By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
Forum sponsored by:
Forum sponsored by Forum House Ad Zone

US Army : Infantry Squad Vehicle

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
Michael Gilligan13/11/2021 08:39:20
avatar
20057 forum posts
1040 photos

An impressive piece of Production Engineering : **LINK**

https://www.popsci.com/technology/army-infantry-squad-vehicle-explained/

MichaelG.

Journeyman13/11/2021 09:48:56
avatar
1146 forum posts
230 photos

OK for places where it doesn't rain much, seems to be missing doors and rooffrown Probably not road legal in UK.

infantry.jpg

John

Circlip13/11/2021 10:49:53
1499 forum posts

Mini Moke was also Aerial Atom.

Regards Ian.

noel shelley13/11/2021 11:44:25
1278 forum posts
21 photos

Just an up rated pfaff hafner, 600cc really just a motorised skate board, just one up from mountain goat, would go anywhere ! As to construction and use laws, it requires neither doors or roof ! could be fun though, Noel

Dave Halford13/11/2021 12:06:23
2004 forum posts
23 photos

I bet that wouldn't have got much use in Afganistan.

Mick B114/11/2021 09:36:18
2157 forum posts
117 photos
Posted by Journeyman on 13/11/2021 09:48:56:

OK for places where it doesn't rain much, seems to be missing doors and rooffrown Probably not road legal in UK.

infantry.jpg

John

I imagine those will be accessories provisioned separately, made of whatever is deemed suitable to resist local deployment conditions... surprise

Michael Gilligan14/11/2021 09:57:12
avatar
20057 forum posts
1040 photos

Despite the lukewarm reception by forum members … I still think it’s an exceptional piece of Engineering, in the sense of using Commercial off-the-shelf Components.

**LINK**

https://www.gmdefensellc.com/content/dam/company/gm-defense/docs/news/2019/ISV_ProductSheet_v05.pdf

Surely, anyone who worked in the Defence business a few decades ago will recognise what a cultural change this represents.

MichaelG..

Mick B114/11/2021 10:10:38
2157 forum posts
117 photos
Posted by Michael Gilligan on 14/11/2021 09:57:12:

Despite the lukewarm reception by forum members … I still think it’s an exceptional piece of Engineering, in the sense of using Commercial off-the-shelf Components.

...

MichaelG..

Yes, it looks a pretty good piece of work.

That raised rear roof - wonder if you could mount a little turret with a Vickers gun, a la WW1 Rolls-Royce armoured car..? wink

JasonB14/11/2021 10:18:15
avatar
Moderator
22560 forum posts
2634 photos
1 articles

Didn't the "lightweight" or Air Portable landrover do that years ago using other landrover components and as mentioned already the Mini Moke use production running gear. And didn't some of teh small tanks run jaguar engines as used in the cars.

Edited By JasonB on 14/11/2021 10:21:49

Bob Stevenson14/11/2021 10:32:40
579 forum posts
7 photos

I don't think this IS any sort of "cultural change"......there is a long history of trying to adapt civvy equipement for military use and also quite a long history of failed excercise.... The Moke has already been mentioned and one only has to look at the multifaceted problems of trying to replace such systems as LandRover and the Warrior series to see how the need for specialisation quickly spoils the quest for 'off the peg' cheapness.

The problem(s) with this vehicle is that while it may be useful for third world armies it lacks the required specialisation and versitility for more sophisticatd formations........a serious lack of protection, both intrinsic and military surely limits it's appeal Modern mil vehicle systems need to be adaptable into various transport needs (the strength of Landrover) which this does not seem to offer.

Michael Gilligan14/11/2021 11:10:33
avatar
20057 forum posts
1040 photos

@Jason __ Apologies for my casual use of language … by ‘a few decades ago’ I was thinking back to the late sixties, early seventies. [i.e. the days of ‘cost plus’ projects]

@Bob __ This vehicle is specifically targeted at the US military, rather than third world armies.

MichaelG.

.

Ref. __ https://www.dvidshub.net/news/391390/new-infantry-squad-vehicle-tested-us-army-yuma-proving-ground

Quote: Eventually, the Army intends to field 59 ISVs to each brigade, beginning with brigades within the 82nd Airborne Division in May. 

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 14/11/2021 11:14:49

JasonB14/11/2021 11:21:00
avatar
Moderator
22560 forum posts
2634 photos
1 articles
Posted by Michael Gilligan on 14/11/2021 11:10:33:

@Jason __ Apologies for my casual use of language … by ‘a few decades ago’ I was thinking back to the late sixties, early seventies. [i.e. the days of ‘cost plus’ projects]

So 1968 when the Lightweight first came out . as well as 1972 when the Series III based one came out would fall into that time scale then.

I can't see it faring too well against an IED

Edited By JasonB on 14/11/2021 11:22:11

Michael Gilligan14/11/2021 11:28:38
avatar
20057 forum posts
1040 photos
Posted by JasonB on 14/11/2021 11:21:00:
Posted by Michael Gilligan on 14/11/2021 11:10:33:

. [i.e. the days of ‘cost plus’ projects]

So 1968 when the Lightweight first came out . as well as 1972 when the Series III based one came out would fall into that time scale then.

[…]

.

Yes

MichaelG.

.

[quote]
When the armed forces had a requirement for a vehicle to undertake a particular task, they would set FVRDE the challenge of finding the solution, rather than going directly out to industry with a draft requirement, as is done today and, dependent on precise requirements, the Chertsey team would produce prototype or experimental designs based on either off-the-shelf vehicles and systems, or from a mix of existing and all-new componentry and technology, before issuing a highly detailed specification for manufacturers to work to.

Ref. __ https://www.joint-forces.com/military-land-rovers/21926-mlr-pt-16-the-lightweight-or-airportable

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 14/11/2021 11:58:55

SillyOldDuffer14/11/2021 11:29:53
Moderator
8469 forum posts
1885 photos
Posted by Mick B1 on 14/11/2021 10:10:38:
Posted by Michael Gilligan on 14/11/2021 09:57:12:

Despite the lukewarm reception by forum members … I still think it’s an exceptional piece of Engineering, in the sense of using Commercial off-the-shelf Components.

...

MichaelG..

Yes, it looks a pretty good piece of work.

That raised rear roof - wonder if you could mount a little turret with a Vickers gun, a la WW1 Rolls-Royce armoured car..? wink

Extraordinarily difficult to say whether or not this sort of vehicle will be a success or not. Low cost, easy to maintain, fast, and good off-road capability are all desirable. Unfortunately, military vehicles are targets! The enemy spends considerable time, money, and imagination in coming up with ways of destroying them and/or their passengers. This sort of vehicle, like the British Army's old Snatch Landrover, is wonderful until someone attacks it, at which point it becomes a death trap. Four wheels are highly liable to bog down on soft ground and get stuck in ditches, while the vehicle isn't heavy enough to crash through minor obstacles, natural or man-made.

After the bloodbath, man-in-pub complains about the obvious shortcomings. He always knows what was really needed was a caterpillar tracked armoured personnel carrier with a 35mm cannon on the roof.

Military men take enormous risks because they have to make do with whatever equipment and information is to hand. Inevitably they make mistakes. For example, very dangerous to pit HMS Hood against the Bismark, and the result was tragic. HMS Hood was a Battlecruiser, a ship fitted with big guns but thinly armoured for speed - essential to keep the weight down. Battlecruisers were designed specifically to catch and outgun commerce raiding cruisers; unfortunately having big guns and high-speed made it tempting to use battlecruisers to pin down heavily armoured battleships while the rest of the fleet caught up. Wrong tool for the job and always ended badly for the battlecruisers. Bismark was a modern heavily armoured fast battleship, more than a match for the Hood.

However, having gone to a lot of trouble to build a really good Battleship, the Germans found the Bismark wasn't up to the job either. Battleships are highly vulnerable to aircraft. By 1945 battleships were obsolete, because they can't practically be armoured to survive torpedos, sea-mines, aircraft, or guided missiles.

Defence requirements often change during development because others are playing the game too. As new threats emerge, it's necessary to adapt and change the requirement. This became a Cold War battlefield, on which the winner was whoever could afford the ever rising cost of defence equipment. As we know, the Cold War ended when the USSR went broke.

It can get out of hand: joke was MoD would specify a TV to receive all the television systems in the world and withstand 12G drop shocks. British industry would produce a high-quality set weighing 3 tons, 7 years late, and 10 times over budget. That didn't work...

Dave

Journeyman14/11/2021 11:33:49
avatar
1146 forum posts
230 photos

'Off the shelf' is a bit of a misnomer really as it only applies if the shelf happens to belong to General Motors/Chrysler. The vehicle is a GM’ design based off the company’s 2020 Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 truck and uses 90 percent commercial parts including a 186-horsepower, 2.8L Duramax turbo-diesel engine.

John

Bob Stevenson14/11/2021 11:35:14
579 forum posts
7 photos

Well it might suit the bean counters but i don't think the 82nd Airb orne will be too impressed because they have a very wide training requirement.....it might be ok in Florida but temperatures can drop to well below freezing in parts of the US and the roads are long!....anyone thought about a waterproof covering?...anyone thought about what happens in a 'war event'?......anyone thought about IED's.

Since my first post above, I recalled the many stories of failed civvy components in military use during and after WWII....Read up on the British motor industry and it's major battle to get it's head around the unique requirements of designing and building fighting vehicles....read about the Rootes Group and the Valentine tank which was designed around civvy parts....read how Churchill famously threatened Rootes to use specific components....

Even the Germans fell foul of this.....one third of Panzer divisions in 1939 were using horses for transport and secondary battlefield uses (amazing but true!) ...but were obliged to change to motor power once training became lethal....

Michael Gilligan14/11/2021 11:44:06
avatar
20057 forum posts
1040 photos
Posted by Journeyman on 14/11/2021 11:33:49:

'Off the shelf' is a bit of a misnomer really as it only applies if the shelf happens to belong to General Motors/Chrysler. The vehicle is a GM’ design based off the company’s 2020 Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 truck and uses 90 percent commercial parts including a 186-horsepower, 2.8L Duramax turbo-diesel engine.

John

.

Sorry, John … I honestly don’t get your point

COTS is a well-established abbreviation, widely used in procurement; and I think this project nicely fits the principle.

MichaelG.

Mick B114/11/2021 17:30:55
2157 forum posts
117 photos
Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 14/11/2021 11:29:53:
Posted by Mick B1 on 14/11/2021 10:10:38:
Posted by Michael Gilligan on 14/11/2021 09:57:12:

Despite the lukewarm reception by forum members … I still think it’s an exceptional piece of Engineering, in the sense of using Commercial off-the-shelf Components.

...

MichaelG..

Yes, it looks a pretty good piece of work.

That raised rear roof - wonder if you could mount a little turret with a Vickers gun, a la WW1 Rolls-Royce armoured car..? wink

Extraordinarily difficult to say whether or not this sort of vehicle will be a success or not. Low cost, easy to maintain, fast, and good off-road capability are all desirable. Unfortunately, military vehicles are targets!

...

For example, very dangerous to pit HMS Hood against the Bismark, and the result was tragic. HMS Hood was a Battlecruiser, a ship fitted with big guns but thinly armoured for speed - essential to keep the weight down. Battlecruisers were designed specifically to catch and outgun commerce raiding cruisers; unfortunately having big guns and high-speed made it tempting to use battlecruisers to pin down heavily armoured battleships while the rest of the fleet caught up.

...

Dave

Well, I was thinking of it more as a logistics vehicle to get troops and kit into the battle area rather than an actual combat vehicle. The Vickers gun turret idea was just whimsy, noting that some of the WW1 and inter-war armoured cars used a high rear deck to carry the turret.

Now, not wanting to to hijack this thread, but HMS Hood. The battlecruiser concept was already under criticism after Jutland and before Hood's keel was laid. In the light of such criticism, another 500 tons of armour was worked in - but much speculation since has centred more on the RN ready-use storage of bagged propellant charges in less protected spaces during the Jutland action than the actual armour scheme. Battlecruiser losses at Jutland were more from opposing battlecruisers than battleships.

The second enquiry into the loss of Hood suggested that Bismarck had to hit a region of Hood 40 feet long and 18 inches deep to achieve the result that occurred, and suggested further that it was indeed a very unlucky hit for Hood. It possibly had its roots in confused enemy course reports from the shadowing cruisers during the night, which had lost Hood the abrupt 'crossing-T' approach Adm Holland had hoped for, and forced the tricky and oblique closing manoeuvre of the actual battle.

The later torpedo hit on Bismarck that sealed its fate was hardly less improbable - at least one survivor had played a 'casualty' in an earlier exercise simulating such a hit, and had been told that its estimated probability was in the hundred-thousand-to-one against range.The facts revealed critical design weaknesses in the ship's stern construction.

Edited By Mick B1 on 14/11/2021 17:33:37

Michael Gilligan14/11/2021 17:44:31
avatar
20057 forum posts
1040 photos

Posted by Mick B1 on 14/11/2021 17:30:55:

[...]

Well, I was thinking of it more as a logistics vehicle to get troops and kit into the battle area rather than an actual combat vehicle. The Vickers gun turret idea was just whimsy [...]

.

Spot-on, Mick yes

The intended usage is clearly stated in at least one of my links.

MichaelG.

JasonB14/11/2021 18:15:00
avatar
Moderator
22560 forum posts
2634 photos
1 articles
Posted by Mick B1 on 14/11/2021 17:30:55:

Well, I was thinking of it more as a logistics vehicle to get troops and kit into the battle area rather than an actual combat vehicle.

In this day and it is just as likely to come under attack getting to a battle zone what with IEDs, RPG fire or suicide bombers which it has little protection against

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!

Find Model Engineer & Model Engineers' Workshop

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Eccentric July 5 2018
Rapid RC
Dreweatts
cowells
Eccentric Engineering
Subscription Offer

Latest "For Sale" Ads
Latest "Wanted" Ads
Get In Touch!

Do you want to contact the Model Engineer and Model Engineers' Workshop team?

You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.

Click THIS LINK for full contact details.

For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.

Digital Back Issues

Social Media online

'Like' us on Facebook
Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter
 Twitter Logo

Pin us on Pinterest