User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 7:41:42 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just because it can fit a squad doesn't mean it will lol Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This is going to be one of those things that is brilliant when used correctly and gets a bad reputation when used incorrectly. Also, curious that the design goal for this was to fit an entire squad while the Army is hesitant to put a whole squad in the Bradley replacement due to the potential to lose a whole squad at once. But I also haven’t figured out yet why the Army doesn’t have different squad sizes for mech and light infantry. Just because it can fit a squad doesn't mean it will lol Each man is 200 pounds, plus 100 pounds of gear/armor, so 300 pounds per ass. 2700 pounds of men, plus another few hundred for the man gun, ammunition, fuel, water, electronics, batteries, etc. Nine men might be a bit of a stretch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 7:42:57 PM EDT
[#2]
We would have loved to have something like that when I was in 7th ID (Light).
I think our MTOE then was 3 vehicles (2xM998, 1xM35) for each line company (roughly 100 dudes). You ain't moving a company anywhere quick without higher support. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 7:43:16 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Or they can just climb into the JLTV they already own. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Just wait until they bolt 10 tons of armor to it trying to make it an APC... Or they can just climb into the JLTV they already own. I thought we left all of those in Afghanistan. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 7:45:16 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought we left all of those in Afghanistan. Did we send JLTV's there? Maybe MATV's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 7:46:42 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can walk or you can ride but either way you get rained on. I'm sure it has canopy for it if it doesn't it should . |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 7:47:17 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought we left all of those in Afghanistan. We didn't leave a single one of those in Afghanistan. I did just drive past several motor pools full of them however. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 7:47:32 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm sure it has canopy for it if it doesn't it should . You can make a canopy out of hescos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 7:48:28 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I did plenty of cross country while overseas. And in a more conventional war we'd be doing a lot more. Our trucks got stuck a lot. MRAP's were worse. This would have been great to have. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You keep saying this but do you think they are going rock crawling? They will be used in a road of some sort. I did plenty of cross country while overseas. And in a more conventional war we'd be doing a lot more. Our trucks got stuck a lot. MRAP's were worse. This would have been great to have. And there's a wide range between hard road and rock crawling. I've taken my pickup places a lot of guys wouldn't want to take their lifted trucks. This makes sense to have in the arsenal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 7:52:56 PM EDT
[#9]
My first thought on seeing it (and without reading the first word of the article, of course) is the memory of our guys on the ground having to improvise armor for HMV's when they tried driving them around in an insurgency.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 7:55:57 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My first thought on seeing it (and without reading the first word of the article, of course) is the memory of our guys on the ground having to improvise armor for HMV's when they tried driving them around in an insurgency. This isn't replacing every vehicle in the inventory. We'll have JLTV's, MRAP's, MATV's, ASV's, etc. Most of which came way after the improvising of armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 8:35:49 PM EDT
[#11]
My vehicle experience ranges from late 90’s RSOVs to the GMV 1.0.
This included the invasion in a GMV with no doors and swing arm 240 so thanks for the pro tips. The problem (and my earlier point) is that the Army has a proven track record of trying to employ one vic to do it all … just like the HMMWV and various mods. What could go wrong? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 8:42:10 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My vehicle experience ranges from late 90’s RSOVs to the GMV 1.0. This included the invasion in a GMV with no doors and swing arm 240s so thanks for the pro tips. The problem (and my earlier point) is that the Army has a proven track record of trying to employ one vic to do it all … just like the HMMWV and various mods. What could go wrong? A lot has changed. A typical infantry platoon in 2011 OEF could have an ASV, a MATV or two, an RG31 (MRAP), and another type of MRAP. The days of one vehicle doing it all are over. And the vehicle in the OP certainly will not "do it all." There is a big variety of vehicles in use and inventory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 8:46:47 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A lot has changed. A typical infantry platoon in 2011 OEF could have an ASV, a MATV or two, an RG31 (MRAP), and another type of MRAP. The days of one vehicle doing it all are over. And the vehicle in the OP certainly will not "do it all." There is a big variety of vehicles in use and inventory. That is interesting to think about - it took years to build up the fleet of RGs and later MATVs. Something about you go to war with the vehicles you have? How expeditionary do you think the JLTVs are? These will be the expeditionary vic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 8:48:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is interesting to think about - it took years to build up the fleet of RGs and later MATVs. Something about you go to war with the vehicles you have? How expeditionary do you think the JLTVs are? These will be the expeditionary vic. Good point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 8:51:29 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What does this offer that a Land Verber (Cruise or Rove) hasn't offered for the last 30 years? Kickbacks to General Officers and Congresswhores. TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 8:53:38 PM EDT
[#16]
This will be a failure as a squad-based vehicle. It could have some utility as a special forces vehicle but it is really too big. Multiple UTV's makes more sense, this would have utility only in a limited subset of special ops missions where a higher payload is required.
The military really needs to figure out who it is going to be fighting next. Is it the Arabs, Russian or Chinese? Because this thing would fail vs those adversaries. I could see it being useful if we were invading Mexico but beyond that why? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 8:54:25 PM EDT
[#17]
how is that better than a Hummer?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:03:29 PM EDT
[#18]
Start with the role of light infantry in major combat against a near peer and work backwards from there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:04:19 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: how is that better than a Hummer? How many seats does a Hummer have, what’s it’s loaded weight with nine guys, and how the hell do you drive it into a chinook. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:05:32 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Start with the role of light infantry in major combat against a near peer and work backwards from there. I want my infantry hiding in forests and cities. I don't want them driving around period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:06:59 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I want my infantry hiding in forests and cities. I don't want them driving around period. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Start with the role of light infantry in major combat against a near peer and work backwards from there. I want my infantry hiding in forests and cities. I don't want them driving around period. How do you plan on getting them there. They used trucks in WW2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:08:56 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How do you plan on getting them there. They used trucks in WW2. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Start with the role of light infantry in major combat against a near peer and work backwards from there. I want my infantry hiding in forests and cities. I don't want them driving around period. How do you plan on getting them there. They used trucks in WW2. Trucks, helicopters even civilian cars. I would not be assaulting with light infantry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:09:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is interesting to think about - it took years to build up the fleet of RGs and later MATVs. Something about you go to war with the vehicles you have? How expeditionary do you think the JLTVs are? These will be the expeditionary vic. Typically LSCO will start with a JFE, which these are way better suited to use in. The JLTV is already fully rolled out to many units, but will take several more years to roll out to all units. With that said, you are correct. The first units to hit ground in a major conflict will have a light expeditionary compliment and their full loadout when the ships start to arrive. These vehicles will be ready to move much faster and without a huge footprint. At that point the ability to jump a light unit forward to secure against threats to the rest of the invasion force is critical. Port to fort movement isn't exactly linear, it's occurring in five domains at the same time on both sides of the fight, each with different threats and capabilities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:11:26 PM EDT
[#24]
Something they can run down to autozone to get parts for during the domestic re-education missions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:13:34 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Trucks, helicopters even civilian cars. I would not be assaulting with light infantry. When you now have mobile missiles, UAS, and radars in play that will stop your air capacity and destroy your ground assets before they make it within 1000km of the FLOT, smaller mobile units that move quickly and easily hide or displace have a new quality. When you tank armada can be stopped by losing a single bridge, we run into the same conundrum. Take a look at Russia and China and tell me how a direct assault by heavy US forces is even an option? You have to get them there first, in an age where everything is visible and the A2AD bubble is damn near to your own territory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:15:15 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Typically LSCO will start with a JFE, which these are way better suited to use in. The JLTV is already fully rolled out to many units, but will take several more years to roll out to all units. With that said, you are correct. The first units to hit ground in a major conflict will have a light expeditionary compliment and their full loadout when the ships start to arrive. These vehicles will be ready to move much faster and without a huge footprint. At that point the ability to jump a light unit forward to secure against threats to the rest of the invasion force is critical. Port to fort movement isn't exactly linear, it's occurring in five domains at the same time on both sides of the fight, each with different threats and capabilities. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That is interesting to think about - it took years to build up the fleet of RGs and later MATVs. Something about you go to war with the vehicles you have? How expeditionary do you think the JLTVs are? These will be the expeditionary vic. Typically LSCO will start with a JFE, which these are way better suited to use in. The JLTV is already fully rolled out to many units, but will take several more years to roll out to all units. With that said, you are correct. The first units to hit ground in a major conflict will have a light expeditionary compliment and their full loadout when the ships start to arrive. These vehicles will be ready to move much faster and without a huge footprint. At that point the ability to jump a light unit forward to secure against threats to the rest of the invasion force is critical. Port to fort movement isn't exactly linear, it's occurring in five domains at the same time on both sides of the fight, each with different threats and capabilities. This does not make sense vs a modern near-peer adversary. For the same reasons, paratroopers don't make sense. This is not WW2 we don't do high-risk stuff like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:16:08 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This does not make sense vs a modern near-peer adversary. For the same reasons, paratroopers don't make sense. This is not WW2 we don't do high-risk stuff like that. This is exactly why this makes sense. I'm not sure what you mean by not doing high risk stuff...doctrine in LSCO is not the same as in GWOT. A JFE will most assuredly involve multiple airborne operations along with a lot of other facets. Take a look at Russia and China and tell me how a direct assault by heavy US forces is even an option? You have to get them there first, in an age where everything is visible and the A2AD bubble is damn near to your own territory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:17:12 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When you now have mobile missiles, UAS, and radars in play that will stop your air capacity and destroy your ground assets before they make it within 1000km of the FLOT, smaller mobile units that move quickly and easily hide or displace have a new quality. When you tank armada can be stopped by losing a single bridge, we run into the same conundrum. Take a look at Russia and China and tell me how a direct assault by heavy US forces is even an option? You have to get them there first, in an age where everything is visible and the A2AD bubble is damn near to your own territory. We will have air dominance at least over our own forces. We are not sending forces into a contested area. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:18:53 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is exactly why this makes sense. Take a look at Russia and China and tell me how a direct assault by heavy US forces is even an option? You have to get them there first, in an age where everything is visible and the A2AD bubble is damn near to your own territory. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This does not make sense vs a modern near-peer adversary. For the same reasons, paratroopers don't make sense. This is not WW2 we don't do high-risk stuff like that. This is exactly why this makes sense. Take a look at Russia and China and tell me how a direct assault by heavy US forces is even an option? You have to get them there first, in an age where everything is visible and the A2AD bubble is damn near to your own territory. We are not going to directly assault China or Russia any war would be defensive. We will retake allied territory on our own schedule. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:20:10 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Trucks, helicopters even civilian cars. I would not be assaulting with light infantry. A good argument can be made for reducing US airborne assets, but as long as you have them a vehicle like this makes sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:20:40 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We will have air dominance at least over our own forces. We are not sending forces into a contested area. Maybe you need to have a call with the joint chiefs and discuss this with them. Their open source plan for LSCO is vastly different from yours. If we are talking Pacific, you basically mean sitting out the war completely. Spoiler alert, not going to happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:21:49 PM EDT
[#32]
I foresee IED's in our significant future, because the whole world saw us get wrecked from them. this thing is a rolling death trap.
ETA didnt fuck face xiden say the entire government was going electrical in like 2 years? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:24:38 PM EDT
[#33]
Strange. It’s almost like they are envisioning a battlefield with the strange combination of lack of IED’s and needing to close the gap with UTV/ATV’s in a rural setting.
What’s the latest word on that magnum 270/6.8 infantry round they wanted also? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:26:02 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe you need to have a call with the joint chiefs and discuss this with them. Their open source plan for LSCO is vastly different from yours. If we are talking Pacific, you basically mean sitting out the war completely. Spoiler alert, not going to happen. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: We will have air dominance at least over our own forces. We are not sending forces into a contested area. Maybe you need to have a call with the joint chiefs and discuss this with them. Their open source plan for LSCO is vastly different from yours. If we are talking Pacific, you basically mean sitting out the war completely. Spoiler alert, not going to happen. I don't get it you think that this vehicle is going to help invade Mainland China? I will remind you that that would be a land war in Asia. A fight with China would either be in North Korea or Taiwan. I don't see light infantry being involved much. I do see heavy air / naval power and yes some tanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:26:37 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I foresee IED's in our significant future, because the whole world saw us get wrecked from them. this thing is a rolling death trap. So everybody is going to IED/Mine everything and everywhere, on and off road? Even then, in a conventional conflict, we have ways to get through. The IED fight in GWOT was because we were static in enemy territory for years....ie a Low intensity conflict or COIN. We are talking conventional large scale combat. It will still be a problem, but nowhere near as severe due to the movement. With that said, for the thousandth time, these are not patrol vehicles. The same units that get these will also have armored patrol vehicles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:27:01 PM EDT
[#36]
To avoid IED's you avoid roads and commonly traveled routes. This is an offroad vehicle to do just that. Mobility is an option. They'll still have MRAP's and JLTV's for the highway.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:27:14 PM EDT
[#37]
Just wake me up when I can find one on govliquidation for 2k.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:28:27 PM EDT
[#38]
Just more donation to some some 3rd world nation we haven't lost a war to yet at the expense of us racist dirt bags....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:30:20 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't get it you think that this vehicle is going to help invade mainland China? I will remind you that that would be a land war in Asia. A fight with china would either be in North Korea or Taiwan. I don't see light infantry being involved much. I do see heavy air / naval power and yes some tanks. This vehicle is an option on the table designed around large scale conflict. Either way, a fight in Korea or Taiwan not involving Infantry would be dead wrong. Most of the shit China and Korea has is in mountains and deep underground, i'd love to see your plans for how the Navy and Air Force would mitigate it. I think you need to take a step back and breathe for a minute, then do some research on the current state of conventional warfare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:33:32 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm assuming this is more for stateside and places like Germany/Poland for quick and local transport? Or roles far from the front lines. In a modern near-peer war, if you're seen or detected, you're dead. So why bother with a big lumbering vehicle everyone can see to get infantry to the battlefield, with minimal supporting armament, when you can go with minimal cost systems to get there at 80+ mph. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:34:09 PM EDT
[#41]
..........two people facing backwards behind the third row,............ Let's me out. As a yoot I'd get carsick within a mile facing backwards in the rearmost seat of my Mom's station wagon. Turned a bilious green flying from Pope AFB to camp Mackall. Bloody seats should face forward! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:36:28 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This vehicle is an option on the table designed around large scale conflict. Either way, a fight in Korea or Taiwan not involving Infantry would be dead wrong. Most of the shit China and Korea has is in mountains and deep underground, i'd love to see your plans for how the Navy and Air Force would mitigate it. I think you need to take a step back and breathe for a minute, then do some research on the current state of conventional warfare. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I don't get it you think that this vehicle is going to help invade mainland China? I will remind you that that would be a land war in Asia. A fight with china would either be in North Korea or Taiwan. I don't see light infantry being involved much. I do see heavy air / naval power and yes some tanks. This vehicle is an option on the table designed around large scale conflict. Either way, a fight in Korea or Taiwan not involving Infantry would be dead wrong. Most of the shit China and Korea has is in mountains and deep underground, i'd love to see your plans for how the Navy and Air Force would mitigate it. I think you need to take a step back and breathe for a minute, then do some research on the current state of conventional warfare. I don't agree this is a vehicle designed for the same type of warfare that the Stryker ICV was designed for low-intensity rapid reaction forces for Africa and the Middle East. The enemy collapses as fast as we can advance cake walk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:40:05 PM EDT
[#43]
This thread has some LOLZ.
So if light infantry isn't going to assault in an urban environment, who's going to clear the buildings of the snipers, the AT teams killing the armored vehicles, and the MANPAD teams killing the aircraft? Or are we going to bypass the megacities full of bad guys? Or level them ala Dresden? (hint: neither one of those is going to happen) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:41:11 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In a modern near-peer war, if you're seen or detected, you're dead. So why bother with a big lumbering vehicle everyone can see to get infantry to the battlefield, with minimal supporting armament, when you can go with minimal cost systems to get there at 80+ mph. Kharn Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm assuming this is more for stateside and places like Germany/Poland for quick and local transport? Or roles far from the front lines. In a modern near-peer war, if you're seen or detected, you're dead. So why bother with a big lumbering vehicle everyone can see to get infantry to the battlefield, with minimal supporting armament, when you can go with minimal cost systems to get there at 80+ mph. Kharn 3 UTVs would be better losing a whole squad from a 125mm tank round would suck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:42:03 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In a modern near-peer war, if you're seen or detected, you're dead. So why bother with a big lumbering vehicle everyone can see to get infantry to the battlefield, with minimal supporting armament, when you can go with minimal cost systems to get there at 80+ mph. Kharn Exactly. A few of of these dropped by chinook to take out a critical component of the A2AD infrastructure would be huge in the early phases. They would be a lot easier to hide under some tree canopy and I guarantee they would have rolled up camo nets affixed to them. They can carry spec-A's to provide targeting data in the EMS back to our air and missiles, and they provide the ability to carry Stinger, TOW, and and Javelins forward as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:42:43 PM EDT
[#46]
OK I'm going to have to quit this thread. It's making my head hurt.
JK. I can't quit this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:44:56 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't agree this is a vehicle designed for the same type of warfare that the Stryker ICV was designed for low-intensity rapid reaction forces for Africa and the Middle East. The enemy collapses as fast as we can advance cake walk. It has absolutely nothing to do with that. It has to do with the realization that in a modern MDO-based peer conflict we cannot get heavy assets anywhere without light forces forward to enable their continuous movement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:47:14 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't get it you think that this vehicle is going to help invade Mainland China? I will remind you that that would be a land war in Asia. A fight with China would either be in North Korea or Taiwan. I don't see light infantry being involved much. I do see heavy air / naval power and yes some tanks. If you want to see how the Indo-Pac alliance beats China study the WWII Pacific theater. We don't have to step a foot in China -- but when they start branching out you'll have to land wherever they're headed. Islands and semi-tropical jungle nations with monsoon season from April to November does not favor tank and mechanized warfare. Not say it's not gonna happen, but Japan was foot-infantry centric. The Chinese are seriously about "Face." There are still those that remember a lot of Japanese would like nothing better than killing Chinese wholesale. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:47:58 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 3 UTVs would be better losing a whole squad from a 125mm tank round would suck. This thing is essentially a larger UTV, so i'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. Losing 4 guys in a vehicle would suck just like losing 9, but having 4x9 dropped in a single Chinook chalk gets the asses to the fight that we need. It's not even guaranteed that there will be 9 people in each one once specialized equipment starts getting added to loadplans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2021 9:50:36 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This thing is essentially a larger UTV, so i'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. Losing 4 guys in a vehicle would suck just like losing 9, but having 4x9 dropped in a single Chinook chalk gets the asses to the fight that we need. It's not even guaranteed that there will be 9 people in each one once specialized equipment starts getting added to loadplans. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 3 UTVs would be better losing a whole squad from a 125mm tank round would suck. This thing is essentially a larger UTV, so i'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. Losing 4 guys in a vehicle would suck just like losing 9, but having 4x9 dropped in a single Chinook chalk gets the asses to the fight that we need. It's not even guaranteed that there will be 9 people in each one once specialized equipment starts getting added to loadplans. Sorry I cannot take this seriously the light infantry are not special forces. For the hundredth time they are not designed for assault. |
|
|
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.
