[GZG] Mine resistant vehicles

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/09/military-adds-armor-to-ir_n_101
083.html

Jon (or someone else) should make some wheel models that look like the new
generation of mine resistant vehicles we're seeing. They look pretty
interesting.

That would be very cool. With no end to asymmetric war for the
foreseeable future, giving something like the Buffalo a sci-fi edge
would be a model that I imagine would be very well received.

I'm a Traveller geek so I'm always looking for more grav vehicles, but this is
a case where I'd throw a vote behind the wheeled vehicle fans.

The real crime is that Peter Pig makes the Bulldog, but not the Buffel. I've
heard he plans to. Many people use the Bulldog as the Buffel, but the cab is
on the wrong side (among other things). It's strange since the Buffel was in
much wider production. Something like 1500 vs 150.

-Mark Kinsey

> Tom B wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/09/military-adds-armor-to-ir_n_101
083.html
> Jon (or someone else) should make some wheel models that look like the

> TomB wrote:

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/09/military-adds-armor-to-ir_n_10

To me they look pretty much like the modified trucks they are... They're

also big as barns and heavy as hell, which makes them rather unmanouevrable
- while their limited cross-country performance doesn't matter that much
in Iraq ATM (not even tracks are very good at crossing canals, marshy areas

and town buildings :-/ ), the MRAPs also have problems with narrow
streets and similar restricted urban terrains.

I can't recall off-hand if GZG's "Phalanx" and similar vehicles are
V-bottomed; but if they are they could easily be at least as
mine-resistant
as today's MRAPs.

Regards,

> TomB wrote:
They're
> also big as barns and heavy as hell, which makes them rather

Though it wasn't something I originally had in mind, both the Paladin
and the Phalanx WOULD be pretty good mine-resistant designs - you'd
probably lose a wheel to a large enough charge, but if you assume they can
keep driving on 5 of the 6 (as I believe the Saladin and
Saracen could way back, and I presume most of today's 6-wheelers can
too) then they'd stand a good chance of protecting their occupants and still
be able to drive out of trouble.

Jon (GZG)

> Regards,

Bear in mind that at least one of those designes is based on the oshkosh mtvr
which has better cross countey performance than a hmmwv has. One account I've
had from what I consider a reliable source says that the mtvr had enough
reserve performace to out pace the other logistics vehicles.

For the role of patrolling what the military consifders roads, the purpose
built 5 and 7 ton mine protected vehicles are a far sight better than up
armoured hmmwvs are.

You're not going to get high road speed, cross country performance, armour,
IED resistance that's worth a damn, decent dismount capacity AND still be able
to go down narrow streets. You just can't pack all those objectives into a
vehicle and still be able to fund it or build it quickly.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
am happy somebody pointed this out. Military vehicles are by their nature
pretty specialized and trying to get too much out of a design or to outright
misuse them is seldom a recipe for success. Sure, there are time when some
sort of field conversion or expedient use of a design works out, but these are
flukes.

-Eli

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Ryan GIll" <rmgill@mindspring.com>

> Bear in mind that at least one of those designes is based on the

> At 1:33 PM -0400 5/11/08, Tom B wrote:

I love how they barely even state the weapons that they mean, ie the EFP off
route mines that have been making their way to Iraq via the nice friendly
peace loving Iranian government.

> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> Though it wasn't something I originally had in mind, both the Paladin

Yes, yes they can.:)

However, what you don't see as often "in-theater" as in publicity
shots of the vehicles is the externally-mounted spare tires.  They are
flammable, and most things that take out the tire also damage the vehicle
enough to require more than just a spare tire.

Ill have to research this. But it seems like on reflection it'll depend also
on the intensity of the conflict and the distance you are from the
b-echelon or supply vehicles.

In ww2, I don't think a lot of the british armoured cars carried spares. The
idea being if things were hot enough to need spares when you have runflats (
dunlop trakgrips in this case) the its too hot to stop and change the tire.

Conversely if you're policing the empire and dealing with irgun or malayan
insurgents, you might see spare tires fitted to various armoured cars. My
humber has spare tire mount fitted, but I am uncertainif that is a post war or
portugese fit or not. The bracket is quite simple. Post war the newly designed
ferret had a 5th spare. Its bigger brothers, the saracen and saladin did not.
Dingos and daimler acs did not carry spares. Though postwar daimler acs
certainly do appear with spare tires.

ill have to inquire with wheeled armour collectors and folks like david
fletcher.

--
Ryan Gill sent from my treo

[quoted original message omitted]

Ryan Gill schrieb:
> I love how they barely even state the weapons

Though it is far from clear that the EFP mines do come from Iran.

Apparently, any competent cobbler can produce the metal disk for the
penetrator and the other neccessary metal parts. Explosives and fuzes are
readily available in Iraq. For a discussion, see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator
http://yorkshire-ranter.blogspot.com/2008/05/which-in-your-case-you-have
-not-got.html
http://yorksranter.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/feel-the-steel-balls/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/revealed-ira-bombs-kil
led-eight-british-soldiers-in-iraq-511177.html

The basic idea is from WWII, designs were developed in the 1960s, I have

an open-source Bundeswehr technical article from the 1980 with
considerable details.

To bring this slightly back on to topic, it is an example where an effective
weapon can be produced by simple 'colony' means. The sophistication is in
developing the basic know how. Reproducing the design is then simple.

Greetings KArl Heinz

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 3:33 AM, K.H.Ranitzsch
> <kh.ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:

> Though it is far from clear that the EFP mines do come from Iran.

You know, when you find them in caches still in the shipping case and they
were manufactured in Iran and still have the identifying information stamped
on the side, it's downright moronic for anyone to claim that they are
homemade.

Dumbass.

> Apparently, any competent cobbler can produce the metal disk for the

Any competent cobbler can put together a weapon. But it won't take an MRAP
because your competent cobbler isn't going to get the tolerances
necessary to produce a weapon that good without a shit-ton of
explosive weight.

John Atkinson schrieb:
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 3:33 AM, K.H.Ranitzsch

Is this from your own experience? Or could you point me to an open,
trustworthy source with that kind level of detail, plus perhaps place and time
of the finds?

What I usually see in the media is about Iraq is usually too vague and
  not always trustworthy - whatever side of an argument they may be on.

Greetings Karl Heinz

> At 10:33 AM +0200 5/12/08, K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:

The machining characteristics are supposed to be very trickly. Not so hard if
you get an exact template, but you're up to some serious quality control
issues. The degree of tolerances are FAR less flexible than they are for
traditional shaped charges. An EFP will not have as effective of performance
in depth of armor penetrated than an equivalent shaped charge.

Funny thing is I keep wanting to say Holtzman Effect when I think of the
shaped charge/EFP, which is of course the Monroe effect. That is
obviously wrong but still funny I think.

> At 5:48 AM -0500 5/12/08, John Atkinson wrote:

And I've heard this from more than just one direct source that was on the
scene.

But you know John, the Iranian government isn't responsible for the weapons
that get shipped to Iraq, right...

Thanks for the thoughtful, reasoned, and civil reply to a previous reply that
was none of the above. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an apology.

By the way, I've seen reports on Iranian weapons cases, but not specific to
EFP's.

The_Beast

Karl wrote on 05/12/2008 09:40:33 AM:

> John Atkinson schrieb:

> At 10:31 AM -0500 5/12/08, Doug Evans wrote:

Doug, bear in mind. John has been over to Iraq twice. His wife has been there
once. Her deployment was after his first deployment and before his second.
They had about enough time to kiss and get to know each other again before she
was in the theatre. John is working up for his Third deployment. She'll
probably get a deployment after he comes back.

I strongly suspect that his being told that he is mistaken on what is and is
NOT supplied by the Iranian QODS Force when he's probably inventoried and
stacked the boxes himself is NOT a good way to get a polite response to him.
Especially considering he's probably helped bag
friends and co-workers who've been killed by those same weapons from
those same sources.

If you look at the media and reports and the history, it's bloody clear that
Iran has a hand in what is going on in Iraq. Both in material funding and in
advisors. We captured several Iranians who were "on holiday" who were quite
clearly there to advise 'Mookie' al Sadr. The attack on the US compound where
US soldiers were 'captured' and then executed had a LOT of markers that
pointed to an Iranian Op. How many acts of war do we allow the Iranians? I'm
sure that's in Johns mind. It is in mine.

> By the way, I've seen reports on Iranian weapons cases, but not

The Administration/Pentagon showed some around a while back. People were
un-impressed. The same was done with some of the weapons supplied to
Hezballah. The Media is NOT really concerned with this sort of detail. Why I
cannot say, I don't go to those meetings here at work.

The thing about this war is that there are enough speedy open source details
that if you listen and pay attention, you'll get a better idea of what's going
on than from the nightly casualty count figures cited on air.

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 9:40 AM, K.H.Ranitzsch
> <kh.ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:

> Is this from your own experience ? Or could you point me to an open,

No, I wasn't in an area where Quds Force was a problem--I spent all my
time in sectors where the locals hate Iranians. I get that info from
NCO-to-NCO conversations.  I know guys who have pulled these things.
I also know we've been killing Iranians inside Iraq since 2003.

A few minutes with Google gets Reuters quoting CENTCOM spokesmen who say the
exact same thing I do here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSCOL245002

But for specific hits like that, you'll have to dig through MNF-I's
website.
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&secti
onid=1&id=47&Itemid=131

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Doug, bear in mind. John has been over to Iraq twice. His wife has

While I can appreciate why John was upset with the original post, I have to
agree with Doug. His "dumbass" comment was uncalled for.

Thanks, Ryan.

I understood most of your points, though I think, on this forum, civil
discourse, no matter how strong the disagreement, should be met with civil
discourse. I've stepped across the line at times, and have been either quick
to apologize, or leave the forum to cool.

I acknowledge, as well, my personal debt for his sacrifice. I wish like hell
he wasn't going back.

However, I take your point already, as I try to avoid replying or even
acknowledging his words; no loss to him there. I apologize for my slip.

The_Beast

> Ryan Gill wrote:

> >The basic idea is from WWII, designs were developed in the 1960s, I

Replying in reverse order:

- The last few words above should be "...than an equivalent HEAT
charge"; EFPs are shaped charges too.

- An EFP will never have as good armour penetration as a
similar-diameter
HEAT warhead of comparable manufacturing quality, since the EFP trades away
penetration to gain its comparatively huge stand-off.

- As for the manufacturing tolerances needed, the EFP submunitions used
in
today's BONUS, SADARM and similar MAK-style artillery munitions have
stand-off ranges of approx. 200 meters so even a tiny deviation will
cause
the slug to miss; and that does require very high-quality manufacturing
indeed. However, a road-side mine doesn't need a 200+ meter standoff;
20-30
meters is plenty sufficient... which allows it to use far looser manufacturing
tolerances and still both hit and hurt the target.

Regards,

Exactly the kind of response I was looking from you. :-)

--
Ryan Gill sent from my treo

[quoted original message omitted]

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

Balloon tyres are good for reducing the ground pressure such that an at weight
mine won't be set off. However some mines have different initiators or
settings for trigger weight that can be set when laid to reduce vehicle
counter measures.

The South African and Rhodesian pookie and similar vehicles use the large wide
tyres with low ground pressure AND have v shaped hulls to minimize dmage as
well.

If I'm the red force commander and laying mines where balloon tyres and hover
are vehicle counter measures, ill set them up for using magnetic variance or
audio transducers (already in use in off route mines) and other non contact
type initiators.

Man, remember when this list used to be about science-fiction games and
bad sheep puns? Good times, good times...

-P.

Paul, the list has veered into reality before, not to worry I'm sure the sheep
are just biding their time....)

Don

[quoted original message omitted]

Sheep! of course the are used as mine detectors!

Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn

> At 10:23 PM -0400 5/12/08, paul@otd.com wrote:

It still is. Threads like this happen. It's a fact of the list. I just found
another discussion about general mine resistance of armored vehicles
from 01 in my archives of the list. ;-)

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> It still is. Threads like this happen. It's a

Given that SG2 is sometimes criticized as "Vietnam in space", it's a
good idea -- particularly for us playtesters -- to know the state of
the art in conventional weapons.

SG2 is often lauded as being semi-realistic (or as realistic as you
can get without knowing what the future's really going to look like, and with
the caveat of the criticism from the previous paragraph). these discussions
about what's realistic and what's not is beneficial for the list, IMHO.

What I'd really like to see are practical discussions of modern day tactics
and how to implement them in SG2 and DS2.

What I'd really like to see are practical discussions of modern day tactics
and how to implement them in SG2 and DS2.

I know this has come up before but, I've been watching the show "Future
Weapons" and there are many system covered there would do well in SGII. The
one that I find most interesting is the use of armed drones for land combat
(the flyers too) but vehicle based like the Crusher.

http://www.cmu.edu/cmnews/extra/060428_crusher.html

Anyone play with this idea?

> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Michael <mwsaber6@msn.com> wrote:

At the Vimy Ridge Memorial, Parks Canada[1] uses a flock of sheep as
lawnmowers. There´s an average of one UXO per square metre, so it´s
far too hazardous to use any sort of human-operated lawnmower. They
lose about one sheep a year to something 80+ years old finally going
Boom.[2]

Brian warbard.ca
[1] Parks Canada, because the territory of the Memorial is a gift to
the people of Canada from the people of France, in perpetuity. That makes
these particular UXO our problem, pretty much.
[2] The group of 13-ish English schoolkids I wound up touring Vimy
Ridge with (they were the entirety of the next tour, I was allowed to tag
along) were far more interested in the fate of the sheep than the history of
some old foriegn monument... can´t really blame them, they´d been doing the
Western Front for the past three days and were rather monumented out...

> It still is. Threads like this happen. It's a fact of the list.

Oh, I know. I just don't get to play as much SG as I'd like (rapidly
approaching annually, it seems) so I use this list as a pleasant diversion.
But when I come home top a big pile of arguments over military minutiae and
slanted and 'fervent' discussion of current events, it's slightly
disheartening.

(It doesn't help that I read in digest mode, either, so I get hit with it all
at once.)

-P.

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Brian Burger <blurdesign@gmail.com> wrote:

> At the Vimy Ridge Memorial, Parks Canada[1] uses a flock of sheep as

A friend of mine visited the Great War battlefields in France and Belgium two
or three years ago. He said they are still finding all sorts of stuff. The
woman whose B&B he stayed at had a collection that put many museum displays to
shame.

Michael heard it suggested that you could pretty much dig anywhere on those
fields and find something in short order. He did a test and marked off a metre
square area and began to dig with his hands. Within minutes he had what he
thinks is a buckle from a gas mask case. The French government have no
problems with people finding these things and taking them home (unlike the
U.S. Parks Service, which gets pretty upset with people who take metal
detectors onto Civil War battlefields).

As you mention, they still find unexploded ordnance quite frequently. Not long
before my friend got there, someone near the B&B where he was staying was
killed by a Mills Bomb. Mind you, the idiot had dug up the Mills Bomb and was
using a power grinder to clean it up. I guess he
never learned the simple equation: unstable explosive + vibration +
heat = boom.

They still find human remains on a regular basis. The local farmers try to
find out who the remains belong to. Michael heard that if the remains are
German they end up "thrown away" as the farmer doesn't want to bother with the
paperwork.

> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Michael <mwsaber6@msn.com> wrote:

Sheep would be a little lightweight to set off the heavier stuff, but
lightweight AP mines could be set off by sheep easily.

The would also be fine for pressure plate IEDs, tripwires, and some other
detection methods, but I don't think their body temperature is high enough to
set off PIR sensors.

The obvious solution is set the sheep on fire if you suspect PIR-fuzed
mines in the area, of course.

You could also install metal plates on their tummies to set off magnetic
detonators.

> On 5/13/08, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:

> At 11:22 AM -0500 5/13/08, Allan Goodall wrote:

Actually, from some other sources I've heard that Mills bombs, once
assembled can be dangerous. Trying to un-fuse a new one is a bad idea.
It has something I suppose to do with the slow match material getting into the
base plug and when you go to unscrew the base plug after some handling you're
risking the match material igniting and setting of the main part of match and
then running to the detonator.

I have some drill purpose No36 bombs at home. Very neat design.

You could also install metal plates on their tummies to set off magnetic
detonators.

Could rig up an all purpose harness with projecting rods to catch trip wires,
and a small ecm package to set off the command detonation types....Now,
turning my self over to the humane society...)

Why did I just imagine a robotic sheep that Wallace and Gromit have cobbled
together?

> At 1:59 PM -0400 5/13/08, Robert Mayberry wrote:

Why did I just imagine a robotic sheep that Wallace and Gromit have cobbled
together?

Simple, the image fits...)