modern carrier

[alleramilitaria]

As a recent vet of operation Iraqi freedom, as well as a vet from desert storm, central America, Korea (its not over yet), and the cold war I have had some great fun listening to people telling me the pros and cons of the new vehicles vs. the vehicles from WWII such as the universal carrier. After thinking about this long and hard I have come to some points about the subject. The U/C has many good points and could cope in today’s battlefield with some modifications.

a. 3-4 U/Cs could be transported by 1 C-130 vs. M-2/3 BFV not transportable by C-130
b. could be airdropped by parachute or by LAPES
c. 1 BFV $$$$= 10 to 15 upgraded U/Cs
d. maintence would be cut by 50-75%
e. the U/C could have bolt on armor installed for RPGs and still be able to be slung loaded by a CH-47.
f. the engine and transmission could be a standard Chevy turbo as used in the M-998 hummer.
g. The passenger bay is small but could be used for remote fired weapons like the HUMRAM, AVENGER pod, or remote 25mm BUSHMASTER cannon.
h. It’s small and could get into urban or woodland areas unseen.
i. Its low slung, lower than the HUMMER by about 4 feet
j. Has loads of unused space.
k. With a standard motor its extremely quiet compared to a M-113 or M-2/3 BFV
l. The driver / gunner area could be covered over and would give the crew a spacious area compared to other IFVs in service today.
m. Could be moved by a 5 ton truck, the M-2/3 takes a 50 ton HEET
n. Has a towing potential greater than a HUMMER.
o. It could cross nearly any bridge used by normal cars, in asia that’s a problem with the M-2/3

All in all the U/C or T-16 with the proper mods could work on today’s battlefield in place of the hummer, M-113, or even the M-2/3 in certain situations. I’m not saying that it would be great in faluja with 9 troops in the back. But it could be a quick scouting scout / recon vehicle that light forces just don’t have right now. Just think about it, a new T-16 with thicker armor, kavalar internal armor, new turbo engine with a auto trans, periscopes, gunner/commanders remote fired GPMG, state of the art computer / commo system, and a gun missile system on the back. Another area that it could excel at is as a company resuply vehicle.
VERSIONS
1. light combat infantry support vehicle (25mm gun with 2 hellfire ATGM)
2. AT vehicle (4 hellfire ATGM x 6 reloads)
3. auto mortar vehicle (2 X magazine fed 81mm mortars x 40 rounds)
4. Recon vehicle (GPMG / M-240 with optics pod)
5. Engineer vehicle (MCLIC launcher)
6. ADA vehicle (4 AMRAM rockets)
7. S-4 vehicle (GPMG/ M-240)
8. Radio relay vehicle (GPMG / M-240)
9. LSV light scout vehicle (20 mm GE M-164 VULCAN with 900 rounds)
10. TLRV tracked light recovery vehicle (for hummers)



Today there is no vehicle that can do the job of getting beans, water, and bullets to troops under fire. M-2/3s are all out doing screening or patrolling missions, and hummers are either uparmored (NO CARGO AREA), or unarmored. A version of the U/C could have side pods loaded in place of the rear armor. That way items could be rapidly uploaded and offloaded as the mission needed. Now that’s a vehicle that would be fun to drive and great to have as an asset for the ground troops.

Im not saying that we should take all the U/Cs out of civilian hands and upgrade them, but it is a design that’s simple, cheap, and something the troops could use.

something to think about.

[Richard Farrant]

Dave,

What is wrong with the British Alvis CVR(T) family of carriers? These fill a lot of the roles you describe, are light, very fast, airportable, reliable, quiet, etc. If you want one for resupply work they even made a version to do just that although not taken up by the British Army.

Richard

[alleramilitaria]

thats a good vehicle too, but a bit pricy new. i was shooting for a basic vehicle for under $100.000.00 ea. but again this vehicle is not being used to its full potential even by the UK. over the years "bigger is better" was the term for nearly all NATO forces.

and again it is only a comparison that i was doing.
thanks
dave

[Richard Farrant]

Dave,

Yes I understand what you were saying about an updated UC. Trouble is nowadays, governments tend to go over the top with equipment specs, if its armour it should be fully enclosed, NBC proof, etc. This is why they are priced that high.

Richard

[alleramilitaria]

not really
the M-2/3 is NOT NBC proof. you can feel the breez going through with it standing still.

LOL

but thats a big problem, the troops need more input on what they need. they are tired of being told what they are going to get then having to make it work.

if i could upgun my U/C and modernise it the way i wanted i would have a fully viable platform for under $50,000.00. and i would not be afraid to drive it downtown baghdad with a great big US flag painted on it.