# ATVs



## SeanNewman

I insist that the bigger problem is that we for some completely retarded reason do not utilize ATVs in the CF.

An ATV with a trailer or a side-by-side could easily move these things around the battlespace where they could be set up.  Not just these, but anything, be it a 50 cal, water, a generator, etc.

For what we spend on a single F35, we could buy enough brand new ATVs to outfit the entire combat arms with ATVs for the next century and double our mobility.


----------



## dapaterson

Petamocto said:
			
		

> For what we spend on a single F35, we could buy enough brand new ATVs to outfit the entire combat arms with ATVs for the next century and double our mobility.



And increase their vulnerability to certain forms of attack.  And increase fuel requirements.  And increase maintenance requirements.  And increase training requirements.  And increase infrastructure requirements.  And increase transportation requirements.


----------



## vonGarvin

Petamocto said:
			
		

> An ATV with a trailer or a side-by-side could easily move these things around the battlespace where they could be set up.  Not just these, but anything, be it a 50 cal, water, a generator, etc.


I'm not sure how ATVs would work and I defer to those who served in either a light battalion or the Canadian Airborne Regiment.  _As I recall_, they had .50s in the "DFS Platoons of the companies/commandos.  My question is: how were they and the associated ammo lugged around?  I highly doubt that they were put into the various platoons.  Were they used at the Coy/Cdo level?

So, I suppose the bigger question could be: do we go with light battalions again?  Do we spread them across the army?  Do we concentrate them in a single brigade?  

Irrespective of the answer, other than mounting it on a vehicle (aka RG-31, TAPV, whatever), how is this thing lugged around?

Edited for spelling error.


----------



## Haggis

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I insist that the bigger problem is that we for some completely retarded reason do not _*generally*_ utilize ATVs in the CF.



There.  Fixed it for you.

The CF has used a variety of Off Road Vehicles (ORVs) including ATVs and utility vehicles (i.e. Gators, Rangers etc.) and user trialled several for use by light armoured recce units of the Army Reserve.   The Army (more correctly, Canada Command) also used them extensively at Op CADENCE.  ASGs continue to use them in administrative roles such as range patrolling.  They are employed in Afghanistan today (three soliders were KIA when their Gator hit an IED during a supply shuttle run last year) and were successfully employed on Op TOUCAN in East Timor.


----------



## dapaterson

Hey!  This is the internet!  Don`t confuse the argument with facts!


----------



## Rogo

Just a question but wouldn't using a .50 on either a trailer or sidecar thinger attached to an ATV be very very difficult?  What's wrong with the Gwagons now? 

I agree I imagine ATVs could be useful but would a combat role work? 

Also if the CF wants to be cheap let's just give everyone roller skates, still faster than walking  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Rogo said:
			
		

> What's wrong with the Gwagons now?



GWagons are on their way out



			
				Rogo said:
			
		

> Also if the CF wants to be cheap let's just give everyone roller skates, still faster than walking  ;D



Solarbabies


----------



## BDTyre

Rogo said:
			
		

> Just a question but wouldn't using a .50 on either a trailer or sidecar thinger attached to an ATV be very very difficult?  What's wrong with the Gwagons now?
> 
> I agree I imagine ATVs could be useful but would a combat role work?
> 
> Also if the CF wants to be cheap let's just give everyone roller skates, still faster than walking  ;D



I think ATVs might have a small, but useful role in combat.  The Brits use them all the time.  The Rat Patrol in KAF picks up their Timmie's on their ATVs and then rolls out the gate to do whatever stuff they do.  Their secret squirrel types mount their Minimi and GPMG on ATVs.  Even the Paras use them for hauling weaponry and supplies to units outside the wire (and by that, I mean the FOB wire).


----------



## Rogo

What are they looking to replace them with?

See roller blades are the jeeps of the future, silly F35 project  




I can see their usefulness around bases or FOBs but I just imagine if you are on roads where the main threats appear to be IEDs that they'd probably not be too popular with the personnel.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Rogo said:
			
		

> What are they looking to replace them with?



They don't know.


----------



## Rogo

Okay, thanks for the info guys.   I learned something today.


----------



## a_majoor

Just to throw some sand in the gears here, if we are willing to pay the associated training, logistics and infrastructure costs of using ATV's, with their relatively tiny payloads, why not go for something with more utility, larger payload etc. like the BV-206 or ST "Bronco" all terrain tracked vehicle.

These things can move over terrain that even ATV's cannot, carry an load up to 5 tons in the case of the Bronco and can swim. If the idea is to provide enhanced mobility, improved logistics and the ability to support operations in places where only dismounted infantry can operate, then this is the way to go. These vehicles are also not limited by weather like helicopters or air assets, so perations can continue 24/7. They are also large enough to carry heavy weapons (including mortars and perhaps artillery pieces) as well as a huge amount of ammunition, as well as radios and optics and FCS to ensure they are employed to the maximum effect.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Thucydides said:
			
		

> BV-206 or ST "Bronco" all terrain tracked vehicle.



Because they lack the "fun" and "look cool" potential for good hero photos that "real soldiers" want.   ;D


----------



## Danjanou

Excuse me we bought you a whole bunch of these puppies back during the Cold War, what did you do with them? Leave them out in the Snow somewhere?







Seriously years back doing ATC over the lovely bogs of Newfoundland, I thought some sort of light ATV ( like all the friggin hunters zipping around us) would make a good A Ech vehicle for the CQMS and perhaps to drag along heavy crew served weapons etc that we'd be needing to set up into defensive positions. Hands up all those who remember from the Mortar and or MG courses the lovelyphrase "man packed."


----------



## SeanNewman

Multiple things to answer here...

*DAP*, saying they increase our vulnerability is a non-starter unless you are doctrinally stating that no soldiers should ever move dismounted anywhere from now on because we are too soft.  All of the other requirements you listed are basically insignificant, as they are cheaper, more fuel efficient, lighter, easier to learn, etc etc than just about everything we have short of adopting bicycles.

*Haggis*, I know the CF has used them sparingly, which is where I have learned how useful they are.  Because they were locally acquired for an op somewhere or because 3 RCR did a quasi trial with them does not mean that the CF has incorporated them organically like I am suggesting.  My experience with them is building a massive live-fire range with them and we used them to haul sand bags and the heavy SITs all over the place.  I was hooked from then on.

*Techno and Rogo*, I am not suggesting any sort of fighting vehicle, but a purely logistic-based vehicle.  It is a pack mule for kit that can go _almost_ anywhere (please nobody be a goof and post a photo of an ATV getting stuck or looking at a cliff, you know what I mean by mobility and almost anywhere).  My suggestion is just to have ATVs with trailers or side-by-sides with a cargo area in the back that anything you want could go in.

So to wrap this up, if anyone is trying to imagine a combat vehicle like a german motorcycle with an MG42 on the sidecar you are making this far more complicated than it needs to be.  It's a pack mule that you don't have to worry about walking off on you, that's all.


----------



## a_majoor

Yes, the BV 206's puchased during the cold war have apparently been abandoned to rust out somewhere, but this dosn't mean they are not useful vehicles even today (although we would have to buy new BV's or Bronco's today)

They were used with some success in Afghanistan, transporting troops and equipment during OP HARPOON if I recall correctly. Not only was their ability to travers rough terrain unmatched (carrying sections of troops and equipment), but the BV could be airlifted in and out by Chinook. If I were to build a massive live fire range, having five thousand kilograms of "stuff" on one platform seems more efficient than running ATV's back and forth to bring another item.

The idea that anything can be a pure "logistics vehicle" seems a bit out of whack, considering the punishment real logistics vehicles are taking over in the sandbox. Any future enemy will certainly be looking to damage our logistics train, a vehicle which is not limited to roads and has such low ground pressure it does not set off many types of IED, and which is capable of being uparmoured and even armed if the situation requires makes a lot of sense. As for employment, the third company of every battalion (which isn't mechanized) can be "motorized" with this type of vehicle.


----------



## vonGarvin

Thucydides said:
			
		

> As for employment, the third fourth company of every battalion (which isn't mechanized) can be "motorized" with this type of vehicle.


Just fixed that.  In the 2013 Force Employment structure, the BG has four Inf Coys: 3 in LAV, 1 in "something else" (and used as force protection).


----------



## Kirkhill

From an old thread on the Bv206:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28436/post-319771.html#msg319771

The difference is that now we have the CH47s back, with more to follow.  

The ATV would make a nice addition to the kit bag with Bvs operating as either Section Carriers, or where circumstances require as Platoon or CQ vehicles.


----------



## vonGarvin

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> From an old thread on the Bv206:
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28436/post-319771.html#msg319771
> 
> The difference is that now we have the CH47s back, with more to follow.
> 
> The ATV would make a nice addition to the kit bag with Bvs operating as either Section Carriers, or where circumstances require as Platoon or CQ vehicles.


Makes perfect sense.
So, taking this a step further (or more), is there a requirement for all nine battalions to be mechanised?  Or is there a role for an "airmobile" or "Light" brigade?  One that is truly strategically deployable?  We have a (small) fleet of CC-17 Globemasters now, Chinooks on the way and this AGLS with smaller, agile vehicles may be perfect to go where Mech can't go.  (I wouldn't offer anything smaller than a brigade, thus allowing a deployed battlegroup to be rotated, it would have brigade assets, etc).  
Going back to Haiti (again) in our Hemisphere, or elsewhere for that matter, would there be a role for such a brigade, with such lighter vehicles?


----------



## SeanNewman

I think Haiti is a perfect example of where lighter skin vehicles could make their comeback.

Little to no mine/IED threat is ideal.

More face time = less threat overall in the long term, too.


----------



## a_majoor

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Makes perfect sense.
> So, taking this a step further (or more), is there a requirement for all nine battalions to be mechanised?  Or is there a role for an "airmobile" or "Light" brigade?  One that is truly strategically deployable?  We have a (small) fleet of CC-17 Globemasters now, Chinooks on the way and this AGLS with smaller, agile vehicles may be perfect to go where Mech can't go.  (I wouldn't offer anything smaller than a brigade, thus allowing a deployed battlegroup to be rotated, it would have brigade assets, etc).
> Going back to Haiti (again) in our Hemisphere, or elsewhere for that matter, would there be a role for such a brigade, with such lighter vehicles?



Perhaps like this?


----------



## dogger1936

When we worked with the commando's in afstan they used only dirtbikes and 4 wheelers. While a IED would mean near certain death, they had the option to not go on routes and into smaller alleyways etc at a high rate of speed. As well they could be mistaken at night/day for local transportation from afar. Not allowing the triggerman copious amounts of time to set up. I.E like lavs coming loudly for miles and miles with cat engines roaring and dust cloud.

Having said that thinking back a few years I remember reserve armd recce did some trials on it as IIRC a platform to use after cougars were taken away and "tank" sqns re rolled into recce with not enought iltis to go around.

As for the BV-206 it's another great vehicle. I did my course with the RCR back in the 0's and had a blast.

I see the valid use of both in todays combat environment. sacrifice security for speed isnt a new idea....sorta like taking the op by force! dam time apperication!


----------



## 57Chevy

It would probably be great in an air transportable/droppable role
for an even quicker first reaction airborne force, and modified for the 
needs thereof.

Like this   John Deere  :


----------



## daftandbarmy

The Royal Marines' use an armoured BV 206 called the Viking:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/viking/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqvSHkp_wew

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BvS_10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marines_Armoured_Support_Group

This vehicle is the workhorse behind their new 'Commando 21' orbat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commando_21

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?134254-Commando-21-and-FSG-organisation-vs-traditional-way&p=4256396#post4256396


Call me crazy, but perhaps a country like ours might consider adopting a vehicle like this if we're serious about arctic sovereignty, or just shifting an infantry battalion quickly around a battlefield. 


Oh, I forgot, the F35 will guarantee our sovereignty all by itself... :


----------



## Rogo

And at very minimum they do make zipping around within bases quick, wether it is in Canada or abroad.

I remember seeing MPs in Bagotville zip around base on them when the Cadet portion of the base was running some sort of Bicycle rally thing.  

I like the idea, I just figure (keep in mind I'm still untrained) that if I were to go outside a base or FOB on deployment I'd much rather be on foot (where I can quickly engage threats) or be inside a real vehicle (where there is some protection from threats).  You did concede though that this wouldn't be in a combat role, hence winning my support.


----------



## SeanNewman

BV206s are a phenominal vehicle, no question about that.  I remember from the Science and Tech OPME where they covered every vehicle's displacement ratings (contact patches vs weight and a few other factors)...basically the BV206's rating number was off the charts because it's so light and essentially 2/3 of the surface area on the bottom is contact patch.

ATVs also had a comparitively high rating.

That being said though, like any vehicle there are some limitations to the BV206.  I like the idea of having a Recce Platoon with a mix if dirtbikes and ATVs and then a couple BVs for the HQ/CP.

Rogo,

Just because something is not a fighting role does not mean it only has to be on FOB admin duties.  What I am saying is that it is not the type of vehicle you would actually bring on the assault portion of the operation with you like you can with a LAV where it fires you on to the objective and you dismount to mop op.

Once you see how patrols work, how I see ATVs being employed is doing all the heavy lifting from your start point (patrol base, FOB, whatever) to either the Initial or Objective RV, where everyone stops for a bit to sort themselves out.  Then everyone could go to the trailer and get their extra ammo, top up their water, etc.  What happens now is that a soldier humps every single pound on his back, every round and every litre of water, but if there were something like an ATV mule the soldier would only need first line ammo and a couple litres on them while doing the walk.

Then they get left in place with a small security element who is there anyway to watch the rucksacks (D Security by the book).

Their employment is almost endless on the march there and back, too.  I can think of all sorts of occasions when I turned to the weapons det commander and said something like "I need the C6 pushed up to that intersection to cover that gap while we cross", not to mention how if the ground allows you can leapfrog the MGs in bounds so you always have one covering you.

Any time the rear C6 has to take his next bound, he could just really quickly hop on the back and get carried for that 100-1000m instead of the poor guy shuffling with his helment flopping all over the place before he gets to the next hill.


----------



## a_majoor

Of course for every positive there is a negative (or your Karma would become unbalanced....)

In the book "Not a good day to die", there is an incident where the entire operation was endangered because several Taliban found the tracks of the ATV's the SEALs had used to insert recce parties into the Sha-i-kot valley. Luckily for the SEALs and the rest of the incoming task force, the Taliban proved to be poor or incurious trackers, following the trail partway up towards where the horrified SEAL OP was but then just shrugging their shoulders and walking away.

Yes, any vehicle or person can leave a trail that can be followed, this is just to remind everyone that there are no "wonder weapons" or pieces of equipment.


----------



## SeanNewman

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Yes, any vehicle or person can leave a trail that can be followed, this is just to remind everyone that there are no "wonder weapons" or pieces of equipment.



To hit the tennis ball of karma back in your court, when you say "any vehicle" can leave a track you're of course excludingthe wonder vehicle that is the helicopter, right  

Now you can say "But yes, even those get shot down those and cost $100m when they do", which is when I say "Exactly, think of all the ATVs you could have bought for that!" 

 :argument:


----------



## 57Chevy

Take into consideration that any vehicle can also
cover her tracks.
In the same manner as fighting patrols on foot
secure their perimeter in the wee hours.

Actually it could make things even more confusing for trackers  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Take into consideration that any vehicle can also
> cover her tracks.
> In the same manner as fighting patrols on foot
> secure their perimeter in the wee hours.
> 
> Actually it could make things even more confusing for trackers  ;D



I recall trying to track a Norwegian platoon in arctic Norway in winter. We were on skis (and thought we were pretty hard core) and they were in BV 206s. We had stalked BV 202 - borne untis before and were always able to find them stuck in the snow somewhere and 'slaughter' them.

With the BV 206, we could barely climb the snow slopes that they, effortlessly, scaled straight up. They were able to lay down a completely confusing track plan that was pretty difficult to figure out. It wasn't much of a contest really (until we figured out that the best way to get them was to ambush the DOP for their equivalent of the NAFFI truck!).


----------



## George Wallace

Ah!  The NAFFI Truck.  Now there was a person who had access to COSMIC Level INT.   That Truck was parked in our Hide before we even knew the Grid.


----------



## a_majoor

So a NAFFI driver on an ATV would be an unbeatable combination?


----------



## ArmyRick

As far as the brit viking goes, it is being replaced already by the warthog (singapore industries). Heavier and better protected.


----------



## Oh No a Canadian

According to Defence Watch ST Kinetics is marketing the Bronco to the CF

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2010/09/05/bronco-all-terrain-tracked-vehicle-to-be-marketed-to-canadian-forces.aspx


----------



## dangerboy

On OP MEDUSA in 2006 while the acting Pl 2IC I drove a Gator (I classify it as an ATV) with the medic.  We carried resupply of water, ammo and her jump bag and stretcher.  While the troops were dismounted we followed behind.  It worked good using it as a resupply vehicle and I did not feel any more scared of IEDs/mines than the dismounts did.


----------



## ArmyRick

Crooks, PM inbound with "words of wisdom"

My take on the ATV as a close support vehicle sure. Exactly how Dangerboy described it is awesome too.

They are quite usefull in domestic operations as well. Not full on combat, but any operation has the potential to get ugly. It could be protestors turning on army guys or a person/group with a real grudge agaisnt the government (FLQ type stuff).

As for international operations (combat/peace enforcement/whatever). It would depend on the threat level, what the threat is and what the terrain is like.

Maybe a place like Sierra Leone with lots of heavy wooded areas and steep hills, the ATV would be awesome for moving a 50 cal or a mortar into position and carry out re-supply/cas evac as per Dangerboys example.

My take. Not based on cadet expirience.


----------



## vonGarvin

crooks.a said:
			
		

> there is a bit of common sense there, too (so I suppose I'm in the wrong for stating the obvious), such as an ATV having no cover, and not being bulletproof. That would require a lot of money and time in improvements that may just turn out to be more expensive than its worth.


There is a trade-off between firepower, protection and mobility for any vehicle.  Tanks have the best of all three, naturally, but are very expensive.  And heavy.

ATVs for use by our forces on operations has some merit, and I'm certain that other countries' forces are, as I type this, using an ATV somewhere.  And the Taliban use motorcycles, cars, etc.  So, it's not just us, it's them.

So, it comes to the question at the start: do ATVs have a role in the combat arms?  There is a fairly recent example posted earlier from Op MEDUSA, and given that we travel by foot in spots, then it makes perfect sense to have an ATV that can not only carry logistical supplies, but also ammunition, and even a weapon as stated at the start of this thread: the AGLS (which is rather heavy, but has very good range and a variety of terminal effects that are....desirable)

So, without focussing on Afghanistan, but thinking of operations in general (and not dom ops that would involve unarmed help, eg, digging out cities, aid to the civil power, etc), I am a firm believer that this country of ours needs some sort of "light infantry" that can deploy with or without any specific vehicle.  ATVs offer a degree of logistical support, so yeah, they aren't bullet proof, but neither are our soldiers.  But the benefits they offer could have second or third order effects that spare lives.


----------



## Franko

After a bit of fall cleaning.....back on topic troops.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## Sprinting Thistle

Two examples:  in planning for MEDUSA, each of the LAV Coys were given 4 gators (C Coy wanted 6).  It was expected that when they moved onto Phase 3 - Clearance they would be in for an urban fight.  With the narrow paths, grapefields, buildings / huts and lack of solid roads or manoeuvre space, it was expected the LAVs would only make it into the village areas so far.  It was going to be a dismounted fight.  Therefore it was determined that there was a need for a way to move ammo, water, demolitions forward and wounded rearward in an expeditious manner.  Thus, deployed by low bed, the requisite number of gators to Coy leaguers prior to H Hr.    

Second example would be G8 Summit.  Light companies needed ATVs to traverse the myriad of trails and paths throughout the AO.  Further, partnered LEA were operating on ATVs thus our patrols needed to have the same mobility.  Again gators or ATVs with trailers were used to move supplies forward to hides, OPs and biv sites.  

One a mech force on a combat mission and another a light force on a Dom Op.  ATVs and UTVs are another tool in the toolbox to be used at the right time in the right place.

Offered for what its worth.


----------



## George Wallace

I think the enphasis should be on "right time" and "right place".  They are another tool in the tool box, but not an all singing, all dancing one.


----------



## chrisf

The only thought on ATVs.. if you're going to buy an ATV, it has to be bought with the intent of using it as an ATV... including winches and ancillary kit (snatch block, tow strap, etc), enough engine power to carry the loads that'll be expected AND more, and training that emphasises how to get them unstuck. 

(Actually, all those points can be said of all military vehicles, however, they're points that the people who write the specs tend to forget... one such example I seem to recall a lesson learned about keeping tow cables *outside* rather then inside.... which is a lesson that's been learned many times yet apparently we forgot...


----------



## mariomike

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> They are quite usefull in domestic operations as well.



4 X 6 Gators are regularly used for patient transport. 4 x 4 Gators as non-transport medical response units.


----------



## ArmyRick

Actually if you ask Mike Sparks of Combat Reform web sites, there is no need to use ATVs in combat. The M113 (or Gavin as he thinks its called) will do everything you need then look for an obscure youtube video to follow! Ok that was uncalled for but too tempting to resist.

So depending on Threat and Mission requirements (A good combat estimate will determine if/how the ATV may be used) and understanding its capabilities and limitations, here are some cool things I could see it doing

1. The obvious, moving ammo/water/demo forward to areas AFV can't get and casualties out
2. Hauling heavy weapons such as the 40mm AGLS, 50 cal, 81mm mortars, TOW ground mount, etc, etc.
3. I could see engineers making use of this as well in areas where AFV can't get too. Engineers have alot of tools and toys that is not really man portable
4. In perceived lower threat environments, as a patrol/recce vehicle (NO, I do not mean using ATV in the same way as a british scimitar or Canadian lynx).
5. Moving a commander up quickly to allow him to see for himself the situation (for example, a Task force commander wants to see the Coy OC and the coy sitrep after a firefight and the area is reasonably secured). Again AFV would be preferable but when not practical and the commander needs speed, why not?
6. Use it to a limited extent to haul defensive stores around instead of having Pte Joe Bloggins and his pal make 10 million trips for revetting, sand bags, pickets, etc, etc.
7. Use it to haul beer, oops, I mean canteen goodies to the guys at the front


----------



## George Wallace

Crap!  You had to bring up Sparkie.   You'd think that he may just latch onto the ATV idea himself, being "Airborne" and all.


----------



## Journeyman

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Actually if you ask Mike Sparks of Combat Reform web sites......


  :rofl: America's own S. Ram-Taylor


----------



## Franko

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :rofl: America's own S. Ram-Taylor



I'm expecting ol' Sparky to be either looking at this forum or posting shortly.

*Bow down to the GAVIN!* 

 :


----------



## vonGarvin

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> I'm expecting ol' Sparky to be either looking at this forum or posting shortly.
> 
> *Bow down to the GARVIN!*
> 
> :


There, NOW it makes perfect sense.  To me, anyway!   >


----------



## George Wallace

Technoviking said:
			
		

> There, NOW it makes perfect sense.  To me, anyway!   >



You Mech guys.  So you want to be a M113?


----------



## vonGarvin

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You Mech guys.  So you want to be a M113?


I don't want to be an M113, after all, I'm the Technoviking: M113's want to be ME!   ;D


----------



## ArmyRick

Hate to derail the thread but since we are picking on Slim Jim Gavin's biggest fan, Sparky, I have to mention this. The clown in his weird ilogical method of doing things, sent me a youtube link to one of his videos.

 It was described as Gavins operating without any loss to IED and basically being indestructable in Iraq. It was a 30 second shot of an M113A3 (Not air droppable BTW) rolling down the highway. Mind you, there was no one firing at it either. 

But the minute a LAVIII or a stryker is hit by fire or blown by a large IED (That would also level an M113) he is quick to put up pics or make videos of what he calls "Stryker death traps". Whatever.

I read a comment by a US Army Bradley commander who told sparks on a reply to one of his articles that the M113s in Iraq mostly sat parked and unused in camps.

Rant over.


----------



## a_majoor

Ah, Sparky; the gift that keeps on giving....

If his point was that an inexpensive, reliable tracked machine similar to the M-113 in concept but made out of modern materials and with modern engineering support (drivetrain, suspension, IED resistance, power management and built in databus for computer and radio equipment) would be a desirable piece of kit, I would hardly argue. 

The Korean K-21 demonstrates that something like this _is_ possible (the machine is built out of composite material for light weight yet can resist automatic cannon fire across the front face and 14.5mm across the sides), although it is actually very similar to a M-2 Bradley in concept rather than a recycled or rebuilt M-113.

Bringing the discussion back towards reality, if something like the K-21 hull was provided but we accept only an RWS for firepower, then we could be getting close to an "ideal" vehicle. The hull is spacious enough to be used for many roles, the low ground pressure will give it good mobility without the mechanical complexity of an ST Bronco or BV-206 and it could be available in enough numbers to provide protected mobility for virtually all troops who need it (and yes we could contract for 100+ turreted versions for the CCV project).

Special applications still need special vehicles like "Gators" or "Broncos" (or Tanks or SP artillery), but I would probably vote for the 6X6 Gator as having more flexibility and versatility than a 4X4 ATV in the military role, and even then in only small numbers for the special applications.

This discussion may be mooted in less than a decade, exoskeletons have been developed to the point of field trials and should be available within a decade to allow individual troops to transport large logistic loads of consumables etc. on their backs (maybe even the CASW!). Robotic "mules" should also be appearing which can follow platoons and then sections around with extra kit and consumables, the CQ and his troops might simply pack them and send them to find you at your designated location.


----------



## ArmyRick

Will I be able to wear my exoskeleton inside my hover tank?


----------



## SeanNewman

Okaaaaaay, reeling this back in.

Some interesting reading:

http://www.tactical-life.com/online/tactical-weapons/combat-proven-militarized-atvs/

Added:

What I had in mind when I started this thread:



























Not what I had in mind, but still pretty sweet:


----------



## PanaEng

Last pic: AIRBORNE!
but what would be the drill in case of malfunction?  

cheers,
Frank


----------



## SeanNewman

PanaEng said:
			
		

> But what would be the drill in case of malfunction?



Not sure, but I admire the guy who could pull off a slip while strapped into a vehicle under a chute.


----------



## 57Chevy

Last picture says it. 
Check this AATV Airborne All Terrain Vehicle  from Strong Enterprises (The parachute company with imagination)


----------



## Old Sweat

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Not sure, but I admire the guy who could pull off a slip while strapped into a vehicle under a chute.



What about "Prepare for a water landing?"


----------



## Kirkhill

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Last picture says it.
> Check this AATV Airborne All Terrain Vehicle  from Strong Enterprises (The parachute company with imagination)



Drool.... :nod:

Time to re-up.  Bum knees no longer an excuse for not falling out of aeroplanes.


----------



## SeanNewman

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Bum knees no longer an excuse for not falling out of aeroplanes.



Not a problem, I'm sure landing while seated on an ATV will still give you plenty of happy memories about your compressed disks and sciatica.


----------



## 57Chevy

True, but they do have excellent suspension.
No problems for freefall ;D


----------



## SeanNewman

If that picture were any more awesome it would be in the A-Team movie.


----------



## Kirkhill

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Not a problem, I'm sure landing while seated on an ATV will still give you plenty of happy memories about your compressed disks and sciatica.



You been reading medical files?


----------



## Oh No a Canadian

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> What about "Prepare for a water landing?"



From Chevy's link.



> Can vehicles other than Suzuki ATV’'s be used?
> Yes, almost any ATV can be adapted for airborne use. Also, the same concept can be done with a Seadoo or snowmobile.



 ;D


----------



## SeanNewman

Rumour also had it that the Russians attempted it with some BMDs/BMPs loaded full of troops and were not that successful in getting combat effective (re: alive) soldiers on the objective.

Unsure if there is any validity to it or if it's just an old wive's tale.


----------



## Franko

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Rumour also had it that the Russians attempted it with some BMDs/BMPs loaded full of troops and were not that successful in getting combat effective (re: alive) soldiers on the objective.
> 
> Unsure if there is any validity to it or if it's just an old wive's tale.



It was done in BMDs. Most crews didn't survive. They stopped training in that manner when the wall fell.

Regards


----------



## a_majoor

If we are going to talk about combat vehicles as opposed to logistics vehicles, then we need these instead:


----------



## Kat Stevens

I remember seeing the FAVs tear-assing around Ft Lewis in the early 80's.  To my young sproggy eyes they were the greatest thing since wonder bread.


----------



## SeanNewman

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If we are going to talk about combat vehicles as opposed to logistics vehicles, then we need these instead:



That is a very different capability than what I am talking about.  Once you get into a dunebuggy style instead of a side-by-side/ATV style you're talking about more of a Recce vehicle and getting away from the intent of helping take the load off the soldier's back.

We must not take our eyes off the aim of helping a soldier carry water, ammo, and heavy weapons.


----------



## Journeyman

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Not sure, but I admire the guy who could pull off a slip while strapped into a vehicle under a chute.


Whereas I'm not sure why anyone would feel a need to slip -- not to be confused with front- or rear-riser turns -- while using a square rig.


http://www.strongparachutes.com/pages/mil_veh_AATV_parachute.php


> *AATV Airborne All Terrain Vehicle *
> Canopy:
> C-900 ram-air canopy,
> Number of Cells: 15
> Size: 900 square feet


----------



## McG

Petamocto said:
			
		

> What I had in mind when I started this thread


Those would appear to be along the right lines of what I would imagine a military should be using as tractors for utility trailers  ... but I do question the single person variant without trailer or cargo space.  If the intent is to move materiel, then the vehicle should have trailer and/or cargo space.  If the intent is to move people, then there should be passenger space so that not every person needs a vehicle.

Given the size of Gators and some of the larger militarized ATV in your pictures, there might be more flexibility in a small Jeep like vehicle   .... a new Iltis even.  The USMC recently finished pumping money into something that looks half-way between a John Deere Gator and an Iltis.  The Growler comes in both tractor and recce variants, and it is airmobile via Osprey.


----------



## Kirkhill

Is the vehicle small enough so that it can follow troops down a trail they can only navigate in single file?  I believe the ride-on single seater with racks front and rear might be able to do that carrying a couple of hundred pounds of kit.


----------



## SeanNewman

MCG,

Yes I agree with you about the size and not the single-person ones.  That was me going back and forth trying to copy the images and remembering the photo numbers.

You are absolutely right that anything we get should be able to seat more than 1.

If I had to design the capability from scratch. it would be two on the main seat, then the cargo rack could also have room for a third and the trailer could have a rear-facing seat for 4.  At least that way you could have two per section if we went back to 8-man sections, but even that is a max.  

The thing about making a Jeep out of it is that you now can't follow the troops everywhere, where as an ATV could even go through moderately thick forest.


----------



## 57Chevy

That's just about the size of it.
You ask for an ATV and you get a sawed off Jeep. Might as well have the Jeep.
IMO the ideal ATV would be one that is low in overall height, with a highly responsive gear ratio,
substantial load carrying capabilities and air transportable. (lightweight)


----------



## Michael OLeary

This is the answer:

The DTV Shredder

Gizmodo - The DTV Shredder


----------



## 57Chevy

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> This is the answer:
> The DTV Shredder
> Gizmodo - The DTV Shredder


 I'm sold on that one ;D
It sure beats this  robotic mule 
*check the video.


----------



## Old Sweat

We seem to be getting close to developing a requirement for something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Carrier

It may be overkill but it was widely used, and not just in Second World War infantry battalions.


----------



## Blackadder1916

No one has yet mentioned this vehicle of Canadian origin that is in service with South Africa.

http://www.lmt.co.za/product_gecko.htm


> LMT - GECKO 8X8 ATV RAPID DEPLOYMENT LOGISTICAL VEHICLE
> 
> The Gecko 8x8 ATV Rapid Deployment Logistical Vehicle (RDLV) is used by the Parachute Regiment and Special Forces Brigade of the South African National Defence Force. More than a hundred of these highly mobile vehicle systems are in service as rapid deployment logistical vehicles to transport personnel, equipment and heavy weapon systems from drop and landing zones to firing positions during airborne and special forces operations.
> 
> GECKO 8x8 ATV SPECIAL FORCES / PARATROOP VEHICLE
> 
> *The Gecko RDLV is based on the automotive components of the Argo Centaur 8x8, manufactured by Ontario Drive and Gear, Canada, but adapted in South Africa by LMT Products to comply with the requirements of the South African National Defence Force*. Typical modifications include a militarized top structure, weapon mounts, storage space, 12V/24V electrical system, communication harnesses and a strengthened lower structure to conform with air delivery and helicopter lift requirements. The vehicle also provides protection to the vehicle occupants against the detonation of 200g of TNT below any of the wheels.
> 
> Both the vehicle and the trailer have been qualified for air delivery from a C-130 (PLEDS and internal load) and helicopter transport.
> 
> CARGO, WEAPONS AND C2 TRAILERS
> 
> A family of trailers is in service that been developed by LMT Products, consisting of a general cargo trailer, heavy weapons trailer and command and control trailer. The C2 trailer includes all the command and control equipment as required to effectively command and control at least a battalion sized airborne operation.
> 
> Logistic support for the system has been fully developed to international standards (e.g. MIL-STD-1388-2B and DEF-STAN-0060). Technical manuals and training packages for operators and workshops are available in hard copy or IETM format.
> 
> ENGINE, CLUTCH, TRANSMISSION AND DRIVE
> 
> The Gecko's engine is a Daihatsu DM950T, three-cylinder in-line water-cooled turbo charged 950cc diesel engine, with a maximum output of 26kW @ 3,600r/min, 79Nm @ 2,400r/min. Its Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) has integrated dual differentials:
> 
>  High ratio: 11.5:1
>  Low ratio and reverse: 30.2:1
> 
> RC60 roller chains form transmission to 8mm x 40mm diameter axles with a fully adjustable tensioner for each drive chain.
> 
> Geckos have a 12V electrical system, (24V system also available) with NATO slave plug.
> 
> STEERING, TYRES AND BRAKES
> 
> Geckos are equipped with a hydrostatic skid steer system with steering wheel. Braking is via foot pedal operated hydraulic disc brakes and hand operated mechanical parking brake. The tyres are Goodyear Rawhide III AT25 x 11.50 – 9 NHS. Provision is made to carry two spare tyres. Inflation is through an electrical compressor with standard pneumatic outlet and tyre inflation hose.
> 
> STRUCTURE
> 
> The Gecko's structure is formed by a powder-coated, tubular steel, welded construction chassis frame with a vacuum formed lower hull and hull skid plate manufactured from high density polyethylene.
> 
> DIMENSIONS
> 
>  Length: 3,112mm
>  Width: 1,647mm
>  Height: 1,443mm
>  Ground clearance: 200mm in centre of vehicle body
>  Approach angle: 57°
>  Departure angle: 43°
> 
> PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS (FULLY LADEN WITH TRAILER)
> 
>  Speed: 18km/h (low range), 45km/h high range
>  Gradient (full load) without trailer: 60%
>  Gradient (full load) with trailer (full load): 40%
>  Dynamic side slope @ 10km/h: 40%
>  Ditch crossing: 600mm
>  Vertical step: 300mm
>  Mean Maximum Pressure (MMP): 127kPa
>  Ambient temperature for continuous maximum power: 47°C
>  Drawbar pull: 1,000kg
>  Carrying capacity of vehicle: 900kg
>  Carrying capability of trailer: 650kg
>  Fuel capacity and range: 50-litres, 250km
>  Turning circle: 3m
>  Fully amphibious (basic vehicle with 230kg), can be improved using airbags
>  Shipping weight: 1,225kg complete
> 
> Photos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gecko ATV RDLV with general cargo trailer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gecko ATV with 106 Recoilles Rifle trailer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Airdrop (PLEDS) of Gecko and trailer, both on a 8ft pallet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weapon mount fitted with 7.62 machine gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The command and control trailer with a Battalion HQ team.




There are some additional photos of this vehicle at work and links to videos (deployment by C-130, helicopter, etc) at http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?64954-South-African-National-Defence-Force&p=1687186&viewfull=1#post1687186


----------



## REDinstaller

These should still be in CF service with the SAR Techs. Just standard 8 wheel ARGOs, no add ons. But they would be more suitable as an Army employed ATV. It floats, a track kit is available which increases its mobility in snow. And a Canadian proven solution.


----------



## mariomike

Tango18A said:
			
		

> These should still be in CF service with the SAR Techs. Just standard 8 wheel ARGOs, no add ons. But they would be more suitable as an Army employed ATV. It floats, a track kit is available which increases its mobility in snow. And a Canadian proven solution.



HUSAR ( Heavy Urban Search and Rescue ) use Argos:
http://www.toronto.ca/wes/techservices/oem/husar/fleet.htm#argo


----------



## McG

The intresting thing about this thread is that it is an answer looking for a question and depending on how people see the potential question we get different variations on what the ATV may be.  So far we've seen:

1 & 2 person quads
dirt bikes
Gators & Argos
1 & 2 person all-terrain go-carts with role cages
mini-Jeeps
BV-206
tracked universal carriers
tracked all-terrain Segways

Any of these would provide us with a new capability, but what is the capability that we really need (or even want)?


----------



## SeanNewman

MCG,

The problem that needs solving is that dismounted soldiers are carrying far more weight than the NATO-accepted maximum standard of 30% of their body weight.

And no matter how many people want to quote the books and say that we are all Mech Bns now, the ground truth is that every year thousands of soldiers are carrying this load on their feet overseas.

In order to remedy this, what I propose is a capability that can basically trail behind them, go almost everywhere they can (or at least to a forward staging point/ORV), and carry a lot of that weight for them.  That weight could include water, ammo, and support weapons likely only to be used on the obj.

They tried this with donkeys and it was a failure because unlike an ATV you can't just park it and take the keys with you for the other 23 hours per day.

Anything past that seems to detract from a vehicles capability to do the basic.  It doesn't need to fight on the objective, it doesn't need to go 100 km/h and jump sand dunes, and it doesn't need to pull broken down vehicles.

*Added* Understood in our current theatre that regulations have been put in place for light vehicles like these to not be used outside the wire, but I am proposing an overall solution not just an Afghan one.


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG - the capability required was simply defined by Nathan Bedford Forrest:  "Git thar fustest with the mostest".

The idea is to be able to occupy any terrain with more firepower than the other guy so as to completely dominate it, either physically or psychologically - either beat him in an unfair fight or else intimidate him into compliance (thereby allowing time to make friends on our terms).

The problem is, as I see it, three guys with kalashnikovs and a donkey can hide themselves pretty much any place and move quietly.  

Edit required due to power interruption.  

How do you quietly get your platoon into position to be able to root them out?


----------



## Old Sweat

The challenge is in the wretched detail. Let's take the platoon that is going to make the approach march and give them a hypothetical ATV. For this exercise, lets say we have 30 troops in the platoon. If we want to reduce their load to 30% of body weight and we pick an average weight of 150 pounds and 100 pounds of "stuff" to tote, then our vehicle would have to be able to carry (55 pounds x 30) 1650 pounds of individual gear plus the weapons det stuff and two crew for the ATV at (150 + 45) 195 pounds each. We are now talking over a ton of load which implies a rather large and powerful vehicle, especially for cross country movement.

What am I missing here? Is it better to go for a section vehicle just like having a toboggan for a tent group?


----------



## Kirkhill

Or, alternately Old Sweat, heading in the direction of your toboggan, divide the load amongst 4-6 donkeys or ATVs or a couple of ATVs with utility trailers.


----------



## SeanNewman

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> What am I missing here? Is it better to go for a section vehicle just like having a toboggan for a tent group?



I think that's actually a pretty useful solution and comparison.  We don't always bring the toboggans with us, and we wouldn't always bring ATVs, either.  But when required, they could be brought to take the load, one would be the Pl HQ one, and good to go.


----------



## vonGarvin

Petamocto said:
			
		

> And no matter how many people want to quote the books and say that we are all Mech Bns now, the ground truth is that every year thousands of soldiers are carrying this load on their feet overseas.


This point is key, I think.  In order to have an effective force, it needs firepower, mobility and protection (to borrow from a tank design philosophy), or you can think that a force needs to be able to shoot, move and communicate.  Whatever.

But if one looks at the combat functions of command, sense, act, shield, sustain, then look at the mobility as an element of "sustain", in that being able to carry your kit, ammo, weapons etc is probably one of the most important things you can do. I mean, you could have the best shooters, ninja-underwater knife fighters or whatever on the planet, but if you can't bring your stuff, you may as well stay home.  

So what?  Remembering that Afghanistan is not our only theatre, and that one day we'll be somewhere else, and remembering that Mech Battalions aren't always the answer to whatever the requirement is, then I would offer that a "light" capability would be...beneficial.  And I don't mean "every third company in every third battalion".  I'm talking about unit levels and higher.   In a perfect world, one of our regular force brigade groups would be light.  All of it.  

Such a formation would be strategically more easily deployable than a mech force; however, it would be lacking the firepower of LAV III APCs, tanks and heavy artillery.  Going to the lowest level (platoon), they would then require to augment what is now the nominal firepower available.  Given that the 60 is out soon, and that the AGLS is too heavy to take whenever you walk, and given so much else, a "universal carrier" of sorts that can help the sustain function (by carrying ammo, water, weapons, etc) would be "ideal".  And as we've seen used elsewhere, including in pics in this very thread, this carrier could be a very useful weapons' platform, for things like an AGLS, a .50 calibre, or whatever.


----------



## Kirkhill

How about looking at the ATV as a ride-on Husky for the toboggan?

Suppose your platoon were equipped with two winch equipped Utility ATVs (each with 100-150lb on board in addition to the driver) and drawing a pair of 400-500 lb trailers.  That would give you 1400 lb to 1900 lb of disposable load, four trailers, two winches and a total of 60-100 HP.

With the additional muscle power of 30 troops to man-handle 500 lb trailers when they slip and slide or need to clear obstacles.

1 Horsepower = 2.98 Donkeypower = 12 Manpower 


3 men = 3 manpower
3 men + 1 donkey = 7 manpower

30 men = 30 manpower
30 men + 2 ATVs with a combined output of 60 Horsepower = 750 manpower 

or the loadcarrying capacity of a battalion on foot (19th century calculations)


----------



## McG

Petamocto said:
			
		

> The problem that needs solving is that dismounted soldiers are carrying far more weight than the NATO-accepted maximum standard of 30% of their body weight.
> 
> And no matter how many people want to quote the books and say that we are all Mech Bns now, the ground truth is that every year thousands of soldiers are carrying this load on their feet overseas.
> 
> In order to remedy this, what I propose is a capability that can basically trail behind them, go almost everywhere they can (or at least to a forward staging point/ORV), and carry a lot of that weight for them.  That weight could include water, ammo, and support weapons likely only to be used on the obj.


In this case, you really are looking for the single person vehicle with a cargo space and (possibly) a tractor capability.  The vehicle is not a people hauler.

There is also the option that the vehicle need not carry its operator (and thus it could be even smaller and lighter).  The cancelled MULE project was supposed to deliver an autonomous vehicle of this nature and I am not aware of any operational autonomous vehicles in any military, but many countries (including Canada) have fielded operational remote controlled vehicles.


----------



## SeanNewman

That's almost a crime if that project was cancelled, seeing how many people are on pensions for screwed up backs.

Not sure how you'd make it work without steering it (for another 20 years, anyway) if you]re too busy for remote control...possibly some sort of "follow me" key fob that it just kind of follows like a puppy?  Maybe a combination of plugging 10 figure grids into it and then it uses what modern cars do to track what lane they're in, etc.

Anyway, thank you for posting that; I had never thought about a rider-less concept but sure, but why not.

I'm sure the actual final configuration could have been sorted out by trials in terms of how many tires (or track) of what size, how wide it could be, etc.


----------



## REDinstaller

I don't think a key fob would be a good controller. Tends to make things in the ground expand at the high order. And a human driver can make the determination that an obstacle can't be crossed and to look for an alternate route.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Technoviking said:
			
		

> This point is key, I think.  In order to have an effective force, it needs firepower, mobility and protection (to borrow from a tank design philosophy), or you can think that a force needs to be able to shoot, move and communicate.  Whatever.
> 
> But if one looks at the combat functions of command, sense, act, shield, sustain, then look at the mobility as an element of "sustain", in that being able to carry your kit, ammo, weapons etc is probably one of the most important things you can do. I mean, you could have the best shooters, ninja-underwater knife fighters or whatever on the planet, but if you can't bring your stuff, you may as well stay home.
> 
> So what?  Remembering that Afghanistan is not our only theatre, and that one day we'll be somewhere else, and remembering that Mech Battalions aren't always the answer to whatever the requirement is, then I would offer that a "light" capability would be...beneficial.  And I don't mean "every third company in every third battalion".  I'm talking about unit levels and higher.   In a perfect world, one of our regular force brigade groups would be light.  All of it.
> 
> Such a formation would be strategically more easily deployable than a mech force; however, it would be lacking the firepower of LAV III APCs, tanks and heavy artillery.  Going to the lowest level (platoon), they would then require to augment what is now the nominal firepower available.  Given that the 60 is out soon, and that the AGLS is too heavy to take whenever you walk, and given so much else, a "universal carrier" of sorts that can help the sustain function (by carrying ammo, water, weapons, etc) would be "ideal".  And as we've seen used elsewhere, including in pics in this very thread, this carrier could be a very useful weapons' platform, for things like an AGLS, a .50 calibre, or whatever.



That's a perfect description of an airborne brigade. Well done...


----------



## a_majoor

The killer was cost; each MULE was estimated to be priced at $300,000. How the Mule was supposed to follow you around was not specified in anything I have read (maybe it is plugged into the SAS system and follows your GPS trail, or maybe it just follows bread crumbs  ), but this is probably much closer to Petamocto's ideal than anything else so far.

Given that current state of the art robots are too expensive, I would still go for something larger sized (such as an ARGO or GATOR or GECKO) on the grounds that having the available extra lift outweighs the size disadvantages. If I had to make a sudden withdrawal with casualties, I would be able to put them aboard the ARGO or GATOR class vehicle and bug out without having to stop and offload (and abandon) the rest of my stores, to use one scenario. The other advantage is amphibious vehicles like the ARGO can lift the troops and equipment across water obstacles.


----------



## vonGarvin

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> That's a perfect description of an airborne brigade. Well done...


I was just thinking "light" brigade.  Not necessarily airborne, but airmobile?  We're getting some choppers, no?


----------



## a_majoor

A bit OT, but if you need to get around, maybe a diesel powered cross country motorcycle?

http://www.econogics.com/TENHE/tenheevexpo2008.htm


----------



## REDinstaller

Hey, these used to be in Popular Mechanics as a Rincon branded kit.


----------



## DirtyDog

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> I think ATVs might have a small, but useful role in combat.  The Brits use them all the time.  The Rat Patrol in KAF picks up their Timmie's on their ATVs and then rolls out the gate to do whatever stuff they do.  Their secret squirrel types mount their Minimi and GPMG on ATVs.  Even the Paras use them for hauling weaponry and supplies to units outside the wire (and by that, I mean the FOB wire).


We've used gators (outfitted with a C6 on a pintle mount) on a few Ops to shuttle resupplies into tight built up areas.


----------



## chrisf

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Just to throw some sand in the gears here, if we are willing to pay the associated training, logistics and infrastructure costs of using ATV's, with their relatively tiny payloads, why not go for something with more utility, larger payload etc. like the BV-206 or ST "Bronco" all terrain tracked vehicle.



Whereas ATVs are are a quick, cheap, low maintenance COTS purchase, domestically can be maintainted and supplied by local commercial establishments, easy to transport, can make it almost anywhere footborne troops can, and in terms of military kit, are practically disposable (Having to abandon an ATV and blow it in place, not a big deal.... not even really a big deal if you don't blow it in place, you just leave it there...)

An ATV and a BV-206 would fill completely different roles...


----------



## a_majoor

Bit of an update. Since the MULE project was cancelled, a remote controlled ATV provides the ability to carry at least the supplies for a squad (section) sized sub unit at a lower cost. Each dismounted section would need one of these (4X per platoon), transitioning from mechanized to dismounted leaves the question of toting them around until needed. (Heliborne troops can sling the ATV under the fuselage). LM sees this as evolving into a custom built vehicle, but even something adapted to an existing ATV would be useful (and probably cheaper as well)

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/12/squad-level-support-from-six-wheeled.html#more



> *Squad level support from six-wheeled amphibious ATV robot in 2011*
> 
> Lockheed Martin’s (LM) Squad Mission Support System (SMSS) has passed a final round of tests at Fort Riley, Kansas, before scheduled deployment to Afghanistan in 2011. The system, which turns a six-wheeled amphibious ATV into a robotic packhorse and charging station, has been subjected to a variety of simulated warzone environments in both remote controlled and fully autonomous modes"
> 
> Squad Mission Support System (SMSS) is a robotic platform based on a turbo-diesel powered, high mobility six wheel all-terrain vehicle (ATV) capable of carrying 600lbs (272 kg) of payload. Current platforms are utilizing a commercial platform converted for a surrogate SMSS vehicle. Future versions will utilize specially designed platforms, optimized for the SMSS mission.
> 
> Gizmag has coverage
> 
> The SMSS can carry a squad's food supplies, water, batteries, heavy weapons, ammunition, survival gear and can even accommodate casualties. Besides transporting up to 600lbs (272 kg) of gear, the SMSS also provides two to four kilowatts of power, and is capable of charging 146 batteries within ten hours.
> 
> LM's SMSS technology frees the soldier of this payload but unlike the MULE, which LM does not see as being a direct competitor, the robotic control system employed here gives the option of a number of control modes including remote via the control unit, voice activated control and fully autonomous. In autonomous mode, the SMSS uses a 3D scanning LIDAR to navigate its immediate surroundings while following either the optical form of a certain soldier or predetermined way-points (which can be set by the operator or can be automatically dropped by the SMSS during allowing a trace back mode)
> 
> The SMSS takes the load off the soldier's back, reducing fatigue currently experienced by those on the front line. The average warfighter these days is expected to carry around 100lbs (45 kg) on their back – this is like piggy-backing a teenager around the battlefield. Not only are fieldpacks heavy but they can also be cumbersome, reducing a soldier's ability to respond in combat.


----------



## DirtyDog

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> We've used gators (outfitted with a C6 on a pintle mount) on a few Ops to shuttle resupplies into tight built up areas.


To elaborate.  We used to them to ferry in supplies to dsmounted troops from the leaguer to our posistions deep in a built up area.  They were crucial as the only other options were either air drops (cumbersome and dangerous) or using dismounted troops as mules, which we had neither the manpower, nor stomach for.  A combat teams worth of dismounted troops burn up a LOT of water, rats and batteries during a 50 degree day.  Not to mention ammo when things happen.  Running an unarmoured Gator back a forth has risks, but it is a good option.  If we can't allow ourselves exercise options like this anymore, we're doomed.


----------



## PanaEng

DirtyDog said:
			
		

>


Nice pics!

I noticed, however, that it looks like someone pissed on the front left tire - is that some form of statement on its reliability?   ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think there was just an accident involving an ATV and CF personal, but can't find the link. Many of the consulting companies doing oil/gas/forestry are moving away from the small 4 wheeled ATV's to the larger gators and 6x6 due to the large number of injuries.

Also what is new is old
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:18pdrTowedByDragonTractor1932.jpg


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> I think there was just an accident involving an ATV and CF personal, but can't find the link. Many of the consulting companies doing oil/gas/forestry are moving away from the small 4 wheeled ATV's to the larger gators and 6x6 due to the large number of injuries.
> 
> Also what is new is old
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:18pdrTowedByDragonTractor1932.jpg



The Tom Car looks pretty sturdy. Maybe we should just start using WW2 era jeeps, they seem about the same size.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/springer_130409.html


----------



## DirtyDog

You can go out into the Pet training area lately without running in packs of ATVs, mostly being ridden by a particular unit.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The Tom Car looks pretty sturdy. Maybe we should just start using WW2 era jeeps, they seem about the same size.
> 
> http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/springer_130409.html



of course there is the champ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Champ


----------



## Old Sweat

I never heard any British service member say anyting good about the Champ. Most comments included a word that rhymed with "trucking."


----------



## Kirkhill

All the cool kids wanted the Mini Moke  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> All the cool kids wanted the Mini Moke  ;D



I'm guessing that those would have been the kids they wouldn't even let on the short bus, right?  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

When you're 10 years old a skateboard on 4 soup plates looks a whole lot different than if you need to sit in the back seat to be able to drive the thing.  Gymnasts only need apply.

Good news - based on your latest grenade launcher it qualifies as man-packable.  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Bump - to resurrect ATVs as a topic.

Came across this Support Vehicle.









Swing arm mounted Mk 48,  a CG-84 on the back deck and a stand alone 40mm GL on the right front fender.  It looks like there might also be a tripod for the Mk 48 on the right rear.

Link


----------



## GAP

Hmmm.....desert rats?


----------



## a_majoor

With the amount of "stuff" they want to carry, even an ATV might be too small.

We are now looking at a 6X6 'Gator, or perhaps something like a Polaris "Ranger" to carry the gear with a certain amount of reserve.

Of course, once you start going down that road, then there is an accelerating spiral of needing/wanting to carry more kit, bigger vehicles and a bigger logistical tail. I've made a few arguments upthread about perhaps leapfrogging the entire issue and going to a much more capable all terrain/marginal terrain vehicle like the BV 206 or its successors (Viking or Bronco). For fans of retro technology, here is a picture of a '60's vintage MTV which uses wheels rather than tracks, the prototype of the XM 808 "Twister". A vehicle in this configuration (no armoured upper deck, etc.) seems to combine much of the mobility of a BV 206 type vehicle with a much higher road speed. Maybe this is the route we should be looking at.


----------



## Infanteer

Battalions are getting these now.  Conventional ATVs as well as 4 and 6 wheel side-by-sides.

Interesting pieces of kit and, as the norm seems to be, no doctrinal role for them within the Infantry (Army HQ to units - Here is some stuff, figure out what you want to do with it).


----------



## Kirkhill

Thucydides said:
			
		

> With the amount of "stuff" they want to carry, even an ATV might be too small.
> 
> We are now looking at a 6X6 'Gator, or perhaps something like a Polaris "Ranger" to carry the gear with a certain amount of reserve.
> 
> Of course, once you start going down that road, then there is an accelerating spiral of needing/wanting to carry more kit, bigger vehicles and a bigger logistical tail. I've made a few arguments upthread about perhaps leapfrogging the entire issue and going to a much more capable all terrain/marginal terrain vehicle like the BV 206 or its successors (Viking or Bronco). For fans of retro technology, here is a picture of a '60's vintage MTV which uses wheels rather than tracks, the prototype of the XM 808 "Twister". A vehicle in this configuration (no armoured upper deck, etc.) seems to combine much of the mobility of a BV 206 type vehicle with a much higher road speed. Maybe this is the route we should be looking at.




Jaysus Thuc, 

In one paragraph you have managed to get from a vehicle which can be transported with and provide support to a dismounted infantry unit any place in the world to one that needs C-17s and BHSs.

Can we consider working with the minimum requirement instead of the kitchen sink?   ;D

Consider a two-up Quad with a half tonne trailer as the first level prime mover.    You have bigger, more expensive carriers available already.


----------



## a_majoor

My arguments for the larger, more capable vehicles is posted upthread here: http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/96332/post-968241.html#msg968241

It seems to me that the ATV class of vehicles is simply too limited to be more than a specialized niche vehicle, and even some of the arguments posted in this thread can be subsumed into the larger vehicle. Even in the commercial world we see the same evolution happening, each generation of ATV becomes larger and more "capable" to the point that Polaris "Rangers" are only slightly smaller than an Iltis of old.

While the XM 808 is certainly overkill (the transmission engineering would impress Rube Goldberg) it occurs to me that one of the drawbacks of the BV-206 and its various successors is low road speed, maybe there is a place for a wheeled BV-206 type vehicle. In any event I'll be happy to see the Army get Bronco's or Vikings, or even dust off the BV 206 fleet and put them back in action.


----------



## Kirkhill

The ATV photo I posted above carries the entire platoon det (minus the 60mm - the 40mm substitutes (poorly)).

That ATV would increase the fighting power of a dismounted platoon and can be carried by a CH-146 anywhere.

Anything bigger requires more support and more transport and is more restricted in the places it can travel - meaning more distance between the deployed platoon and its support.


----------



## a_majoor

Without being too contentious, the ATV can carry the weapon det's "stuff", but not the det itself. 

A BV 206 is also airportable (using a Chinook), as well as amphibious, so not only can you fly it in, but it can swim itself into places as well. My argument is mostly based around versatility, the bigger vehicle can (to a certain extent) do more things than an ATV. Fro people who really are into niche (black) roles, maybe the argument for an ATV is stronger than for a BV 206, but for the rest of us, I will submit that sometimes size really does matter.


----------



## Kirkhill

I've been "out of range" for few days and chomping at the bit to get back to this discussion.

Agreed:  The ATV only carries the weapons for the Det.

So what?

Most Dets don't have enough bodies to man all the weapons.   This is due to the need to carry the weapons, tripods, sights, tools, spares...... and enough ammo to be useful.  ATV? Problem solved.  Trigger pullers are not is short supply.  Weapons and ammo for trigger pullers are.

I'm going to propose a couple of "what if" scenarios.

What if, in 1982, the Brits had had access to 500 kg ATVs capable of hauling 750 kg of gear across the Falklands?

2 Para marched 21 km and then had to lay up to catch their breath after humping loads of more than 100 lbs each.  At that they only managed to move 2x 81 mm tubes and 1000 bombs.   They had extra MGs but they were scattered all over the battlefield and didn't really come into their own until they were grouped at Platoon, Company and Battalion level.  Relocating the guns in a timely manner, and more importantly supplying them with ammunition were a problem.  So much so that the Pioneers were assigned as ammo carriers.  The Motor Transport platoon, in the absence of Motor Transport was assigned to D&D at HQ.  Wounded remained in place on the battlefield until the festivities ended.

Could supplying the MT platoon with a dozen Quads and a bunch of 1/2 ton trailers have changed the situation?  

Could the troops have arrived faster and/or fresher?
Could the Mor Platoon have had more tubes and rounds available?
Could the MGs have been more readily resupplied and relocated?
Could the Pioneers have been freed up to act as an additional Rifle Platoon?
Could Bn have had more direct contact with Brigade using the Quads to run messages to the rear and bring supplies forward?
Could the Bn's assigned RAF FAC made it forward if he had been relieved of his pack and not broken his ankle on the approach march?

Another scenario would be seizing a position and permitting greater dispersal of the available forces due the ability to bring heavier weapons and greater ammunition loads further forward faster than dismounted troops.

I like the Quads for the following reasons:

They are light enough to be transported by all air means from CH-146 on up.
They can draw a trailer of up to 800 kg.  Coincidentally that is equivalent to the carrying capacity of the WW2 Platoon Vehicles.
With trailers loads can be pre-staged, reducing turn around time.
Without trailers the Quad can be used as a scouting, courier or supply vehicle.  Or even a commanders ride.

In short, they can go everywhere heliborne/airborne troops can go.  They are the vehicle that the light forces have been trying to find since WW2.

They permit the distance between the LZ and the Objective to be longer allowing greater probability of masking the LZ and permitting additional troops and supplies to be delivered before the Objective is alerted and they LZ becomes unsafe.

In the defence, they supply logistical support - and together with a batch of Helo delivered bobcats - permit the construction of a stronger defensive position through the ability to move construction materials around the site.

Somebody around here keeps posting articles about unmanned vehicles like the USMC's GUSS:






  

The intent of the vehicle is to support dismounted troops in the advance.

The alternative unit being tested is the Robotic Mule






which only carries a payload of 180 kg.

Those are in development and cost a fortune

This is available and dirt cheap.









And appreciated....

Testimonial 1



> Upgraded quad bikes for British forces in Afghanistan
> Posted on June 23, 2009 by Strike-Hold
> 
> A shipment of upgraded quad bikes are bound for the front line in Afghanistan to boost troops’ ability to deliver vital combat supplies to Service personnel on the ground.200 of the upgraded all-terrain vehicles and trailers have been ordered for British troops as part of a £5m contract with Yamaha and Logic.The upgrades to the bikes include a left hand throttle which provides a dual throttle fit giving greater manoeuvrability in theatre; and dual stretcher fit on the trailers to evacuate two casualties at a time thereby speeding up emergency aid.
> 
> The quad bikes can reach speeds of up to 75km/h, can carry up to almost 160kg with the trailer attached, and are already being used to deliver food, water and ammunition to troops on the front line in difficult to access areas – or where it is more appropriate to offer a lower profile. Even with the trailer attached, they can operate through streams and puddles of up to half their wheel-height.
> 
> Major Matt Cansdale of 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, who used the bikes during his recent operational tour, added:
> 
> “The quad bikes proved to be reliable and able to go places that no other vehicle could. The equipment that the quad bikes were able to carry enabled us to launch patrols that covered more distance and were longer in duration than would otherwise have been the case, so we were able to push into areas that the enemy did not expect us.”The ability to evacuate casualties effectively and quickly also meant that we could move away from established routes while limiting the risk to our forces.”



Testimonial 2

To address the discrepancy in load carrying numbers cited by the paras and myself - herewith the Polaris specs

So, I suggest the choice rests between 






and






Laser attachment pending.   ;D


PS  Further to the 1982 "What If" scenario.... in the 105 Lt Guns had been replaced with the M777s Goose Green would have been in range of the beachhead at San Carlos and a couple of Excaliburs would have shut down the 35mm AAs that were used in Direct Fire mode against the Paras.


----------



## a_majoor

Well Kirkhill, I can see your ATV and raise you a BV-202.

Using your same example, the Paras could have moves all their men and equipment via BV-202 (the appropriate example for the era). Eight man sections complete could be carried at 35KPH (or even swum across the channel separating the islands at @ 7 KPH, a capability that would have been very unsettling for the Argentinians) with all their kit, and grouped according to task (no MGs and Milans scattered about the battlefield)

BV 202's could be configured as Mortar carriers with the tubes mounted on a baseplate in the trailer and ammunition at hand for immediate action, and as gun tractors for the artillery. Like the FV-432, the BV's would be battle taxis, dropping the Paras, Ghurkas, Marines etc. close to the FEBA and shuttling ammunition and supplies forward, as well as carrying out the wounded.

So the larger vehicle can do the jobs, and add additional capabllities for most conventional operations.

Even going fast forward to the recent past, if Canadian units (Regular or Reserve) had BV-206's, Vikings or Broncos during the Alberta floods, they could have driven around with up to 5 tons of supplies, swum out to stranded civilians (or swum to houses to check them out) and carried out groups of people (up to 16 at a time, plus the driver).

So in terms of overall versatility, I am still going to argue for the larger and more capable vehicle as giving you the capability to do much more. Yes, there are niches for ATV's (and canoes, for that matter), but we should give the niche capabilities to the niche operators...


----------



## Kirkhill

Yes but....

The Bandvagons (202 or 206) or Vikings or Broncos take up more space in ships and aeroplanes and are more limited in the number of helos that can lift them.

I see the helo as the primary mover of the force over ground.  The ATV is nothing more than a mule hauling heavy freight for the dismounted platoon once it is on the ground.

It is not a replacement for a GWagen or TAPV or LAV.   

Also, I take issue with the notion that unless you are mounted you are only adding a niche capability.  I believe that regardless of the transport the job on the ground is the same.

Certainly troops that train with the same transport day after day will develop skills and capabilities that those that are more generalist won't.  

I continue to argue for the separation of infantry from their transport and that they should be married up prior to operations for familiarization training.

ATVs I consider to be the type of system that can be quickly mastered by anybody currently wearing a Canadian uniform and thus not requiring specialty training or a separate MOSID.

Edit: By the way - there were Bv202s on the Falklands but they were held by the Marines and few in number.  They were used as Coy CPs IIRC.


----------



## a_majoor

If it's helicopters you want..... 

An author I know once pointed out in an article (_The Return of the Canadian Mounted Rifles_; CAJ Vol 5 No 4 Winter 2002 Pg. 73-77) that even a dedicated airmobile unit should have some sort of ground arm so the unit could continue to function without being weather limited, and proposed there should be 2 "lift" companies and a "motor" company to compliment the lift companies and support the troops on the ground when and if they were unable to be supported from the air. One guess as to the sort of vehicle the Motor Company was to be equipped with....



> Evolving from the BV 206 company, a “motor company” will give the CMR a unique ability for sustained operations that an all air unit lacks. The motor company has enhanced mobility on the ground, few weather restrictions, and can carry more supplies for extended operations than the dismounted infantry companies. As a secondary function, the motor company can support airmobile operations by delivering supplies to dismounted infantry, freeing the lift company for other tasks and extending the time the airmobile company can remain in the field. Operationally, the motor company can share the benefits of air mobility, since medium-lift helicopters can airlift the BV 206 or similar vehicles. The limitation is the amount of airlift available, meaning air movement by the motor company will be slower and more complex than airmobile infantry company movements. While the airmobile companies can move rapidly around a wide area of operation, the motor company is more suited for “landholder” duties, securing areas or “digging out” opponents who have been identified and fixed by the airmobile companies.20 In areas of complex terrain that masks the enemy from sensors and standoff attack, this will become a key asset for successful operations. The motor company will need to maintain all-terrain capabilities. The BV 206 can undergo a modernization program, upgrading the engine and suspension systems to improve mobility, or the Army can choose a successor vehicle.


----------



## Kirkhill

I seem to recall reading that article..... once or twice.

I don't, and didn't, disagree with the premise.  I can see that organization as being functional for many situations.  Many,  not all.  I do disagree with the notion that a unit needs a permanent organization as described.  I like to keep things as simple as possible and then adjust to suit the situation.

I like the idea of putting the LAVs etc back in the hands of the Armour, the helos in the hands of the RCAF (Green), and vehicles like the BVs and MLVWs in the hands of the Svc Bn.

And, as you know, I too am a fan of the Bv206 and agree that it needs to be part of the toolkit (ahem - moreso than a CCV - ahem).


----------



## a_majoor

A bit of a tangent, but this company is (was?) offering an amphibious vehicle with about the size and carrying capability of a jeep. Looking back at this thread, I noted water crossing wasn't a very strong consideration in most arguments. So if *we* want to advocate for ATV's, then let it be something like the Argo, which is amphibious. This vehicle is the next size up, and of course the BV/Viking/Bronco class of marginal terrain vehicles is the largest size under consideration. The Gibbs corporation is still in business, so this option isn't closed out:

http://defense-update.com/newscast/0407/news/050407_hsa.htm



> *Forces to Pursue High Speed Amphibious Vehicles*
> News April. 5, 2007
> 
> Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) and Gibbs Technologies will develop a family of High Speed Amphibious (HSA) vehicles designed specifically for military operations. The new vehicle will reduce the risk of marines and Special Forces units by dramatically reducing the sea-to-shore transition time. According to Rich Lockwood, Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensor's vice president for Mission Systems, "HSA minimizes that risk, allowing forces to move safer and faster - and with capabilities that make it a powerful asset in a net-enabled force."
> 
> The new vehicles will be based on Gibbs' amphibious vehicle prototypes originally designed for the consumer market. Lockheed Martin and Gibbs will enhance these designs integrating expeditionary command and control capability, armor and weapons systems. Gibbs' technology enables amphibians to travel at speeds over 45 mph on water and over 100 mph on land - and to transition from water-to-land or land-to-water in five seconds. These features provide a much needed capability for military littoral, riverine and special operations. The vehicles will have armor protection capability, they will be equipped with network ability to share and distribute information from onboard and remote sensors. The craft will be able to accommodate a variety of weapons systems, based on specific mission needs.
> 
> Gibbs and Lockheed Martin are developing three military concept vehicles, representing a scalable capability to meet various missions - the Amphibious Combat Craft -- Expeditionary (ACC-E), a 20-foot amphibian capable 45 mph on the water and 80 mph on land; The Amphibious Combat Craft - Riverine (ACC-R) is a 35-foot amphibian capable of 40 mph on the water and 65 mph on land; and the Terraquad, capable of over 55 mph on the water and 50 mph on land.
> Alan Gibbs founded Gibbs Technologies in New Zealand in 1996. Initial amphibian concept work was undertaken in 1997 and 1998 in Detroit. In 1999, excited by the technology, Neil Jenkins merged his business to form Gibbs Technologies UK, of which Gibbs Military Amphibian is a licensee. "
> 
> HSAs are high performance craft on the water, and high performance vehicles on the ground and the transition between the two is seamless," says Alan Gibbs, chairman of Gibbs Technologies. "These are true amphibians, combining the best of both worlds". Gibbs' commercial offerings, currently in prototype stage, include the Aquada, a three-person sports car, Humdinga, a four-wheel military vehicle, and Gibbs Quadski, an amphibious all terrain vehicle.


----------

