Talk:RG-31 Nyala

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

[edit] Military Specifics

While the public has the freedom to research the blast resistance of the RG-31 and it's variants, I would encourage that specifics on the blast resistance not be published as this information can be used by forces opposing NATO and the U.S., amongst others. (intelligence indicates it has already been used)

As well, I am a RG-31 gunner and seeing the devestation and the explosives used on another RG-31, I have little doubt that these deaths could have been prevented with the military specifics having not been published online. A main contributor of these specifics, DND101, has recently gone offline. Whether the information is reposted will be left to be seen soon.

My appreciation and thanks to all who contribute to the knowledge of this beautiful and strong AFV.

From Afghanistan, M2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by M2austin (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2006 August 3

Hi, thank you for the taking the time to register and contribute. I understand you concerns, but you have to appreciate that this is public information and Wikipedia strives for a "neutral point of view" (see WP:NPOV). It is common soviet doctrine to lay mines in multiple configurations: more than 2 on top of one another or several linked togther and it has been since the 70s, because vehicle armor improved. Anyone trained to lay a mine will have this information and apply these techniques. Deon Steyn 07:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it a common Soviet doctrine to lay four TM-52's and command detonate them under a RG-31? "Neutral", public information has cost many lives in this war so far making it a greater challange to stay ahead of insurgent/terrorist techniques.

We must be ever vigilant in scrutiny of posted military information in hopes that it may not be used by opposing forces.

Reguards, --M2austin 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe this information is actually published by the manufacturer, as well as the inventor of the vehicle's mine-resistant technology (the CSIR). It has certainly been readily available for years. As for the technique itself, it too is nothing new. South African forces in Angola regularly encountered multiply-stacked anti-tank mines planted by irregular forces like SWAPO, and NATO and UN forces in Serbia and Kosovo were also targeted with stacked TM-57s. Unfortunately, modern insurgents are sophisticated enough to understand (at least partially) the science of vehicle protection, and would probably already know that no vehicle on the road is capable of sustaining a quadruple TM-57 impact without serious damage. — Impi 22:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] primary armament

There were several shots of RG-31s on the CBC in the last couple of days.

As per the CASR site, one of the clips showed a BMG, and one a smaller machine gun. The CASR site said that any of the BMG, LMG or 40mm grenade launcher could be placed in the remote turret. Geo Swan 21:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. The infobox doesnt really work for modern wheeled IMVs. THey all just have a ring mount. YOu can put pretty much whatever you want up there.Tmaull 03:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW the vehicles in Canadian service use a remote weapons station, similar to that used by the Stryker. The gunner points the turret from under cover inside the vehicle, using a video cameras and a joystick. The remote system is captable of mounting any machine gun sized weapon. Geo Swan 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grizzly APC

It seems that it's the name given by Blackwater to the Nyala? 216.86.113.16 17:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the Grizzly is an entirely new vehicle developed by Blackwater itself, though the design follows similar principles to the RG-31 and similar vehicles (with the V-Hull for eg). At first glance, it would appear that the Grizzly is intended to be a less capable though cheaper armoured vehicle meant only for urban operations. — Impi 17:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)