South African REVA 4x4 Mk II APC

[exsoldier]

yep...great bunch of guys....managed to get a few more photos as well

PHOTS OF REVA 4X4

[1652HCU]

I love reading about the Newer generation of MRV (Mine Resistant Vehicles) – SADF/SANDF referred to these vehicles as MRV. Others refer to them as Blast Resistant-, Mine Protected- or as many international broadcasters call them Anti-mine vehicles (what does anti-mine actually mean?), unless the vehicles detects the mine without setting it off it isn’t Anti-mine.

One of the first things that stand out is the constant use of wikipedia.org. Wikipedia is not gospel far from it. There are numerous faults in Wikipedia, especially in its reference to military based articles. Another is the lack of some minor facts that directly affect the issues as relating to SADF/SANDF Vehicles.

From Wiki: “The Mamba is a South African Armoured Personnel Carrier based on the Unimog that is ideally suited for regions with weak or no road infrastructure.” “Mamba is a South African Armoured Personnel Carrier”- this is true, the rest is BULL!!!!

The only thing I’ve ever seen in print (by TFM) is that the Mamba has “Unimog drive components fitted”, nothing about which chassis it is based on. Also as the initial Mamba is 2X4 (when converted to 4X4 its name/designation, designing company and manufacturing company changes) and RHD (Right Hand Drive), it would be stupid to use a 4X4 Left hand drive vehicle as a basis.
As the name Mamba refers to the 2X4 version, when changed to the 4X4 version a quagmire forms, with the 2X4 in mind “is ideally suited for regions with weak or no road infrastructure” falls off the bus as well.

Also from Wiki’s Mamba page: “TFM Industries later becomes Reumech OMC”
and
“Mamba Mk2 - 4x4 (built by Sandock Austral and TFM) Mamba Mk II - Improved production version.”
Wrong again! Man I love Wiki!

EDIT: The SADF referred to its vehicles as 2X4 as opposed to 4X2 and I still use this system.

[1652HCU]

One of the first little titbits is the fact that in the middle to latter 1980s SADF/DENEL/ARMSCOR- whatever the correct naming of the ‘powers that be’, firstly wanted to sell (then later saw that SA was on the way to democracy) the SADF ‘tested’ weaponry. With the fact that many of the system were not indigenous this would have been a ‘political’ nightmare (also the system could not be sold as South African), thus these systems were made South African e.g. the G6 got an ADE engine plus some other parts.

Later on, when SA was on the way to democracy other problems cropped up. One of these problems was that numerous systems (electronic, optical, mechanical) had been copied, misused, altered and in other ways misappropriated. This led to the brief panic of all those outstanding licensing fees etc.

The two ‘tactics’ listed above led to the luckily short lived concept whereby just about every vehicle in the SADF inventory had an ADE engine stuffed into it. Those that were there will undoubtedly remember this phase. Casspirs plus a few others were quickly changed, out came the Magirus Deutz, Mercedes, KHD etc. engines and parts. Those that could not be changed, were redesigned, e.g. the SAMIL 20 & 50 2X4 Mk2s and the SAMAG 120 made their appearance (and in some cases luckily disappeared as well).


Firstly very little can be said about the Mamba without mentioning the type and batch from which the vehicle comes.
Secondly the above information on “making everything indigenous” has to be kept in mind, as this had a profound effect on almost all the projects that were running at the time.
Thirdly the initial Mamba was built by TFM (with CSIR help) then companies such as TFM (on its own and as part of Reumech OMC), Sandock Austral, Mechem and all the other external sources that had a hand in the vehicle as it was modified, produced and further altered.

IIRC the initial Mambas off the production line were RHD, had ADE engines, were NOT air conditioned, were based (in one form or another) on the SAMIL 20 chassis and had more teething problems than the Sgt York AAA system.
The first Mambas had overheating problems with the engine, gearbox and diff (only one diff as they were 2X4). IIRC there was also problems with the universal joints on a few. One Mamba was towed into our workshop with a koeksister prop shaft (think of a prop shaft resembling a pretzel). Plus as the drivers were NOT trained in driving MRV/APCs they tended to drive the vehicle as they would a soft skinned vehicle and not as an armoured vehicle. This lack of training led to quite a few accidents. These ‘incidents’, for obvious reasons, seem to have been hushed up, just as with the Cheetah. The Mamba (probably due to the driver training) also had a tendency to ‘moer’ over (overturn easily).

Later Mamba’s had Mercedes (Unimog) parts and drivetrains fitted, the drivers were taught the capabilities (and lack thereof) of the vehicle, eliminating the problems mentioned above. Even with these alterations the Mamba (as I remember it) was a very hard drive, especially on the kidneys.


Another forgotten fact about SADF vehicles was that although the Buffel was probably one of the most widely used (and notorious) MRVs in the SADF inventory it was nearing the end of its lifespan. As to whether it was to be replaced by the SAMIL 20 based vehicles (Rhino, Bulldog as used by the SAAF), will always remain speculation. With this in mind, all the conversions (prototype & production) that were starting to appear in the SADF seem to have been based on the SA20 based vehicles, see the 20mm Ystervark AAA. In any case, before this could happen, the fight changed from Rural- to Urban based. In Urban fighting using open-topped vehicles was not an option. Enter the ‘Urban’ MRV/APC i.e. the Mamba.

Those who drove in Buffels (Mogs and SA20s) on dirt tracks (twee spoor pad) will undoubtedly remember that the Buffel didn’t have a wide enough wheelbase to allow the left- and right side wheels to each run in a track. Thus whilst one set of wheels would run in a path/track the other always tried to climb the centre divide, adding to the rocking effect. Newbie (Roofie) drivers always tried to run down the centre divide which led to the back wheels ‘bouncing’ and skidding all over, this sometimes leading to the rear wheels skipping over the centre divide with some disastrous results.

[1652HCU]

Mamba and RG-31 is not the same vehicle. Mamba is smaller then RG-31 or Reva and is built on Unimog chassie (engine, transmission, axels, suspenssion comes from Mercedes-Benz).
RG-31 has dimensions almost the same like Reva, only mass of RG-31 is bigger, the suspenssion is the same, wheels too. In my opinon Reva is a copy of RG-31, maybe cheaper, but it ist interesting alternative for RG-31 class.

Now the importance of the Mamba and other squabble will come to light!

I’m not going near the Unimog Chassis that has been done!

My first question is which RG-31 are you using as a reference? There are actually two RG-31s.

Remember the Mamba was designed & built by TFM (Terrorist Fighting Machinery, an apt name)
The first Mamba 2X4 and the Mamba 4X4 (Mk2 whatever the correct name) as used by the SANDF were build by two different companies, TFM built the first and IIRC Mechem the second.


The first RG-31 Nyala was TFM taking their Mamba 2X4, upgrading it and making it 4X4 with a few other changes. The Basic specs easily prove this:

Mamba APC & RG-31 Nyala Dimensions
Length 5460 mm
Width 2205 mm
Height 2495 mm

The RG-31 Nyala was obviously marketed overseas by TFM. The Canadians bought some and used them in Bosnia, Ethiopia and Afghanistan. These vehicles are referred to as RG-31 Nyala Mine Protected Vehicle (MPV). See: http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/RG-31_...tected_Vehicle

The second RG-31 is the one as built by OMC (Reumech/Land Systems/Alvis whatever they are calling themselves these days) and although based on the TFM’s RG-31 Nyala it seems to have been redesigned and is both bigger and heavier.
The Nyala part seems to have been dropped, but not by the Canadians! In any case the Canadians refer to this vehicle as RG-31 Nyala Armoured Patrol Vehicle (APV). See: http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Armoured_Patrol_Vehicle. Obviously as the RG-31 (not the Nyala) has been modified for each users specs, each user uses different designations;
Canada – RG-31 Nyala
US – RG-31 Cougar etc…

Thus you can see that although the RG-31 stems from the RG-31 Nyala there are in fact two totally different RG-31s! (Once again Wiki jumps the shark / Pokes the cow / gets it WRONG!!!!!)

So if you are using the first RG-31 Nyala as a reference, then it is the same base vehicle as the Mamba and thus dimensions are the same. This leaves the Reva weighting a lot more and being bigger, so not a copy.

If you are using the second RG-31 as a reference, then (except for the Unimog Chassis) you are correct, but IIRC the Reva appeared on the scene before the RG-31 and that makes the RG-31 a copy of the Reva, which is also not true.

All these vehicles draw their designs from the Casspir, which was designed and built by TFM in any case.

[wilhelm]

In any case, before this could happen, the fight changed from Rural- to Urban based. In Urban fighting using open-topped vehicles was not an option. Enter the ‘Urban’ MRV/APC i.e. the Mamba.

Those who drove in Buffels (Mogs and SA20s) on dirt tracks (twee spoor pad) will undoubtedly remember that the Buffel didn’t have a wide enough wheelbase to allow the left- and right side wheels to each run in a track. Thus whilst one set of wheels would run in a path/track the other always tried to climb the centre divide, adding to the rocking effect. Newbie (Roofie) drivers always tried to run down the centre divide which led to the back wheels ‘bouncing’ and skidding all over, this sometimes leading to the rear wheels skipping over the centre divide with some disastrous results.

Hi 1652HCU.

Don't recall problems with the buffel wheeltrack width, but I do agree we swopped the Buffel for Casspir in the urban environment in my unit in 1990/1991. Although also an open topped vehicle, the Casspir was not nearly as exposed as the Buffel. Also, there were various metal covers one could attach over the Casspirs open top.

My one memory was that Casspir was streets ahead of the Buffel in capability.

[kpt. Zbik]

Now the importance of the Mamba and other squabble will come to light!

I’m not going near the Unimog Chassis that has been done!

My first question is which RG-31 are you using as a reference? There are actually two RG-31s.

Remember the Mamba was designed & built by TFM (Terrorist Fighting Machinery, an apt name)
The first Mamba 2X4 and the Mamba 4X4 (Mk2 whatever the correct name) as used by the SANDF were build by two different companies, TFM built the first and IIRC Mechem the second.


The first RG-31 Nyala was TFM taking their Mamba 2X4, upgrading it and making it 4X4 with a few other changes. The Basic specs easily prove this:

Mamba APC & RG-31 Nyala Dimensions
Length 5460 mm
Width 2205 mm
Height 2495 mm

The RG-31 Nyala was obviously marketed overseas by TFM. The Canadians bought some and used them in Bosnia, Ethiopia and Afghanistan. These vehicles are referred to as RG-31 Nyala Mine Protected Vehicle (MPV). See: http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/RG-31_...tected_Vehicle

The second RG-31 is the one as built by OMC (Reumech/Land Systems/Alvis whatever they are calling themselves these days) an
d although based on the TFM’s RG-31 Nyala it seems to have been redesigned and is both bigger and heavier.
The Nyala part seems to have been dropped, but not by the Canadians! In any case the Canadians refer to this vehicle as RG-31 Nyala Armoured Patrol Vehicle (APV). See: http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Armoured_Patrol_Vehicle. Obviously as the RG-31 (not the Nyala) has been modified for each users specs, each user uses different designations;
Canada – RG-31 Nyala
US – RG-31 Cougar etc…

Thus you can see that although the RG-31 stems from the RG-31 Nyala there are in fact two totally different RG-31s! (Once again Wiki jumps the shark / Pokes the cow / gets it WRONG!!!!!)

So if you are using the first RG-31 Nyala as a reference, then it is the same base vehicle as the Mamba and thus dimensions are the same. This leaves the Reva weighting a lot more and being bigger, so not a copy.

If you are using the second RG-31 as a reference, then (except for the Unimog Chassis) you are correct, but IIRC the Reva appeared on the scene before the RG-31 and that makes the RG-31 a copy of the Reva, which is also not true.

All these vehicles draw their designs from the Casspir, which was designed and built by TFM in any case.

I've referred to currently produced RG-31 Mk3, and RG-31 Mk5 which is a little bit bigger. Both are not this same vehicle as the first RG-31 Nyala designed by TFM.
Canadian army is using RG-31 and RG-31 Mk3, both has the same name – Nyala. US Army is using RG-31 Mk3, RG-31 Mk5, and will be using RG-33, but it is another vehicle.
I haven’t knew, that Reva has been designed before RG-31. Are you sure of that? Any dates?
As I know Casspir has been developed by Defence Research Unit whit cooperation of UCDD and TFM companies. Armscor was the first producer of Casspir, TFM started whit Casspir’s production few years later. Of course Casspir was the first mine protected vehicle with monocoque body introduced to service in SAP. In SADF first monocoque MPV was Rinkhals ambulance. And Casspir is awesome, I like this vehicle very much. I’d like to have one. J
Besides of that I’m impress of the SA develop in this field. It is huge.

[wilhelm]

I've referred to currently produced RG-31 Mk3, and RG-31 Mk5 which is a little bit bigger. Both are not this same vehicle as the first RG-31 Nyala designed by TFM.
Canadian army is using RG-31 and RG-31 Mk3, both has the same name – Nyala. US Army is using RG-31 Mk3, RG-31 Mk5, and will be using RG-33, but it is another vehicle.
I haven’t knew, that Reva has been designed before RG-31. Are you sure of that? Any dates?
As I know Casspir has been developed by Defence Research Unit whit cooperation of UCDD and TFM companies. Armscor was the first producer of Casspir, TFM started whit Casspir’s production few years later. Of course Casspir was the first mine protected vehicle with monocoque body introduced to service in SAP. In SADF first monocoque MPV was Rinkhals ambulance. And Casspir is awesome, I like this vehicle very much. I’d like to have one. J
Besides of that I’m impress of the SA develop in this field. It is huge.

I'm also surprised that the Casspir is not used by more Private Military Companies in Iraq. There must be loads of them surplus to requirements in South Africa and would make more sense than the "homemade" trucks I have seen some of these companies use. Perhaps there are not that many left after India bought their batch. Anyway, I was impressed by its power and solidity compared to the Buffel. It was also used as an improvised IFV by Koevoet, some mounting Hispano 20mm canon taken from old Vampire jet fighters. I always found its cross country performance excellent for a 4X4...

[Ironsight06]

From Today's Pics posted by He219:

Bristish security contractors and members of Engineer corps guard an entrance to a newly built power station during an inspection in Falujah, Iraq on Thursday April 19, 2007

Iraqi civilian contractors build a sewage treatment plant in Falujah, Iraq on Thursday April 19, 2007. In the background is a truck belonging a security company "Aegis".

[playtym]

I was doing a Google search and came across this link:

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/b...artfrom=100640

This is the link off of that page that I found to be so interesting:

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/b...PT&read=100688


We've been quoted as a source on the Raging Bull Financial Message Board!!

[Paragon]

The Reva certainly looks like a pretty impressive vehicle for use in the Middle East, and modern conflict zones in general. Anyone here operated out of one? Or seen one in action?

Cheers.

[playtym]

[blastmaster]

I note that the Buffel APC seems to come up quite often in the discussions concerning the early development of mine protected vehicles in South Africa.

Disappointingly, not much is known about the true history of the design and development of the Buffel which actually started on a Sunday night, July 25, 1976 and the prototype mild steel unit was rolled out hardly six weeks later in early September 1976 and shown to the SADF brass at Defence HQ in Pretoria a few days later who were NOT particularly impressed with it at the time, but more of this for another day.

It was neither an Armscor nor a CSIR development in spite of their claims in this regard - it was in fact a form of "joint venture", shared risk, private development which was later "commandeered" by Armcor AFTER the prototype (and a further 9 examples) had been produced and then Armscor took over the further development of this design (cutting out the original developers completely). CSIR assisted them as required with blast testing etc and then interestingly, serial production of the Buffel went to the group that was also making the Samil truck range for the SADF at the time in Rosslyn just outside Pretoria.

What an amazing coincidence that was, but that was just how things were done in South Africa at the time. Also, how the so-called "tender" for the production of the Buffel was handled by Armcor at the time makes for very interesting reading indeed.

For the record, the original Unimog chassis used was a model Unimog 416.162 (which was in service with the SADF at the time) with a wheelbase of 2900mm and a wheel track of 1616mm.

During the durability testing that was done by the developer with the first mild steel prototype at Zeerust in early October 1976 (before Armscor got involved) it was discovered that the vehicle had stability problems in severe off road conditions and special offest rims were then urgently ordered (and flown in) from the supplier Laemmerz in Germany. These widened the wheeltrack up to 1740mm which brought about a noticeable improvement in stability at the time. An even wider wheeltrack could not be entertained as the wheel bearings in the brake drum equipped axles could not take any higher loads - the later Unimog disc brake equipped axle was better off in this respect.Initially the axles were rated at 3000kg per axle but were later 'uprated' to 3300kg as I recall.

The original GVM was 6000kg but this was also uprated over time to 6300kg and may even have gone to 6600kg in certain applications.

This is just a quick introduction to the Buffel (which was originally known as Bosvark 11 incidentally by the developers of this vehicle).

If there is interest, I can perhaps post some of the (many) pictures taken during the development of the original prototype vehicle which have never been published because neither of the two organizations that claim to have developed this vehicle did it so neither of them have pictures of the actual development - simple actually.

In time I will also deal with the Casspir development (by the way, the first CASSPIR ran in April 1979, built by TFM in Wynberg near Johannesburg) and the first production batch for the South Afrcan Police was built by Henred Fruehauf in Germiston. This seriously upset TFM, but more of that later. Later contracts were awarded to TFM and as the saying goes, the rest is history.

[Ironsight06]

If there is interest, I can perhaps post some of the (many) pictures taken during the development of the original prototype vehicle which have never been published because neither of the two organizations that claim to have developed this vehicle did it so neither of them have pictures of the actual development - simple actually.

I would be very interested.

Nice write-up and welcome.

[slobo]

Reva 4x4 brochure:





Small but when magnified it's readable

Is this brochure available online anywhere?

[slobo]

PMC Revas? I think KBR and possibly Blackwater use these?