Its similar to running the MRZR off a Chinook.  Everything gets tucked inside until you make it off.  Ive seen M2s mounted on them that had to get set up as soon as they drove off the ramp.

I've seen Strykers, Bradley's, MRAPs, etc with that many people inside get crushed by mines and IEDs too.  So what?

Should we make 2 pack vehicles and risk using 3x as many helicopters getting them on ground?


I guess we should just give up, this sounds too hard.

Conventional EOD has had 15's since about 2013 and 31s since 2017 or so.  But the MTOE says PVS-7 still, they were bought as COTS items.

True, but we had PVS 14s in 99.

Some Brigades in the 82nd have PVS31s.

It's always a friggin' Chinese circus doing roll-offs.

We trained Royal Thai Air Force Commandos in airfield seizure to take back what would have been air bases lost to hostile forces.  In an MC-130 we could have two motorbikes and two jeeps with machineguns with a whole bus-load of little brown guys hanging-on.  Floor-loading with lap-straps we could push a bunch of assaulters in a single plane.

These vehicles aren't meant to be platforms to fight from, thus they don't need armor or heavy weaponry. They are meant as a way to motorize light infantry units that don't currently have much in the way of organic motor transport. Look at how light infantry units are equipped and it is easy to see where these kind of vehicles fit. A light infantry (not equipped with tracks or Strykers) battalion has 4 companies, plus a headquarters company. Most of the vehicles organic to the battalion are located within the headquarters company. Out of the other 4 companies, only D Company (the weapons company) is mostly equipped with vehicles, which are needed to carry the battalion's heavier weapons such as .50 BMG's, TOW, 40mm MK19's, etc. The rifle companies have shit for vehicles. Basically the CO and first sergeant have transportation. But everyone else walks. These vehicles are to make sure the "everyone else" can also ride to and from the battlefield. It is the only way to keep light infantry from becoming obsolete on the modern battlefield. These vehicles will give light infantry the ability to cover vast distances and quickly get to where the fighting is, while simultaneously giving them the ability to quickly get the fuck out in a hurry should that become necessary. We aren't going to be able to do a massive air assault with 60+ Hueys like it is Vietnam all over again and drop troops right on top of the enemy. A well equipped near peer opponent has air defenses too good for that. The troops will have to be dropped much farther from the front and close the rest of the distance on the ground. Having a squad vehicle will give the guys the ability to get to the fight without first humping 50 miles of rough terrain to get there. And it can bring them back.

Their power plants can't keep up with demand now. In a war they just won't be able to meet demand for anything, even food. Take out the 3 Gorges Dam and it will be lights out. Would Russia take advantage of it and seize disputed regions along Eastern Russia? It would be easy pickings compared to getting bogged down in Europe.

Hitting targets inside China (especially civilian targets) might be a threshold that political leaders would be wary to cross.  If we did that, China would feel compelled to strike against civilian targets inside the continental US.  That could escalate right up to the point where nuclear weapons would be considered.  A limited war to military and maritime targets would be more civilized and lessen the suffering.

Reminds me of those WW2 drops where the Jeep’s were brought in by gliders and the troops quickly mounted up and raced to their non-combat objectives (aid stations, supply depots, HQ) packed with all their heavy gear.

That's a lot of words to say battlefield taxi.

I know. But the term "battlefield taxi" has long been associated with the M113 APC, and to some degree, the M2 Bradley that has supplanted it as infantry carrier in our mechanized units. Therefore I didn't want to use a term to describe it that would instantly make a bunch of folks start trying to compare it to an armored fighting vehicle. But battlefield taxi is an apt description for what the squad vehicle is designed to do. It isn't a mount from which to fight from. It is the most basic of transportation, the lightest, smallest and least complicated thing that can transport an entire infantry squad.

So what? I bet there were more survivors than you'd get with these vehicles. There is a reason the Army got rid of the jeep. Lots of reasons. I understand you got to have something but as the bodies start piling up you know as well as I do they will start piling on every kind of idea to minimize losses. It is the natural evolution of combat. In WWII when they started losing Sherman tanks to mines what did they do? They improvised. This vehicle is not built to be improvised is it? Soldiers start seeing bodies in twisted wrecks and how long will it be before they throw their gear on and walk behind it. Psychology works that way. No one wants to be the next body in the twisted wreck. In Vietnam you see pictures of M113s with sandbags on top and soldiers sitting on top rather than inside. Carlos Hathcock was riding on top an armored LTV-5 when his ride hit an anti-tank mine. He and 7 others suffered wounds and burns but survived.

You’re looking at it entirely wrong. It’s not this or Strykers it’s this or feet.

@turtlemaster

I know its page 1 to page 5, but that guy was completed overloaded.  The Colorados have never had any major issues

You are right in theory and the need is obvious. The reality is how long before the troops start seeing these things blown up by IEDs, start calling them mine clearing magnets, and walk behind them? I'm not sure what the solution is but it seems like we are going full circle back to 1945.

They're not going to use these to clear roads lol

Dams are strategic targets and in China's case, their Achilles heel. You want to end the war quickly you take it out. The 3 Gorges dam system has some very serious construction flaws. You don't need nukes. Have we learned nothing on the folly of limited war? We just lost a limited war fought for 20 years all because we tied our troops hands and feet and pretended we could win. It is a strategy for losers. You can bet if China invades Taiwan they won't give a crap about civilians being in the way. They certainly haven't cared anywhere else they have gone and stomped on people, not even their own. When China invaded defenseless Tibet 87,000 Tibetans were slaughtered and over 100,000 refugees were forced to flee. One was a roommate of my brother in college. All in his family, except his mother, were murdered. I hardly call that a limited war. The strategy should be to minimize our losses and maximize their losses for starting the war.

You know full well it will happen. How long did it take to clear 10-20 miles of roads in Afghanistan suspected of being mined with IEDs? Is not the concept to have battlefield taxies to rapidly move troops to get the enemy off balance or to reinforce a certain unit, etc? If you are going to move light infantry to a battlefield where they are needed ASAP, are you going to turn a battalion or company of these vehicles into a parking lot on the road until it is cleared? You going to give away the element of surprise and telegraph your battle plan in time for the enemy to prepare a welcome? The battlefield taxi may be expendable but the idea is not to expend your troops until you get to the battle.

No.  They just won't be used that way.  When the ied  threat became relevant in Afghanistan we stopped using humvees and only used mraps  on roads.

We use different vehicles for different things.

Would get stuck, or roll.  

Better than mraps  when doing cross country.  Those things got stuck and rolled all the time.

Oh yay, Call of Duty live action.

Buckle up bitch!  Here we go!

This thread helps reinforce my belief that most people are shit stupid when it comes to military affairs.

The hummer started out like that, then once the shooting started armor got bolted on turning high mobility into slow light armored , no offroad capability turd.

Can that sucker support 5000lbs of ar500 plate ?

Watch out for anyone in Supply who buys a base model Colorado and builds a Baja racer at the MWR auto shop.

Kharn

The program phrase is "a better boot."

Kharn

I want to fire double whammy.

That's funny.

The ISV and the JLTV are both managed by Joint Project Office JLTV.

Kharn

Speaking of (kinda), I always thought the Marine Corps IFAV Gwagens were pretty cool.
But I like Gwagens, so I guess I would. ????

I don't disagree with you, but let's come back to Afghanistan, or really any other place that has "severely restricted" terrain, and this idea about a "one better than boot leather" or "battlefield taxi".

In the AFG case it was steep mountains, in another war it might be jungle or marshes/tundra. In all similar cases, "moving rapidly around the battlefield" goes completely out the window--if you don't want to be canalized along known routes, your alternatives are either going to be by mule, or you might go by helicopter, or you are simply not getting there "in time".

And in spite of all our chest bumping propaganda, our enemies are not dumb. Even if you can merely slow vehicles down in rough terrain, or force them to take a secondary or tertiary route...you're still controlling our options, e.g., picking the time and place. Sometimes, just drawing out a QRF type force might be all they wanted in the first place!

Maybe the Army has central Europe in mind again for the ISV, or south west Africa, or something. The Soviet and US reaction in Afghanistan were both similar, opting to reduce convoys by flying as much as possible. Air was primarily for logistics and raid forces, firebases were where you kept the "average" ground combat power, and tried to extend your influence with fires (and in theory, patrolling).

Well, we all know it didn't work quite so well in practice, or perhaps it wasn't taken far enough, but then imagine once your forces are all spread out in platoon or company-sized fire bases, the enemy has the ability to concentrate their forces, and that gives them the advantage.

Maybe it would be different today if every single COP had 24 hour ISR coverage and CAS on call, but I kinda doubt it.

Anyway, my point is, for the ISV, it is absolutely an improvement over boot leather. HOWEVER, no vehicle and no technology can substitute for appropriate tactics (and as we saw in AFG, it has to make sense and align all the way up as well, or it's a wasted effort).

So I fully expect that both critics of the ISV, and commanders trying to use the ISV, will blissfully ignore those competing realities to their own peril. The US has an absolute fetish for trying to purchase technical solutions to squishy problems that would be best avoided completely.

Anyway, walking sucks, so I support the ISV. But could they at least have offered a removable rain cover?

This is a KIA KM 450, a modern turbo-diesel Dodge M715 1 1/4 ton truck.  It can carry a legit full 9-man squad (and a separate, any-MOS driver) with gear.  It doesn't seem to have an identity problem as a plain-vanilla truck, and has been up-armored (as you know any American truck eventually will be).

I don't know if it would fit in a Chinook, but obviously it works in Asia and has been exported to the Philippines and Thailand.  This version has a Mark 19.  "Point A to Point B" un-armored wheeled transport, better/faster/farther than leather personnel carriers.

Attached File

Let's be realistic, these would also have probably been "adequate" even today, but the Army insisted on 9 pax, and a certain weight, and I guess certain features for sling load transport. GM Defense looked at that list and seems to have concluded "everything except for the chassis and engine has to go".

On the plus side, I am hoping the insane spares and maintenance requirements in the contract will keep the 2.8L CRD market alive for decades to come.

Assault is a tactical task or means that involves closing with the enemy, I believe you are thinking of seizure which is strategic level action and is often accomplished via assault be it air, airborne, amphibious, mechanized etc.

Neat. They would suck in a place that has a winter or monsoons.

You have completely missed the point of this vehicle.  Like, entirely...to the point where you are arguing absolutely moot points that you don't even understand yourself.

The protected vehicles already exist. There isn't a need to bolt anything on to these because there is already an ability to transition back to those protected vehicles should the mission require it.  However your concern about risk to force issues is without the additional context that these vehicles were developed from.  A heavy brigade that gets bogged down due to terrain or minefields and can be completely obliterated by missile attacks is not somehow a better solution than a light unit assuming risk to fly forward into areas and find/target the area denial assets beforehand.   Risk to mission and risk to force is a balancing act.  If you too concerned about one the other side spikes and neither one works.  A conventional fight relies on speed and momentum, period.  Obstacles like mines do not serve the same purpose they do in a COIN environment, in LSCO they exist to stop that speed and momentum from being achieved.  Smaller, lighter units can squeeze through those obstacles faster than large heavy units, or just jump over them via helicopter insertions.  Contrary to COIN, in modern conventional warfare whoever stays static longer loses.  In many cases speed equals security.  That also holds true for an expeditionary force that otherwise wouldn't have vehicles at all.  It's pretty hard to displace out of a BM-21 target grid on foot before the rounds start landing.

I had the last of the RR HSE that shared any running gear with those and it was a tank.  413k on original engine/trans/axles and even drove it around with a rod knock for awhile.

I had always wanted to drive (maybe own) one until I did.  It was like riding inside a washing machine.

For everybody that just can't wrap their minds around anything outside of GWOT IED statistics, here's a trade secret that has kept me alive so far.  They can't mine or IED everything. Those obstacles are finite resources which are generally allocated following a tactical plan of some sort.  We were a lot more successful in GWOT once we figured that out, and most units that weren't simply didn't have the mental agility to stop attacking things head on in repetitive fashion.  Uparmoring every mobility platform and driving headfirst into everything because you have to is a perfect example of that legacy problem solving that simply didn't work as a singular solution.  You need a combination of both armor and mobility to be successful.  If everything is 20+ tons, they can only go so many places, and you already gave the enemy the template to use their limited resource on.

There should never be absolutes in combat, and that's exactly what a lot of you are shouting for.

Yet another sad indication of what the operational Army had to do to get around the entrenched corporate bureaucracy.

Sadly, as budgets dry up, such options go as well.

You gave an amazing knack for painting a picture with words.

I remember the first time pics were posted a while back… I showed one to a (former) 11B I know.  All he said was “beats the shit out of walking as long as they actually run”…

Here is one for you; with women in the infantry, will the passenger side seat be heated and will there be individual climate controls?

…and the nice ride we had back in my day was the Cattle Car. It was a huge improvement over the flat bed semi truck trailer.

Force Fields...   Because Magnets and shit ...  

BIGGER_HAMMER

First two episodes of SEAL Team on CBS had the guys running these units.  Think it also made a debut last year in the show also

Ex- Squid here...

Will this make infantry more like calvary now?
Is calvary still a thing? What replaced the horse? (What's the new mount? )

Russian IFAV I just saw on the below video. Whole vid is them doing air assaults in Western Russia. Of course they can also air drop BMDs which we can't.
Attached File