the troops had combat vehicles that could get around quickly and easily.

But there still remained the problem of getting supplies moved without vehicles getting stuck or flipping over. The solution, it turned out, was again, tracked vehicles. The British Royal Marines brought with them unarmored Bv206 (which can carry 2.5 tons over any terrain. including snow and most marshland) tracked vehicles. The larger BvS10 can haul five tons. The BvS10 is actually an articulated vehicle, with a tracked trailer connected by a power transfer and steering linkage. The front part weighs 4.9 tons, the rear part 3.1 tons. Because of this trailer arrangement, the vehicle has a 47 foot turning radius. Four passengers can be carried in the front car, and eight on the rear one. The vehicle is amphibious and has a top speed in the water of five kilometers an hour (compared to 65 kilometers an hour on land.) The vehicle are Swedish, and built to cope with the marshes and mountains the country is full of, as well as deep snow.

The Royal Marines mainly got the Viking for amphibious operations, as well as logistics and carrying troops in combat zones. The Viking is also able to move through swampy terrain, as well as snow. It's well suited for Afghanistan, where they can be lifted by a CH-47 Chinook helicopter, or a C-130 transport. Lifting the two sections of the vehicle separately, the smaller Merlin helicopter can move the vehicle.

Last year, the Royal Marines got 108 armored, "Viking" (BvS10) all terrain combat vehicles, at a cost of $890,000 each. They used these vehicles, armored versions of the Bv206, in combat for the first time in Afghanistan, and were well satisfied with the performance, and protection, the vehicles provided.

Canadian troops also used Bv206s for moving supplies, and discovered that the light ground pressure created by the wide tracks, tended to go over landmines without detonating them. The light ground pressure was designed for allowing the vehicle to move over snow.

Success of the Bv206 in Afghanistan has led to more sales to the Royal Marines, and interest from several other countries. The Bv206 widely employed for civilian uses, from Antarctica to the tropics.

 

Next Article → PROCUREMENT: Buy Cheap, Buy American
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Bob Cortez       2/24/2009 8:28:39 AM
Net net off the shelf is better.  The only people who like the current system are those whose rice bowl is involved.  You can walk away form a bad pick here an just shift to another supplier. 
 
Quote    Reply

mustavaris       2/24/2009 4:13:18 PM
Bv206s are great indeed... Finnish Defence Forces have used them for a long time. Ours ain´t armoured though, and basically anything worse than hand grenade fragments will penetrate...
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Shawnc       2/25/2009 1:15:10 AM
There are quite a few factual errors in this article - whoever wrote it hasn't really done much background research.
 
The Royal Marines took their first deliveries of the BvS 10 Viking in 2003, with the vehicle reaching full operational capabilities in 2005. The Viking was then deployed to Afghanistan in 2006, not 2008 as the article claims. In May 2008, the UK ordered an additional 18 vehicles, not 108 as the article claims.

The RM are also not "well satisfied with the performance, and protection, the vehicles provided". Evidence of this is in the December 2008 announcement by the UK MOD of 100+ Warthogs to replace the Vikings in service in Afghanistan from late 2009/early 2010 under an Urgent Operational Requirement. The Warthog is a derivative of the Singapore Technologies Kinetics Bronco ATTC, a larger,more powerful and better protected vehicle than the Viking.
 
 
Quote    Reply

davod    Warthog or pig   2/25/2009 8:33:39 AM
"The Warthog is a derivative of the Singapore Technologies Kinetics Bronco ATTC, a larger,more powerful and better protected vehicle than the Viking."
<a href=" http://umbrellog.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7151"> Thus, in the Warthog, they have bought ? a bigger version of what amounts to a Viking.</a> Built in Singapore rather than by BAE systems, it still has the flat hull base profile. The bigger machine, with more power, however, allows it to carry more weight, so these geniuses have done exactly what they are doing with the Snatch ? bolting on more armour.

But, as we said with the Jackal ? which also has a flat hull base ? a hog with lipstick is still a hog. For sure, extra armour adds a little protection, but very little indeed as the Army found recently with the up-armoured Warrior.

The worst of it is that, even if there is no hull breach, when hit by an explosive, the force can turn the vehicle over, which can be as lethal as the blast effect. Furthermore, the blast effect alone, in imparting massive g-forces, can also be lethal.

But, as we said with the Jackal ? which also has a flat hull base ? a hog with lipstick is still a hog. For sure, extra armour adds a little protection, but very little indeed as the Army found recently with the up-armoured Warrior.

The worst of it is that, even if there is no hull breach, when hit by an explosive, the force can turn the vehicle over, which can be as lethal as the blast effect. Furthermore, the blast effect alone, in imparting massive g-forces, can also be lethal."
 


 
 
Quote    Reply

n1hook    n1hook   4/29/2009 6:31:39 AM
Cost effective, a force multiplier. Why don't the Marines and U.S.Army have them?

Why do we still use turbine engines in the Abram's tank? The German army has developed a lightweight diesel engine that provides similar speed compared to the turbine  but with more miles per gallon and durability.
 
Quote    Reply