Military ambulance photo thread in another forum

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mycrofft said:
Ballistic glass...has a bad ring to it, even though it's supposed to denote that it WON'T go ballistic.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
That sounds........intense....
 
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.
 
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.....
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :ph34r:



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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
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..?
 
Which vehicles are the best to carry casualties in? Are there any which are not good to carry them in?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
DPM said:
Has the UK identified a capability gap, or has the US seen that the extra mobility isn't worth the extra risk..?
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top