# Military ambulance photo thread in another forum



## mycrofft (Jan 16, 2012)

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?136263-Military-Ambulance-Thread/page4


----------



## Chimpie (Jan 16, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?136263-Military-Ambulance-Thread/page4



Pretty cool!


----------



## Steveb (Mar 15, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?136263-Military-Ambulance-Thread/page4


Yessss Thanks there pretty neat ambulances


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 15, 2012)

I was lucky enough to visit Kandahar and saw about five different types of vehicles bearing either the red cross or red crescent. It seemed to me that snooping in other people's vehicles (or taking their pictures) is not done lightly where most military folks, if not all, are armed and a little antsy, so I didn't see the arrangements. (Bagram had a sign forbidding photographing vehicles). 

The old low-profile NATO/Euro concept seems to have been replaced by the high up off the ground/armored like crazy school of thought.
If you want to be thinking ahead, come up with some way to cheaply export and find a new use for the MRAPS and other ponderous up-armored vehicles we will be forced into leaving behind there when we pull out.


----------



## DPM (Mar 15, 2012)

I don't think anyone will be leaving them behind after we leave. And anyway, I'm sure we'll just drive them across the border into Iran...


----------



## rwik123 (Mar 15, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> I was lucky enough to visit Kandahar and saw about five different types of vehicles bearing either the red cross or red crescent. It seemed to me that snooping in other people's vehicles (or taking their pictures) is not done lightly where most military folks, if not all, are armed and a little antsy, so I didn't see the arrangements. (Bagram had a sign forbidding photographing vehicles).
> 
> The old low-profile NATO/Euro concept seems to have been replaced by the high up off the ground/armored like crazy school of thought.
> If you want to be thinking ahead, come up with some way to cheaply export and find a new use for the MRAPS and other ponderous up-armored vehicles we will be forced into leaving behind there when we pull out.



Why would we be leaving them behind?


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 15, 2012)

I read it costs us $150,000 to air transport one assembled MRAP from factory to Afghanistan. They are being driven over roads consisting of potholes tied together by cobblestones the size of your head and IEDs, so will not always be in the best of shape. Can't be resold in the States if prior history holds true. We don't necessarily want then to become equipment for  whomever gets them over there, likely Taliban eventually.


While you're at it, figure out a way to make a profit recycling the millions of water bottles and aluminum cans thrown out, and the empty CONEXs no one can make a profit from taking them out of KAF or Bagram empty.


----------



## DPM (Mar 15, 2012)

I don't think they'll want to re-sell them. They're important bits of kit that are well suited to a number of different tasks. It might cost $105,000 to fly it, but there's no rush. Most of them were stuck on low loaders and driven in from Pakistan, I'm sure we can ship them home that way.


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 16, 2012)

Pakistan doesn't want to play nice right now and if things get nastier they will even less.
Can always use them for target practice for the Warthogs.
Or ice cream trucks in bad neighborhoods further south of KAF.

They sit rather high up (maybe fifteen feet or higher) so if you're in an environment with lots of rockets and tanks shooting at you, not so good. Rolling forts historically have a way of turning into death traps.


----------



## DPM (Mar 16, 2012)

I wouldn't want to be in one for a proper shooting war that's for sure, but I've seen Mastiff (the British MRAP) take some serious IED hits for nothing more than an M-Kill.

Back to ambulances though, the old Land rover Defender ambulance was nice, sleeps 5 comfortably!


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 16, 2012)

LR Defender of Turkey/United Nations:






Nice big windows..


----------



## mycrofft (Mar 16, 2012)

*Googled Land Rover Defense Ambulance and got this image too*


----------



## DPM (Mar 16, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> LR Defender of Turkey/United Nations:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They're pretty adaptable in the back. They can take 3 seated or 2 stretchers on both sides. BUT they're made of plastic.... So now all they do is drive people from the HLS to the Hospital!


----------



## RocketMedic (Jun 3, 2012)

Mycrofft, we likely won't leave many of the M-ATVs behind, and none of the Strykers. The Caimans, HAGAs, RG31/33 series, etc- I have a feeling that the US is going to sell or outright gift many of them to the ANA and other security agencies. We did with the Iraqis.

Many of those vehicles are worn out or simply too badly damaged to efficiently save. Others have already been rendered obsolete by IED development, to say nothing of purpose-built antiarmor weaponry. The Stryker series is already trending down this line.

MRAPs will be quite useful in our next peacekeeping role, but likely not for our next conventional war in a frontline setting. With that being said, an M-ATV with a proper RWS and a Javelin setup would be a right proper scout rig, the Husky will never go away, and a battalion-sized infantry rush of M-ATVs or Strykers would be significantly more dangerous than a similar push with M113s would have been.


----------



## mycrofft (Jun 3, 2012)

Thoughtful analysis. Of course we will need to replace everything to keep defense contractors busy. I was amused when they basically reinvented the Jeep after the HUMV was fully invested.
I foresee no change in combat casulty tranport,  what's in theater will be adapted or the wounded tossed into whatever is on hand.


----------



## EMT11KDL (Jun 5, 2012)

This is what i am in right now..


----------



## DPM (Jun 5, 2012)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> ...With that being said, an M-ATV with a proper RWS and a Javelin setup would be a right proper scout rig...



Take a look at the British Jackal 2 / Coyote vehicles, they're doing just that. You can have a 4 vehicle Fire Support team with 2 x .50 cal, 2x GMG, 4 x GPMG, Javelin and a JTAC / FAC + MFC / FOO. Packs a punch!

(PS- Mycroft, GMG is the 40mm Grenade Machine Gun, GPMG is the 7.62 FN General Purpose Machine Gun, JTAC is a Joint Terminal Attack Controller, FAC is Forward Air controller, MFC is Mortar Fire Controller and FOO is a Forward Observation officer.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackal_(vehicle)#Jackal_2


----------



## mycrofft (Jun 6, 2012)

Thanks DPM, great acronym control!


----------



## Hemostatic (Jun 6, 2012)

Rocket - You're probably right about the vehicles that will be left in country, however I would really like to see as many of the RGs and Cougars as possible brought home. They are infinitely better suited to deal with IED threats than the MATV or MaxxPro ever will be. 

With the exception of all terrain capability, the MATV is just about useless in my opinion. Poor blast resistance, no gear/casualty space inside the vehicle, difficult to un-*** in a hurry..... The list goes on. I will give them points for comfort over the RGs though. 

My opinion is that we will never enter another fight where IEDs are not a significant factor. For that, we will need the the blast resistance of an RG or a Cougar. If we do happen to end up somewhere that the road doesn't randomly explode, then we roll the Strykers and Bradleys. 


EMT11KDL - I sure hope that is your state-side ride, 'cause I would sure hate to think about riding around in a 113 in any type of hostile environment. 


DPM - I have a lot of respect for the Brits and their military. However, every time I saw one of those Jackals driving around in A'stan, I thought they were totally nuts. I can't even imagine what an IED blast must be like with an open crew compartment like that. Plus, being surrounded by ballistic glass always gave me the warm fuzzies.....


----------



## EMT11KDL (Jun 6, 2012)

Yes i am. Providing range support for two more weeks


----------



## mycrofft (Jun 6, 2012)

Ballistic glass...has a bad ring to it, even though it's supposed to denote that it WON'T go ballistic.

French in the early Sixties allegedly had caboose rail cars made up as battle wagons, their bright idea was to make a thin interior partition to hold a layer of gravel against the wooden exterior wall to stop frags and bullets. Ballistic gravel if you will, amazing what gravel does inside such a car when you shoot a katyushka into it from outside. It goes ballistic.


----------



## Hemostatic (Jun 6, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> Ballistic glass...has a bad ring to it, even though it's supposed to denote that it WON'T go ballistic.


With things like 7.62mm and smaller, various fragments/debris (depending on distance from the blast), and all the rocks that the kids like to throw, that glass can be your best friend. 



mycrofft said:


> French in the early Sixties allegedly had caboose rail cars made up as battle wagons, their bright idea was to make a thin interior partition to hold a layer of gravel against the wooden exterior wall to stop frags and bullets. Ballistic gravel if you will, amazing what gravel does inside such a car when you shoot a katyushka into it from outside. It goes ballistic.


That sounds........intense....


----------



## mycrofft (Jun 6, 2012)

I was amazed at the netting around a MRAP I walked around at KAF, it had a mine clearance prow and netting like kids were going to trampoline in it.

The earliest version of the Bradley was no party shack either, aluminum armor which tended to spall and burn into the interior when stricken by explosive munitions (small cannon rounds, katyushkas, shaped charges). They almost scrapped it but Congress decided it needed to be made.


----------



## DPM (Jun 6, 2012)

Hemostatic said:


> DPM - I have a lot of respect for the Brits and their military. However, every time I saw one of those Jackals driving around in A'stan, I thought they were totally nuts. I can't even imagine what an IED blast must be like with an open crew compartment like that. Plus, being surrounded by ballistic glass always gave me the warm fuzzies.....



I see your point but most IED strikes we had occurred underneath or very close the vehicle, so it's a bit noisy and dusty etc but the 'hull' / belly armour would protect you. Balistic glass and all that is great, but this keeps the weight down and thus greatly improves maneuverability. Jackal can get where most other vehicles can't, (hopefully!) avoiding most vulnerable points and IEDs. 

It has a good record against IEDs and most of the serious casualties happened when the device was just big enough to defeat the chassis / belly armor.


----------



## Hemostatic (Jun 6, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> I was amazed at the netting around a MRAP I walked around at KAF, it had a mine clearance prow and netting like kids were going to trampoline in it.



I know what style you're talking about. I didn't have a lot of personal experience with the nets though. We had the older style bar armor that was just an aluminum cage that surrounded the vehicle. I have two guys that are still walking around today as a direct result of that bar armor. 

Plus, it made a really convenient ladder for me to crawl up on top of the trucks.  h34r:





DPM said:


> It has a good record against IEDs and most of the serious casualties happened when the device was just big enough to defeat the chassis / belly armor.



Luckily, I never came across any blown up Jackals. Whenever I saw them, I always envisioned some pretty nasty things though. 

On the other hand, the Brits I worked around were always smart enough to wait for, and stay behind, route clearance. Which is more than I can say for some U.S. forces...... :glare:


----------



## DPM (Jun 7, 2012)

They're definitely not as 'survivable' as MRAP / Mastiff but then again, MRAP is not as protected as a Main Battle Tank... It's Armor Vs Mobility again. I was never a fan of sitting right on top of the front wheels but I'd rather go scooting around the green zone in a Jackal than in a Hummer. I don't think there is a US equivalent... now the conclusions that can be drawn from that are interesting. Has the UK identified a capability gap, or has the US seen that the extra mobility isn't worth the extra risk..?


----------



## mycrofft (Jun 7, 2012)

Which vehicles are the best to carry casualties in? Are there any which are not good to carry them in?


----------



## DPM (Jun 7, 2012)

Jackal wasn't great for casevac, it sits quite high off the ground and is usually stuffed full of ammunition etc so space is at a premium. Mastiff (UK version of the Cougar) is a bit more accommodating with the bench seats... We also had Quad-bikes with trailers that were used quite a bit. Trailer was full of Link / 5.56 etc. Came forward, dropped off the Ammo with the Coy SgtMaj / Platoon Sgt and then took the casualties. It's a bumpy ride with no c-spine or any of that, but when you're still in contact none of that really mattered. Most of the time we self extracted to an HLS or to a Quick reaction Force who would take the Cas to an HLS. Our only role one facility was Bastion so it was RAF / USAF that we needed, and not a tricked out armored ambulance.


----------



## Hemostatic (Jun 8, 2012)

DPM said:


> Has the UK identified a capability gap, or has the US seen that the extra mobility isn't worth the extra risk..?


I can't speak to the abilities of the Jackal, however, I do know that the US MATV has some pretty impressive mobility. If I had to pick a vehicle to go up against the Jackal in a mobility test, it'd be the MATV. 

The MATV's mobility came at the expense of blast protection, so it is possible that the two vehicles are filling the same slot. I will say that the Jackal appears to come with a lot bigger teeth.....




mycrofft said:


> Which vehicles are the best to carry casualties in? Are there any which are not good to carry them in?


The following assumes that none of the vehicles are setup specifically as MEDEVAC/ambulances:  
- Cougar is the cadillac. 
- MaxxPros have just a touch more interior space, which is why I'm giving the edge over the RG, _for CASEVAC only_.
- Then the RGs. 
- Personally, I'd try to get my pt in a buffalo before I resorted to an MATV, but you're going to need a good crew of guys to this done, especially if it's a litter pt. 
- MATV if there is nothing else around. If your pt. is ambulatory, it works out alright, but he's on a litter.....you're in trouble.


----------



## DPM (Jun 8, 2012)

We've actually procured something similar to MATV called Ocelot but most of the guys I've spoken to don't like it. In the same way as you said the MATV doesn't have the teeth that Jackal has, the Ocelot (or Foxhound as we're calling it) can't carry or mount the same amount of hardware. The thinking is that there's no point in being super armored and safe if when you get to the fight you've got nothing to fight with! If you've going to up-armor you vehicles to survive IED / RPG hits then it's going to be big and heavy. If it's going to be big it might as well be big enough to put a decent number of guys in the back. If you're going for smaller and you've got to sacrifice armor then make the sacrifice worth it. The guys being issued with Foxhound are saying that there's no need for a smaller and less protected version of Mastiff, especially if it doesn't pack much of a punch and means you've got to dismount to engage the enemy.

You're list of Casevac preference is pretty much the same for us. We have a UK speck version of Cougar. Mastiff is the larger 6x6 (more common) and Ridgeback (4x4) version. We love these wagons and the Taliban loved shooting at them, and to date I don't think their crews have had any serious casualties. Unfortunately the same can't be said for Jackal, but the vehicles are battle winners, giving commanders a real ability to maneuver some real fire power against the enemy.


----------



## Engine3/emt (Jun 22, 2012)

That's awesome.  good post!


----------

