User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 2:04:12 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: First I've heard of it. Where did you hear that ? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Didn’t the Colorado have a frame breaking issue when weighed down? First I've heard of it. Where did you hear that ? I think he is referring to the idiot that had a travel trailer on the hitch and was driving 45 mph over whoops designed for UTVs..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 2:14:32 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Anything that carries infantry should be able to carry armament, because said infantry will put armament on it as soon as possible, and rightly so. Carrying troops into combat means their vehicle will necessarily be in combat as well. Or what is the plan here, the squad can only drive a certain distance away from the battlefield and then they have to park their ISV and walk the rest of the way? Or they drive partway and then switch vehicles to a more combat capable vehicle to fight in? Make it make sense to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 2:19:23 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anything that carries infantry should be able to carry armament, because said infantry will put armament on it as soon as possible, and rightly so. Carrying troops into combat means their vehicle will necessarily be in combat as well. Or what is the plan here, the squad can only drive a certain distance away from the battlefield and then they have to park their ISV and walk the rest of the way? Or they drive partway and then switch vehicles to a more combat capable vehicle to fight in? Make it make sense to me. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Anything that carries infantry should be able to carry armament, because said infantry will put armament on it as soon as possible, and rightly so. Carrying troops into combat means their vehicle will necessarily be in combat as well. Or what is the plan here, the squad can only drive a certain distance away from the battlefield and then they have to park their ISV and walk the rest of the way? Or they drive partway and then switch vehicles to a more combat capable vehicle to fight in? Make it make sense to me. That's been the TTP since all the way back to Dragoons. You don't drive onto the OBJ in a vehicle. The Army tried that concept with Bradleys and quietly did away with it, along with swimming. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 2:19:34 PM EDT
[#4]
Park and walk.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 2:31:19 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anything that carries infantry should be able to carry armament, because said infantry will put armament on it as soon as possible, and rightly so. Carrying troops into combat means their vehicle will necessarily be in combat as well. Or what is the plan here, the squad can only drive a certain distance away from the battlefield and then they have to park their ISV and walk the rest of the way? Or they drive partway and then switch vehicles to a more combat capable vehicle to fight in? Make it make sense to me. Yes, that's the point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 2:49:55 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What does this offer that a Land Verber (Cruise or Rove) hasn't offered for the last 30 years? The ability to carry a 9 man squad and all there gear so they don't have to walk the entire way. It's not going into a High threat area..... it's a transport to get them close. and be air mobile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 3:07:13 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's been the TTP since all the way back to Dragoons. You don't drive onto the OBJ in a vehicle. The Army tried that concept with Bradleys and quietly did away with it, along with swimming. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. Anything that carries infantry should be able to carry armament, because said infantry will put armament on it as soon as possible, and rightly so. Carrying troops into combat means their vehicle will necessarily be in combat as well. Or what is the plan here, the squad can only drive a certain distance away from the battlefield and then they have to park their ISV and walk the rest of the way? Or they drive partway and then switch vehicles to a more combat capable vehicle to fight in? Make it make sense to me. That's been the TTP since all the way back to Dragoons. You don't drive onto the OBJ in a vehicle. The Army tried that concept with Bradleys and quietly did away with it, along with swimming.   |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 3:08:31 PM EDT
[#8]
I'll take one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 3:46:51 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anything that carries infantry should be able to carry armament, because said infantry will put armament on it as soon as possible, and rightly so. Carrying troops into combat means their vehicle will necessarily be in combat as well. Or what is the plan here, the squad can only drive a certain distance away from the battlefield and then they have to park their ISV and walk the rest of the way? Or they drive partway and then switch vehicles to a more combat capable vehicle to fight in? Make it make sense to me. They don't carry rucksacks to the objective either. There's this thing called an ORP/VDO where they leave things behind and assault on foot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 4:52:19 PM EDT
[#10]
In my 5 deployments with 2-75, we have uparmored Hummvees for 2 of them. Most of the time we were travelling far from known routes of US troops travel and known areas of operation. We were able to avoid IED's for the most part, but not every unit has the same mission set in the same remote areas. For infantry units patrolling the same area repeatedly, this is a poor fit. For us, this fit a lot of what we did, which was cutting out 90% of the walking (and the time and cartilage wasted doing it)
These rigs look an awful lot like our hummvees, no roof, very minimalistic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 5:56:26 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Here is one for you; with women in the infantry, will the passenger side seat be heated and will there be individual climate controls? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This thread helps reinforce my belief that most people are shit stupid when it comes to military affairs. Here is one for you; with women in the infantry, will the passenger side seat be heated and will there be individual climate controls? I hope so. Itll make all the tears from the "back in my day" stories so much sweeter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 6:19:53 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anything that carries infantry should be able to carry armament, because said infantry will put armament on it as soon as possible, and rightly so. Carrying troops into combat means their vehicle will necessarily be in combat as well. Or what is the plan here, the squad can only drive a certain distance away from the battlefield and then they have to park their ISV and walk the rest of the way? Or they drive partway and then switch vehicles to a more combat capable vehicle to fight in? Make it make sense to me. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Anything that carries infantry should be able to carry armament, because said infantry will put armament on it as soon as possible, and rightly so. Carrying troops into combat means their vehicle will necessarily be in combat as well. Or what is the plan here, the squad can only drive a certain distance away from the battlefield and then they have to park their ISV and walk the rest of the way? Or they drive partway and then switch vehicles to a more combat capable vehicle to fight in? Make it make sense to me. They host the squad's beltfeds with arms on those posts at the doors. You detach them when you proceed on foot. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 6:39:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A lot of my time was without a vehicle at all. So when the bullets started flying we shot back. IED's? Why are you on the pavement? Because in a real war, that where the objectives are. Against a foe that's even third-rate, if they're not guerillas they'll be near a road, or irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 6:40:18 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because in a real war, that where the objectives are. Against a foe that's even third-rate, if they're not guerillas they'll be near a road, or irrelevant. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A lot of my time was without a vehicle at all. So when the bullets started flying we shot back. IED's? Why are you on the pavement? Because in a real war, that where the objectives are. Against a foe that's even third-rate, if they're not guerillas they'll be near a road, or irrelevant. LOL no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 6:41:42 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because in a real war, that where the objectives are. Against a foe that's even third-rate, if they're not guerillas they'll be near a road, or irrelevant. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A lot of my time was without a vehicle at all. So when the bullets started flying we shot back. IED's? Why are you on the pavement? Because in a real war, that where the objectives are. Against a foe that's even third-rate, if they're not guerillas they'll be near a road, or irrelevant. MacArthur? That you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 6:47:33 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: MacArthur? That you? Fuck MacArthur let’s talk about Fertig. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 7:14:42 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’ve seen pictures somewhere about this, frame buckling between the cab and bed on trails, IIRC, small offroad camp trailers were being towed. Frames were bending because people with trailers were sending it off of whoopsies and jumps. AKA, they were being idiots like the guys that were folding Raptors by trying to launch them into orbit and landing and bending. I've seen ZR2s all stock do crazy jumps while not pulling a trailer and they were fine. I've done some crazy shit in mine and still fine. And I can attest to the ZR2 being able to go places you shouldn't. Went down an ATV trail I wasn't supposed to have turned on but had only 1 way out because I couldn't turn around. Everyone with their $50k decked out side by sides were in awe that my bone stuck ZR2 was doing what it did. My now wife got out and walked the trail because she was scared to be in the truck. I had to go up a hill that was probably 40 degree incline that was just lose rocks and rubble. All I could see was sky. With Front and rear lockers the ZR2 is more capable than any midsize truck out of the factory. I had a 2017 Tacoma 4x4 TRD Offroad but a lot of them had oil starvation issues if on more than a 20 degree incline for too long. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 7:34:22 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fuck MacArthur let’s talk about Fertig. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: MacArthur? That you? Fuck MacArthur let’s talk about Fertig. That was a guerrilla force that was never intended nor able to retake substantial territory from the Japanese. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 8:03:57 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That was a guerrilla force that was never intended nor able to retake substantial territory from the Japanese. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: MacArthur? That you? Fuck MacArthur let’s talk about Fertig. That was a guerrilla force that was never intended nor able to retake substantial territory from the Japanese. Didn’t have to. They kept 300,000 Japanese tied down and provided intel and aviator rescue. Very successful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 8:18:39 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Didn’t have to. They kept 300,000 Japanese tied down and provided intel and aviator rescue. Very successful. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: MacArthur? That you? Fuck MacArthur let’s talk about Fertig. That was a guerrilla force that was never intended nor able to retake substantial territory from the Japanese. Didn’t have to. They kept 300,000 Japanese tied down and provided intel and aviator rescue. Very successful. That's what guerrillas do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 8:30:11 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Frames were bending because people with trailers were sending it off of whoopsies and jumps. AKA, they were being idiots like the guys that were folding Raptors by trying to launch them into orbit and landing and bending. I've seen ZR2s all stock do crazy jumps while not pulling a trailer and they were fine. I've done some crazy shit in mine and still fine. And I can attest to the ZR2 being able to go places you shouldn't. Went down an ATV trail I wasn't supposed to have turned on but had only 1 way out because I couldn't turn around. Everyone with their $50k decked out side by sides were in awe that my bone stuck ZR2 was doing what it did. My now wife got out and walked the trail because she was scared to be in the truck. I had to go up a hill that was probably 40 degree incline that was just lose rocks and rubble. All I could see was sky. With Front and rear lockers the ZR2 is more capable than any midsize truck out of the factory. I had a 2017 Tacoma 4x4 TRD Offroad but a lot of them had oil starvation issues if on more than a 20 degree incline for too long. Yup, @Your1Savior mentioned this earlier in the thread. I found a couple articles where a dude admitted he was doing 40 mph down a desert trail hitting the whoops and getting air with a trailer. Fucking idiots. Interesting about the Tacoma oil starvation, I haven't heard about that. I wonder how close to a stock Colorado frame this ISV has. I would imagine the suspension and frame is beefed up, but if the military does decides to start adding armor, and maybe pulling trailers while blasting over the terrain, maybe there would be issues. Not to mention the loadout of soldiers and gear they are saying it is designed to carry seems to be substantially higher than the payload of the Colorado. Thing does look cool as fuck, though! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 8:36:53 PM EDT
[#22]
can someone tell me how this is better than Humvee?
are they saying you can't take the top off a HV, pack it with all the benches and seats you can and hold 8-9 guys, then fashion some crappy rack that'll hold everyone's shit on top? sure is a helluva lot more capable than any chevy, don't even go there Rommel.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 8:44:22 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: can someone tell me how this is better than Humvee? are they saying you can't take the top off a HV, pack it with all the benches and seats you can and hold 8-9 guys, then fashion some crappy rack that'll hold everyone's shit on top? sure is a helluva lot more capable than any chevy, don't even go there Rommel.. If only there were 6 pages of explaining EXACTLY just that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 8:59:59 PM EDT
[#24]
So, is this gonna be attached transport, or organic to the platoons? If organic, how's the vehicle security issue gonna be handled? Yeah, it can hold a TOE squad, but when said squad deploys, who secures the vehicle? Does every squad and the platoon HQ element lose a man to remain with the vehicle? Or they gonna end up like armored infantry in WWII, with 2 per vehicle left behind to insure against mischance?* Seems like a good way to convert a theoretical 9 man squad that's actually running with 7 into an effective 5 person squad actually closing.
*Dislclaimer, I don't know for sure that was regular practice with all armored infantry units then, but I have seen it listed as SOP in three different combat reports from two differnt units---in one of them the armored infantry company in question went into action paired with a tank company (which was at full TOE with 17 tanks, 5 men each, I might add,) with 51 men grouped into a platoon of 11, a platoon of 14, a platoon of 17, and a company HQ of 9 (even the 11 man platoon subdivided into 3 squads,) with it mentioned in the report that 17 men were left behind to secure and guard the company's 8 halftracks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 9:00:11 PM EDT
[#25]
are you the dummy that answered my question with a question?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 9:16:52 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: are you the dummy that answered my question with a question? No, the question was so dumb nobody directly answered it, and most certainly no follow on questions for you were involved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 9:23:07 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: can someone tell me how this is better than Humvee? are they saying you can't take the top off a HV, pack it with all the benches and seats you can and hold 8-9 guys, then fashion some crappy rack that'll hold everyone's shit on top? sure is a helluva lot more capable than any chevy, don't even go there Rommel.. How much rollover protection does a Humvee with the top removed and benches in the back offer? How secure are passengers on benches? How comfortable are benches in the back of a Humvee? Do you think those factors might affect how fatigued your troops are when you deliver them? How does having a Humvee loaded in a Chinook affect egress from the bird? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 9:26:28 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, is this gonna be attached transport, or organic to the platoons? If organic, how's the vehicle security issue gonna be handled? Yeah, it can hold a TOE squad, but when said squad deploys, who secures the vehicle? Does every squad and the platoon HQ element lose a man to remain with the vehicle? Or they gonna end up like armored infantry in WWII, with 2 per vehicle left behind to insure against mischance?* Seems like a good way to convert a theoretical 9 man squad that's actually running with 7 into an effective 5 person squad actually closing. *Dislclaimer, I don't know for sure that was regular practice with all armored infantry units then, but I have seen it listed as SOP in three different combat reports from two differnt units---in one of them the armored infantry company in question went into action paired with a tank company (which was at full TOE with 17 tanks, 5 men each, I might add,) with 51 men grouped into a platoon of 11, a platoon of 14, a platoon of 17, and a company HQ of 9 (even the 11 man platoon subdivided into 3 squads,) with it mentioned in the report that 17 men were left behind to secure and guard the company's 8 halftracks. With armed vehicles you generally leave a driver and gunner so the vehicle can fight in an emergency. With unarmed vehicles you generally leave only a driver. If you can't afford to leave those people with the vehicles then you can't drive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 9:29:34 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How long until it gets up-armored, weighs 10X as much, and seats three? After the first casulty is taken in one and it makes the news . America has no stomach for casualties on CNN |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 9:30:03 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, is this gonna be attached transport, or organic to the platoons? If organic, how's the vehicle security issue gonna be handled? Yeah, it can hold a TOE squad, but when said squad deploys, who secures the vehicle? Does every squad and the platoon HQ element lose a man to remain with the vehicle? Or they gonna end up like armored infantry in WWII, with 2 per vehicle left behind to insure against mischance?* Seems like a good way to convert a theoretical 9 man squad that's actually running with 7 into an effective 5 person squad actually closing. I'd guess thinking of these as disposable is a good starting point. In a big peer war, you're doing well to make it to the ORP alive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 9:31:11 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because in a real war, that where the objectives are. Against a foe that's even third-rate, if they're not guerillas they'll be near a road, or irrelevant. Just because there are roads doesn't mean you use them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 9:32:19 PM EDT
[#32]
So infantry are pretty much cav scouts now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 9:34:10 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: After the first casulty is taken in one and it makes the news . America has no stomach for casualties on CNN I've been present when we took casualties in unarmored vehicles several times before. I don't recall CNN being there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 9:35:39 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How much rollover protection does a Humvee with the top removed and benches in the back offer? How secure are passengers on benches? How comfortable are benches in the back of a Humvee? Do you think those factors might affect how fatigued your troops are when you deliver them? How does having a Humvee loaded in a Chinook affect egress from the bird? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: can someone tell me how this is better than Humvee? are they saying you can't take the top off a HV, pack it with all the benches and seats you can and hold 8-9 guys, then fashion some crappy rack that'll hold everyone's shit on top? sure is a helluva lot more capable than any chevy, don't even go there Rommel.. How much rollover protection does a Humvee with the top removed and benches in the back offer? How secure are passengers on benches? How comfortable are benches in the back of a Humvee? Do you think those factors might affect how fatigued your troops are when you deliver them? How does having a Humvee loaded in a Chinook affect egress from the bird? thank you |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 9:36:09 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: After the first casulty is taken in one and it makes the news . America has no stomach for casualties on CNN There will always be casualties in combat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 9:47:52 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, is this gonna be attached transport, or organic to the platoons? If organic, how's the vehicle security issue gonna be handled? Yeah, it can hold a TOE squad, but when said squad deploys, who secures the vehicle? Does every squad and the platoon HQ element lose a man to remain with the vehicle? Or they gonna end up like armored infantry in WWII, with 2 per vehicle left behind to insure against mischance?* Seems like a good way to convert a theoretical 9 man squad that's actually running with 7 into an effective 5 person squad actually closing. *Dislclaimer, I don't know for sure that was regular practice with all armored infantry units then, but I have seen it listed as SOP in three different combat reports from two differnt units---in one of them the armored infantry company in question went into action paired with a tank company (which was at full TOE with 17 tanks, 5 men each, I might add,) with 51 men grouped into a platoon of 11, a platoon of 14, a platoon of 17, and a company HQ of 9 (even the 11 man platoon subdivided into 3 squads,) with it mentioned in the report that 17 men were left behind to secure and guard the company's 8 halftracks. Burn the trucks so the men are well motivated.  Attached File Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 10:12:33 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So infantry are pretty much cav scouts now. No, they're still Infantry. A Cav Scout's job is to recon an area and report to higher, preferably without engaging the enemy. For us Infantrymen, our primary task was to "close with and destroy the enemy." These vehicles aren't intended to be a new recon platform, they are intended to assist in the first part of the Infantry's primary task (the "close with" part). These aren't patrol vehicles. They are for moving quickly to an Objective Rally Point, so the Grunts arrive fresh and ready to move forward to the objective on foot, rather than tired from having humped dozens of miles over shitty terrain all damn night. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 10:23:12 PM EDT
[#38]
If they're air mobile.... why not just air mobile them all the way in?
Only partially joking, since we've had air superiority in every conflict after WW2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 10:27:45 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If they're air mobile.... why not just air mobile them all the way in? Only partially joking, since we've had air superiority in every conflict after WW2. Even in GWOT we stopped being able to land on the X, and started being forced to land on the Y and walk the offset. In a conventional conflict we will have even less concessions from the enemy. The Z could be 50-100 miles away with some of the radar and ADA systems around now. Even landing within a few kilometers can be a bad walk in.. Some of the most brutal insertions I've ever done were only 4-5 KM offsets in bad terrain. Knee deep mud, gravel covered hills, gravity wells, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 10:35:02 PM EDT
[#40]
We walked, mostly. It sucked. Deuce and 1/2 sometimes. The pic looks like it holds maybe 4 guys, non-crew. How many per squad?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 10:47:29 PM EDT
[#41]
I've been out of the game for nearly thirty years. Something I am thinking about may not be as interesting, but does anyone know how Light Infantry is going to maintain these vehicles when they are Conus? I can see the motor pool shenanigans and games now.
In the 1990s we stripped all of our Humvees down without doors or roofs in order to facilitate quick dismount. We often used ponchos as roofs mainly to block the sun and sometime the rain if it wasn't too much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 10:48:43 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, they're still Infantry. A Cav Scout's job is to recon an area and report to higher, preferably without engaging the enemy. For us Infantrymen, our primary task was to "close with and destroy the enemy." These vehicles aren't intended to be a new recon platform, they are intended to assist in the first part of the Infantry's primary task (the "close with" part). These aren't patrol vehicles. They are for moving quickly to an Objective Rally Point, so the Grunts arrive fresh and ready to move forward to the objective on foot, rather than tired from having humped dozens of miles over shitty terrain all damn night. [Foghorn Leghorn]That was a joke, son.[/Foghorn Leghorn] |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 10:58:51 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Didn’t have to. They kept 300,000 Japanese tied down and provided intel and aviator rescue. Very successful. They were very successful at Intel and rescue, but the 300,000 IJA troops there were waiting for McArthur, they didn't send them to the PI to fight guerillas |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 11:03:23 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just because there are roads doesn't mean you use them. That works, if you don't need real logistics. It works, if you've got aerial supremacy and the other guy can't shoot down your lift. And it works if the terrain allows it. Amazingly enough, there are plenty of places those vehicles still aren't going without roads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 11:06:41 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That works, if you don't need real logistics. It works, if you've got aerial supremacy and the other guy can't shoot down your lift. And it works if the terrain allows it. Amazingly enough, there are plenty of places those vehicles still aren't going without roads. Ok. Then we won't use them there. Plenty of terrain where they will work. The usage of this vehicle has nothing to do with logistics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 11:13:08 PM EDT
[#46]
Do people just not know what the infantry is? It's not their job to run logistics on roadways.
And this is obviously not the vehicle that would be used for that. The confusion here is baffling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 11:37:33 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do people just not know what the infantry is? It's not their job to run logistics on roadways. And this is obviously not the vehicle that would be used for that. The confusion here is baffling. For a crowd that mocks mission creep constantly they sure get upset when every vehicle can't do absolutely everything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 11:40:07 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yup, @Your1Savior mentioned this earlier in the thread. I found a couple articles where a dude admitted he was doing 40 mph down a desert trail hitting the whoops and getting air with a trailer. Fucking idiots. Interesting about the Tacoma oil starvation, I haven't heard about that. I wonder how close to a stock Colorado frame this ISV has. I would imagine the suspension and frame is beefed up, but if the military does decides to start adding armor, and maybe pulling trailers while blasting over the terrain, maybe there would be issues. Not to mention the loadout of soldiers and gear they are saying it is designed to carry seems to be substantially higher than the payload of the Colorado. Thing does look cool as fuck, though! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Frames were bending because people with trailers were sending it off of whoopsies and jumps. AKA, they were being idiots like the guys that were folding Raptors by trying to launch them into orbit and landing and bending. I've seen ZR2s all stock do crazy jumps while not pulling a trailer and they were fine. I've done some crazy shit in mine and still fine. And I can attest to the ZR2 being able to go places you shouldn't. Went down an ATV trail I wasn't supposed to have turned on but had only 1 way out because I couldn't turn around. Everyone with their $50k decked out side by sides were in awe that my bone stuck ZR2 was doing what it did. My now wife got out and walked the trail because she was scared to be in the truck. I had to go up a hill that was probably 40 degree incline that was just lose rocks and rubble. All I could see was sky. With Front and rear lockers the ZR2 is more capable than any midsize truck out of the factory. I had a 2017 Tacoma 4x4 TRD Offroad but a lot of them had oil starvation issues if on more than a 20 degree incline for too long. Yup, @Your1Savior mentioned this earlier in the thread. I found a couple articles where a dude admitted he was doing 40 mph down a desert trail hitting the whoops and getting air with a trailer. Fucking idiots. Interesting about the Tacoma oil starvation, I haven't heard about that. I wonder how close to a stock Colorado frame this ISV has. I would imagine the suspension and frame is beefed up, but if the military does decides to start adding armor, and maybe pulling trailers while blasting over the terrain, maybe there would be issues. Not to mention the loadout of soldiers and gear they are saying it is designed to carry seems to be substantially higher than the payload of the Colorado. Thing does look cool as fuck, though! Yeah, I had a first year ZR2 diesel and absolutely loved it. Traded in 3 years later for a newer one that was identical and has been great as well. Very solid platform and a lot of fun. If someone breaks one, they were doing something that would have broken any vehicle. When GM Defense launched their ISV a couple years ago, they said it was going to maintain 70% parts compatability with the retail ZR2, including chassis, engine (2.8L Diesel), transmission, and the Multimatic DSSV suspension |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 11:54:57 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok. Then we won't use them there. Plenty of terrain where they will work. The usage of this vehicle has nothing to do with logistics. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That works, if you don't need real logistics. It works, if you've got aerial supremacy and the other guy can't shoot down your lift. And it works if the terrain allows it. Amazingly enough, there are plenty of places those vehicles still aren't going without roads. Ok. Then we won't use them there. Plenty of terrain where they will work. The usage of this vehicle has nothing to do with logistics. To GD, a 24 pack of Charmin and a non-rat-fucked case of MREs is the pinnacle of logistics. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2021 11:57:09 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To GD, a 24 pack of Charmin and a non-rat-fucked case of MREs is the pinnacle of logistics. Kharn And this is why I went air force. 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
