Evaluation of Aardvark Mk IV Flail - gichd
Evaluation of Aardvark Mk IV Flail - gichd
Evaluation of Aardvark Mk IV Flail - gichd
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
6.5 Performance<br />
This section <strong>of</strong> the report is concerned with the fitness for purpose, reliability, running<br />
costs and ease <strong>of</strong> maintenance.<br />
6.5.1 Inert Minefield Encounter (A7/1)<br />
6.5.1.1 Description:<br />
A minefield consisting <strong>of</strong> inert filled AT mines was laid in a 6m by 3m area. <strong>Aardvark</strong> was<br />
set to clear it. The position <strong>of</strong> the minefield was on White Hill and had a gradient <strong>of</strong> 1 in<br />
6.0. <strong>Aardvark</strong> flailed uphill at a speed <strong>of</strong> 150m/hr.<br />
6.5.1.2 Results: Run 1 see figures 6.27 to 6.32<br />
Figure 6-27; Plan <strong>of</strong> Run 1<br />
Mine No. Mine Type Outcome<br />
1 TMA-3 Partly damaged – 1 fuse removed & Outside flail width<br />
2 TMA-2 Destroyed<br />
3 TMA-3 Destroyed<br />
4 GIAT Minotaur Hit 3 times, left in spoil on centreline<br />
5 GIAT Minotaur Hit 2 times, left in spoil on left-hand side<br />
6.5.1.3 Comments & Observations<br />
Table 6-8; Minefield Data Run 1<br />
Although mine No.1 was partly damaged since one fuse was hit it would have probably<br />
detonated, figure 6.30. It can be assumed that the other four mines would have been<br />
deactivated.<br />
Page 34 <strong>of</strong> 77<br />
DERA/LWS/LSAA/TRD000603/1.2
Change language