Blast-Resistant Vehicles For Beginners: Distinguishing 'Armoured' From 'Mine-' and 'Blast-Resistant' Vehicles

October 2006
Armoured vehicles are intended to resist blast effects – blast overpressure (BOP) lifts, crushes, and tears between plates; splinters from bomb casings or shells pierce armour,  damage drivetrain components, and  wound crews. Traditionally, designers tried to counter these effects by increasing armour thickness, at the cost of higher vehicle weight.  Little thought was given to the shapes of  that armour plating (in contrast with upper armour surfaces).

One armoured vehicle stands outside this convention –  the mine-resistant types developed in southern Africa. With such scant attention paid  to the armouring of their upper hulls, such vehicles barely qualify as an armoured fighting vehicle’.  Their 43° V-shaped  lower hulls are quite another matter.

The entire design  thrust of  these  mine-resistant vehicles aimed  to thwart landmines. And we are lucky that this was the case. By accident, few types are better suited  to survive the ‘improvised explosive devices’ (IEDs) now being encountered in Afghanistan. In this series, we will review the origins and  basic design concepts behind  these ad hoc ‘blast-resistant vehicles’.

[1]  RG-31:  Differentiating ‘Armoured’  From the Truly ‘Blast - Resistant’  Vehicles

[2] “ We are Scatterlings of Africa”: the African origins of  Blast-Resistant Vehicles

[3] Tweaking RG-31 APVs (Armoured Patrol Vehicles): Buy More  and  Build Better

[4] What’s in a Name?  Blast-Resistant Hybrids: Belly Plates & Modules

[5] Applique or ‘Add-on’ Armour  – the Case for Blast-Resistant Support