82nd Airborne Tries Ultralight Vehicles

[Peter1469]

If these vehicles (http://www.armytimes.com/story/defense/policy-budget/policy/2015/04/22/us-armys-82nd-airborne-ultralight-vehicles-congress/26185911/)are jump ready, they may bring back the utility of Airborne assaults, especially in peer to peer combat. And it can take the light infantry out of airborne infantry!


The Army's 82nd Airborne Division is evaluating an ultra-lightweight combat vehicle (ULCV), a new effort that would allow airborne assault troops to drop far from objectives that are protected by air defense, then speed over land to capture them — and Congress has taken notice.

The House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee proposal for the National Defense Authorization Act requires the secretary of the Army to brief the HASC by March 1, 2016, on the ongoing effort. The Army is looking to address a request from the 82nd Airborne Division, and it has already purchased 33 commercial vehicles for proof-of-principle tests.



http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/3d6dd00914e491190033e2beff6649d0ce7055d2/c=47-0-765-540&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/04/22/DefenseNews/DefenseNews/635653067911407152-10841865-10152773309328558-254738342019695043-o.jpg

[CreepyOldDude]

If these vehicles (http://www.armytimes.com/story/defense/policy-budget/policy/2015/04/22/us-armys-82nd-airborne-ultralight-vehicles-congress/26185911/)are jump ready, they may bring back the utility of Airborne assaults, especially in peer to peer combat. And it can take the light infantry out of airborne infantry!



http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/3d6dd00914e491190033e2beff6649d0ce7055d2/c=47-0-765-540&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/04/22/DefenseNews/DefenseNews/635653067911407152-10841865-10152773309328558-254738342019695043-o.jpg

I had an ultralight for years. They are fucking AWESOME!!!!

[Bob]

This reminds me of the HumVee problem in Iraq. Roadside bombs destroyed them.

Democrats whined Rumsfeld went into combat with what he had. The ultralight looks good, but keep in mind it offers no troop protection.

Walking of course does not either.

I see the value but when men die in them, you will have Democrats whining all over the place.

[Polecat]

Looks like an $8k Polaris with a $30K paint job.

[CreepyOldDude]

This reminds me of the HumVee problem in Iraq. Roadside bombs destroyed them.

Democrats whined Rumsfeld went into combat with what he had. The ultralight looks good, but keep in mind it offers no troop protection.

Walking of course does not either.

I see the value but when men die in them, you will have Democrats whining all over the place.

The problem was, since we were the ones invading, we set the timetable. We could have waited until we had up-armored humvees. The decision was made to send in our troops without them. For no good reason I can imagine.

But it won't just be liberals bitching when soldiers get killed in ultralights.

[Peter1469]

This reminds me of the HumVee problem in Iraq. Roadside bombs destroyed them.

Democrats whined Rumsfeld went into combat with what he had. The ultralight looks good, but keep in mind it offers no troop protection.

Walking of course does not either.

I see the value but when men die in them, you will have Democrats whining all over the place.

The point isn't to offer protection. This is for airborne infantry units.

[CreepyOldDude]

Looks like an $8k Polaris with a $30K paint job.

I misread, and couldn't see the picture. This is the kind of ultralight I had:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/1/1/0317111.jpg

[Bob]

The point isn't to offer protection. This is for airborne infantry units.

i know that. My comments are when men die, Democrats will fly into a rage.

[Polecat]

Armored vehicles are not very safe either if they are used wrong. Driving around like a string of metal ducks at a shooting gallery was a foolish tactic.

[The Sage of Main Street]

This reminds me of the HumVee problem in Iraq. Roadside bombs destroyed them.Democrats whined Rumsfeld went into combat with what he had. The ultralight looks good, but keep in mind it offers no troop protection.Walking of course does not either. I see the value but when men die in them, you will have Democrats whining all over the place. Maybe they're "whining" because only the sons of Democrats have to fight.

[Polecat]

I misread, and couldn't see the picture. This is the kind of ultralight I had:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/1/1/0317111.jpg

I wanted one of them so bad I could taste it.

[Peter1469]

Airborne operations are not like a ground invasion with clear avenues of assault that can be easily mined ahead of time.

[Bob]

The problem was, since we were the ones invading, we set the timetable. We could have waited until we had up-armored humvees. The decision was made to send in our troops without them. For no good reason I can imagine.

But it won't just be liberals bitching when soldiers get killed in ultralights.

The HumVee was never disigned to have armor. Sure, Bush could have waited for years until congress decided to change the Humvee but he did not have that on his mind.

I rode around in jeeps and they have zero armor.

[Bob]

Airborne operations are not like a ground invasion with clear avenues of assault that can be easily mined ahead of time.

Peter, you know very well that when the commanders believe you can use roads, they use roads.

[Bob]

Armored vehicles are not very safe either if they are used wrong. Driving around like a string of metal ducks at a shooting gallery was a foolish tactic.

The cure for armor is bigger bombs.

This is why with armor men die.

[Bob]

Maybe they're "whining" because only the sons of Democrats have to fight.


I don't know but based only on what my eyes tell me and my ears tell me, looks like we have republicans fighting.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw

[The Sage of Main Street]

The problem was, since we were the ones invading, we set the timetable. We could have waited until we had up-armored humvees. The decision was made to send in our troops without them. For no good reason I can imagine.

. REDRUMsfeld was thinking, "Why spend money on armor for troops who are going to be greeted with flowers and kisses?"

[Polecat]

The HumVee was never disigned to have armor. Sure, Bush could have waited for years until congress decided to change the Humvee but he did not have that on his mind.

I rode around in jeeps and they have zero armor.

You didn't see too many assaults or patrols being conducted from Jeeps either. Moving along at a slow steady rate on a defined path in a war zone is just asking for it.

[Common Sense]

Regardless of political bickering, they look cool and I'm sure they would be very useful. Probably cost effective as well since they are an existing product.

[CreepyOldDude]

The HumVee was never disigned to have armor. Sure, Bush could have waited for years until congress decided to change the Humvee but he did not have that on his mind.

I rode around in jeeps and they have zero armor.

The Humvee was, in fact, redesigned to include light armor after Operation Restore Hope, back in 1992. And the DOD didn't wait for Congress to approve shit before up-armoring humvees after they proved so vulnerable to IEDs. Which, if Rumsfeld had done his job, would have been foreseen. Humvees proved to be poor at urban combat in Somalia, especially during the Battle of Mogadishu, in 93. What made anyone think they'd do better this time?

I rode around in jeeps, too. But back in Nam, Charlie wasn't near as good at asymetric warfare as the terrorists are now.

Look, I get your basic point, and happen to agree that the US is far too sensitive to losses. I just disagree that it's somehow all the Dem's fault.

And, like it or not, Rumsfeld did fuck up. He didn't listen to the professionals.

[Polecat]

Regardless of political bickering, they look cool and I'm sure they would be very useful. Probably cost effective as well since they are an existing product.

I think they would have very limited application. But in a particular situation may be the perfect tool. Hopefully there is someone involved that can deploy them effectively so we don't end up seeing whole platoon formation drilling on them like Shriners on parade in front of heavy enemy fire power.

[Common Sense]

I think they would have very limited application. But in a particular situation may be the perfect tool. Hopefully there is someone involved that can deploy them effectively so we don't end up seeing whole platoon formation drilling on them like Shriners on parade in front of heavy enemy fire power.

They're versatile vehicles. Great for quick deployment in say a wooded area or hilly area. In and out very quickly.

[Bob]

You didn't see too many assaults or patrols being conducted from Jeeps either. Moving along at a slow steady rate on a defined path in a war zone is just asking for it.

I will tell you what we had. And what we had was used in Vietnam by troops.

We had jeeps

We had the armored personnel carrier

Real armor. It was made of aluminum. And if hit directly by rifle fire, would penetrate the armor. Aluminum is not very good armor especially when it is not thick.

I don't recall when somebody expected to be attacked, not by troops, nor artillery nor airplanes, but by people digging holes by the road or in the road and planting explosives. This was in effect, mines. When our guys found them, they might find a mine that used remote radio control.

Thicker armor is better than no armor. But until Bush supplied the troops with proper armor, they had to either deal with it or stay in camps. I don't think the commanders planned to stay in camps.

Also, per year, the losses were not bad. I am not saying they were good or great, losses kill and families mourn.

But the Army is not a club. The difference was the enemy did not mind using high explosives to plant them all over the place. I think our men did a fine job adapting to the enemy changes and using good methods to remove bombs.

But they had to get all of them. The enemy won when just some exploded.

[CreepyOldDude]

I wanted one of them so bad I could taste it.

My Viking Bride bought mine for me, back in '78. I had it until '07. Then my cousin accidentally set the old barn I was keeping it in on fire.

God, flying in that was almost as good as sex. Not quite, but close. :)

[CreepyOldDude]

Regardless of political bickering, they look cool and I'm sure they would be very useful. Probably cost effective as well since they are an existing product.

I'm thinking that if they put good mufflers on those, they'd be quiet as hell.

[Bob]

REDRUMsfeld was thinking, "Why spend money on armor for troops who are going to be greeted with flowers and kisses?"

Our troops did get huge welcomes.

Who can forget how the Iraqis tore down Saddam's statues and ripped off his posters?

They did throw flowers in some cases. It is naive to expect all of them to toss out flowers.

[CreepyOldDude]

Peter, you know very well that when the commanders believe you can use roads, they use roads.

Sure, but then you wouldn't send them in in ultralights. You'd use APCs.

Amusing story, back during training, we got lost in an APC, and ended up squashing some farmer's tractor, driving around in the dark.

[Polecat]

They're versatile vehicles. Great for quick deployment in say a wooded area or hilly area. In and out very quickly.

Yeah I would say some cover is still essential even with the agility they offer. Sound and rising dust are going to obliterate any hope of surprise.

[CreepyOldDude]

It is naive to expect all of them to toss out flowers.

Yep. And as my Sergeant said, "When you fail to plan, you plan to fail."

[Common Sense]

I'm thinking that if they put good mufflers on those, they'd be quiet as hell.

They make electric ones as well...

[Polecat]

Sure, but then you wouldn't send them in in ultralights. You'd use APCs.

Amusing story, back during training, we got lost in an APC, and ended up squashing some farmer's tractor, driving around in the dark.

The farmer still chuckles when he recalls it too.

[Common Sense]

Yeah I would say some cover is still essential even with the agility they offer. Sound and rising dust are going to obliterate any hope of surprise.

Depends on the situation I guess.

[Polecat]

I suppose a noisy diversion could make surprise still possible. Even a squad on horse back is too noisy to go unnoticed if all is quiet.

[CreepyOldDude]

They make electric ones as well...

That would be sweet.

[CreepyOldDude]

The farmer still chuckles when he recalls it too.

Probably. :) But he sure as shit wasn't chuckling when it happened. :) Thank God I wasn't driving. :)

[Peter1469]

REDRUMsfeld was thinking, "Why spend money on armor for troops who are going to be greeted with flowers and kisses?"

No, Sage, that wasn't what he was thinking.....

[Common Sense]

Here is a Polaris page with their combat vehicles.

http://www.polaris.com/en-us/military/combat

[Bob]

The Humvee was, in fact, redesigned to include light armor after Operation Restore Hope, back in 1992. And the DOD didn't wait for Congress to approve shit before up-armoring humvees after they proved so vulnerable to IEDs. Which, if Rumsfeld had done his job, would have been foreseen. Humvees proved to be poor at urban combat in Somalia, especially during the Battle of Mogadishu, in 93. What made anyone think they'd do better this time?

I rode around in jeeps, too. But back in Nam, Charlie wasn't near as good at asymetric warfare as the terrorists are now.

Look, I get your basic point, and happen to agree that the US is far too sensitive to losses. I just disagree that it's somehow all the Dem's fault.

And, like it or not, Rumsfeld did fuck up. He didn't listen to the professionals.

You know very well that you defeat light armor with explosives. If that fails, use larger explosives.

It is wrong to blame Rumsfeld. HE had to fight the war with what he was handed. And congress does the handing.

How many losses have we had since 2001?

I served with men in uniform that in Korea lost that many in a few months, not years.

Was it all Dems fault? Well I think we need to examine the true authority of congress for many years and not just during Bush. Even during Bush he fought with the democrat ran congress.

[CreepyOldDude]

This reminds me of the HumVee problem in Iraq. Roadside bombs destroyed them.

Democrats whined Rumsfeld went into combat with what he had. The ultralight looks good, but keep in mind it offers no troop protection.

Walking of course does not either.

I see the value but when men die in them, you will have Democrats whining all over the place.

Also, it should be pointed out that the ones complaining to Rumsfeld weren't Dems, they were soldiers.



Army Spc. Thomas Wilson: Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles? And why don't we have those resources readily available to us?


Rumsfeld: It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, ah, you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.---You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up...



That was a great quote, if you're fighting against someone who started a war with you. If, on the other hand, you're the one starting the war, that is just a really dumb thing to say.

[Peter1469]

I imagine what these vehicles will be used for is to move quickly from the LZ to close to the target, depending on circumstances, but a click or two away. Then a traditional light infantry assault. It would all depend on the target. Often airborne troops are used to seize airfields well in the enemy rear. So it may not be heavily defended anyway.

[CreepyOldDude]

Here is a Polaris page with their combat vehicles.

http://www.polaris.com/en-us/military/combat

Damn, I wish we'd had toys like this back in my day. :applause:

[Bob]

Sure, but then you wouldn't send them in in ultralights. You'd use APCs.

Amusing story, back during training, we got lost in an APC, and ended up squashing some farmer's tractor, driving around in the dark.

I had the chance to drive an APC and proceeded to drive it into a tree and knock it down.

The actual driver was not pleased saying the tree belonged to some German.

The APC was avaliable for Iraq but they could not handle explosives buried in roads either. I hope you know that when I was in the Army, ours were made of aluminum.

I never heard such wailing during the Korean war or the Vietnam war over the vehicles. The Democrats acted like explosives were brand new and that it was up to Donald as to the vehicles he inherited to use.

The M113 is a fully tracked armored personnel carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_personnel_carrier) that was developed by Food Machinery Corp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMC_Corporation) (FMC). The vehicle was first fielded by the United States Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army)'s mechanized infantry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanized_infantry) units in Vietnam in April 1962.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113_armored_personnel_carrier#cite_note-2) The M113 was the most widely used armored vehicle of the U.S. Army in the Vietnam War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War), earning the nickname 'Green Dragon' by theViet Cong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong) as it was used to break through heavy thickets in the midst of the jungle to attack and overrun enemy positions, but largely known as an APC and ACAV (armored cavalry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_cavalry) assault vehicle) by the allied forces.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113_armored_personnel_carrier#cite_note-3)
The M113 introduced new aluminum armor that made the vehicle much lighter than earlier vehicles; it was thick enough to protect the crew and passengers against small arms fire but light enough that the vehicle was air transportable and moderately amphibious. In the U.S. Army, the M113 series have long been replaced as front-line combat vehicles by the M2 and M3 Bradley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle), but large numbers are still used in support roles such as armored ambulance, mortar carrier, engineer vehicle, command vehicle, etc. The Army's Heavy Brigade Combat Teams are equipped with around 6,000 M113s and 4,000 Bradleys.

[CreepyOldDude]

No, Sage, that wasn't what he was thinking.....

I've often wondered what he was thinking. I mean, we were already engaged in Afghanistan, so we had at least some experience with how terrorists fight. And the professionals were telling him we had to have better plans for after we won. Was he so caught up in the idea of light combat forces, that he couldn't see a need for plans for after the invasion?

[Cthulhu]

The main concern I have is the hang time in the sky. You'll need bigger chutes to slow it down. And it can't hit the ground too hard or the suspension will be shot on impact, possibly other components as well. Landing terrain matters a lot as well.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[CreepyOldDude]

You know very well that you defeat light armor with explosives. If that fails, use larger explosives.

It is wrong to blame Rumsfeld. HE had to fight the war with what he was handed. And congress does the handing.

How many losses have we had since 2001?

I served with men in uniform that in Korea lost that many in a few months, not years.

Was it all Dems fault? Well I think we need to examine the true authority of congress for many years and not just during Bush. Even during Bush he fought with the democrat ran congress.

Sure, and that's not an issue for regular forces. They have an easy time getting larger explosives. But terrorists aren't regular forces. If it takes more explosive to take out a Humvee, then that's fewer Humvees they can take out. Because getting more explosives is tougher. Or they wouldn't be using IEDs at all, they'd be using anti-tank mines.

No, it's not wrong to blame Rumsfeld. He failed to plan for after the invasion. That wasn't Congress' fault. That was his.

I think you're ignoring the advances in trauma medicine over the last 50 years. There are a lot of veterans alive today, who sustained injuries that would have killed them during the Korean War, or even during Nam.

You seem to be taking exception to the Dems paying attention to the soldiers who were wondering why Rumsfeld didn't do his damned job. Why is that? Because it was the soldiers who were complaining to him, when he said that truly stupid response.

[Peter1469]

I've often wondered what he was thinking. I mean, we were already engaged in Afghanistan, so we had at least some experience with how terrorists fight. And the professionals were telling him we had to have better plans for after we won. Was he so caught up in the idea of light combat forces, that he couldn't see a need for plans for after the invasion?

I agree they failed with the what to do after the invasion part.

[CreepyOldDude]

I imagine what these vehicles will be used for is to move quickly from the LZ to close to the target, depending on circumstances, but a click or two away. Then a traditional light infantry assault. It would all depend on the target. Often airborne troops are used to seize airfields well in the enemy rear. So it may not be heavily defended anyway.

Also, when you're well behind the lines, people don't often think "Enemy Attack" when they hear a noise. At least, in my experience.

[Peter1469]

I imagine what these vehicles will be used for is to move quickly from the LZ to close to the target, depending on circumstances, but a click or two away. Then a traditional light infantry assault. It would all depend on the target. Often airborne troops are used to seize airfields well in the enemy rear. So it may not be heavily defended anyway.

Old style was to drop on the target. That is too lethal today.

[Cthulhu]

$#@!, I wish we'd had toys like this back in my day. :applause:
I'm still waiting for the Low Orbit capsule drop, all Starship Troopers style.

Mobile Infantry. :cool:

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Peter1469]

The main concern I have is the hang time in the sky. You'll need bigger chutes to slow it down. And it can't hit the ground too hard or the suspension will be shot on impact, possibly other components as well. Landing terrain matters a lot as well.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.


We put honeycomb cushions on the pallets the vehicles are loaded on. We have been dropping 105 howitzers, Humvees, and even light tanks for a long time.

[Cthulhu]

We put honeycomb cushions on the pallets the vehicles are loaded on. We have been dropping 105 howitzers, Humvees, and even light tanks for a long time.
I stand corrected.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Polecat]

Also, when you're well behind the lines, people don't often think "Enemy Attack" when they hear a noise. At least, in my experience.

Good point. I wonder though just how long it would take for them to find the noise unfamiliar enough to do do the math.

[Peter1469]

I stand corrected.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

No worries. You are a Marine. You could school me on those boats. :smiley:

[Bob]

Also, it should be pointed out that the ones complaining to Rumsfeld weren't Dems, they were soldiers.



That was a great quote, if you're fighting against someone who started a war with you. If, on the other hand, you're the one starting the war, that is just a really dumb thing to say.

Do you deny you can blow up armored vehicles?

Tell me that you don't deny it. Read Rumsfeld one more time.

[Bob]

Sure, and that's not an issue for regular forces. They have an easy time getting larger explosives. But terrorists aren't regular forces. If it takes more explosive to take out a Humvee, then that's fewer Humvees they can take out. Because getting more explosives is tougher. Or they wouldn't be using IEDs at all, they'd be using anti-tank mines.

No, it's not wrong to blame Rumsfeld. He failed to plan for after the invasion. That wasn't Congress' fault. That was his.

I think you're ignoring the advances in trauma medicine over the last 50 years. There are a lot of veterans alive today, who sustained injuries that would have killed them during the Korean War, or even during Nam.

You seem to be taking exception to the Dems paying attention to the soldiers who were wondering why Rumsfeld didn't do his damned job. Why is that? Because it was the soldiers who were complaining to him, when he said that truly stupid response.

Rumsfeld pointed out that armored Humvees would still get blown up.

Guess what?

He was correct. The armored Humvees also got blown up. the MRAP was far better but Rumsfeld could not have got those from Congress ahead of the war and you know that is true. You never saw Clinton rushing them into production. Bush produced the first MRAP vehicles. Due to needs of the troops.

[Peter1469]

Do you deny you can blow up armored vehicles?

Tell me that you don't deny it. Read Rumsfeld one more time.

Two soldiers who were PFCs in my platoon in the Louisiana Army National Guard (NCOs at the time of their deaths) were in one of the first Bradley Fighting Vehicles to be destroyed by the new explosively formed penetrator that Iran gave to the Shia militias. The guys said the vehicle rose 6 feet into the air.

[Bob]

Two soldiers who were PFCs in my platoon in the Louisiana Army National Guard (NCOs at the time of their deaths) were in one of the first Bradley Fighting Vehicles to be destroyed by the new explosively formed penetrator that Iran gave to the Shia militias. The guys said the vehicle rose 6 feet into the air.


http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1059141#post1059141)
Do you deny you can blow up armored vehicles?

Tell me that you don't deny it. Read Rumsfeld one more time.


Go ahead Creepy, read what Peter told us.

Franks did not expect that Iran would supply such explosives to the terrorists in Iraq.

I like to remind the people that for much of a year post war, things were peaceful in Iraq.

It is worse today than it was during the post war period after Franks retired. I have formed an opinion, could be unfair, that General Sanchez whom took over was not on the ball.

[CreepyOldDude]

Dammit, Peter, Bob, you guys got me so caught up in this thread, I forgot to eat lunch. :P

I have to get back to work.

You gentlemen have a great day.

[Bob]

I've often wondered what he was thinking. I mean, we were already engaged in Afghanistan, so we had at least some experience with how terrorists fight. And the professionals were telling him we had to have better plans for after we won. Was he so caught up in the idea of light combat forces, that he couldn't see a need for plans for after the invasion?

My god

Read Franks book
Read Mike DeLong's book
Read Rumsfeld's book
Read Bush's book

If you do, I promise you there are answers to your questions.

Read Cheneys book too

For post war planning

The Franks book and the Bremer books are awesome

It is a bitch to argue with those who simply never got up to date by using the proper books.

[Tahuyaman]

If these vehicles (http://www.armytimes.com/story/defense/policy-budget/policy/2015/04/22/us-armys-82nd-airborne-ultralight-vehicles-congress/26185911/)are jump ready, they may bring back the utility of Airborne assaults, especially in peer to peer combat. And it can take the light infantry out of airborne infantry!



http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/3d6dd00914e491190033e2beff6649d0ce7055d2/c=47-0-765-540&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/04/22/DefenseNews/DefenseNews/635653067911407152-10841865-10152773309328558-254738342019695043-o.jpg

this isn't exactly a new idea. Back in the 80's we experimented with a dune buggy type vehicle. Ir stuck around for a few years before the idea was scrapped. The idea was scrapped because they could only be deployed in limited terrain conditions.

They will never replace light infantry, but they may be an effective force multiplier in certain situations.

[Peter1469]

I agree. Most military equipment has limitations.

[Tahuyaman]

I agree. Most military equipment has limitations.

and much of those limitations are operator based.

[Peter1469]

and much of those limitations are operator based.

Wheeled vehicles are less capable off road than tracked vehicles are. That is not operator based.

[Tahuyaman]

Wheeled vehicles are less capable off road than tracked vehicles are. That is not operator based.
have you ever seen how tracked vehicles often throw a track in heavy, thick mud?

[Polecat]

have you ever seen how tracked vehicles often throw a track in heavy, thick mud?

Sure messed up the Germans.

[Peter1469]

have you ever seen how tracked vehicles often throw a track in heavy, thick mud?

Yes.

[Cthulhu]

No worries. You are a Marine. You could school me on those boats. :smiley:
Boats suck. But they eat very well.

Life on a boat is hella demoralizing. Marines are treated like a very troublesome cargo.

What makes it worse is that it's true.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Cthulhu]

Wheeled vehicles are less capable off road than tracked vehicles are. That is not operator based.
Depends on the wheels you're rolling with. Never got a 6 wheeled seven ton stuck. But I have gotten and 8 wheeled LAV stuck.

Go figure.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Tahuyaman]

Sure messed up the Germans.

the German panzer was no joke.

[Tahuyaman]

have you ever seen how tracked vehicles often throw a track in heavy, thick mud?


Yes.


wheeled vehicles have their advantages sometimes.

[Peter1469]

wheeled vehicles have their advantages sometimes.

I agree. They do better on some terrain and tracked vehicles do better on other terrain.

[Bob]

I agree. They do better on some terrain and tracked vehicles do better on other terrain.

I see them as an option. But not the only option. Actually it seems they are not yet approved.They might get killed off.

[Tahuyaman]

I see them as an option. But not the only option. Actually it seems they are not yet approved.They might get killed off.


An an option for what though? Recon?

[MisterVeritis]

No worries. You are a Marine. You could school me on those boats. :smiley:
When I was still on active duty the Army had more boats than the Marine Corps.

[MisterVeritis]

Two soldiers who were PFCs in my platoon in the Louisiana Army National Guard (NCOs at the time of their deaths) were in one of the first Bradley Fighting Vehicles to be destroyed by the new explosively formed penetrator that Iran gave to the Shia militias. The guys said the vehicle rose 6 feet into the air.
Iran. Is that the same Iran that the Insane One is insuring have nuclear weapons?

And speaking of The Insane One, didn't his administration approve giving Russia COMPLETE control over one-fifth of our our known still-in-ground uranium?

God I hate Democrats. I wish there was a way to rid the Earth of them.

[MisterVeritis]

this isn't exactly a new idea. Back in the 80's we experimented with a dune buggy type vehicle. Ir stuck around for a few years before the idea was scrapped. The idea was scrapped because they could only be deployed in limited terrain conditions.

They will never replace light infantry, but they may be an effective force multiplier in certain situations.
I was not going to mention my role in this. I was a liaison officer to the 9th Infantry Division when it was the Army Development and Employment Agency. General Shali was in charge of the 9th ID.

[MisterVeritis]

wheeled vehicles have their advantages sometimes.
Roads and on firm ground....

[Tahuyaman]

I was not going to mention my role in this. I was a liaison officer to the 9th Infantry Division when it was the Army Development and Employment Agency. General Shali was in charge of the 9th ID.

I was in 9th ID during that time. 2/47, then 3/39. The dune buggie contraptions were in 2/2 in.

[MisterVeritis]

I was in 9th ID during that time. 2/47, then 3/39. The dune buggie contraptions were in 2/2 in.
I no longer remember the battalions. I was far more involved in redeveloping our deception operations capabilities.

[Tahuyaman]

Roads and on firm ground....

Not neccessarily. Check out how well the wheeled strikers do in deep sand and heavy tmud

[MisterVeritis]

Not neccessarily. Check out how well the wheeled strikers do in deep sand and heavy tmud
That requires lots of wheels. It is a matter of physics.

[Bob]

wheeled vehicles have their advantages sometimes.

I can't speak for the modern tracked vehicle but in my era tanks tossed tracks often and of course that is why we had the motor pool guys to fix things like that.

[Bob]

An an option for what though? Recon?

More than that As Peter attests, airborne can use them.

[Tahuyaman]

More than that As Peter attests, airborne can use them.

but for what? A battalion is not going to execute a deliberate attack in ATV's.

[Bob]

but for what? A battalion is not going to execute a deliberate attack in ATV's.

You need to ask Peter about that.

[MisterVeritis]

but for what? A battalion is not going to execute a deliberate attack in ATV's.
It does offer a way to get from here to there...

[Tahuyaman]

It does offer a way to get from here to there...

It does, but it doesn't look like it can be a combat vehicle. Recon, sure, but you are not going to execute an offensive operation on a glorified ATV.

[MisterVeritis]

It does, but it doesn't look like it can be a combat vehicle. Recon, sure, but you are not going to execute an offensive operation on a glorified ATV.
Movement is essential. Walking is a tough challenge.

One used to ride horses to the place of battle. That worked reasonably well. Chariots, initially, were taxis able to take heroes to the place of battle.

[Tahuyaman]

Movement is essential. Walking is a tough challenge.

One used to ride horses to the place of battle. That worked reasonably well. Chariots, initially, were taxis able to take heroes to the place of battle.

an ATV is probably not an effective way to move company and above sized elements. I can see a valid use for these vehicles, but not as troop carriers, or fighting vehicles. It sure would make training exercises much more fun anyway.

[MisterVeritis]

an ATV is probably not an effective way to move company and above sized elements. I can see a valid use for these vehicles, but not as troop carriers, or fighting vehicles. It sure would make training exercises much more fun anyway.
We can agree to disagree.

What do you think of mules?

[Tahuyaman]

I'm trying to figure out why you think the opposition to ATV's being used as troop carriers equals advocating horses, mules or chariots?

im sure they have their place, but .......

[MisterVeritis]

I'm trying to figure out why you think the opposition to ATV's being used as troop carriers equals advocating horses, mules or chariots?
Mules are a mechanical contrivance intended to carry some of the load. I am not working on them but some of "us" are.

Horses and chariots were also used to move troops to the place of battle. In the past I have even used 2.5 ton trucks. One does what one can to save the fighting strength of the ones who must struggle.

[Tahuyaman]

Mules are a mechanical contrivance intended to carry some of the load. I am not working on them but some of "us" are.

Horses and chariots were also used to move troops to the place of battle. In the past I have even used 2.5 ton trucks. One does what one can to save the fighting strength of the ones who must struggle.


The deuce and a half went out of service years and years ago. The HMMT five ton became the staple. But I still don't think one can expect to move large troop units on ATV's.

Do you need to bury the horse and mule s**t in order to avoid having your assembly area compromised?

[MisterVeritis]

The deuce and a half went out of service years and years ago. The HMMT five ton became the staple. But I still don't think one can expect to move large troop units on ATV's.

Do you need to bury the horse and mule s**t in order to avoid having your assembly area compromised?
Special operators rode horses in Afghanistan. The mules are mechanical. They do require a power source but doubt the waste products are excrement.

[MisterVeritis]

The deuce and a half went out of service years and years ago. The HMMT five ton became the staple. But I still don't think one can expect to move large troop units on ATV's.

Do you need to bury the horse and mule s**t in order to avoid having your assembly area compromised?
Airborne forces generally jump in close to their objective. I would expect the ATVs to be used for mortars and ammunition more than for troops.

[Peter1469]

When I was still on active duty the Army had more boats than the Marine Corps.

More boats than the navy. My number. Not tonnage.

[Peter1469]

Not neccessarily. Check out how well the wheeled strikers do in deep sand and heavy tmud

They have newer technology that allows them to change air pressure depending upon the surface. It has only been relatively recently that the army started to seriously consider wheeled as getting close to track for terrain. We should have both.

[Peter1469]

but for what? A battalion is not going to execute a deliberate attack in ATV's.

I mentioned earlier: they would be used to transport troopers from the DZ to close to the target (1-2 kicks). Then light infantry attack. They could be used after the attack as well.

With modern air defense the old style Airborne assault directly on the target is not practical.

And example of a traditional airborne infantry mission would be jumping into the enemy rear to seize an airfield allowing heavy forces to land and create a new front. The paratroopers will jump with 2 weeks worth of food water and ammo. If follow forces can't get there in two weeks, FUBAR.

[Peter1469]

We can agree to disagree.

What do you think of mules?

The army is experimenting with large robots that would carry a lot of the infantry soldier's stuff. They have some weird designs.

[Tahuyaman]

Airborne forces generally jump in close to their objective. I would expect the ATVs to be used for mortars and ammunition more than for troops.

I'm more in line with them being used by scout platoons for recon purposes.

[Peter1469]

More from the OP:


In October, the 82nd announced that the 2nd Brigade's 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment would be the first battalion to exercise and assess the light ATV. The idea was that it would allow the unit to swiftly transport and parachute in, then carry a small amount of supplies and hastily evacuate casualties from the battlefield.


The idea is that paratroopers would be able to quickly mass combat power, said Capt. Marshall Brink, the brigade's plans officer said in October.


"A force that may be defending the [landing strip] gets more time to prepare for the siege of the airfield," he said. "If we have the ability to drop more lightweight vehicles that allow our assaulting force to rapidly reach the objective and establish a foothold, that will improve our chances of success tremendously."

[MisterVeritis]

More boats than the navy. My number. Not tonnage.
Works for me.

[MisterVeritis]

The army is experimenting with large robots that would carry a lot of the infantry soldier's stuff. They have some weird designs.
Yes. I know. The can also move independently of active operator control.

[The Sage of Main Street]

You didn't see too many assaults or patrols being conducted from Jeeps either. Moving along at a slow steady rate on a defined path in a war zone is just asking for it. In Vietnam, a Seabee Captain and his driver got killed riding around in our Tactical Area of Responsibility in a jeep that ran over a land mine.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Humvee was, in fact, redesigned to include light armor after Operation Restore Hope, back in 1992. And the DOD didn't wait for Congress to approve $#@! before up-armoring humvees after they proved so vulnerable to IEDs. Which, if Rumsfeld had done his job, would have been foreseen. Humvees proved to be poor at urban combat in Somalia, especially during the Battle of Mogadishu, in 93. What made anyone think they'd do better this time? I rode around in jeeps, too. But back in Nam, Charlie wasn't near as good at asymetric warfare as the terrorists are now. Look, I get your basic point, and happen to agree that the US is far too sensitive to losses. I just disagree that it's somehow all the Dem's fault. And, like it or not, Rumsfeld did $#@! up. He didn't listen to the professionals. As REDRUMsfeld said himself, "You have to fight a war with the lies you have, not with the lies you wish you had. There were lies we were sure we could get away with it and then found out we couldn't. But balancing that in the calculus of political dishonesty, there were lies we could have told but didn't think they'd be believed that we later found out would have been believed."