A Snatch in Afghanistan has been attacked with a rocket-propelled grenade

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
I

Ian Rawlings

Guest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5121546.stm

Had to read that one twice.

So when were Army Defenders dubbed "Snatch Land Rovers" and anyone
know why? Or is this just a passing buzzword that the journo has
excessively latched onto?

I've seen vehicles that are blast-proof, based on large haulage trucks
with V-shaped bodies to disperse the blast, and no real protection
against RPGs to which they offer a much larger target.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 

"Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5121546.stm
>
> Had to read that one twice.
>
> So when were Army Defenders dubbed "Snatch Land Rovers" and anyone
> know why? Or is this just a passing buzzword that the journo has
> excessively latched onto?
>
> I've seen vehicles that are blast-proof, based on large haulage trucks
> with V-shaped bodies to disperse the blast, and no real protection
> against RPGs to which they offer a much larger target.
>
> --
> Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Looks like its been around for a while-"The vehicle was dubbed the "Snatch"
because it was used in Northern Ireland to take suspects off the streets. In
Iraq it was meant to be used to swoop on agitators and to provide protection
against bricks and bullets. Experts say it was well known that the vehicle
offered only limited protection against bomb blasts. Indeed, in Northern
Ireland it had been withdrawn from service in some dangerous areas because
it did not offer adequate protection against bombs".
Seems crazy to send a lightly armoured vehicle out on a patrol when you
are aware that insurgents are about with rather more than small arms but
then it shows how much the government cares they gave the Armed Forces a"
Veterans Day" as in they do in the US crap on the forces but give them a
day to celebrate the process.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-blair-is-killing-our-soldiers.html
http://www.web-rover.co.uk/thumb/pics/snatch/640.jpg
Derek


 

Derek wrote:
> "Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5121546.stm
> >
> > Had to read that one twice.
> >
> > So when were Army Defenders dubbed "Snatch Land Rovers" and anyone
> > know why? Or is this just a passing buzzword that the journo has
> > excessively latched onto?
> >
> > I've seen vehicles that are blast-proof, based on large haulage trucks
> > with V-shaped bodies to disperse the blast, and no real protection
> > against RPGs to which they offer a much larger target.
> >
> > --
> > Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
>
> Looks like its been around for a while-"The vehicle was dubbed the "Snatch"
> because it was used in Northern Ireland to take suspects off the streets. In
> Iraq it was meant to be used to swoop on agitators and to provide protection
> against bricks and bullets. Experts say it was well known that the vehicle
> offered only limited protection against bomb blasts. Indeed, in Northern
> Ireland it had been withdrawn from service in some dangerous areas because
> it did not offer adequate protection against bombs".
> Seems crazy to send a lightly armoured vehicle out on a patrol when you
> are aware that insurgents are about with rather more than small arms but
> then it shows how much the government cares they gave the Armed Forces a"
> Veterans Day" as in they do in the US crap on the forces but give them a
> day to celebrate the process.
> http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-blair-is-killing-our-soldiers.html
> http://www.web-rover.co.uk/thumb/pics/snatch/640.jpg
> Derek


A few minutes on the BBC1 10pm news this evening regarding the
suitabilty of Land Rovers for the Army. Angled towards "Is/has the
government cost lives by not investing in a more suitable vehicle for
the forces..."

 
Ian Rawlings wrote:

|| So when were Army Defenders dubbed "Snatch Land Rovers"?

Today, as far as I can see. All over the World At One this lunchtime, but
never heard it before that.

|| Or is this just a passing buzzword that the journo has
|| excessively latched onto?

Looks likely.

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.


 


> A few minutes on the BBC1 10pm news this evening regarding the
> suitabilty of Land Rovers for the Army. Angled towards "Is/has the
> government cost lives by not investing in a more suitable vehicle for
> the forces..."
>

Lada Riva, theyre cheap and parts in Gan probably easy to get hold of.
Lets not take any notice of the users they dont count !!!


 
Hirsty's wrote:
>> A few minutes on the BBC1 10pm news this evening regarding the
>> suitabilty of Land Rovers for the Army. Angled towards "Is/has the
>> government cost lives by not investing in a more suitable vehicle for
>> the forces..."
>>
>
> Lada Riva, theyre cheap and parts in Gan probably easy to get hold of.
> Lets not take any notice of the users they dont count !!!

Superb vehicle! My first car (estate version!) and bloody bomb proof
believe me!! I tried my hardest to make the thing explode, but it just
kept going and going despite having an eager 18 year old at the wheel
regularly revving the bollocks off the engine getting 80 in 3rd from
a 1.5! Rear wheel drive - what a laugh I used to have in that with 4
mates in the car and a wet road - anyone who says you can't get a Lada
to powerslide round a roundabout is not trying hard enough!!

Matt
 
On 2006-06-27, Derek <[email protected]> wrote:

> Seems crazy to send a lightly armoured vehicle out on a patrol when you
> are aware that insurgents are about with rather more than small arms but
> then it shows how much the government cares they gave the Armed Forces a"
> Veterans Day" as in they do in the US crap on the forces but give them a
> day to celebrate the process.

The yanks get the humvee, which also has the same problem, just not
designed to withstand explosions. I've got no idea what makes someone
join the army (I'm crap at taking orders, not to mention fond of
living) but I don't see how any government could send troops in
lightly, it's a huge thing to ask of anyone. If anyone ever thinks
they've got a stressful job, being a soldier has to ace them all.

Sending tanks in might make it worse, that seems to be what's being
said, but who's saying it and what they are saying it for is a
question that's hard to answer; is it an attempt to "explain away" the
decision, or is it genuinely inappropriate to send in large armoured
vehicles.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
Derek wrote:
> "Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5121546.stm
>>
>> Had to read that one twice.
>>
>> So when were Army Defenders dubbed "Snatch Land Rovers" and anyone
>> know why? Or is this just a passing buzzword that the journo has
>> excessively latched onto?
>>
>> I've seen vehicles that are blast-proof, based on large haulage trucks
>> with V-shaped bodies to disperse the blast, and no real protection
>> against RPGs to which they offer a much larger target.
>>
>> --
>> Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
>
> Looks like its been around for a while-"The vehicle was dubbed the "Snatch"
> because it was used in Northern Ireland to take suspects off the streets. In
> Iraq it was meant to be used to swoop on agitators and to provide protection
> against bricks and bullets. Experts say it was well known that the vehicle
> offered only limited protection against bomb blasts. Indeed, in Northern
> Ireland it had been withdrawn from service in some dangerous areas because
> it did not offer adequate protection against bombs".
> Seems crazy to send a lightly armoured vehicle out on a patrol when you
> are aware that insurgents are about with rather more than small arms but
> then it shows how much the government cares they gave the Armed Forces a"
> Veterans Day" as in they do in the US crap on the forces but give them a
> day to celebrate the process.
> http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-blair-is-killing-our-soldiers.html
> http://www.web-rover.co.uk/thumb/pics/snatch/640.jpg
> Derek
>
>
Having served 3 tours in NI I never heard any vehicle being called a
"snatch". Pigs we had aplenty ... some even had wheels :)

As to whether the Land Rover is the right vehicle for the job in
Afghanistan (or elsewhere for that matter) that's another question
altogether. I wonder, though, what you would have provided to protest
the troops from a rocket propelled grenade attack - tanks? An RPG7 can
immobilise a Challenger II (which would be totally unsuitable for the
Afghan terrain anyway). What do you think is the solution?

--
Regards

Steve G
 

"SteveG" <_@_._> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Derek wrote:
>> "Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5121546.stm
>>>
>>> Had to read that one twice.
>>>
>>> So when were Army Defenders dubbed "Snatch Land Rovers" and anyone
>>> know why? Or is this just a passing buzzword that the journo has
>>> excessively latched onto?
>>>
>>> I've seen vehicles that are blast-proof, based on large haulage trucks
>>> with V-shaped bodies to disperse the blast, and no real protection
>>> against RPGs to which they offer a much larger target.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
>>
>> Looks like its been around for a while-"The vehicle was dubbed the
>> "Snatch" because it was used in Northern Ireland to take suspects off the
>> streets. In Iraq it was meant to be used to swoop on agitators and to
>> provide protection against bricks and bullets. Experts say it was well
>> known that the vehicle offered only limited protection against bomb
>> blasts. Indeed, in Northern Ireland it had been withdrawn from service in
>> some dangerous areas because it did not offer adequate protection against
>> bombs".
>> Seems crazy to send a lightly armoured vehicle out on a patrol when
>> you are aware that insurgents are about with rather more than small arms
>> but then it shows how much the government cares they gave the Armed
>> Forces a" Veterans Day" as in they do in the US crap on the forces but
>> give them a day to celebrate the process.
>> http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-blair-is-killing-our-soldiers.html
>> http://www.web-rover.co.uk/thumb/pics/snatch/640.jpg
>> Derek
> Having served 3 tours in NI I never heard any vehicle being called a
> "snatch". Pigs we had aplenty ... some even had wheels :)
>
> As to whether the Land Rover is the right vehicle for the job in
> Afghanistan (or elsewhere for that matter) that's another question
> altogether. I wonder, though, what you would have provided to protest the
> troops from a rocket propelled grenade attack - tanks? An RPG7 can
> immobilise a Challenger II (which would be totally unsuitable for the
> Afghan terrain anyway). What do you think is the solution?
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Steve G
Depends on what you have available sending a patrol out to engage heavily
armed hostiles something a little better than a light vehicle with a layer
of kevlar and fibreglass would be favourite I'd have said the technology is
improving all the time tho'
http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1063/topstories/story23.htm
or a matrix armour system
http://www.defenselink.mil/transformation/factsheets/L-ROD.pdf
not dissimilar to ideas used in WW2.
Derek


 
SteveG wrote:
> Derek wrote:
>
>> "Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5121546.stm
>>>
>>> Had to read that one twice.
>>>
>>> So when were Army Defenders dubbed "Snatch Land Rovers" and anyone
>>> know why? Or is this just a passing buzzword that the journo has
>>> excessively latched onto?
>>>
>>> I've seen vehicles that are blast-proof, based on large haulage trucks
>>> with V-shaped bodies to disperse the blast, and no real protection
>>> against RPGs to which they offer a much larger target.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
>>
>>
>> Looks like its been around for a while-"The vehicle was dubbed the
>> "Snatch" because it was used in Northern Ireland to take suspects off
>> the streets. In Iraq it was meant to be used to swoop on agitators and
>> to provide protection against bricks and bullets. Experts say it was
>> well known that the vehicle offered only limited protection against
>> bomb blasts. Indeed, in Northern Ireland it had been withdrawn from
>> service in some dangerous areas because it did not offer adequate
>> protection against bombs".
>> Seems crazy to send a lightly armoured vehicle out on a patrol
>> when you are aware that insurgents are about with rather more than
>> small arms but then it shows how much the government cares they gave
>> the Armed Forces a" Veterans Day" as in they do in the US crap on the
>> forces but give them a day to celebrate the process.
>> http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-blair-is-killing-our-soldiers.html
>>
>> http://www.web-rover.co.uk/thumb/pics/snatch/640.jpg
>> Derek
>>
> Having served 3 tours in NI I never heard any vehicle being called a
> "snatch". Pigs we had aplenty ... some even had wheels :)
>
> As to whether the Land Rover is the right vehicle for the job in
> Afghanistan (or elsewhere for that matter) that's another question
> altogether. I wonder, though, what you would have provided to protest
> the troops from a rocket propelled grenade attack - tanks? An RPG7 can
> immobilise a Challenger II (which would be totally unsuitable for the
> Afghan terrain anyway). What do you think is the solution?
>
Getting the F**k out, and never having gone there in the first place?

Sorry, I'm a big supporter of the Army (got some good ex-BA buddies),
but this is one spat that we should NEVER have got into.

Stuart
 


> Getting the F**k out, and never having gone there in the first place?
>
> Sorry, I'm a big supporter of the Army (got some good ex-BA buddies),
> but this is one spat that we should NEVER have got into.
>
> Stuart

Agreed, however as they are the best trained in the world perhaps untying
their hands and allowing sensible military descisions would help.
B.........Ks to the polltitions ? They fight for the next vote and abandon
the PBI at the first hint of trouble


 
I get sick of them reporting stuff about people dying in wars on the
news.
I heard them saying earlier on TV that '8 british soldiers have died
in landrovers in iraq so far'

Its a war!, theyre in the army!.. dying in the line of duty is surely
one of the associated risks of being a soldier!

why do they always report when soldiers die in wars like its a
surprise or its wrong? its obviously not very nice, but its not
unheard of!

 
On 2006-06-27, SteveG <_@_._> wrote:

> tanks? An RPG7 can immobilise a Challenger II (which would be
> totally unsuitable for the Afghan terrain anyway). What do you think
> is the solution?

ISTR tanks being extremely vulnerable in towns too, easy to pop out of
a house behind the tank and plant an explosive charge, much more
accurate than trying to hit it with an RPG.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
On 2006-06-27, Tom Woods <[email protected]> wrote:

> why do they always report when soldiers die in wars like its a
> surprise or its wrong? its obviously not very nice, but its not
> unheard of!

It's not that kind of war, the casualties on our side are relatively
rare so more deaths is an event, especially as so much of the country
doesn't agree with the invasion in the first place. Would you prefer
not to hear anything at all?

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:57:17 +0100, Ian Rawlings wrote:

> Sending tanks in might make it worse, that seems to be what's being
> said, but who's saying it and what they are saying it for is a
> question that's hard to answer; is it an attempt to "explain away" the
> decision, or is it genuinely inappropriate to send in large armoured
> vehicles.

How would you feel towards an "occupying force", even if you supported
their presence, if they routinely drove around town in a battle tank?

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:47:56 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2006-06-27, Tom Woods <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> why do they always report when soldiers die in wars like its a
>> surprise or its wrong? its obviously not very nice, but its not
>> unheard of!
>
>It's not that kind of war, the casualties on our side are relatively
>rare so more deaths is an event, especially as so much of the country
>doesn't agree with the invasion in the first place. Would you prefer
>not to hear anything at all?

Its still a war though!. Even if its not a 'proper' war its still a
situation involving lots of armed people with conflicting viewpoints -
its not hard to see where that could end up.

You choose to be a soldier you run the risk of getting killed, part of
the job description isnt it?.
I dont want to face the risk of getting shot at work so i didnt choose
to be a soldier!

I think the main thing that annoyed me was that they were saying
'those soldiers got shot and died because their landrovers wernt
bulletproof', wheras i'd have though that 'these soldiers got shot and
died because they were in a war' would have been more appropriate.
 
Dave Liquorice <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny about:
> How would you feel towards an "occupying force", even if you supported
> their presence, if they routinely drove around town in a battle tank?

Yep, Part of me think if the Bro's on the street corner began to dis me with
there RPG I'd not want to be there even in a tank.

There is a fine balance to be met for the "World Police"... one minute
wandering around in Soft hats to look less like a bunch of blood thirsty war
lords then Trundling around in an APC. Either looks pretty dammed
intimidating.

Sadly alot will boil down to cost. I understand Morph when built in 1978 I
think it was (In his Ambi incarnation - not his baby days as a GS) over
£80,000 was spent on him as a softskined vehicle. How much would an Armoured
vehicle cost in todays money, and how much for an armoured vehicle capible
of withstanding RPG, Landmine?

I'd suggest a change in Tactics personally accepting money is an issue as is
keeping Personnel alive. Aerial insertion would be my favoured option but
even choppers as has so often been seen are vulnerable. There comes a time
sadly when you have to face facts that there will be casualties.

The sooner we can run cars on water the better, we can all get back to
loving.... unless you live in an area where of course there is a hosepipe
ban.

Lee D


 
On 2006-06-27, Tom Woods <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think the main thing that annoyed me was that they were saying
> 'those soldiers got shot and died because their landrovers wernt
> bulletproof', wheras i'd have though that 'these soldiers got shot
> and died because they were in a war' would have been more
> appropriate.

Equally silly reporting traffic accidents, don't want to die in a
crash, don't drive!

You're entitled to an opinion, even if you decide to misuse it ;-)

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
On 27 Jun, in article
<[email protected]>
[email protected] "GS" wrote:

> A few minutes on the BBC1 10pm news this evening regarding the
> suitabilty of Land Rovers for the Army. Angled towards "Is/has the
> government cost lives by not investing in a more suitable vehicle for
> the forces..."

It depends what you want to do. The Army has certainly been looking at a
larger vehicle, more in the class of the 101, which would have light
armour. The wheels of procurement grind slow, and the odd little bits I
recall suggest that the specification had no input from Iraq, but was
meant for the sort of large-scale warfighting that was associated with
the invasion, where protection from shell-splinters rather than RPGs was
more significant.

A modern 101--diesel engine, coil springs--might not be a bad vehicle,
but the cost to the manufacturers of submitting a design these days is
so high that Land Rover was squeezed out of the market. The Wolf isn't
really a new vehicle.

When the Defender line is replaced, Land Rover are going to be starting
from scratch on military sales, and, even with Ford money, it's going to
be hard.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
 
On 2006-06-28, "David G. Bell" <[email protected]> wrote:

> It depends what you want to do. The Army has certainly been looking
> at a larger vehicle, more in the class of the 101, which would have
> light armour. The wheels of procurement grind slow, and the odd
> little bits I recall suggest that the specification had no input
> from Iraq, but was meant for the sort of large-scale warfighting
> that was associated with the invasion, where protection from
> shell-splinters rather than RPGs was more significant.

Would that be the Iveco LMV, known in British variant as the Panther?
It's armoured and is designed to withstand a six kilo landmine
underneath but certainly isn't an armoured car. It looks bigger than
a Defender but isn't a forward control.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top