Viking BVS10, are they safe?

[tom163]

I was thinking over earlier how alot of our soldiers are getting killed in these Viking troop carriers and are they any good? I don't have alot of knowledge about them and the IED's over in Afghan but from were I am sitting they are rubbish.

Can nothing be done to make them better against IED's? I know IED's come in all shapes and sizes but more armour could go along way.

Opinions?

[ParaToBe]

I don't have any experience in ghan either or with explosives but from what iv read on various news and military sites they are rubbish apparently the USA refused them because they were shite, they are just cheapo transport however we can't use the big heavily armored truck things because they get stuck alot in the afghan terrain those vikings are good to nip around in but shite when it comes to protection (especially if your sat over the wheels) IMO they should transport the troops by helicopter or get hover crafts like on james bond to avoid mines and explosive lol, or maybe not but just a thought That is just from what i have read though mate.

[Tab]

The side armour will not keep out a 7.65 bullet and has had to have extra armour put on to it. Now if it wont stop a bullet how do you expect it to stop a blast from an IED

[tom163]

I don't have any experience in ghan either or with explosives but from what iv read on various news and military sites they are rubbish apparently the USA refused them because they were shite, they are just cheapo transport however we can't use the big heavily armored truck things because they get stuck alot in the afghan terrain those vikings are good to nip around in but shite when it comes to protection (especially if your sat over the wheels) IMO they should transport the troops by helicopter or get hover crafts like on james bond to avoid mines and explosive lol, or maybe not but just a thought That is just from what i have read though mate.

I don't know about the Hovercrafts mate hahaha although i'm sure it would be fun and the Helicopters are in very very sort supply and are even stretched evacuating the injured from the front line . But I do agree with the other points.

The side armour will not keep out a 7.65 bullet and has had to have extra armour put on to it. Now if it wont stop a bullet how do you expect it to stop a blast from an IED

Exactly, its beyond me why they are even still in use or the troops are even willing to travel in one. But I suppose it boils down to the idiots within the Government.

[Tab]

The reason they are still in use is that it gives the Government a chance to get rid of some of its out dated kit. As to refusing to go in one then you would be facing a Court Martial for refusing a direct order. Now try getting the Court to accept these dam things are not safe, when every one on the Court Martial will no longer have to travel on one and they are also looking for the next promotion

[OWK]

Viking was supposed to be replaced by Warthog (similar configuartion but better armoured).

Jackal is also being acquired.

Google them. Good bits of kit.

[tom163]

The reason they are still in use is that it gives the Government a chance to get rid of some of its out dated kit. As to refusing to go in one then you would be facing a Court Martial for refusing a direct order. Now try getting the Court to accept these dam things are not safe, when every one on the Court Martial will no longer have to travel on one and they are also looking for the next promotion

Thats discusting to be honest that they are just sending them out there to remove the outdated kit, I should'nt be surprised but for some reason I am.

I can understand about a Court not understanding how bad these are especially as these people would have not been out in Afghanistan.

Viking was supposed to be replaced by Warthog (similar configuartion but better armoured).

Jackal is also being acquired.

Google them. Good bits of kit.

I have looked into the Jackal when it was first announced but I have no idea how it would fair in an IED blast, they are open topped so I would think not great but they seem to be getting praise from the RM's. But the Warthog does look good, alot better armour again not being shipped to Afghanistan till alot later in the year which by then more soldiers will have died in the Viking.

[Tab]

The Jackal was designed for Special Services to charge around the desert, it will take a blast from a mine underneath it, but an IED going of at the side of the road will take it out and the crew. Again it is a case of trying to the job on the cheap, decent well built armored vehicles are there but not being ordered by the government who are still going for the cheaper options where ever they can. A British Company has come up with a excellent vehicle which should take almost any thing that is thrown at it, the Canadians are very interested in it but our Government is buying a cheaper American vehicle

[gunner75]

Nothing suprises me about 'cheapskate' britain anymore. far too busy appeasing johnny foreigner. No wonder people bail out and go live pastures new. I for one am seriously thinking it.

[tom163]

Nothing suprises me about 'cheapskate' britain anymore. far too busy appeasing johnny foreigner. No wonder people bail out and go live pastures new. I for one am seriously thinking it.

Yep.

[Wholley]

This debate has been going on for a while on both sides of the pond.
When the Bradly was first developed it was useless both as an IFV and it's motor was underpowered.Slow,too lightly armored and with a hopeless main weapon.It had no CBN protection and was only massively redesigned after an Airforce officer attatched to the Pentagon saw it's trials and the indifference of the government to keep it's troops safe in a combat situation when it cost's too much money.

Bottom line,

Lowest bidder.

[green boil]

The side armour will not keep out a 7.65 bullet and has had to have extra armour put on to it. Now if it wont stop a bullet how do you expect it to stop a blast from an IED

I was on herrick 5 when they were first deployed in helmand and everybody raved about them well the booties did and we grew to like them what did impress myself and my plt one had 2, 500lb jdams dropped on it to deny it to the Taliban and it was still standing after that, but there r far to many now being taken out by IEDs now

[bored_stupid]

I was thinking along the same lines as Green Boil when I spotted this topic.

When the Vikings were brought into service everybody said how great they were and they proved themselves in Afghan when the Marines first deployed there, that was the reason why it was decided they were to be permanently deployed in theatre.

There were loads of stories about how they could do the things no other vehicles could and the benefits of the mobility they provided the troops etc.. I remember reading on this very site from Marines bragging about how good they were.

I don't think this was a case at all of them being bought on the cheap, I think its a case of yesterdays hero is tomorrows villain.

The fact is they're being taken out because the Taliban are builing bigger bombs, the Viking is the new Snatch and you can bet your bottom dollar that if they get rid of the Viking then the current favourites like Mastiff will be the next victims of bigger bombs and we'll hear the same stories about it being useless and bought on the cheap etc......

It's terrible that people are getting injured and killed by IED's but the fact is we're fighting a war and you can't expect the enemy to not try and kill or maim troops and they will find ways to do that no matter if you're driving round in a Snatch/Viking or a Challenger II.

No vehicle is 100% safe there are advantages and disadvantages to most vehicles and while in one situation you may be more at risk in a Viking in others it maybe it's advantages that get you out safely where other vehicles wouldn't have.

[Sarastro]

I was thinking along the same lines as Green Boil when I spotted this topic.

When the Vikings were brought into service everybody said how great they were and they proved themselves in Afghan when the Marines first deployed there, that was the reason why it was decided they were to be permanently deployed in theatre.

There were loads of stories about how they could do the things no other vehicles could and the benefits of the mobility they provided the troops etc.. I remember reading on this very site from Marines bragging about how good they were.

I don't think this was a case at all of them being bought on the cheap, I think its a case of yesterdays hero is tomorrows villain.

The fact is they're being taken out because the Taliban are builing bigger bombs, the Viking is the new Snatch and you can bet your bottom dollar that if they get rid of the Viking then the current favourites like Mastiff will be the next victims of bigger bombs and we'll hear the same stories about it being useless and bought on the cheap etc......

It's terrible that people are getting injured and killed by IED's but the fact is we're fighting a war and you can't expect the enemy to not try and kill or maim troops and they will find ways to do that no matter if you're driving round in a Snatch/Viking or a Challenger II.

No vehicle is 100% safe there are advantages and disadvantages to most vehicles and while in one situation you may be more at risk in a Viking in others it maybe it's advantages that get you out safely where other vehicles wouldn't have.

You win the prize sir.

EF destroyed a Challenger 2 in Iraq. There will always be big enough bombs, no matter how much armour you have. The problem is that the longer we use a vehicle, the longer EF have to find out it's weaknesses and exploit them. In the end, it's inevitable, because the other side adapt faster than we can.

[tom163]

I was thinking along the same lines as Green Boil when I spotted this topic.

When the Vikings were brought into service everybody said how great they were and they proved themselves in Afghan when the Marines first deployed there, that was the reason why it was decided they were to be permanently deployed in theatre.

There were loads of stories about how they could do the things no other vehicles could and the benefits of the mobility they provided the troops etc.. I remember reading on this very site from Marines bragging about how good they were.

I don't think this was a case at all of them being bought on the cheap, I think its a case of yesterdays hero is tomorrows villain.

The fact is they're being taken out because the Taliban are builing bigger bombs, the Viking is the new Snatch and you can bet your bottom dollar that if they get rid of the Viking then the current favourites like Mastiff will be the next victims of bigger bombs and we'll hear the same stories about it being useless and bought on the cheap etc......

It's terrible that people are getting injured and killed by IED's but the fact is we're fighting a war and you can't expect the enemy to not try and kill or maim troops and they will find ways to do that no matter if you're driving round in a Snatch/Viking or a Challenger II.

No vehicle is 100% safe there are advantages and disadvantages to most vehicles and while in one situation you may be more at risk in a Viking in others it maybe it's advantages that get you out safely where other vehicles wouldn't have.

You win the prize sir.

EF destroyed a Challenger 2 in Iraq. There will always be big enough bombs, no matter how much armour you have. The problem is that the longer we use a vehicle, the longer EF have to find out it's weaknesses and exploit them. In the end, it's inevitable, because the other side adapt faster than we can.

Ayup matey, aint seen ya round here in a while. Are you sure about the challenger 2 incident? I was lead to belive only 1 or 2 have ever been destroyed.