NATO Standard Technicals - Jankel's Toyota Hilux Fox

[OldSolduer]

1/4 ton vehicles don’t carry much anymore.
Definitely not 3+ kitted out soldiers.

In 76 we got a military version of the Silverado, we dubbed it the 5/4 . It held up fairly well until the dreaded LSVW came into service. I preferred my 5/4 over that stupid self igniting LSVW piece of crap.

A 1500 (Ram or similar chassis) IMO would be a bit smallish but a 2500 with a suitable engine (no electric, no computers etc - just a basic truck) and cargo capacity. Something the drivers and maintenance people can repair easily. Kinda like the old 3/4 except bigger.

 

[Furniture]

In 76 we got a military version of the Silverado, we dubbed it the 5/4 . It held up fairly well until the dreaded LSVW came into service. I preferred my 5/4 over that stupid self igniting LSVW piece of crap.

A 1500 (Ram or similar chassis) IMO would be a bit smallish but a 2500 with a suitable engine (no electric, no computers etc - just a basic truck) and cargo capacity. Something the drivers and maintenance people can repair easily. Kinda like the old 3/4 except bigger.

We'd end up worse off than we are now if we went with a mechanical truck with no computers. We would have to train mechanics to work on the older, less efficient and more maintenance heavy technology, while also having to train them to work on more modern kit. Vehicles today are more reliable than they have ever been, and because of that people don't have the mechanical skills they used to have(out of necessity).

If the CAF needs a truck with more than 2000lbs (F-150, RAM 1500) of payload to move part of a section around, maybe we need to examine what we are doing?

 

[Skysix]

How about we bring the WW2 Jeep back into production as the basic frame, and add a fancy new body?

Already is. The Maharinda Roxer.

 

[Skysix]

1/4 ton vehicles don’t carry much anymore.
Definitely not 3+ kitted out soldiers.

Yet SF is using COTS side-by-sides with 2 and bespoke offroad buggies with 4...

 

[KevinB]

Yet SF is using COTS side-by-sides with 2 and bespoke offroad buggies with 4...

I’d suggest that some missions don’t require a significant payload, or are willing to pay a premium for items that do meet the need.


Some folks even buy bespoke Land Rovers that have prices that frighten most SOF units


But equipping a large force with 200k USD hardened Land Rover probably isn’t practical.

The Ford Ranger / Chevy Colorado type vehicle is the most effective bang for buck for a soft skin ‘ISV’ for larger conventional usage for Canada.

SOF has a budget that can get more exotic tools

 

[Good2Golf]

Jeebus, KevinB, your photo’s giving me flashbacks of that big grey POS Sub we had ‘gifted to us’ by GAC until we got the Landcruisers. That f’n POS was the one that flipped the hood open on me near midnight in the middle of Green Route just by where Short and Beerenfenger were killed. Everyone was joking about shorty things happening when pilots drive, until I got out and tied the hood back down with some 550- cord I always had on me.

 

[FJAG]

In 76 we got a military version of the Silverado, we dubbed it the 5/4 . It held up fairly well until the dreaded LSVW came into service. I preferred my 5/4 over that stupid self igniting LSVW piece of crap.

A 1500 (Ram or similar chassis) IMO would be a bit smallish but a 2500 with a suitable engine (no electric, no computers etc - just a basic truck) and cargo capacity. Something the drivers and maintenance people can repair easily. Kinda like the old 3/4 except bigger.

I always like the 5/4. As a BK in Shilo my issued vehicle was an M152. One does a lot of hauling stuff and people as a BK so I traded it in for a spare 5/4 cargo floating around and it served me well for three years. No complaints. I went legal before the age of LSVWs dawned.

 

[OldSolduer]

I went legal before the age of LSVWs dawned.

LSVW = Loud Squeaky Vehicle Wheeled.

A self igniter in at least one case, the brakes squealed incessantly. Not good in a tac situation.

It was a total crap vehicle, I am sure others can attest to that.

 

[OldSolduer]

We'd end up worse off than we are now if we went with a mechanical truck with no computers. We would have to train mechanics to work on the older, less efficient and more maintenance heavy technology, while also having to train them to work on more modern kit. Vehicles today are more reliable than they have ever been, and because of that people don't have the mechanical skills they used to have(out of necessity).

If the CAF needs a truck with more than 2000lbs (F-150, RAM 1500) of payload to move part of a section around, maybe we need to examine what we are doing?

I would argue that as a crayon eating infantry type a vehicle that can transport 8 kitted out soldiers is required if we are talking "light" infantry.

That's about 1600 pounds right there, and that is a conservative estimate. Light Infantry ain't all that light.

Toss in some ammo and fuel cans and you're bulked out.


And you just know the sparks at Bde HQ and higher will want the section to carry extra shit "just in case".

 

[Furniture]

I would argue that as a crayon eating infantry type a vehicle that can transport 8 kitted out soldiers is required if we are talking "light" infantry.

That's about 1600 pounds right there, and that is a conservative estimate. Light Infantry ain't all that light.

Toss in some ammo and fuel cans and you're bulked out.


And you just know the sparks at Bde HQ and higher will want the section to carry extra shit "just in case".

Which is why I think that one section per vehicle is not reasonable for a vehicle below the LAV/Bradley/CV90. Hell, based on the squat I saw on LAVIIIs in Afghanistan, even they weren't up tp the task alone...

This goes back to my thought that three vehicles per section is kind of the lower reasonable limit for small(ish) vehicles. Two for moving people, one for moving stores, or three for people/stores.

I realize I'm just a weather weinie with an interest, but I can't see how we can reasonably stick an entire section, plus stores, on something smaller than an IFV/APC. To my mind, more but smaller vehicles is the better answer to the problem than a RAM 3500 that is as big and unweildly as a TLAV is.

 

[FJAG]

I would argue that as a crayon eating infantry type a vehicle that can transport 8 kitted out soldiers is required if we are talking "light" infantry.

That's about 1600 pounds right there, and that is a conservative estimate. Light Infantry ain't all that light.

Toss in some ammo and fuel cans and you're bulked out.


And you just know the sparks at Bde HQ and higher will want the section to carry extra shit "just in case".

I think that back in my UEO days we used 250lbs as the standard planning weight for a fully kitted soldier but that was in the days of 64 Pattern webbing, the 3/4 ton SMP as a section carrier and before body armour and before folks started humping 100 lb packs. Wouldn't a standard full up section be 10 inclusive of the driver? If so you could conceivably end up at 2,500 - 3,000 lbs before platoon stores and weapons are added in.

 

[KevinB]

Jeebus, KevinB, your photo’s giving me flashbacks of that big grey POS Sub we had ‘gifted to us’ by GAC until we got the Landcruisers. That f’n POS was the one that flipped the hood open on me near midnight in the middle of Green Route just by where Short and Beerenfenger were killed. Everyone was joking about shorty things happening when pilots drive, until I got out and tied the hood back down with some 550- cord I always had on me.

Which brings up a good point about TPE (Theatre Provided Equipment) and it's like -- some pretty awful stuff gets done to vehicles and usually someone ends up paying for that who wasn't the one who rode it hard and put it away wet...

I always like the 5/4. As a BK in Shilo my issued vehicle was an M152. One does a lot of hauling stuff and people as a BK so I traded it in for a spare 5/4 cargo floating around and it served me well for three years. No complaints. I went legal before the age of LSVWs dawned.

Honestly the 5/4 where pretty decent vehicles - with the dual tanks they could go for miles and miles.

I agree with @Furniture on the section/squad/team mobility requirement of 3-4 vehicles. Four - and maybe even 5, for the higher sized entities (12-16), as you want a cushion somewhere for breakdown loss on mission.

The advantage of then being able to carry additional support weapons mounted on the vehicle helps.
The smaller sized vehicles also fit (or can be lifted) easier in Helicopters or Hercs.

The major issue is ensuring it is still a Light Infantry entity and can conduct operations in areas where the vehicles aren’t practical.

Which means those additional vehicle mounted weapons won’t all be able to come.

 

[Kirkhill]

Which brings up a good point about TPE (Theatre Provided Equipment) and it's like -- some pretty awful stuff gets done to vehicles and usually someone ends up paying for that who wasn't the one who rode it hard and put it away wet...


Honestly the 5/4 where pretty decent vehicles - with the dual tanks they could go for miles and miles.

I agree with @Furniture on the section/squad/team mobility requirement of 3-4 vehicles. Four - and maybe even 5, for the higher sized entities (12-16), as you want a cushion somewhere for breakdown loss on mission.

The advantage of then being able to carry additional support weapons mounted on the vehicle helps.
The smaller sized vehicles also fit (or can be lifted) easier in Helicopters or Hercs.

The major issue is ensuring it is still a Light Infantry entity and can conduct operations in areas where the vehicles aren’t practical.

Which means those additional vehicle mounted weapons won’t all be able to come.

Which is why I am a fan of the support weapons used by the Light Infantry NOT being vehicle mounted but being vehicle portable. The difference is between a machine gun on a pintle mount that can be easily dismounted and a machine gun in a turret that can't.

It could also mean modularized weapons systems and vehicles with weapons decks into which the module could be secured, or, the module could be dismounted, or transferred to a different class of vehicle.

New MISSION MASTER UGV Modules - European Security & Defence

Rheinmetall has been working with Spanish company Escribano Mechanical & Engineering to produce new modules for the MISSION MASTER UGV.

euro-sd.com

Rheinmetall

Rheinmetall Canada is a global leader in the development of robotic applications for the private and public security sector, military and governments.

www.rheinmetall.ca

If one vehicle can be transformed in the field by swapping modules than, in my opinion, those modules can be swapped into different classes of vehicles and used securely, or equally, dispersed around a position in ground mounts.

 

[KevinB]

Which is why I am a fan of the support weapons used by the Light Infantry NOT being vehicle mounted but being vehicle portable. The difference is between a machine gun on a pintle mount that can be easily dismounted and a machine gun in a turret that can't.

Yes but...

A GMG or M2 HMG is a fantastic vehicle support weapon, and a colossal disaster as a dismounted support weapon.
Plus stabilized mounts are significantly better than standard pintle mounts - AND Vehicle Weapons can use FCS very effectively.

One needs to assess what one is willing to gain and lose in firepower vice dismounted mobility - or in manpower left with vehicles (if vehicles are left that need securing).

It could also mean modularized weapons systems and vehicles with weapons decks into which the module could be secured, or, the module could be dismounted, or transferred to a different class of vehicle.

Frankly I wouldn't trust Canada with modularity - as you know only one Battle Group of modular systems will be bought - and swapped from unit to unit - and eventually divested when over worked and broken.

New MISSION MASTER UGV Modules - European Security & Defence

Rheinmetall has been working with Spanish company Escribano Mechanical & Engineering to produce new modules for the MISSION MASTER UGV.

euro-sd.com

Rheinmetall

Rheinmetall Canada is a global leader in the development of robotic applications for the private and public security sector, military and governments.

www.rheinmetall.ca

If one vehicle can be transformed in the field by swapping modules than, in my opinion, those modules can be swapped into different classes of vehicles and used securely, or equally, dispersed around a position in ground mounts.

 

[FJAG]

I agree with @Furniture on the section/squad/team mobility requirement of 3-4 vehicles. Four - and maybe even 5, for the higher sized entities (12-16), as you want a cushion somewhere for breakdown loss on mission.

My concern would be the number of people who would be eaten up as drivers. A platoon could see a dozen or more folks per platoon being left out of the action because they have to move or otherwise monitor their vehicles in many situations. There was a lot to be said for a 2 1/2 ton which could lift the better part of a platoon and its gear in one go and only used up one driver.

The current IBCT has only two vehicles in the whole rifle company and even the battalion has no organic troop transport for them. The ISV is the solution for that. With the ISV, a company of 131 all ranks will need 12-13 vehicles at a minimum to lift the whole company. That will take 10% of the company off line. While the drivers will be available for some tasks, they won't be for all. The more vehicles each section has, the greater will be the problem.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes but...

A GMG or M2 HMG is a fantastic vehicle support weapon, and a colossal disaster as a dismounted support weapon.
Plus stabilized mounts are significantly better than standard pintle mounts - AND Vehicle Weapons can use FCS very effectively.

Yes but...

Are the GMG and M2 still a colossal disaster if they are firmly mounted to a suitable mass rather and bouncing around like demented cheerleaders on those light weight tripod thingies? I am not talking about dismounting a 30 kg gun and putting on a 20 kg tripod (no wonder it bounces...) I am talking about dismounting/transferring a 200 kg module from the back of a UGV to a ground position and digging it in securely. Or transferring the module to another vehicle for secure mounting.

And stabilized mounts are useful are they required in all vehicles? What happens if what you are looking for is simple transport that is not to be used in the assault? Or are you recommending a stabilized mount for an ISV?

Effective FCS systems are now available for shoulder launched systems



Or do you want to be able to wire them in for remote operation? See my comment about dismountable modules.

One needs to assess what one is willing to gain and lose in firepower vice dismounted mobility - or in manpower left with vehicles (if vehicles are left that need securing).

Agreed. But one also needs to fairly consider the advantages that technology can afford if things are don't differently and risks are assessed differently.

Frankly I wouldn't trust Canada with modularity - as you know only one Battle Group of modular systems will be bought - and swapped from unit to unit - and eventually divested when over worked and broken.

And there, I regret to say, you are probably right.

 

[Kirkhill]

Norwegian Hellfire mount....

 

[KevinB]

My concern would be the number of people who would be eaten up as drivers. A platoon could see a dozen or more folks per platoon being left out of the action because they have to move or otherwise monitor their vehicles in many situations. There was a lot to be said for a 2 1/2 ton which could lift the better part of a platoon and its gear in one go and only used up one driver.

The current IBCT has only two vehicles in the whole rifle company and even the battalion has no organic troop transport for them. The ISV is the solution for that. With the ISV, a company of 131 all ranks will need 12-13 vehicles at a minimum to lift the whole company. That will take 10% of the company off line. While the drivers will be available for some tasks, they won't be for all. The more vehicles each section has, the greater will be the problem.

It happens all the time with SOF teams.
If your using the vehicle on the mission and need to dismount - leave a gunner in the vehicle - who can provide support fires.
Multiple gunners can provide local security as well if they aren't needed to put down supporting fires.
If you don’t need to vehicles - then you leave them somewhere they can be secured without draining manpower.

My problem with the ISV type situation with 1 per, is you overload the ISV if the Section/Squad all are on board - and if you suffer a break down - you have lost an entire squad - as there is zero cross loading possible.

I suspect shortly Optionally manned vehicle with remote follow will allow 1-2 folks to stay with 4-5 vehicles thus you can have your cake, and eat it too...

 

[KevinB]

I should have added

Even potentially when no one needs to stay with the vehicles, and those can conduct their own local defense when necessary too.

 

[KevinB]

I was impressed looking at the Mortar carrier @Kirkhill had mentioned earlier when I saw it today. In and out of action inside 30 sec.
On 4 min they can come into action lay and fire 8 rounds and be mobile. The setup was significantly more rapid than I had expected.


Also a lot of fire support light vehicle systems. I didn’t get a lot of pictures as folks are still setting up.