Does the Navistar M-ATV feature a v-shaped hull? (Updated)

A couple of years ago, I was able to spread my own unfounded rumor about Navistar's MaxxPro MRAP vehicle. I took an ambiguous statement from a company spokesperson to mean that the MaxxPro achieved its mine protection without using a v-shaped hull.

Something similar may be happening with Navistar's MXT-based M-ATV offering, but this time the information comes from bigger players in the armored vehicle commentary realm.

Specifically, Richard North of Defence of the Realm--the direct descendent of the blog that largely inspired me to post regularly about MRAPs if I felt like it--has apparently glommed on to rumors that Navistar's M-ATV failed initial blast testing. North also reports that the Navistar MXTs purchased by Great Britain, dubbed the "Husky," do not have v-shaped hulls:

With 200 ordered by the MoD in April this year, at a cost of £120 million, the Husky has been converted for military use with "bolt-on" armour. The same version was offered to the US Army for a procurement competition for an off-road mine protected vehicle to serve in Afghanistan. But, in the same week of the MoD order, it was learned that the US Army had failed the vehicle during its compulsory mine protection test and had been ruled ou(t) of the competition.

Again, North is unsurprised. Without what is known as a "v-shaped hull" as a basic part of the design, it is difficult to protect vehicles properly. Yet, with the right design, even light vehicles can withstand blasts that cripple tanks ten times their weight.

It does seem that the Navistar M-ATV is close kin to the Husky. And Navistar has not yet, from what I can tell, described it has having a "v-shaped hull." On the other hand, the company did include the following in its press release:

Navistar’s MXT-based design provides the same production and delivery advantages offered by its original MRAP product, the International® MaxxPro®, but in a lighter and more mobile configuration. The company’s M-ATV unit also incorporates the survivability protection expected from all of Navistar’s MRAP vehicles.
(Navistar)

It is difficult to imagine that "the survivability protection expected from all of Navistar's MRAP vehicles" does not include a v-shaped hull, though it is easy enough to criticize the company for failing to come right out and say it if the M-ATV does have a v-shaped hull.

I simply haven't found any hard evidence to back up North's claims, such as the one where "it was learned that the US Army had failed the vehicle during its compulsory mine protection test." The claim about the M-ATV failing blast testing I can find in the form of conjecture, and later on as an apparent inference when Navistar's protest of the M-ATV competition was apparently resolved by refining the definition of "hull breach."

This does not necessarily add up to the MXT M-ATV or the Husky lacking a v-shaped hull, and neither does it necessarily mean that the modified MXT fails to protect the crew from IED blast significantly less than its competitors.

Though if Navistar continues its uncharacteristic silence about one of its key products then suspicion that something is amiss with both versions of the MXT will understandably swell.


Update:

I finally stumbled across a news report that appears to confirm Richard North's assertion that the Husky does not feature a v-shaped hull as part of its blast protection package:

Like the Eagle IV, which maxes out at NATO STANAG 2a, the Husky appears to be a standard flat-bottomed chassis with extra armor protection. The Husky will come in 3 vehicle types: utility, ambulance and command vehicle, all of which will be powered by 300hp MaxxForce D 6.0L V8 engines, with 530 foot-pounds of torque at 3,000 rpm.
(Defense Industry Daily)

This answer is not exactly definitive, but it has the advantage of lacking an obvious inferential bias stemming from the M-ATV blast testing results.

Another passage in the story also seems relevant to North's criticisms:

Britain recently declined to participate in the American/Australian JLTV program, on the grounds that OUVS was primarily about logistics support rather than patrol vehicles, while patrolling was a heavy emphasis for JLTV. Given the frequent use of Land Rover Snatch as a patrol vehicle, and the accompanying controversies and casualties, this is a somewhat surprising rationale, but Britain’s 400 Iveco Panther CLV vehicles are expected to fill that JLTV-type role.

The Iveco Panther has received criticism for its price tag. The Brits do seem to have ended up paying more for less--another North criticism.