Modern UORs

[ferretfixer]

Think back to the Soviets in Afghanistan and the Iraqi forces in GW-1 when using BMP-1 and-2 vehicles where the rear doors are actually fuel cells with about 150 litres of diesel in each. Squads riding inside when hit up the backside by API rounds or RPG's got roasted alive if they didn't have the upper hatches at least ready to open if not actually open..... Even if they did they were burnt to some degree....

 

Not a nice way to go..... :-( :-(

 

Neil I had the chance to inspect a BMP when I was serving. Quite a good vehicle all things considered. BUT, I thought at the time also, as you pointed out. The Archilies Heel was the back doors! What a case of spoiling the ship for a ha-parth of tar! All that deisgn work Bugg**d up by making the rear doors fuel tanks! One AP Incendary, & whoomf! Thank goodness they were Potential 'Enemy' vehicles & not ours! :shake:

[ferretfixer]

Diesel isn't that difficult to burn, a farmer I knew used to soak a bale in diesel so he could get piles of old tyres to catch.

 

Another thing popular with Troops when Non Tac was to pour sand into an empty oil drum (About two foot high version) with the lid cut off. The pour about gallon & a half of Diesel into it. Then set fire with a match, lovely for warming hands & boiling water for a brew! Burnt VERY well as I remember! :-D

[petop]

Another thing popular with Troops when Non Tac was to pour sand into an empty oil drum (About two foot high version) with the lid cut off. The pour about gallon & a half of Diesel into it. Then set fire with a match, lovely for warming hands & boiling water for a brew! Burnt VERY well as I remember! :-D

 

It will burn well, but you have to initiate the burning process. Without a secondary fuel source it wont "set fire with a match". This will only happen if:

a. The fuel temp is 54 degrees C (but less if Aviation Fuel is present)

or

b. You use a little Petrol etc to start it then the Diesel takes over.

 

I know this as part of my job is amongst other things burning/boiling/evaporating fuel and the hardest fuel to "test" is Diesel.

 

In fact, if you get a glass jar of Diesel on a day like today and put a lighted match in, it will put the flame out.

[ArtistsRifles]

Neil I had the chance to inspect a BMP when I was serving. Quite a good vehicle all things considered. BUT, I thought at the time also, as you pointed out. The Archilies Heel was the back doors! What a case of spoiling the ship for a ha-parth of tar! All that deisgn work Bugg**d up by making the rear doors fuel tanks! One AP Incendary, & whoomf! Thank goodness they were Potential 'Enemy' vehicles & not ours! :shake:

 

In their defense it was done for a reason - as you know the BMP series are fully amphibious and those hollow rear doors, even when filled with diesel, helped with the buoyancy.

 

Personally I would have had them filled with something like suppressant foam instead and cut down the range of the vehicle accordingly or made them self-sealing with the extra cost involved - but Soviet designers had different priorities back then!!

[petop]

As for "Modern UOR's" we tend to use AVTUR on Ops but we suffer a lack of engine performance in using it so the tendency is to move back to Diesel now.

[ferretfixer]

It will burn well, but you have to initiate the burning process. Without a secondary fuel source it wont "set fire with a match". This will only happen if:

a. The fuel temp is 54 degrees C (but less if Aviation Fuel is present)

or

b. You use a little Petrol etc to start it then the Diesel takes over.

 

I know this as part of my job is amongst other things burning/boiling/evaporating fuel and the hardest fuel to "test" is Diesel.

 

In fact, if you get a glass jar of Diesel on a day like today and put a lighted match in, it will put the flame out.

 

I found it lit ok when using the Storm matches, you know. The ones with a large diamond head on the stem. They are VERY hot & usually found in Survival kits.

My own thoughts on Afganistan when on Patrol would be:

The patrols were not hundereds of miles at a time, so to that end. If the vehicle was fully fueled prior to deployment on a Patrol. You wouldnt NEED to carry J.C's on the back. You would have more current expirience here than I. Obviously, if the patols out for days at a time, then the fule situation would be different.

Diesel is indeed a difficult medium to set alight, BUT, Ignite it will under violent conditions! :shake:

At least the government are at last trying to get decent kit to our Troops to do the job under a bit more protection. Years of penny picnhing, & now they are throwing Gucchi kit at the Theatre! :-\

[ferretfixer]

In their defense it was done for a reason - as you know the BMP series are fully amphibious and those hollow rear doors, even when filled with diesel, helped with the buoyancy.

 

Personally I would have had them filled with something like suppressant foam instead and cut down the range of the vehicle accordingly or made them self-sealing with the extra cost involved - but Soviet designers had different priorities back then!!

 

Yep, Bouyancy point was taken on board at the time. BUT, they could have had an under the floor tank like the Saracen & saved the back door vunerable point.:nono:

Still As you say, differnet priorities. (And they were after all, Soviet!) :-D

[ArtistsRifles]

Yep, Bouyancy point was taken on board at the time. BUT, they could have had an under the floor tank like the Saracen & saved the back door vunerable point.:nono:

Still As you say, differnet priorities. (And they were after all, Soviet!) :-D

 

This is true - I suspect, though, the reasoning was that an underfloor tank would have raised the height of the vehicles shilouette by that amount and the designers didn't feel crew protection was a higher importance. Compare the height of the BMP to the FV432, especially a FV432 fited with the turret. The BMP will see the FV432 before the FV432 sees the BMP so there is a degree of logic there.... I know the FV432 entered service after the BMP was introduced but it gives the general picture for the reasoning behind the hull height of the BMP.

Then too when the BMP was introduced it's armour was considered adequate against the then existing anti-tank weapons available to NATO infantry.

Lastly as we all know - the Soviet view of troops expendability was markedly different from ours....

[petop]

As my job allows me to sometimes play with new equipment, id thought i would share these pics with you.

I drove this today....it will get to 58mph x-country, i managed it!

[petop]

And this..

[ferretfixer]

As my job allows me to sometimes play with new equipment, id thought i would share these pics with you.

I drove this today....it will get to 58mph x-country, i managed it!

Mean looking machine! Is the green covered item a Milan Weapon station?

What primary purpose is this vehicle? Load carrier, Infantry trans. Will there be an add on package kit for different roles?

I assume this is for Afganistan only? Unless there is a an cover kit to go with it to protect troops / Equipment from rain?

58Mph Eh, I hope there is a load of shakeproof washers on all fixings!!!

Thanks for sharing pics, Nice.

[Jonny666]

i have never liked the jackel and when i saw it on the pathfinders program rolling over going up a hill i dont like it even more, i have seen some footage of the 6x6 'jackel' and from what i can gather they are used as mothership/support vehicles with added guns for FSG roles

[petop]

Jonny, you are correct. JACKAL goes up-country into the wilderness....JACKAL needs to be resupplied but which veh does it at moment?

So COYOTE is born to enable this resupply to take place.