OK for places where it doesn't rain much, seems to be missing doors and roof Probably not road legal in UK.

John

Just an up rated pfaff hafner, 600cc really just a motorised skate board, just one up from mountain goat, would go anywhere ! As to construction and use laws, it requires neither doors or roof ! could be fun though, Noel

I imagine those will be accessories provisioned separately, made of whatever is deemed suitable to resist local deployment conditions…

Yes, it looks a pretty good piece of work.

That raised rear roof – wonder if you could mount a little turret with a Vickers gun, a la WW1 Rolls-Royce armoured car..?

I don't think this IS any sort of "cultural change"……there is a long history of trying to adapt civvy equipement for military use and also quite a long history of failed excercise…. The Moke has already been mentioned and one only has to look at the multifaceted problems of trying to replace such systems as LandRover and the Warrior series to see how the need for specialisation quickly spoils the quest for 'off the peg' cheapness.

The problem(s) with this vehicle is that while it may be useful for third world armies it lacks the required specialisation and versitility for more sophisticatd formations……..a serious lack of protection, both intrinsic and military surely limits it's appeal Modern mil vehicle systems need to be adaptable into various transport needs (the strength of Landrover) which this does not seem to offer.

So 1968 when the Lightweight first came out . as well as 1972 when the Series III based one came out would fall into that time scale then.

I can't see it faring too well against an IED

Edited By JasonB on 14/11/2021 11:22:11

Extraordinarily difficult to say whether or not this sort of vehicle will be a success or not. Low cost, easy to maintain, fast, and good off-road capability are all desirable. Unfortunately, military vehicles are targets! The enemy spends considerable time, money, and imagination in coming up with ways of destroying them and/or their passengers. This sort of vehicle, like the British Army's old Snatch Landrover, is wonderful until someone attacks it, at which point it becomes a death trap. Four wheels are highly liable to bog down on soft ground and get stuck in ditches, while the vehicle isn't heavy enough to crash through minor obstacles, natural or man-made.

After the bloodbath, man-in-pub complains about the obvious shortcomings. He always knows what was really needed was a caterpillar tracked armoured personnel carrier with a 35mm cannon on the roof.

Military men take enormous risks because they have to make do with whatever equipment and information is to hand. Inevitably they make mistakes. For example, very dangerous to pit HMS Hood against the Bismark, and the result was tragic. HMS Hood was a Battlecruiser, a ship fitted with big guns but thinly armoured for speed – essential to keep the weight down. Battlecruisers were designed specifically to catch and outgun commerce raiding cruisers; unfortunately having big guns and high-speed made it tempting to use battlecruisers to pin down heavily armoured battleships while the rest of the fleet caught up. Wrong tool for the job and always ended badly for the battlecruisers. Bismark was a modern heavily armoured fast battleship, more than a match for the Hood.

However, having gone to a lot of trouble to build a really good Battleship, the Germans found the Bismark wasn't up to the job either. Battleships are highly vulnerable to aircraft. By 1945 battleships were obsolete, because they can't practically be armoured to survive torpedos, sea-mines, aircraft, or guided missiles.

Defence requirements often change during development because others are playing the game too. As new threats emerge, it's necessary to adapt and change the requirement. This became a Cold War battlefield, on which the winner was whoever could afford the ever rising cost of defence equipment. As we know, the Cold War ended when the USSR went broke.

It can get out of hand: joke was MoD would specify a TV to receive all the television systems in the world and withstand 12G drop shocks. British industry would produce a high-quality set weighing 3 tons, 7 years late, and 10 times over budget. That didn't work…

Dave

Well it might suit the bean counters but i don't think the 82nd Airb orne will be too impressed because they have a very wide training requirement…..it might be ok in Florida but temperatures can drop to well below freezing in parts of the US and the roads are long!….anyone thought about a waterproof covering?…anyone thought about what happens in a 'war event'?……anyone thought about IED's.

Since my first post above, I recalled the many stories of failed civvy components in military use during and after WWII….Read up on the British motor industry and it's major battle to get it's head around the unique requirements of designing and building fighting vehicles….read about the Rootes Group and the Valentine tank which was designed around civvy parts….read how Churchill famously threatened Rootes to use specific components….

Even the Germans fell foul of this…..one third of Panzer divisions in 1939 were using horses for transport and secondary battlefield uses (amazing but true!) …but were obliged to change to motor power once training became lethal….

Well, I was thinking of it more as a logistics vehicle to get troops and kit into the battle area rather than an actual combat vehicle. The Vickers gun turret idea was just whimsy, noting that some of the WW1 and inter-war armoured cars used a high rear deck to carry the turret.

Now, not wanting to to hijack this thread, but HMS Hood. The battlecruiser concept was already under criticism after Jutland and before Hood's keel was laid. In the light of such criticism, another 500 tons of armour was worked in – but much speculation since has centred more on the RN ready-use storage of bagged propellant charges in less protected spaces during the Jutland action than the actual armour scheme. Battlecruiser losses at Jutland were more from opposing battlecruisers than battleships.

The second enquiry into the loss of Hood suggested that Bismarck had to hit a region of Hood 40 feet long and 18 inches deep to achieve the result that occurred, and suggested further that it was indeed a very unlucky hit for Hood. It possibly had its roots in confused enemy course reports from the shadowing cruisers during the night, which had lost Hood the abrupt 'crossing-T' approach Adm Holland had hoped for, and forced the tricky and oblique closing manoeuvre of the actual battle.

The later torpedo hit on Bismarck that sealed its fate was hardly less improbable – at least one survivor had played a 'casualty' in an earlier exercise simulating such a hit, and had been told that its estimated probability was in the hundred-thousand-to-one against range.The facts revealed critical design weaknesses in the ship's stern construction.

Edited By Mick B1 on 14/11/2021 17:33:37

In this day and it is just as likely to come under attack getting to a battle zone what with IEDs, RPG fire or suicide bombers which it has little protection against

Hmmm… Currently these are probably mainly used to provide dramatic footage, discourage/outrange local civilian dissent, or otherwise engage targets incapable of effective reply.

Maybe not the sort of things an army presenting itself as the civilised good guys should want to be doing…?