Talk:RG-31
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 a list of open tasks. | ||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||
|
|||||||
[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research the blast resistance of the RG-31 and it's variants, I would encourage that specifics on the blast resistance not be published as this information can be used by forces opposing NATO and the U.S., amongst others.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
- 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)
