From:	Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: demolitions
Date:	Sun, 24 Sep 1995 15:16:38 GMT

> Way I see it, a purposefully armed-to-the-teeth vehicle would have it's
> underside protected as much as any other part, if not more so.
> Stephanos Piperoglou -- steve@****.hol.gr

Not necessarily. Look at a South African Buffel APC: that's a mine-
resistant vehicle. It is... distinctive, to say the least.

Mines are a relatively rare hazard compared to gunfire. The underside
is always the weakest part of a tank, for instance. Why? Because an
explosion big enough to rupture the quarter-inch steel of the tank
belly, will throw a track off anyway. On a car you have the same problem
with wheels, suspension and engine. You have a large area to protect,
and limited weight to do so with.

After all, how often does your rigger's car drive over buried explosives?
Not often if at all. How often does it get shot at? Rather more often.
Is halving the protection against bullets from the sides to armour the
underside worthwhile? Almost certainly not.

The Buffel, BTW, is designed for patrolling on roads which *are* more often
mined than ambushed... And it's rather unusual for that reason.

--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk