• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New "HLVW" type Mercedes Truck in Gagetown?

recoverygod said:
I'm not sure anyone was around for the old CUCVs.  They were also a MILCOT type vehicle.  and was told to be for the Res only.  but when the Reg units were deployed, they only wanted to take the CUCv over the iltis, do to the fact that they were diesel. and more solid then the Iltis.  Now as for the Gwagon and MILCOT.  If I was dropping a large bag of cash for vehicles,  I would want them to be used as needed.  hence why both are dispersed over the whole army.  A great use of funds. I think anyways. 
and before the CUCV was the Five quad, and the two generations of dodge power wagons that replaced the three quads..... ayup - I missed the horse & buggy period though :)
 
Bomber said:
HLVW are being mid life upgraded instead of replaced right away. 

Such a big truck to replace the 2.5 ton is to handle the armies bigger kit.  M777 with Ammo,... even 105's with det and ammo...  the MSVS from Oshkosh is a big truck, ...  It is an awesome truck.

What are you basing your conclusion on?
I'm interested in your opinion because I am the trial officer for a potential gun tractor (and limber) replacement, what you've hit on is only a fragment of what has to be measured, but I am just wondering aloud, what makes you think it is an "awesome truck"?
 
I don't want to divert this discussion but your "limber" reference intrigued me.  Are limbers still in use or is it a case of an old idea being new again?  The last gun that I was aware of with a limber was the old 25 pdr.
 
I remember the old L5 pack howitzer that 5 RALC used to carry in the box of the 2 1/2

Having seen 10 ton PLS in use within the CF and commercial variants in all sizes, I always wondered why "the guns" never opted to have a tilt bed ammo and stores unit for a 2 1/2, 3 or 5 ton gun tractor. 
 
geo said:
Having seen 10 ton PLS in use within the CF and commercial variants in all sizes, I always wondered why "the guns" never opted to have a tilt bed ammo and stores unit for a 2 1/2, 3 or 5 ton gun tractor. 

Oddly enough Geo, that's exactly what we trialed last Sept., an HLVW PLS carrying 3 small sea containers modified to be used as a SEV for a gun tractor.

BTW I use the term "limber" very loosely, it could mean another vehicle carrying primarily ammo, or in the traditional sense, i.e. a kind of small trailer hauling an extra load.

But the whole SOR for the gun tractor is a complicated issue, and remains to be resolved, this is happening soon.
 
Heh....
Yeah - you shoulda seen how complicated it waas with the L5 in the back of the 2 1/2.
They had this big "A" frame on the front bumper, feeding a winch cable thru the cab thru the box to the gun's towing ring.  There were rails / tracks that they would store on the vehicles side.  Going into action, they would have to lay down the ramps and run down the gun to bring it into action ...... almost like a "keystone cop" commic strip... BUT things got real interesting if the tow ring got caught on the tailgate/ truck bed as it was winched back inside.  the operator was in front of the vehicle and unable to see what was going on out back.... saw one instance where cable was pulled tighter and tighter till it snapped, broke all the bows and carved a neat grove in the cab roof & hood - also scaring the bejesus out of the winch operator.

Ah yes - there's no life like it.
 
Have they given any thougth to using an LAV III as a tow vehicle for M777.
 
ringo said:
Have they given any thougth to using an LAV III as a tow vehicle for M777.

Although the Grizzley was used to tow the C1/2/3, it had two rear doors, not a ramp.  The Ramp on the LAV III would negate towing any arty piece.  Add on the spare tire and there is no way that the crew could mount or exit the LAV.
 
WRT using the LAV or any other kind of MOWAG based vehicle would be the problem with ammunition and stores.  the Inside box of this class of vehicle is just too darned tight to fit staff & stores at any one time - which means that a "gun" would require LAV AND TRUCK.
 
geo said:
- I missed the horse & buggy period though :)


Does your 404's have horse and buggy on them? I'm just kidding my Chimo friend.

Cheers,
TN2IC
 
No horse and buggy.... though there were a couple of "dogs"..............
 
geo said:
WRT using the LAV or any other kind of MOWAG based vehicle would be the problem with ammunition and stores.  the Inside box of this class of vehicle is just too darned tight to fit staff & stores at any one time - which means that a "gun" would require LAV AND TRUCK.

Which is the Status Quot with the M777 at the moment, ie a LAV II (Bison) and an up-armoured HLVW.
2 vehicles has been the norm for Artillery units deployed on Ops (the exception being in Kabul) for about 10 years now, yet our doctrine hasn't actually supported this, it has only 1 vehicle doing the job, and so the second vehicle has had to be "borrowed" from other units. This doctrine is in the middle of being changed right now.

But this will lead to a problem of what to give the low readiness (and Reserve) units if a 2 vehicle combination like that is what is acceptable (needed), and right now all they have is one vehicle; the problem being can we afford that and, if not, is there a compromise if force generation is to equal force employment. It's not likely this new truck, by itself, will be meet the requirement of FG=FE.

There's a lot more to all this, but in the Arty world that's the crux of it, and we'll have to wait and see what the new year brings.
 
Cripes, Master Gunner, we've gone back a hundred years. At the end of the nineteenth century a gun detachment - called a sub-section at the time - consisted of a gun and limber towed by a six horse team and a wagon and limber towed by another six horse team. The wagon et al waited a distance behind the guns to come forward to resupply ammunition, hence the term 'wagon lines' instead of A1 echelon that used to be used in the artillery.
 
lol
it's not that bad sir ;)

That's just the issue with the towed gun part of our capability, a right now problem that deals with what I thought the topic was about, namely new trucks we've seen around.
There are other future capabilities being kicked around, but the Army hasn't quite made up its mind yet with what they should be (HIMARS, unmanned munitions, NLOS-C et al), I just didn't want to hijack the thread too much with Arty stuff. But I guess I just did. ;D
 
Back
Top