# Convoy Escort



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2007)

I am no engineer nor designer but would this be possible. Would a viable solution or an approach be to reinforce the chassis of an HLVW and put a Grizzly turret onboard. Thoughts?


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2007)

It would call for a whole new cab, one that is totally armoured.  They do exist, but I am wondering about the added weight and whether the structure would take the turret ring and turret?

[Edit to add:]  Remember that the HLVW is a Tilt-cab.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2007)

Would the modification be too much in price?


----------



## Devlin (11 Mar 2007)

What about a box (armoured) of some sort on the back deck of the truck?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2007)

Devlin said:
			
		

> What about a box (armoured) of some sort on the back deck of the truck?



Thats more or less the approach I was thinking as well Devlin.


----------



## TN2IC (11 Mar 2007)

I would think so...


This is why we use LAV's and other armour items for escort.

I was more thinking of something like the old Amercain M3 Half Track idea... just on a truck.... with AA guns on it. Good old 50 cals... 








BTW... that picture is a model if your wondering.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2007)

But would it be sometimes helpful for CSS to have their own bit of firepower so they would have to rely less on LAVs?


----------



## TN2IC (11 Mar 2007)

Yes yes yes yes YES!!!! Don't get me all excited.... now I can't sleep tonight.


 ;D


----------



## Devlin (11 Mar 2007)

I know were talking apples and oranges here but a couple of WO's within S&T coy of my unit were talking about LSVW's being kitted out as "gun trucks" I've never heard of this before and wasn't sure if they were trying to get the young pongo going.

Has anyone else ever heard of this?


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2007)

You guys are now broaching the subject covered in the proposed vehicles to replace the MLVW.  Take a look at the USMC's armoured version of the OSHKOSH MTVR as published in Defense Industry Daily.


----------



## Sig_Des (11 Mar 2007)

Devlin said:
			
		

> were talking about LSVW's being kitted out as "gun trucks"



I sincerely hope that, A) this is a mistake, and you meant MLVW or HLVW, and if not, then B) they're messing with you....

An LSVW gun-truck.... That's one of the scariest thoughts I have EVER gotten from this site.


----------



## TN2IC (11 Mar 2007)

Devlin said:
			
		

> I know were talking apples and oranges here but a couple of WO's within S&T coy of my unit were talking about LSVW's being kitted out as "gun trucks" I've never heard of this before and wasn't sure if they were trying to get the young pongo going.
> 
> Has anyone else ever heard of this?



Yup... it's a bunch of folks on a LSVW with C9's and stuff without a tarp. AKA QRF...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2007)

I wonder if some of those 35mm that the AD types no longer used could be mounted on a flat bed.....


----------



## Devlin (11 Mar 2007)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope that, A) this is a mistake, and you meant MLVW or HLVW, and if not, then B) they're messing with you....




Afraid not they specifically mentioned LSVW ....hence the reason I thought they were BS'ing me.


----------



## TN2IC (11 Mar 2007)

Armour Recce set up with the Iltis'    .... hehehehe what great fun they were.


----------



## Sig_Des (11 Mar 2007)

Devlin said:
			
		

> Afraid not they specifically mentioned LSVW ....hence the reason I thought they were BS'ing me.



I know an LSVW gun-truck is used for training....you use what you have....

But if this was for an actual operational setting, I'd say they're RTFO'er


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I wonder if some of those 35mm that the AD types no longer used could be mounted on a flat bed.....



I think I would prefer to go with something with shorter barrels.  Quad .50's as in that model would be good, or perhaps something like what the Americans have mounted on their Hummers, a turreted missile system.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think I would prefer to go with something with shorter barrels.  Quad .50's as in that model would be good, or perhaps something like what the Americans have mounted on their Hummers, a turreted missile system.



Theres a thought...would a 40mm AGL be beneficial as well?


----------



## TN2IC (11 Mar 2007)

Missle system plus a 50 cal... come on... need to keep some heads down.

 ;D

Hummer set up would be good for it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2007)

I remember some of the PBRs in Vietnam having an 81mm mortar with a .50....I wonder if the same thing could not be done on a 10 ton truck?


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Mar 2007)

I think there's a misisng component in the debate, which is how significant the SA and FC capabilities of the LAV are to effective fire support in convoy ops.  Unfortunately, detailed discussions along those lines would be very limited by OPSEC.  It is possible, however, that using other weapons system might by undesirable if there is a considerable loss of acquisition and fire control capabilities over what may be in use for some types of engagements now.


----------



## TN2IC (11 Mar 2007)

Okay.... reactive armour for all SMP's... poor LSVW.... hahaha


----------



## Sig_Des (11 Mar 2007)

TN2IC said:
			
		

> Okay.... reactive armour for all SMP's... poor LSVW.... hahaha



I could have nightmares about how slow an uparmoured LS moves...


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2007)

Now remember that this is a CSS vehicle, so let's not start dreaming of AFV's.

It would have to be armoured.  It could be as simple as a couple of armoured MTRV holding a section or two of Infantry each.  

If it is to be a CSS manned vehicle, it should not have too sophisticated a weapons system.  It should be kept relatively simple and easy to maintain.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2007)

hence maybe going the Grizzly turret route...


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Mar 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now remember that this is a CSS vehicle, so let's not start dreaming of AFV's.



Agreed



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> It would have to be armoured.  It could be as simple as a couple of armoured MTRV holding a section or two of Infantry each.



Now you've turned it into an APC.  



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> If it is to be a CSS manned vehicle, it should not have too sophisticated a weapons system.  It should be kept relatively simple and easy to maintain.



The questions becomes, how simple a weapons system can we have that will still be effective in all aspects of the engagement?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2007)

Well I think the idea is not to make a CSS unit an infantry unit, just give it the tools it needs to be more effective in getting out of an ambush.


----------



## orange.paint (11 Mar 2007)

How about getting all our AVGP's back and cutting a truck bed in the back all the way up to the turret?

I seen a 79 Bronco like that once.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2007)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Now you've turned it into an APC.



Not any more-so than any other of the 'armoured' vehicles we should have for the CSS to transport materials.  We should not have any of our CSS in unarmoured vehicles.  That would put a weak link in our chain.  Our Supply Lines are the most vulnerable and we can not afford to have them cut in any way.


----------



## MJP (11 Mar 2007)

The amount and sometimes the types or size/shape of supplies that are needed and carried for resupply preclude rejigging armoured vehicles for the job.  We should be (and if the TO is telling the truth we are) getting a better uparmoured truck for our CSS compatriots overseas.  The HLs we have overseas are tired and need to be replaced.  There are several vehicles out there that are much better than the HL in regards to armour, carrying capacity and ability for enhanced crew survival from IEDs and SAF.

I think with the dedicated convoy escort platoon that we seem to be using now, reservists getting LAV III courses combined with new transport trucks would be the better course of action than reinventing the wheel.  We already have LAVs overseas.  It isn't too much off a stretch to use some of them within the convoy escort unit to provide the heavy firepower.  Throw in some RG31s with .50's/C6 and you've got a potent little escort unit. 

Even the plan to throw RWS turrets on the extra TUA hulls would be perfect for the convoy escort task.  I'd like to see how they propose CCing the vehicle as any armoured vehicle needs a set of eyes outside for SA while bombing around IMHO, but it is another option.


----------



## Jammer (14 Mar 2007)

Hey Fellas,
Speaking as one who just came home a couple of weeks ago. I though I might shed a little bit of first hand info.
None of this is considered OPSEC so before anyone flinches.........
RGs are used outside the wire for said tasks, MTVLs with RWS are also used on rough terrain. G-Wagons, LSs' and most MLs are restricted to KAF.
The firepower is more than sufficient for the tasks given. 40mm AGLs are not practical in town, but have been requested , and are in the pipeline as we speak.


----------



## Thompson_JM (15 Jun 2007)

Just to add to this, since im doing this right now...

Force Protection covers our Combat Logistic Patrols (CLP's) in RG's 
the CSS Ech, has Bisons attached to it. to give some added firepower. and personally, unless we do some major upgrades to the HLVW's and SHLVWs to build cupolas on the roof there isnt a big deal with driving in an up-armoured HL or whatnot... our vehicles are holding up exremely well to IED's and the like. i think the system we have now is pretty good. id like to see improved trucks with better ballistic protection, and maybe be like the americans with a cupola on the roof. but as it stands, i like the RG. the only think id like more would be to incorporate a few more heavier weapons on the FP Vehs. but for OPSEC Reasons id rather not discuss what each vehicle is carrying.

lets just say that even with an IED mobility kill + ambush, we would be well abled to destroy the enemy.


----------



## combatbuddha (16 Jun 2007)

This was heavily identified by the Op Archer ROTO 0 PRT. Our maint guys did alot of research and provided the Crystal palace (NDHQ) with pictures, books and invaluable feedback.
We took heavy note the the Yu'alls had a cupola on every vehicle that left the wire, and all cupolas were of the same design. The bonus was that a fully kitted troopie could man said cupola with the weapon system of the day, and still have room to move about.
Their medium to heavy truck uparmour is a solid welded shell and kicks ass over any soft skinup armour our guys have thought of.
The roof of a truck would never practically support the 1 Meter Turret. Hell, the HLVW could barely withstand the uparmour, let alone an extra tonne of steel topside. RWS is a great solution.
And whatever you do, don't ask the C Bty 1 RCHA guys about the "technicals" that they decided to "trial." Not a good scene for anyone involved in that little shit show.


----------



## 3rd Herd (27 Jul 2007)

An interesting site which is dedicated to the Transport Coy Units that fought in Vietnam. Kind of a parallel between the "ambush alley" of the past and the IED highways of today. Some of the names of these vehicles are incredible as with the pictures of them.

"Another change was the modification of the armor on some guntrucks into "box" structures in the beds. Within this box were kept weapons, tools, extra wheels and tires, water and oil, and a fire extinguisher. Thus, the guntrucks served not only as security vehicles but also as maintenance trucks, capable of protecting and restarting disabled vehicles on potentially dangerous sections of highway.

As a protection against enemy rockets, double walls of steel plate were attached to some gun-trucks. The theory was that incoming rockets would be detonated on contact with the outer wall. Shrapnel would then bounce harmlessly off the inner wall, never reaching the crew.

Many of the guntrucks replaced the M60 machine gun with .50-caliber machine guns, either alone or in multiple mounts. One innovation was the "quad-fifty." This weapon consisted of four electronically synchronized .50-caliber machine guns mounted in the bed of a 2 1/2-ton truck. At one time, 8th Group was employing seven of these weapons. 

A few escort vehicles were equipped with the 7.62-millimeter "minicannon," a modern version of the Gatling gun. This "smoker" was capable of delivering 6,000 rounds per minute. The guntrucks became such fortresses that after a day of convoy duty many were put to work during the night, patrolling transportation unit compound perimeters. Civilian contract convoys, some traveling the same routes as 8th Group, often "borrowed" gun-trucks for escort duty, in which the armored vehicles continued to prove their ability to make the enemy pay dearly for his attacks" Guntrucks of Ambush Alley Reproduced from the Army Logistician, July-August 1986
http://academic.uofs.edu/faculty/gramborw/atav/gunstory.htm

TN2IC's new ride


----------



## TN2IC (7 Aug 2007)

Sorry 3rd Herd... 

I missed that one. 

But I am so game for that truck.  ;D

Someone else can drive...I just want to shoot. I wonder if I can get in thru Timmies window?


----------



## 3rd Herd (10 Aug 2007)

TN2IC said:
			
		

> Sorry 3rd Herd...
> 
> I missed that one.
> 
> ...


Comes with cup holders. Some interesting thought approaches from the innovative type with too much time on his hands and a Sear's tool kit for Christmas.


----------

