15 Comments
User's avatar
Sean Cannon's avatar

Not the Dutch, Wes, the V-shaped hull was developed by the South African and (probably) Rhodesian Defence forces in the ‘70s. The Dutch were so long gone from South Africa by then, that the form of Dutch spoken there had diverged so much from the original that it had to be given its own name - Afrikaans. The Buffel (Buffalo) built on a Unimog chassis and the Hippo on a Bedford chassis are the first two vehicles I remember from the 70s. I was hit twice, both times in Buffels, on the South West Africa/Angola border. I had minor bruises, though others not so lucky.

Expand full comment
Demosthenes's avatar

Speaking under correction, but I think the Buffel is seen as the first effective landmine protected vehicle. The Rhodesian Leopard is possibly older, but I am not sure how effective it was compared to the Buffel.

Expand full comment
Sean Cannon's avatar

Yes, agreed, the Leopard may pre-date the Buffel by a year or 3. But the preceding Hippo, may have been contemporaneous.

Of course, the V-shaped hull was not the only landmine protection feature of the Buffel, as its wheels were filled with water, parachute harnesses could be used to strap the troops in to prevent their being thrown out, and the seats were made of a compressed foam material that absorbed a lot of the explosive force and protected troops’ spines. The body was made of armour plate, and a roll bar protected troops in case of a roll or flip.

In those days the Rhodesians and South Africans were fighting a very similar war, even if there were geopolitical differences (despite the similarities). But they also co-operated extensively. The Leopard was a spindly beast in a 5+1 (1 being the driver) person configuration, whereas the Buffel and Hippo came in a solid 10+1 configuration.

The Buffel may still be being used in Sri Lanka.

Expand full comment
Porter's avatar

Another excellent and vastly informative column that, once again, i'd like every American, especially politicians, to read. Well done!

Expand full comment
Henry Lindler's avatar

So Wes, where do you see the war going with more parts moving with Trump entering the White House, the looming German election ( a stronger supporter may win), the Ukrainian soldier power shortage, the weakening Russian economy, severe Russian losses, Putin’s inability to mobilize Russia Proper due to a backlash, etc.?

Henry

Expand full comment
MICHAEL'S CURIOUS WORLD's avatar

Great stuff. Bushmasters are so versatile. I've seen them being used in natural disasters such as bushfires and the floods in the Lismore area. They can also be configured as ambulances.

I believe Australia has a reserve fleet of something like a thousand Bushmasters. We should donate more to Ukraine and order replacements.

Expand full comment
Jan Mouchet's avatar

Thanks for this dossier wes o'donnell

Expand full comment
Ben Morgan's avatar

Another good column, highlighting a great piece of Aussie engineering. The Bushmaster is an ungainly looking beast but has certainly proven its worth. And a key point that is often overlooked by designers and procurers of military vehicles is simplicity. Bushmaster, is easy to drive, easy to maintain and does the business of protecting infantry soldiers. Hopefully, the vehicles lessons will be incorporated into future planning. Still need MICVs but vehicles like Bushmaster definitely have a place. Great article!

Expand full comment
Rob Zaagman's avatar

I guess you mean the South Africans instead of the Dutch.

Expand full comment
Demosthenes's avatar

Great article, but one minor correction. The v shape wasn’t designed by the Dutch, but by South Africans. Many people see Afrikaners as Dutch, but these are actually two different peoples.

Expand full comment
Peter Werp's avatar

Nice mix of heart-felt story and awesome facts!! My nickname in college was the bushmaster.... lol

Expand full comment
ABossy's avatar

I’m intrigued by recent arguments about the potential of drones. Elon Musk thinks they’re the future, and (if I understand correctly), believes that’s where DOD spending should be. Doesn’t hurt of course that Space-ex would probably be a big winner. But Substack’s Ryan Mcbeth thinks the anti-drone development is moving too fast to put all our eggs in that basket. Reading about the Bushmaster makes me side with Ryan there, even though you do

Expand full comment
ABossy's avatar

Ya, no it’s helpful. Thanks Wes for your thoughtful response. Since no one’s sure what trump (and hegseth?) will decide for defense spending, I’d like to be informed.

“-in 2025 we will hear about the first AI kill in Ukraine.” Against Ukraine then? I was hoping Ukraine would be the first to deploy an AI kill against russia.

Expand full comment
ABossy's avatar

oops… even though you mentioned a drone took one out. I’d like your take.

Expand full comment
Wes O'Donnell's avatar

Hi Anne, thanks for reading. I have to tell you I don’t read or watch Ryan (but I am aware of him) so I’m not sure what arguments he makes, or whether they hold any water.

But I’ll attempt to explain my reasoning on drone development.

We, as war fighters, have been moving towards small, explosive consumer drones for some time. ISIS were using small drones against us in the desert long before Ukraine made it a well-thought strategy. But we’re currently in a very short transitional phase where humans will soon be removed from the drone equation. Future historians will marvel at how fast we went from a DJI Magic with a grenade strapped to it, to swarms of AI piloted death drones.

Elon Musk is a rich idiot who claimed that we should not be building manned fighters like the F-35 and instead investing in drones. Elon has enough money to afford the luxury of living in a black and white world where it’s one or the other. But you can, and should, have both. Each has different mission sets. The US is rich enough to build F-35s and killer drone swarms.

As for drone defense, and the sentiment that we’re moving too fast? I don’t understand that reasoning. Drone defense is just the natural evolution of countering a known threat. Like the evolution from chainmail armor to plate armor to combat crossbows. If the R&D departments of numerous defense contractors want to invest their EBITDA into drone defense like Slinger, Skynex, Vampire, or Drone Buster, in the hopes of scoring a lucrative contract, that’s corporate business.

The truth is that I’ve been worried about autonomous weapons since 2017 when I wrote an article for Cyber Defense Magazine about the ethical issues we must face if we give machines (drones) the kill decision. It’s finally here. I promise you that in 2025 we will hear about the first AI kill in Ukraine. Several US companies, like Andruil, already have the capability and they’re begging to try their tech out in an active war zone.

Whew, hope this helps? Or maybe I’ve just made things more confusing 😂

Expand full comment