SF looking for new off the road vehicles.........

[MtnGoat]

Originally Posted by plato

There's a small, but very important organization at Ft. Eustis, VA. It's called TWVRMO, and they gather requirements from "the schools",infantry needs from Benning, Engr needs from Belvoir, etc. Since the new vehicle is likely to be called a "truck", whatever it's use, the requirements will be put together by the Transportation School at Eustis, but with lots of input from Benning. I don't know just where the Special Operations needs will be sourced, but the folks at TWVRMO have a web page and a list of contacts.

The original HMMWV was a bare-bones lightweight that would take nearly a ton of user adaptations and still carry four combat-equipped soldiers. Then, the GO's got a look at the prototypes, added bells and whistles, and those who wanted invulnerability added enough armor to push it down into the mud.

In the beginning, it was more mobile than an M1. Then it turned into a lead weight about as useful as Grandma's station wagon.

I was one of the engineers on the HMMWV during the early years, and I mourn what it could have been.

I understand the whole Army procurement, but things that are USSOCOM, USASOC & USASFC procured; then make it what we are currently using and can use for 5 to 10 years. I also understand that you can't make everyone our every Group happy. From snow to sand to jungles to rocky environment will drive a lot. But a damn good base model vehicle will work for 80% , of us, the rest will make charges just as a new Tm SGT to a new ODA.

Look at the RGs, MATVs and ask the MRAPs in both countries. SF, SEALS, SOF, MOSGs etc don't really change them that much. RGs are basically the same as the first ODA to get them, same with the MATVs. But the Razor you'll find ask kinds of different things done to them. M240 on swing and to front or rat mounted M3 HMG to M224 mortars.

SF are never happy, we just Gunny Highway it anyway we can. "Improvise, adapt and overcome."

HUMMVE Needs to be updated, really just needs more power for all the armor and maybe a somewhat "V" shape bottom.

[GreenSalsa]

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

But a damn good base model vehicle will work for 80% , of us, the rest will make charges just as a new Tm SGT to a new ODA.

HUMMVE Needs to be updated, really just needs more power fir all the armor and maybe a somewhat "V" shape bottom.

BINGO we have a winner--I would argue that we don't need as much armor as they are putting on the trucks--I like armored windshields, but prefer to be without doors while on mission. If contact is made--we get OUT of the trucks, in order to close with and destroy.

In rural rugged Afghanistan I want mobility, power, and to a lesser extent speed.

I prefer a platform I can configure to the operational environment.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by GreenSalsa

If contact is made--we get OUT of the trucks, in order to close with and destroy.

Chief, I wonder if that's why so much of that Chewbaca-lookin' stuff is sold to the UN.

[MtnGoat]

Originally Posted by GreenSalsa

BINGO we have a winner--I would argue that we don't need as much armor as they are putting on the trucks--I like armored windshields, but prefer to be without doors while on mission. If contact is made--we get OUT of the trucks, in order to close with and destroy.

In rural rugged Afghanistan I want mobility, power.

I'm one for getting out and fighting, meeting your enemy. Give us all 4 doors that can come off if needed. I got the MRAPs for blast protection. We just did PMT, I had to argue that people need to get out of the trucks. Sometimes you can't hear them shooting at you due to the road surface and the armor. They need to add a gun fire detection system like the EARS but way better.