mycrofft
Still crazy but elsewhere
- 11,322
- 48
- 48
Military ambulance photo thread in another forum
- Thread starter mycrofft
- Start date
- 6,368
- 812
- 113
Pretty cool!
Steveb
Forum Lieutenant
- 147
- 0
- 0
Yessss Thanks there pretty neat ambulances
OP
OP
mycrofft
Still crazy but elsewhere
- 11,322
- 48
- 48
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The old low-profile NATO/Euro concept seems to have been replaced by the high up off the ground/armored like crazy school of thought.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.
The old low-profile NATO/Euro concept seems to have been replaced by the high up off the ground/armored like crazy school of thought.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.
rwik123
Forum Asst. Chief
- 718
- 7
- 18
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The old low-profile NATO/Euro concept seems to have been replaced by the high up off the ground/armored like crazy school of thought.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?
OP
OP
mycrofft
Still crazy but elsewhere
- 11,322
- 48
- 48
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
OP
OP
mycrofft
Still crazy but elsewhere
- 11,322
- 48
- 48
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.
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.
OP
OP
mycrofft
Still crazy but elsewhere
- 11,322
- 48
- 48
LR Defender of Turkey/United Nations:
Nice big windows..
Nice big windows..
OP
OP
mycrofft
Still crazy but elsewhere
- 11,322
- 48
- 48
Googled Land Rover Defense Ambulance and got this image too
LR Defender of Turkey/United Nations:
Nice big windows..
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
Californian, Lost in Texas
- 4,997
- 1,462
- 113
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.
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.
OP
OP
mycrofft
Still crazy but elsewhere
- 11,322
- 48
- 48
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.
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
Forum Asst. Chief
- 964
- 76
- 28
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
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
mycrofft
Still crazy but elsewhere
- 11,322
- 48
- 48
Thanks DPM, great acronym control!
Hemostatic
Forum Probie
- 24
- 0
- 1
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.....
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
Forum Asst. Chief
- 964
- 76
- 28
Yes i am. Providing range support for two more weeks