Jump to content


Photo

Dragoon And Its Friends


  • Please log in to reply
210 replies to this topic

#201 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,875 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 12 April 2018 - 1754 PM

Sometimes, you use what's available. In some cases, the 'combat' vehicle may actually fit the niche; witness the amtracs in Houston last year.

 

Considering that Roebling's LVT-1 was intended for crossing swamps and shore for civilian purposes they great-grand children came back full circle to the original purpose. ^_^

 

 

 

In natural disaster situations AEV, ARV, AVLB and all the other big toys of especially the engineers have been used to help. But to write them into the requirements is silly. they are still tools of war for the battlefield. But the comfortable civilians want to be lied to I guess.


  • 0

#202 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,564 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 12 April 2018 - 1827 PM

 

Sometimes, you use what's available. In some cases, the 'combat' vehicle may actually fit the niche; witness the amtracs in Houston last year.

 

Considering that Roebling's LVT-1 was intended for crossing swamps and shore for civilian purposes they great-grand children came back full circle to the original purpose. ^_^

 

 

 

In natural disaster situations AEV, ARV, AVLB and all the other big toys of especially the engineers have been used to help. But to write them into the requirements is silly. they are still tools of war for the battlefield. But the comfortable civilians want to be lied to I guess.

 

If it gets funding for gear...


  • 0

#203 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,830 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 12 April 2018 - 1859 PM

 

 

Sometimes, you use what's available. In some cases, the 'combat' vehicle may actually fit the niche; witness the amtracs in Houston last year.

 

Considering that Roebling's LVT-1 was intended for crossing swamps and shore for civilian purposes they great-grand children came back full circle to the original purpose. ^_^

 

 

 

In natural disaster situations AEV, ARV, AVLB and all the other big toys of especially the engineers have been used to help. But to write them into the requirements is silly. they are still tools of war for the battlefield. But the comfortable civilians want to be lied to I guess.

 

If it gets funding for gear...

 

That really does say it all.  Giving an engineering vehicle "humanitarian purposes" makes it saleable to certain kinds of American and Canadian liberals who otherwise would not vote to procure an LAV/Stryker.  They still might not vote for the final defense bill but they might provide a useful vote in committee.


  • 0

#204 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,830 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicagoland

Posted 15 April 2018 - 1034 AM

There's one final factor in the US Army procuring the AVLB Stryker and its big enough that I'm ashamed to have forgotten it:  Pearson Engineering is building 100% of the bridge and its launching equipment in Canada, which means that putting that equipment on a HEMTT would subject the procurement plan to additional bureaucratic validation and massive additional scrutiny since it would be purchasing a system not built in the United States.

 

The Stryker, however, is not subject to the normal rules regarding equipment purchases from Canada.  Since the current Western Hemisphere Stryker/LAV/Piranha III production is a joint US/Canada affair, with no vehicle being entirely made in either country, Canadian-produced equipment counts the same as if it was made in the US if mounted on a Stryker.  Thus the AVLB Stryker can mount an already designed and tested bridging system built in Canada, but it would be much harder process-wise for other US wheeled vehicles to mount such a system.  If this sounds stupid, that's because it is stupid, but that's the way US defense procurement works.


  • 0

#205 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,957 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 15 April 2018 - 2201 PM

Put it on HEMTT and make CANADA pay for it!


  • 0

#206 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 16 April 2018 - 0610 AM

What would be the advantage of using an armoured HEMTT vs a stryker?
  • 0

#207 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,875 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 16 April 2018 - 1041 AM

What would be the advantage of using an armoured HEMTT vs a stryker?

 

Should be cheaper to operate, because of the economies of scale of the HEMTT compared to the lower number of strykers driving around. All US Army divisions use the HEMTT. So replacement parts are already everywhere.


Edited by Panzermann, 16 April 2018 - 1044 AM.

  • 0

#208 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 16 April 2018 - 1056 AM

I think the Stryker would have better armour and be able to revert to APC use after laying the bridge. Presumably it coukd be used as an APC in situations where no bridging was required.
  • 0

#209 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,957 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 16 April 2018 - 1131 AM

The HEMTT could be used as a armoured heavy utility truck.


  • 0

#210 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,875 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 16 April 2018 - 1139 AM

I think the Stryker would have better armour and be able to revert to APC use after laying the bridge. Presumably it coukd be used as an APC in situations where no bridging was required.

 

Why risk loosing your precious bridge layer in combat? Also, where do you get spare legs to put into this ersatz-Infantry Carrier vehicle?


  • 0

#211 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,958 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 16 April 2018 - 1609 PM

Armored HEMMTTs are _ambush_ protected, not armored. There's a lot that goes into making an armored truck that's more resistant to fire than just putting and armored cab on it. Trucks, especially modern, ones have a lot of important ancillary hardware that has to be protected (Batteries, air tanks, hydraulic lines, etc). Even purpose built truck bodies with FULL armor are going to be heavy and you run into limits on what they can be exposed to.

Just hosing it down with an MG will likely sever hydraulic lines and make it useless.

IF you have to do ANY sort of opposed crossing, you need to be able to shrug off harassing MG fire.

Both make sense. A common platform for the Sub-70 ton loads is kind of nice if it works across soft skin support trucks, ambush protected stuff and the proper armor vehicles. A bradley or (M270 chassis derivative) would be nice to see too.


  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users