Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/20/2005 6:17:17 PM EDT
Wern't they designed as ultralight scout vehilces and REMF-movers, command and control movers, ambulettes, etc...? Why uparmor them for MOUT use and not go with some thing like the Casspir?
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:18:20 PM EDT
ummm...logistics? There are many different humvee models out there...
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:19:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 6:21:54 PM EDT by Gunbert]
Must.... Google.... the Casspir.... sooo... hard........


Edited to add; I didn't know what the heck a Casspir was, but now that I have a pic it looks badass!

Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:19:43 PM EDT
the Hummer kicks ass and takes names by nature.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:23:50 PM EDT
www.sfu.ca/casr/mp1-casspir.htm









www.n4trucks.com/Products%20pages/Images/Casspir.jpg

Casspir

The CASSPIR Family of vehicles concepts offers the following additional advantages:

* Multi role application
* A high degree of commonality and inter-exchangeability of components
* The same level of mine and ballistic protection for each variant
* Common driver and technical training
* Field repairability




Technical Data:


Engine
Type : ADE 352 T Turbo-charged
Number of cylinders : 6 cylinders-in-line
Maximum Power : 124kW at 2 800rpm
Coolant : Water
Fuel : Diesel

Tyres : 14.00 X 20 - 18 ply Multi Purpose

Crew : 14 (Driver plus 13 passengers)

Performance
Maximum speed : 98km/h
Gradient ability : 60%
Turning circle : 17m

Dimensions and Mass
Wheelbase : 4 200mm
Length : 6 900mm
Height : 2 850mm
Width : 2 450mm
Vehicle mass (tare) : 9 480kg
Vehicle mass (gross) : 10 800kg
Payload : 1 400kg

Availible as :

* Personnel carrier
* Base vehicle for mine-detecting and mine-cleaning operations
* Ambulance
* Utility freight carrier
* Tanker
* Recovery vehicle

More Advantages :

* Proven in-service reliability
* Proven high-effective landmine protection - protecting occupants and main components against the effects of landmine blasts up to 12kg under any wheel or 14kg under the hull.
* Add-on protection available against the effects of self-forming fragment mines (TMRP-6)
* Mine detecting and mine-clearing ability through it's compatibility with a number of effective detection and clearing systems
* Ballistic protection against a variety of small arms fire and shrapnel.
* Ease and economy of maintenance through the use of proven, easy-to-maintain and commercially available components
* Long in-service life through protection of main aggregates, re-cyclability of the hull and use of readily available components

Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:24:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gunbert:
Must.... Google.... the Casspir.... sooo... hard........


Edited to add; I didn't know what the heck a Casspir was, but now that I have a pic it looks badass!

www.n4trucks.com/Gallery/Images/Casspir%20640_424.jpg



W00T!!! Never saw that before. I'll take two!!
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:29:03 PM EDT
I can only assume the deep V shaped hull is meant to deflect mines and roadside IED's? I love the low mounted sidguns.... all it needs is a flame thrower and she'd be perfect.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:31:19 PM EDT
I'm not suggesting a replacement. unarmored HMMVW should NEVER have been in any IED rich environment.

ISrael had a similar concept, butmuch different vehicle called the 'ram' not like the animal, it means 'noise' e.g. strength:
much smaller scout vehicle with incredible mine protection


The RBY Mk 1 is a 4x4 light reconnaissance vehicle. It was developed in 1975 by RAMTA, a subsidiary of IAI. It is airmobile while maximizing anti-mine protection. The vehicle can be armed with four pintle mounted MAG machine guns.

ram 2000:

light ram:



light open top


version where hatches can makea compelte open top or complete armored top


i dunno if its just me but from some angles it looks like the same guy designed both ram and casspir. wouldn't be surprised either



Link Posted: 9/20/2005 6:33:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gunbert:
I can only assume the deep V shaped hull is meant to deflect mines and roadside IED's? I love the low mounted sidguns.... all it needs is a flame thrower and she'd be perfect.



It's literally the ultimate apartheid machine. Meant to control LARGE crowds. extra tires would be on sides in case of puncture and also to add extra armor, even though tires had central inflation, v-hull and height and suspension gave ultimate mine protection as well as good cross coutnry performance as weel as great 'lets get the hell out of this riot' potential. holds lotsa people. can't break em.

problem is south africans hate them for obvious reasons. they're seling them real cheap. we should have an arfkom survival forum group buy. . India bought a couple dozen I know. Perfect platform for muslim/hindu riots and kashmir region patrols.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:06:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
www.sfu.ca/casr/mp1-casspir.htm

www.sfu.ca/casr/casspir-7.jpg

www.sfu.ca/casr/casspir-3.jpg

www.geocities.com/odjobman/casspir.jpg

www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Images/0054.jpg

www.n4trucks.com/Products%20pages/Images/Casspir.jpg

Casspir

The CASSPIR Family of vehicles concepts offers the following additional advantages:

* Multi role application
* A high degree of commonality and inter-exchangeability of components
* The same level of mine and ballistic protection for each variant
* Common driver and technical training
* Field repairability




Technical Data:


Engine
Type : ADE 352 T Turbo-charged
Number of cylinders : 6 cylinders-in-line
Maximum Power : 124kW at 2 800rpm
Coolant : Water
Fuel : Diesel

Tyres : 14.00 X 20 - 18 ply Multi Purpose

Crew : 14 (Driver plus 13 passengers)

Performance
Maximum speed : 98km/h
Gradient ability : 60%
Turning circle : 17m

Dimensions and Mass
Wheelbase : 4 200mm
Length : 6 900mm
Height : 2 850mm
Width : 2 450mm
Vehicle mass (tare) : 9 480kg
Vehicle mass (gross) : 10 800kg
Payload : 1 400kg

Availible as :

* Personnel carrier
* Base vehicle for mine-detecting and mine-cleaning operations
* Ambulance
* Utility freight carrier
* Tanker
* Recovery vehicle

More Advantages :

* Proven in-service reliability
* Proven high-effective landmine protection - protecting occupants and main components against the effects of landmine blasts up to 12kg under any wheel or 14kg under the hull.
* Add-on protection available against the effects of self-forming fragment mines (TMRP-6)
* Mine detecting and mine-clearing ability through it's compatibility with a number of effective detection and clearing systems
* Ballistic protection against a variety of small arms fire and shrapnel.
* Ease and economy of maintenance through the use of proven, easy-to-maintain and commercially available components
* Long in-service life through protection of main aggregates, re-cyclability of the hull and use of readily available components




Reminds me of one of these.

Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:16:27 PM EDT
Notice the high tech ball mounted CB antenna on the side with spring

Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:54:52 PM EDT
I think all next generation "soft skins" should be armored against small arms and crew survivability against mines at least. This should be the baseline protection. Add armor for proof against crew served and possibly old gen RPG warheads with kits.

For the hummer replacement we need a vehicle that can have a driver, a gunner and at least a fire team of dismounts, if not one or two more. 4x4 7.62 AP proof with 2 crew and 4-6 pax, and the ability of the pax to fire weapons either from an open top hatch or from firing ports.

I like the old cadilac cage armored cars with open tops. Something like the new ASV with no turret and electric drive motors in the wheels so we have room in the back hull for 4 to 6 dismounts.

It would be big enough for case-evac and command missions. Have that your defacto jeep vehicle, have one large armored cab truck for cargo and add trailers if you need to move more than the truck can haul. Along the lines of the PLS system and its 16ton trailer but scaled down a bit.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 8:22:04 PM EDT
Well, from looking at the pictures of the Casspir you posted, we are fielding something similar:



Link Posted: 9/21/2005 2:59:12 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 3:11:41 AM EDT
Because the Stryker's even more protected than the Casspir, and already in the system.
There's something like 8 Stryker variants, everything from a 120mm mortar, to a 105mm tank gun, to an ambulance.

Kharn
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 5:00:24 AM EDT
a couple of problems with stryker - though it can FIT into a C130, the UUSAF doesn't want it cause it leaves nor oom for travel around the vehicle for the loadmasters. The Army is pissy cause to FIT it in a c130 the af has to remove alot of the exterior features (some tires, the weapons, grenade launchers, antennas) and this takes almost 20 minutes to pop back on. And armor protection without the applique package is sub-762 performace in testing. The applique is almost same as bradley and is amazing can stop 14.5 and less, but like the bradley, you can't really go anywhere with it on and with it on it cannot get into a c130 at almost 22 tons.

C5 and C17 transport numbers rule though, I think 3 and 7 respoectively. Now THAT's kewl.

But stryker vs casspir for urban post-conflict situations...? I'd rather be in teh casspir.

as one website put it:


Oddly enough, while the South Africans fielded various armored vehicles in the '70s and '80s such as the Casspir and Wolf, both of which had a v-shaped armored hull to deflect the blast from driving over a land mine, the floor of the Stryker's hull is flat.



Author was complaining how the wheeled nature of stryker prevents sideskirts and leaves lower hull areas vulnerable. Though it has been reported that at lesast one stryker was able to scoot after an IED took at one or two tires and damaged hull.... Still seems stryker is too much HMMVW and not enough M113.

Sure is sexy though.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 5:16:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
Author was complaining how the wheeled nature of stryker prevents sideskirts and leaves lower hull areas vulnerable. Though it has been reported that at lesast one stryker was able to scoot after an IED took at one or two tires and damaged hull.... Still seems stryker is too much HMMVW and not enough M113.

The (publically available) picture and after-action report indicate the Stryker was hit with a 500lb roadside bomb. It flipped the vehicle, punctured the rear four tires and ruined all the equipment on the side of the vehicle (rucks, pioneer tools, etc), but once it was rolled upright, it drove home under its own power, beat up and with four flats, but still moving at an acceptable speed and the crew only had minor injuries (scrapes and bruises, IIRC).

The Stryker has more armor protection than any M113 the US Army has ever fielded in large numbers.

Kharn
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 5:36:21 AM EDT
I think the Humvee should be relegated to transporting people around the green zone and leave the fighting to the Abrams, Bradleys and Strykers. Why the F@#$% does CNN keep insisting that its a fighting vehicle?

Minor hijack:I know the "cage" around a Stryker is to deal with RPGs but dosen't it remind you of a Stryker wearing a giant MOLLE pack?
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 5:45:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:


Wern't they designed as ultralight scout vehilces and REMF-movers, command and control movers, ambulettes, etc...? Why uparmor them for MOUT use and not go with some thing like the Casspir?





HMVEES are being used in roles they weren't designed for.


Try airlifting a Casspir under a chopper - ain't gonna happen
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 5:54:00 AM EDT
There is no longer a requirement for the Stryker to be C-130 transportable. So how it fits in a C-130 is pointless.

The M113 is armored to only 7.62mm AP. Same as an up-armor Humvee. The Stryker is armored to 12.7mm or 14.5mm with up-armor kit. The RPG fence is a field expedient, though obviously it's quite effective. The reality is the Stryker is more armored than the M113.

Humvees replaced a series of light vehicles, which gave the Army one vehicle instead of five or six different ones to maintain. That's a HUGE factor in logistics.

Why Humvees? There's two factors that come into play.
The first is cost. An uparmor kit costs far less than a new vehicle. We already own the Humvee, the units are already fielded with them, the drivers and mechanics are already trained on them, the parts are already in the system, and in quantity. There's no getting around the bottom line. It's also faster to build and distribute an up-armor kit than it is to build whole new vehicles, introduce the parts into the system, train the mechanics and drivers, design doctrine for use of the new vehicles, etc. RFI works for sunglasses, and even body armor, but for complex systems you're looking at a year or two to actually get any to the front and be able to support them logistically. In the meantime, you would still end up buying up-armor kits for Humvees.

As for other wheeled armor, the Army has the Stryker and the M1117 ASV (new version of the Caddy Gage), and ASV orders are increasing all the time. As a side note the ASV factory is knocked out due to Katrina and won't be back up for a while. So the Army already has already firgured out that it needed systems similar to what you say they need. There is also no sense in buying a specialized vehicle. The Stryker, ASV, and Humvee were bought by the Army to fight all sorts of different wars in different enviroments. There are still more wars to fight after Iraq is done, and they won't all be in the middle east, nor all COIN ops.

The second factor is the historic neglect that wheeled armor has had in the Army. Geared to WWIII in Europe, the Army didn't buy into wheels for a long time. Even in Vietnam, where test units of the V-100s and V-200 proved far better than an uparmored Jeep, or weapons carrier, the Army still refused to buy into wheeled armor. At the time, there were many good designs available off-the-shelf, and they would have done the job far better than an armored M-151 jeep with twin M60s on the back. The commander responsible for convoy security in the RVN wanted to replace all gun-trucks with the far better V-100. No action was taken.

I remember reading an article in a defense industry publication during Vietnam about many of the same subjects that have been brought up here and elsewhere on ARFCOM. Talk about dejavu. I'm not linking today with Vietnam, but a similar thought process goes on.

It has only been recently that wheels have gained any "traction". If the Stryker and ASV prove to be the ticket, then more funds for wheeled armor may become available. Until then, you won't be seeing any purpose built wheeled armor replacing the Humvee.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 6:01:48 AM EDT
.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 6:07:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
I'd rather be in teh casspir.






Eh, then why aren't you?

Essayons
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 6:23:39 AM EDT
I prefer Imperial Walkers (AT-AT) , myself.
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 6:39:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gunbert:
I can only assume the deep V shaped hull is meant to deflect mines and roadside IED's?



Yep. They're close to what the south african forces use. Saw it on the history channel!
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 6:47:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ross:


Humvees replaced a series of light vehicles, which gave the Army one vehicle instead of five or six different ones to maintain. That's a HUGE factor in logistics.




thats what people forget, it was built to replace the jeeps, pickup trucks, etc, not the m113! NEver meant to be a armored personell carrier -
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 6:48:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:

Wern't they designed as ultralight scout vehilces and REMF-movers, command and control movers, ambulettes, etc...? Why uparmor them for MOUT use and not go with some thing like the Casspir?



HMVEES are being used in roles they weren't designed for.


there you go. these were never intended to be apc's, they were a replacement for the jeep and other utility vehicles.

we uparmored them because we never expected the tremendous amount of ied's and there was nothing else in the inventory like the cassipir, cougar, or buffalo (which the sadf and rhodesian army have been using forever and the corps looked at years and years ago).
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 8:50:16 AM EDT
we're all in agreement I see.

but:


The M113 is armored to only 7.62mm AP. Same as an up-armor Humvee. The Stryker is armored to 12.7mm or 14.5mm with up-armor kit. The RPG fence is a field expedient, though obviously it's quite effective. The reality is the Stryker is more armored than the M113.



Im no expert, but from what I've read this past week (been doing research on it) the up-armor kits for all three (newest generation of 113, hmmwv and stryker) are almost identical. Bradley too for that matter. Excellent protection up to 14.5. But without the armor kits, all have unsatisfactory performance against 762 EXCEPT the 113. There was LOTS of hubbub about a new 113 instead of stryker, but we know which way that argument went! And that story you wrote about that IED is amazing. Real good stryker PR is true! 500 pounds! Do you have a link (I trust you, I just wanna see more details...)
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 8:52:08 AM EDT
I dont have any bookmarks for the event.

Kharn
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 9:03:02 AM EDT
They didn't win the lowest bid.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 4:29:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
we're all in agreement I see.

but:


The M113 is armored to only 7.62mm AP. Same as an up-armor Humvee. The Stryker is armored to 12.7mm or 14.5mm with up-armor kit. The RPG fence is a field expedient, though obviously it's quite effective. The reality is the Stryker is more armored than the M113.



Im no expert, but from what I've read this past week (been doing research on it) the up-armor kits for all three (newest generation of 113, hmmwv and stryker) are almost identical. Bradley too for that matter. Excellent protection up to 14.5. But without the armor kits, all have unsatisfactory performance against 762 EXCEPT the 113. There was LOTS of hubbub about a new 113 instead of stryker, but we know which way that argument went! And that story you wrote about that IED is amazing. Real good stryker PR is true! 500 pounds! Do you have a link (I trust you, I just wanna see more details...)



Up armor kits for just about any vehicle are available, but the reality is it has to actually be bought buy the Army and built by someone before it's anything but "vaporware".

The M113 uparmor kits, which consist of mine protection, hard armor applique, RPG fence and gunner's shielding was first awarded to BAE land systems on 29 Aug 05, or less than a month ago. All of it will not be delivered to the theater, completing installation in-theater on A3's, by 2006. The reality of the situation is that there hasn't been any kits delivered in the three short weeks since contract award.

So people can ask, "Why isn't the M113A3 being used with it's up-armor kit....?" when the real answer is there are no up-armor kits for the M113A3, because we just awarded the contract last month. So for now, you still have an M113A3, who's aluminum box was designed for 7.62mmAP, and in the A3/RISE internal spall liners were added (to reduce spall from RPG's, etc).

As a trivia side note, the old M59 was 7.62mmAP as well but was steel. The reason to go to Aluminum was both weight and because steel actually increased the spalling when hit with heavy rounds, like a 20mm. The 20mm would go through both, but on the steel box, spalling went all around the inside. In the alumium box, the alloy tended to stay together and not splinter, and just had a hole from the projectile. Some people bitch about aluminum instead of steel, but in the M113, the alloy box is better than an all steel one would be.

The reason for using the A3 is because one of the RISE mods was to install hardpoints for future add-on armour, and the A3 has a better powertrain, so the HP/weight ratio goes back to where it needs to be. A2's had a hard time keeping pace with Brads and M1's in OIF. The A3 brought the speed up to a compatible nature. While adding the armor will reduce the HP/weight ratio, it will probably only be bad for mobility on the mortar carriers, and mobile CPs as they tote alot of weight.

So the better question is: "Why weren't there any kits before now?"

Tradtional resistance to the up armor idea was a result of the long, and painful fight the Army had in getting funding for the M2/M3. Back then alot of folks suggested doing what the Army is doing now. Of course the Army had to squash that, otherwise Bradley funding might not have been there.

Later, as the FCS (Stryker) program got going, the M113 was pitched again in an updated form, again similar to what we're getting now. It had to be squashed as well, or politically it would be hard to explain why you were buying the exact vehicle you said you didn't need when you bought the Brad.

Don't try to apply logic, at the level that this stuff is going on, it's all a political game. Everyone knows why in the real world you need something. Even these politicos know the answers as well. But it's all about money, jobs, votes, etc. Don't let logic get in the way here.

It actually took some guys with a pair to even get the armor add-on points on the A3, and it really took a guy with balls (LTG Metz, who requested the whole up-armor kits thing and refitting of more A2's to A3's along with it) to get this done. Of course combat tends weed out the leaders without balls, so in all likelyhood, this would never have happened if we weren't in combat right now. Also everyone can blame it on the "unique Iraqi situation". Politically, there is no resistance now, because it's no threat to anything, and more money spent on contracts is more money spent on politicians.

My opinion is there's really no other way this would have actually played out, except the way it's going now. I can drone on about how messed up the Military-Industrial Complex is, but the reality is there was no way to look into the future and see what's happening now as what was going to happen. As a result, economic choices had to be made, and in the light of day they were logical to make at the time. So you have to play "catch-up". Until you cacth up, you make do with what you have. Humvees with Armor were part of the original spec, so ordering more armor kits is relatively quick and easy, and fielding the wheeled armor we had made sense as well. Remember that at this time, there were five other types of trucks that also needed armor kits designed, bought, fielded, and installed as well.

The Army's actually done far better with this in Iraq than it's history actually would indicate it could. It's been suprisingly flexible, compared to the "old days". It already has the right stuff, it just needs to get more of it. It needs to concentrate on that.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 4:40:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ross:
There is no longer a requirement for the Stryker to be C-130 transportable. So how it fits in a C-130 is pointless.

The M113 is armored to only 7.62mm AP. Same as an up-armor Humvee. The Stryker is armored to 12.7mm or 14.5mm with up-armor kit. The RPG fence is a field expedient, though obviously it's quite effective. The reality is the Stryker is more armored than the M113.

Humvees replaced a series of light vehicles, which gave the Army one vehicle instead of five or six different ones to maintain. That's a HUGE factor in logistics.

Why Humvees? There's two factors that come into play.
The first is cost. An uparmor kit costs far less than a new vehicle. We already own the Humvee, the units are already fielded with them, the drivers and mechanics are already trained on them, the parts are already in the system, and in quantity. There's no getting around the bottom line. It's also faster to build and distribute an up-armor kit than it is to build whole new vehicles, introduce the parts into the system, train the mechanics and drivers, design doctrine for use of the new vehicles, etc. RFI works for sunglasses, and even body armor, but for complex systems you're looking at a year or two to actually get any to the front and be able to support them logistically. In the meantime, you would still end up buying up-armor kits for Humvees.

As for other wheeled armor, the Army has the Stryker and the M1117 ASV (new version of the Caddy Gage), and ASV orders are increasing all the time. As a side note the ASV factory is knocked out due to Katrina and won't be back up for a while. So the Army already has already firgured out that it needed systems similar to what you say they need. There is also no sense in buying a specialized vehicle. The Stryker, ASV, and Humvee were bought by the Army to fight all sorts of different wars in different enviroments. There are still more wars to fight after Iraq is done, and they won't all be in the middle east, nor all COIN ops.

The second factor is the historic neglect that wheeled armor has had in the Army. Geared to WWIII in Europe, the Army didn't buy into wheels for a long time. Even in Vietnam, where test units of the V-100s and V-200 proved far better than an uparmored Jeep, or weapons carrier, the Army still refused to buy into wheeled armor. At the time, there were many good designs available off-the-shelf, and they would have done the job far better than an armored M-151 jeep with twin M60s on the back. The commander responsible for convoy security in the RVN wanted to replace all gun-trucks with the far better V-100. No action was taken.

I remember reading an article in a defense industry publication during Vietnam about many of the same subjects that have been brought up here and elsewhere on ARFCOM. Talk about dejavu. I'm not linking today with Vietnam, but a similar thought process goes on.

It has only been recently that wheels have gained any "traction". If the Stryker and ASV prove to be the ticket, then more funds for wheeled armor may become available. Until then, you won't be seeing any purpose built wheeled armor replacing the Humvee.



The track mafia hates wheels, I read a copy of the post ODS AAR from the ground recon troop of the 82nd and they loved the temp loaned LAV25s they got from the Marines, the AAR even stated it was the ideal platform for ground recon, but that didn't matter and that it did work very well in combat didn't matter. The armor branch said nope to a wheeled vehicle.



Link Posted: 9/22/2005 7:37:35 AM EDT
thanks for that write up!

Top Top