MSVS Mil-COTS Gun Tractor (Split From: MLVW restrictions)

[Dissident]

Some reading for y'all:
http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/index.html#contents

As per below:

I keep seeing people trying to eliminate risk, which I think is a flawed approach, especially when it comes to the military.

The link is to an online version of a 1994 book called Target Risk. It makes a pretty good case, IMHO, that you can try to eliminate all the hazards you want, people will still get killed/injured at the same rate.

I think we are cheating ourselves by attempting to eliminate all the hazards which surround our troops in training. We would be better served teaching our troops about the hazards and risk management strategies.

Take the humoungus MSVS that you put a civic driving kid into. He will be very cautious and will actually do things like get out of the truck and do a walk around because he will be worried about damaging it since s/he will be unfamiliar with the size. A more experienced operator might very well forgo a ground guide to back the truck up because of his confidence.

 

[Thompson_JM]

TL;DR


I'll take a gander at it when I have a bit more time, but for now what I was able to make of the opening of the paper is a lot of theory....

Any chance you could sum up the MTP's of the link for us?

 

[AC 011]

Well to me having the chains on the intermediate axle is best.  It's closest to the C of G and therefore should give better traction aid.  Putting the chains on the rear wheels while having a trailer attached shouldn't do to much extra for you, C of G wont be shifted that far back anyways, and it should move it closer to your intermediate axle anyways.

Hey Moose.  It’s been a while.  I’m hoping to get back up your way sometime soon.  If I can swing it, I’ll drop in to the Bty.

Regarding tire chain placement…

If the axles were individually mounted to the frame the CG of the vehicle would have an impact.  With the typical truck tandem axle configuration, the ground reaction forces are the same on each axle of the pair.

Installing on the first or second axle of a tandem set makes little difference – most of the time.  If you want extra traction for climbing steep hills – put the chains on the second axle.  For extra traction on steep descents, put the chains on the first.  Just don’t put them on both axles in a tandem set (or any pair of axles set close together) at the same time.  Bad things can happen, though I’ve never seen it, if you’re going too fast and the chains are loose. 

Tire chains on LAV's are a little different - You can't (at least you shouldn't) put chains on the #1 axle due to the steering geometry and clearance between the tires and the wheel housings at left and right lock.  That leaves axles #2 & #4 (no surprise, per the pam).

Cheers
Andy

 

[Thompson_JM]

Some reading for y'all:
http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/index.html#contents

As per below:

I keep seeing people trying to eliminate risk, which I think is a flawed approach, especially when it comes to the military.

The link is to an online version of a 1994 book called Target Risk. It makes a pretty good case, IMHO, that you can try to eliminate all the hazards you want, people will still get killed/injured at the same rate.

I think we are cheating ourselves by attempting to eliminate all the hazards which surround our troops in training. We would be better served teaching our troops about the hazards and risk management strategies.

Take the humongous MSVS that you put a civic driving kid into. He will be very cautious and will actually do things like get out of the truck and do a walk around because he will be worried about damaging it since s/he will be unfamiliar with the size. A more experienced operator might very well forgo a ground guide to back the truck up because of his confidence.

That may be well and true, except that Policy dictates that we employ ground guides or do a walk-around Every time we reverse... and Speaking as an MSE-Op, I will still get out and do a walk around or use ground guides when backing up even after 10 years of driving them simply because once you become overconfident you get cocky, and exactly like you said, someone will back into something....

It's not Risk aversion per say.... It's getting everyone to focus on Safety and actually FOLLOW the rules we already have in place instead of Ignoring them for the sake of looking hardcore or getting the "Mission" done faster.

 

[Kirkhill]

Dissident (appropriate if you read the attached article) may indeed have a point here:

European Cities Do Away with Traffic Signs
By Matthias Schulz

Are streets without traffic signs conceivable? Seven cities and regions in Europe are giving it a try -- with good results.

.......
European traffic planners are dreaming of streets free of rules and directives. They want drivers and pedestrians to interact in a free and humane way, as brethren -- by means of friendly gestures, nods of the head and eye contact, without the harassment of prohibitions, restrictions and warning signs.

A project implemented by the European Union is currently seeing seven cities and regions clear-cutting their forest of traffic signs. Ejby, in Denmark, is participating in the experiment, as are Ipswich in England and the Belgian town of Ostende.

The utopia has already become a reality in Makkinga, in the Dutch province of Western Frisia. A sign by the entrance to the small town (population 1,000) reads "Verkeersbordvrij" -- "free of traffic signs." Cars bumble unhurriedly over precision-trimmed granite cobblestones. Stop signs and direction signs are nowhere to be seen. There are neither parking meters nor stopping restrictions. There aren't even any lines painted on the streets.
.....

Rule books may take the onus off the driver as they permit the driver to believe that s/he operates in a rational universe of rules with the working assumptions that:

a) everybody else follows the rules
b) if I follow the rules nothing can go wrong.

Conversely, if you assume chaos you are never disappointed.

As to the experiment in Europe I believe that both Thomas Reid and Benjamin Franklin would approve.


As an aside, when did you see anybody actually read an operations manual for anything other than a course?  Most folks start pressing buttons first then reqacch for the manual only when they get in trouble.

 

[Thompson_JM]

Dissident (appropriate if you read the attached article) may indeed have a point here:

Rule books may take the onus off the driver as they permit the driver to believe that s/he operates in a rational universe of rules with the working assumptions that:

a) everybody else follows the rules
b) if I follow the rules nothing can go wrong.

Conversely, if you assume chaos you are never disappointed.

As to the experiment in Europe I believe that both Thomas Reid and Benjamin Franklin would approve.


As an aside, when did you see anybody actually read an operations manual for anything other than a course?  Most folks start pressing buttons first then reach for the manual only when they get in trouble.

Pie in the Sky..... Our Country is nothing like Holland... our roads are nothing like theirs.... The article if you are trying to apply it to our road system is like comparing Apples to Cheeseburgers........

Secondly as to the manuals, I do. my co-workers do... Many of the full and part timers who take their job seriously, do in fact do their homework as it were.... since it looks pretty dumb for me as a 2i/c to answer "ah jeeze... I dunno.... " and walk away from a legitimate question.

You will also have to change the current societies mindset back into a common sense/ common courtesy attitude....  On the roads in Ontario people are like Lord of the #@ing Flies out there...

You start ripping down signs in Toronto and you could start filming the next Road Warrior movie in the ensuing chaos....

 

[Dissident]

See, I don't think so. Take the time to read the book from the link I posted.

On a separate note, I know must of us are good at following the procedures and rules we have learnt, which is a reflection of the discipline the military teaches us. I tend to be a stickler for everyone doing DI's in the morning and I always do halt parades (although I must admit I leave it to the drivers to determine when they to do it.) However, I have also been under the gun and had to skip driver inspections because of imposed constraint. I took a risk (and would have assumed responsibility if something would have went sideways.)

While I do not want to question anyone’s professionalism, we are in the army and not everything always goes according to plan (or regulations). Have you never had a CO breathing down your neck or a WO telling you to just go? Sure nowadays I’d tell them to shove it, but I was not always an irreverent asshole. It is possible that you have never skipped any safety checks and have always followed all the safety rules or the proper procedures, but the odds are small.

 

[Thompson_JM]

See, I don't think so. Take the time to read the book from the link I posted.

On a separate note, I know must of us are good at following the procedures and rules we have learnt, which is a reflection of the discipline the military teaches us. I tend to be a stickler for everyone doing DI's in the morning and I always do halt parades (although I must admit I leave it to the drivers to determine when they to do it.) However, I have also been under the gun and had to skip driver inspections because of imposed constraint. I took a risk (and would have assumed responsibility if something would have went sideways.)

While I do not want to question anyone’s professionalism, we are in the army and not everything always goes according to plan (or regulations). Have you never had a CO breathing down your neck or a WO telling you to just go? Sure nowadays I’d tell them to shove it, but I was not always an irreverent *******. It is possible that you have never skipped any safety checks and have always followed all the safety rules or the proper procedures, but the odds are small.

I'll never say never, sometimes you do need to just get in and go. But certainly it is done when possible.... hell even overseas we would check the vehicles regularly.

I'm saying that the key is to be safe, and follow the rules where possible. I have also taken the chances here and there and was willing to wear it if something went south...

I read some of what you posted... maybe I need to read it at a time when I'm not trying to study for something else.... lol... but what I did read didnt seem to make sense to me...  talking about how traffic lights do not reduce collisions? I fail to understand that logic... Nothing will eliminate risk, when you factor in human nature and human error, but certainly putting measures in place to assist just make sense...

either that or this is talking about something way more theoretical then I am picking up.... Personally I dont like dealing in theoretical stuff... I'd rather focus on what is here and what we can do with it...

This is also going well off the rails from the original topic.... The point of putting the crew into the cab was to avoid having troops injured or killed. It may not prevent it... But by putting them in a safer place it mitigates the risk. 

Someone had a saying on there profile here "Just because we've always done it this way, does not mean it isn't incredibly stupid...." Looking at the way the MSVS-M is carrying troops on the Gun tractor and Engineer variants, is to me, a step in the right direction, and away from that saying....

 

[Dissident]

That is exactly it though, the argument I derive from the book is that the concept of mitigating risk is inherently flawed. We (humans) are the flaw in that concept. The safer we make things (there are more example in the book which anecdotally corroborate this, beyond the street light example) the greater the risk people will take.

On a pure comfort basis, I completely support moving people into the cab. Awesome.

From a safety perspective it might very well be a zero sum gain: (Not being troop lift qualified, I can only speculate) having troops in the back you are responsible for (friends or just co worker) would make me VERY cautious when driving around. Removing this know hazard would (will) likely raise the level of risk I am willing to take.

Let me be facetious for a second. Imagine every car came equipped with a 10 inches long sharp spike sticking out of the steering wheel. How cautious/safe would you drive? I would bet that if it were so, the number of accidents would dramatically decrease. The injuries incurred in those accidents would be horrific, but it is exactly that known hazard which would motivate peoples actions.

So engineering things to be safer makes us feel good, but the results are, IMHO, counter intuitive. According to the book traveling by car is just as deadly now (per capita, not per km traveled) as it was before all the safety devices and standards took effect, such as seat belts, air bags, crumple zones...

ETA: What were the restriction imposed on vehicles doing troop lifts? 30kph max? on DND land only? These restrictions will most likely be lifted for the MSVS, they make no sense anymore. How will this effect the accident/injury rate? Just spit balling here...

 

[Thompson_JM]

Those may have been restrictions placed on the MLVW, but under the Canadian Forces Transportation Manual ALM-158-5 There are still stringent rules and regulations on Troop lift in general.

The biggest ones are that they cannot go on roads over 70 or 80 km/h and the Drivers must be qualified Troop lift, which at one point was IIRC (as I am at home and cannot access the manual here) 1000km and x amount of time on the vehicle, along with formal DND Driver training. From the understanding I have from higher, Troop lift restrictions are actually going to be tighter now then they were before as there were too many people who simply should not have been driving troops, and with the increased size of the vehicle, Higher determined that Not just anyone should be carrying a Platoon of Troops in the back...

The problem was a combination of people being at risk in the back combined with the "Just throw em in the truck and get going" attitude. A newly qualified driver, who had an Oops.....
The other problem is (as stated above) when you pull an 18 year old kid out of his Civic and throw him behind the wheel of something like an MLVW or MSVS-M without adequate trg...

Right now the driver training for the new MSVS-M is utter shite... like I said, its only a matter of when.. not if there is a collision involving serious bodily harm or death.

Our driver examiners are in some cases simply refusing to test soldiers they do not feel are qualified or have a good enough grasp of the vehicle.

We have told the Battle School our concerns but at this point I feel that they are more concerned with putting as many troops through the training so it looks good on paper, rather then add an extra two or three weekends onto the course. Not to mention they are putting more troops onto the courses then they should, and as such each student is not getting enough time behind the wheel. This is not as bad an issue for units like the Svc Bn's or Arty who are Mech units and will give their members ample time at the home unit to continue to hone their skills. But in the infantry units where a member may go 6 months from end course until the next time they touch the vehicle this is a serious concern. The MSVS-M is not a small truck. In order to drive it properly, and keep up on current skills the members need to drive it at least somewhat regularly...

A different example, The infantry always wonder why guys in the Service Bn's are usually a bit weaker in their small arms skillsets. Especially things like C6, Carl G and M72.... well... we only see them once a year, so we tend to forget it..... The same can be said about the Trucks.... Use it or loose it (the skill)

Back to the Troops in the Cab issue for a moment though, with the Gunner Keys-Olliver incident, had that same even occurred where the troops were in the Cab, and restrained, there very well likely would not have been a death.... I am not a collision investigator so I cannot speak for certain, but I do believe the driver of the MLVW walked away from the crash with minor injuries.

Also, for the record I have been troop lift qualified for 9-10 years now as well. (including HLVW)

Certainly there are some cases, heck, many cases where we as a society do tend to over protect.  I personally feel road safety is one that we do not yet do a good enough job.

Where do we draw the line though? do we take away speed limits? Traffic lights? Stop signs?

Part of the reason people obey rules is also due to the punitive damage and penalties they would receive via the law were they to break them. How could one enforce a law if a rule doesn't exist?

Can a Police officer charge a driver for killing a child playing in a residential area when the driver was "Speeding" if no speed limit exists? What about reckless or dangerous driving? well if no speed limit exists, and there is nothing telling the driver to go slow, then How could the Crown prove the driver was really being dangerous? Common sense doesn't hold up in court. Especially when the proof is on the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was in the wrong.

I am willing to bet on the topic of road safety that the points that were brought up in the book can be refuted just as easily. 

It's all still pie in the sky though.... I mean really..... if we get rid of the signs, how are sign makers supposed to make any money?  ;D

 

[Petard]

This thread is starting meander quite a bit, maybe to get it focused again on topic...
FWIW, the MSVS gun tractor presently does not have any seating for the cargo or box area, only the cab.
While even this variant could be converted with fold up bench seats, it wouldn't be easy (there will be storage lockers, ammo bins and possibly the load handling system to remove in order to do it)
Any thoughts if the gun tractor variant should have bench seats in the back as part of the normal gun tractor configuration?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Speaking as someone who did Artillery Phase Training before even the MLVW Artillery SEV kits existed, I would have to say that it is time to find a better way to carry a Detachment, then "in the rear, with the gear".  I can remember bouncing across gun positions, laying across 50 tubes of ammo and catching rounds before they bounced out of the truck- it is a wonder that we did not kill anyone.  Obviously, the situation improved with the SEV kit, but not much.

I think the detachment needs to ride separated from the ammo.  some degree of armour protection for the crew should be considered.  Comfortable and ergonomic seats that are compatible with body armour and other kit would be a bonus for how rested and efficient a gun det could be.

 

[Thompson_JM]

This thread is starting meander quite a bit, maybe to get it focused again on topic...
FWIW, the MSVS gun tractor presently does not have any seating for the cargo or box area, only the cab.
While even this variant could be converted with fold up bench seats, it wouldn't be easy (there will be storage lockers, ammo bins and possibly the load handling system to remove in order to do it)
Any thoughts if the gun tractor variant should have bench seats in the back as part of the normal gun tractor configuration?

I personally do not see a need to put benches in the back. With all the other equipment in there it seems like overkill. Not to mention that the units will still have TCV versions for actually doing troop lift.

 

[Kreslin01]

Oki, this post actually made me create an account.


Update from Gagetown is this (from what i've heard, this also changes daily)
1. C2's are done, there are no parts there are no recoils, and after the catastrophic failure of a C3 cradle in the field C3's should be short to follow. (Dont have a Clue what the PRes will use)
As for having this guns for salutes, i dont see why they cant stay as there is no need for a recoil on Blank rounds and there for should be a non-issue, but im not a wpns tech, nor have the athority in Ottawa to have that say-so.

2. LG1s are being used for training now and M-777's are going to the reg force units with the LG1's eventually all comming to Gagetown

3. MSVS will become the new gun tractor. But here are some of the key diffrences between the Gun Tractor and Standard MSVS
the New Gun Tractor will be
      -9 people in the Cab
      -Raised 6 inches
      -No seats in the Back (Cargo Compartment)
      (All i  know for diffrences so far)

Now as a Detachment Commander heres my Beef with the New MSVS
1. In order to access the cargo area you need to attach a ladder, in order to do that you need to un-hook the gun.
2. Underneath of the truck all the electronic cabling and Air hoses are exposed, and there for you cannot get into half the AMA's on most Bases in order to deploy the guns.
3. The regular MSVS is rediculiously high inorder to get in and out of the truck, 6 Inches higher is worse, especially when you have to bring equipment out of the back of the truck and down a ladder.
4. They Fact they have a winch is great, but the fact that all the cabling is exposed means that when you getinto a situatuon in which you need to use it your probably going to have to call recovery because you ripped some cables.
5. EVERYTHING is eletronic and not easily fixed by the user
6. You cannot see the gun when towing it. (M-777 should be fine though)
7. This replaces the ML but there is no possible way that it could ever be deployed in theater, up armoured. (Not that the ML was ever a first choice in theater, I realize this but you totally lose the option) The Air Brakes are Civy Air Brakes and does not have the standard Military Overide
8. The Cab for all the gunners looks REALLY REALLY tight, and in those pictures they dont have any kit.
9. Having the Det commander and the Crew together is not always a good thing, as between moves this is when the Det Comd and the 2 I/C usually discuss the troops and can relax a bit with eachother while not infront of the troops.
10. The Warrenty stipulates that if we modify these trucks in anyway we Void the Warrenty. We cannot change a burnt out light, they have to go back to the dealership. Which is great news for the Driver as it is less maintance for him, but i means that if my truck needs a headlight replaced it goes to the Mechanics, sits three for 2-3 weeks, then the dealership for 2-3 week then back to maintance for 2-3 weeks then i finally get the truck. Im not sure what the supply will be like with the MSVS's, but i know that with the ML's sending them off to the Mechanics was a night mare and if you lost 2+ trucks in the Battery to the Mechanics it was a scramble to be able to deploy proplerly.
11. The turning radius is HUGE and therefore will have to change the way recces are conducted to account for this.


HOWEVER there are a few good points;
1. Comforts are nice
2. Heat is nice in order to dry out kit
3. Drives nice on the Highway
4. At least theres something to replace the aging ML

A few things that could be looked at later (In my Opinion);
1. Door connecting the Back to the Cab. (So you dont have to deploy the ladder to get a guy in the back to throw kit off the back)
2. Put benches and Cabinets in the Back (Like the ML Gun Tractor) If you dont use it, at least it gives you options. (I personally would have 2 members in the back still in order to unloard kit off the back during a deployment.)
3. Protect the cabling for GODS sakes
Take out the nice comfy Air Ride seats for more practical bench seats with cargo capability (But not for the driver)
4. Have the Ladder able to attach to the truck with the tailgate up and on the side both tailgates so you can get in and out of the truck with the gun hooked on. (As it is with the gun on a standard MSVS, its not a "quick" or overly safe proceedure.
5. Move the glad hands on the bottem of the truck so there better protected from gunners stepping on them in order to get into the back
6. Air bake override like the HLVW

There's probably more, but this is what i have off the top of my head. Now im not an athority on this subject and my opinions are only based off a user end, detachment commanders opinion. I am MSVS qualified, but my opinion MAY change after deploying it a few times, we shall see.

 

[Petard]

Good honest post Kreslin, keep 'em coming

I've seen the prototype at 30th Fd, and have spoken a great deal with some of the project staff; here's a few points to consider.

The MSVS MilCOT gun tractor is designed to pull the 105mm fleet only, not the M777. Its not intended to be deployed overseas, and there is no plan I've heard of to support this idea. An SMP variant is being designed for that purpose (pull M777, deployable with add on armour, etc)
That having been said who knows what whole fleet management might do.
In any case the support for this type of system more than likely will result in some of the drawbacks you mentioned, but I'm not so sure about those kind of wait times you're describing

7 people are supposed to ride in the cab, not 9. Despite what some might think, the gun det for a 105 is still only 7, not 10.

A bench seat for 2 people is now being considered for the back, either as work area, or as you suggested so someone can ride in the back and be prepared to unload stores immediately on coming into action. There is no way to modify the cab to allow quick access to the back, although it is certainly a good idea.

There will be lockers for storing kit instead of a soup pile in the middle of the floor

There will be ammo racks and crane to lower them; unavoidable given the height of the vehicle. The ammo racks will allow individual rounds to be handed down/stored

The ladder can be attached to either side of tailgate as well as center, it is cumbersome, but for a lot of complicated reasons modifying the tailgate for even a simple ladder (like the HLVW) is not possible. You do not need to unhook the gun to attach the ladder to either side of tailgate when its in the horizontal position.

A rear view low light camera system was considered for the poor rearward visibility problem you've mentioned, unfortunately someone gave some bad advice and this option was eliminated. It might still be added later

The turn radius for the truck is actually not much further than the MLVW's, I kid you not, I had to eat crow when I challenged somebody on this (its only ~3' more)

 

[Kreslin01]

Well, unfortunatly were having some serious problems with the 105 fleet right now... and if i can figure out how to post pictures ill show you the C3 cradle as it snapped in half.



I do understand that its not a combat vechile, but really neither is the LSVW but it could still be employed in a pinch. Whether or not its designed to go into combat or not, its going to be employed in the combat arms, and therefore should have SOME sort of capability to gointo combat. I also belive that if it was designed as a combat vechile some other issuses would have been looked at more closely such as the exposed cabling, and massive amount of electronics. The lack of combat funtionality makes it a great civilian truck painted green, but, IMO not so good for the field artillery. The way civilian vehciles go and having driven both the MSVS and the Sterling, and using the Sterling in the field. I like the sterling better, more power. As big as the MSVS is it seems lacking big time in power. Theres a few mods needed to make it a actual viable option but it works in a pinch.

Ah, seen, sorry i was told it was 6 gunners in the rear and the standard 3 seats in the front. But i haven't actually played with the Gun tractor varient, only the standard MSVS.

The crane could be a issue with loading as then you have to remover the cargo tarp and frame in orderto load into the back. With the ammo racks, perhaps something more like the loading platform for the ADATS? something similer could be use like a step for half way up the truck. The sides of the cargo area look to come down easy enough, just like the HL, you could store ammo there and just lower the platform. Prehaps they could have looked at ammo bustles again like on the ML as those actually worked rather well. Perhaps reinforce them a bit more. Though im not sure what the chain senario will be with the MSVS, but loose chains is what wrecked the ML bustles. Rienforce the bottems and you should be good to go. That would help emliminate some of the ammo hight problem.

Still dont like the ladder system, negates the whole "With a minimum of delay" but i think i have a system with the standard MSVS troop lift were using right now, lower the tail gate to horizontal and then troops can jump off onto the gun then the ground in a manner that for me is "Safe Enough" for now.

Really i dont see a need for the MSVS to pull the M-777 anyway, the HL does a fine job as it is as a prime mover and an ammo limber.

We could propbably do withou the Camera though, CF policy still stands you need a ground guide anyway, granted most ground guides dont have a clue what thier doing, as its usually just Gnr Bloggins standing there, however i have a feeling the cameras would get broke a fair bit. THe problem isnt backing the gun up, which i guess could be a problem, but more so its when your driving down ther road, i like to know the gun is still there and usually you can still see the shield flaps on the C2/3 everynow and then when your bouncing along. and with the troops in the cab with you you wont have a clue if something either falls out the back (Which is known to happen) or if you in a most embarassing way forget to close the pintle hook and the gun bounces off the truck. In the long run though i think this is something we will just get use to over time and adapt to.

The one thing i ddint mention that is a BIG plus is the lower cargo stoage bins. This should actually facilitate alot of the tores that would usually go in the back of the truck, i was actually a little worried aboiut the gun box comming down from that hieght. Matter of time before some one got dinged with it. However all of it can fit into on of those storage boxes, stove and lantern etc. BIG fan about those.

The last issue were running into is compatability. Alot of the things we use the ML for other than driving IE the Muzzle Velocity Indicator cannot yet be plugged into the MSVS. were trying to figure out a way to get adapters or anything, currently the Master Gunner is working on this (From what im told) however perhaps instead of more time and money invested in this they could have put into the package the basic standard ML Slave/power outlet, and therefore we would be able to continue using most of our equipment seamlessly and without the need to spend more time and money.

I Hate being pessimistic about everything and in the end, the truck will come into service. We will do as we always do Adapt, overcome and blow the TSM's PP+S budget in Gun tape doing it. But like i said IMO its a civilian truck painted green. TIme will tell with field trials and no one can test equipment in the field like Gagetown can.

Now heres the big thing! i wonder if we can rig up the back for the famous Gagetown bunk beds.........

 

[Kreslin01]

There made the Pictures work

 

[Dissident]

[quote author=Kreslin01]
There made the Pictures work
[/quote]

 

[Petard]

Kreslin, is the spell check not working for you?
Anyway...

The crane could be a issue with loading as then you have to remover the cargo tarp and frame in order to load into the back. ... Perhaps they could have looked at ammo bustles again like on the ML as those actually worked rather well. Perhaps reinforce them a bit more. Though I'm not sure what the chain scenario will be with the MSVS, but loose chains is what wrecked the ML bustles. Reinforce the bottoms and you should be good to go. That would help eliminate some of the ammo height problem.

The tarp does not need to be removed to operate crane, ammo is in racks of 5 rds. Under the vehicle ammo bustles are a non starter, and it was also the change in ammo containers that made the ML version useless

We could probably do without the Camera though,...i have a feeling the cameras would get broke a fair bit. The problem isn't backing the gun up, which i guess could be a problem, but more so its when your driving down the road, ...with the troops in the cab with you you wont have a clue if something either falls out the back (Which is known to happen) or if you in a most embarrassing way forget to close the pintle hook and the gun bounces off the truck....

The camera is also to see if the next vehicle in your convoy is still there, besides seeing what the gun is doing, like maybe swaying. Swaying was a factor in the deadly accident 30th Fd had a few years ago in Petawawa. The C3 takes a real beating when going cross country, and its not meant to, actually seeing that might cause someone to slow down, like they should. Too early to say but it may have been a factor in why that C3 snapped in two.

The one thing i didn't mention that is a BIG plus is the lower cargo storage bins. This should actually facilitate a lot of the stores that would usually go in the back of the truck, i was actually a little worried about the gun box coming down from that height. Matter of time before some one got dinged with it. However all of it can fit into on of those storage boxes, stove and lantern etc. BIG fan about those.

The main gun box, right now, has a tie down area between the ammo racks, but certainly putting it in one of the large cargo bin, say the one behind the drivers door, wouldn't be such a bad idea, if there's room

The last issue were running into is compatibility. A lot of the things we use the ML for other than driving IE the Muzzle Velocity Indicator cannot yet be plugged into the MSVS. were trying to figure out a way to get adapters or anything, currently the Master Gunner is working on this (From what I'm told) however perhaps instead of more time and money invested in this they could have put into the package the basic standard ML Slave/power outlet, and therefore we would be able to continue using most of our equipment seamlessly and without the need to spend more time and money.

Glad to hear the School has the master gunner working on that. The MVI is supposed to have battery clips anyway if the vehicle does not have a NATO standard one pin plug. At anyrate I know the MSVS project staff does have the specs now for the MVI, and the Weibel radar that will soon be replacing it

Now the bunks beds, where do they fit in the combat functions you mentioned? ;D

 

[Kreslin01]

Yeah, spell check..... still figuring all the fancy buttons and where they are... I see I missed the big one labled spell check....

I may have to see how this ammo rack thing works because if there in 5rds a rack then they have to be un-crated, if they have to be un-crated might as well hand bomb, or just pull the HL beside and pass over. The Ammo bustles could also just be made bigger to compensate for the plastic tubes. Like I said though this could be a really good idea or it may just not be used.

Good call with the camera, never really thought about that. But it would still have to be massively ruggedized.

The MVI does have Battery's however, we haven't actually found any batteries, the QM says we don't have them here in the school. As for the clips to hook it up to the Truck Batteries, i remember using them, but i cant remember seeing them for the past few years since we got the new MVI kits with the laser thermometer, and new cases.

Now the Bunk bed are a very vital part of combat functionality!