ATVs

[SeanNewman]

MCG,

The problem that needs solving is that dismounted soldiers are carrying far more weight than the NATO-accepted maximum standard of 30% of their body weight.

And no matter how many people want to quote the books and say that we are all Mech Bns now, the ground truth is that every year thousands of soldiers are carrying this load on their feet overseas.

In order to remedy this, what I propose is a capability that can basically trail behind them, go almost everywhere they can (or at least to a forward staging point/ORV), and carry a lot of that weight for them.  That weight could include water, ammo, and support weapons likely only to be used on the obj.

They tried this with donkeys and it was a failure because unlike an ATV you can't just park it and take the keys with you for the other 23 hours per day.

Anything past that seems to detract from a vehicles capability to do the basic.  It doesn't need to fight on the objective, it doesn't need to go 100 km/h and jump sand dunes, and it doesn't need to pull broken down vehicles.

*Added* Understood in our current theatre that regulations have been put in place for light vehicles like these to not be used outside the wire, but I am proposing an overall solution not just an Afghan one.

 

[Kirkhill]

MCG - the capability required was simply defined by Nathan Bedford Forrest:  "Git thar fustest with the mostest".

The idea is to be able to occupy any terrain with more firepower than the other guy so as to completely dominate it, either physically or psychologically - either beat him in an unfair fight or else intimidate him into compliance (thereby allowing time to make friends on our terms).

The problem is, as I see it, three guys with kalashnikovs and a donkey can hide themselves pretty much any place and move quietly. 

Edit required due to power interruption. 

How do you quietly get your platoon into position to be able to root them out?

 

[Old Sweat]

The challenge is in the wretched detail. Let's take the platoon that is going to make the approach march and give them a hypothetical ATV. For this exercise, lets say we have 30 troops in the platoon. If we want to reduce their load to 30% of body weight and we pick an average weight of 150 pounds and 100 pounds of "stuff" to tote, then our vehicle would have to be able to carry (55 pounds x 30) 1650 pounds of individual gear plus the weapons det stuff and two crew for the ATV at (150 + 45) 195 pounds each. We are now talking over a ton of load which implies a rather large and powerful vehicle, especially for cross country movement.

What am I missing here? Is it better to go for a section vehicle just like having a toboggan for a tent group?

 

[Kirkhill]

Or, alternately Old Sweat, heading in the direction of your toboggan, divide the load amongst 4-6 donkeys or ATVs or a couple of ATVs with utility trailers.

 

[SeanNewman]

What am I missing here? Is it better to go for a section vehicle just like having a toboggan for a tent group?

I think that's actually a pretty useful solution and comparison.  We don't always bring the toboggans with us, and we wouldn't always bring ATVs, either.  But when required, they could be brought to take the load, one would be the Pl HQ one, and good to go.

 

[vonGarvin]

And no matter how many people want to quote the books and say that we are all Mech Bns now, the ground truth is that every year thousands of soldiers are carrying this load on their feet overseas.

This point is key, I think.  In order to have an effective force, it needs firepower, mobility and protection (to borrow from a tank design philosophy), or you can think that a force needs to be able to shoot, move and communicate.  Whatever.

But if one looks at the combat functions of command, sense, act, shield, sustain, then look at the mobility as an element of "sustain", in that being able to carry your kit, ammo, weapons etc is probably one of the most important things you can do. I mean, you could have the best shooters, ninja-underwater knife fighters or whatever on the planet, but if you can't bring your stuff, you may as well stay home. 

So what?  Remembering that Afghanistan is not our only theatre, and that one day we'll be somewhere else, and remembering that Mech Battalions aren't always the answer to whatever the requirement is, then I would offer that a "light" capability would be...beneficial.  And I don't mean "every third company in every third battalion".  I'm talking about unit levels and higher.  In a perfect world, one of our regular force brigade groups would be light.  All of it. 

Such a formation would be strategically more easily deployable than a mech force; however, it would be lacking the firepower of LAV III APCs, tanks and heavy artillery.  Going to the lowest level (platoon), they would then require to augment what is now the nominal firepower available.  Given that the 60 is out soon, and that the AGLS is too heavy to take whenever you walk, and given so much else, a "universal carrier" of sorts that can help the sustain function (by carrying ammo, water, weapons, etc) would be "ideal".  And as we've seen used elsewhere, including in pics in this very thread, this carrier could be a very useful weapons' platform, for things like an AGLS, a .50 calibre, or whatever.

 

[Kirkhill]

How about looking at the ATV as a ride-on Husky for the toboggan?

Suppose your platoon were equipped with two winch equipped Utility ATVs (each with 100-150lb on board in addition to the driver) and drawing a pair of 400-500 lb trailers.  That would give you 1400 lb to 1900 lb of disposable load, four trailers, two winches and a total of 60-100 HP.

With the additional muscle power of 30 troops to man-handle 500 lb trailers when they slip and slide or need to clear obstacles.

1 Horsepower = 2.98 Donkeypower = 12 Manpower


3 men = 3 manpower
3 men + 1 donkey = 7 manpower

30 men = 30 manpower
30 men + 2 ATVs with a combined output of 60 Horsepower = 750 manpower

or the loadcarrying capacity of a battalion on foot (19th century calculations)

 

[McG]

The problem that needs solving is that dismounted soldiers are carrying far more weight than the NATO-accepted maximum standard of 30% of their body weight.

And no matter how many people want to quote the books and say that we are all Mech Bns now, the ground truth is that every year thousands of soldiers are carrying this load on their feet overseas.

In order to remedy this, what I propose is a capability that can basically trail behind them, go almost everywhere they can (or at least to a forward staging point/ORV), and carry a lot of that weight for them.  That weight could include water, ammo, and support weapons likely only to be used on the obj.

In this case, you really are looking for the single person vehicle with a cargo space and (possibly) a tractor capability.  The vehicle is not a people hauler.

There is also the option that the vehicle need not carry its operator (and thus it could be even smaller and lighter).  The cancelled MULE project was supposed to deliver an autonomous vehicle of this nature and I am not aware of any operational autonomous vehicles in any military, but many countries (including Canada) have fielded operational remote controlled vehicles.

 

[SeanNewman]

That's almost a crime if that project was cancelled, seeing how many people are on pensions for screwed up backs.

Not sure how you'd make it work without steering it (for another 20 years, anyway) if you]re too busy for remote control...possibly some sort of "follow me" key fob that it just kind of follows like a puppy?  Maybe a combination of plugging 10 figure grids into it and then it uses what modern cars do to track what lane they're in, etc.

Anyway, thank you for posting that; I had never thought about a rider-less concept but sure, but why not.

I'm sure the actual final configuration could have been sorted out by trials in terms of how many tires (or track) of what size, how wide it could be, etc. 

 

[REDinstaller]

I don't think a key fob would be a good controller. Tends to make things in the ground expand at the high order. And a human driver can make the determination that an obstacle can't be crossed and to look for an alternate route.

 

[daftandbarmy]

This point is key, I think.  In order to have an effective force, it needs firepower, mobility and protection (to borrow from a tank design philosophy), or you can think that a force needs to be able to shoot, move and communicate.  Whatever.

But if one looks at the combat functions of command, sense, act, shield, sustain, then look at the mobility as an element of "sustain", in that being able to carry your kit, ammo, weapons etc is probably one of the most important things you can do. I mean, you could have the best shooters, ninja-underwater knife fighters or whatever on the planet, but if you can't bring your stuff, you may as well stay home. 

So what?  Remembering that Afghanistan is not our only theatre, and that one day we'll be somewhere else, and remembering that Mech Battalions aren't always the answer to whatever the requirement is, then I would offer that a "light" capability would be...beneficial.  And I don't mean "every third company in every third battalion".  I'm talking about unit levels and higher.  In a perfect world, one of our regular force brigade groups would be light.  All of it. 

Such a formation would be strategically more easily deployable than a mech force; however, it would be lacking the firepower of LAV III APCs, tanks and heavy artillery.  Going to the lowest level (platoon), they would then require to augment what is now the nominal firepower available.  Given that the 60 is out soon, and that the AGLS is too heavy to take whenever you walk, and given so much else, a "universal carrier" of sorts that can help the sustain function (by carrying ammo, water, weapons, etc) would be "ideal".  And as we've seen used elsewhere, including in pics in this very thread, this carrier could be a very useful weapons' platform, for things like an AGLS, a .50 calibre, or whatever.

That's a perfect description of an airborne brigade. Well done...

 

[a_majoor]

The killer was cost; each MULE was estimated to be priced at $300,000. How the Mule was supposed to follow you around was not specified in anything I have read (maybe it is plugged into the SAS system and follows your GPS trail, or maybe it just follows bread crumbs  ), but this is probably much closer to Petamocto's ideal than anything else so far.

Given that current state of the art robots are too expensive, I would still go for something larger sized (such as an ARGO or GATOR or GECKO) on the grounds that having the available extra lift outweighs the size disadvantages. If I had to make a sudden withdrawal with casualties, I would be able to put them aboard the ARGO or GATOR class vehicle and bug out without having to stop and offload (and abandon) the rest of my stores, to use one scenario. The other advantage is amphibious vehicles like the ARGO can lift the troops and equipment across water obstacles.

 

[vonGarvin]

That's a perfect description of an airborne brigade. Well done...

I was just thinking "light" brigade.  Not necessarily airborne, but airmobile?  We're getting some choppers, no?

 

[a_majoor]

A bit OT, but if you need to get around, maybe a diesel powered cross country motorcycle?

http://www.econogics.com/TENHE/tenheevexpo2008.htm

 

[REDinstaller]

Hey, these used to be in Popular Mechanics as a Rincon branded kit.

 

[DirtyDog]

I think ATVs might have a small, but useful role in combat.  The Brits use them all the time.  The Rat Patrol in KAF picks up their Timmie's on their ATVs and then rolls out the gate to do whatever stuff they do.  Their secret squirrel types mount their Minimi and GPMG on ATVs.  Even the Paras use them for hauling weaponry and supplies to units outside the wire (and by that, I mean the FOB wire).

We've used gators (outfitted with a C6 on a pintle mount) on a few Ops to shuttle resupplies into tight built up areas.

 

[chrisf]

Just to throw some sand in the gears here, if we are willing to pay the associated training, logistics and infrastructure costs of using ATV's, with their relatively tiny payloads, why not go for something with more utility, larger payload etc. like the BV-206 or ST "Bronco" all terrain tracked vehicle.

Whereas ATVs are are a quick, cheap, low maintenance COTS purchase, domestically can be maintainted and supplied by local commercial establishments, easy to transport, can make it almost anywhere footborne troops can, and in terms of military kit, are practically disposable (Having to abandon an ATV and blow it in place, not a big deal.... not even really a big deal if you don't blow it in place, you just leave it there...)

An ATV and a BV-206 would fill completely different roles...

 

[a_majoor]

Bit of an update. Since the MULE project was cancelled, a remote controlled ATV provides the ability to carry at least the supplies for a squad (section) sized sub unit at a lower cost. Each dismounted section would need one of these (4X per platoon), transitioning from mechanized to dismounted leaves the question of toting them around until needed. (Heliborne troops can sling the ATV under the fuselage). LM sees this as evolving into a custom built vehicle, but even something adapted to an existing ATV would be useful (and probably cheaper as well)

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/12/squad-level-support-from-six-wheeled.html#more

Squad level support from six-wheeled amphibious ATV robot in 2011

Lockheed Martin’s (LM) Squad Mission Support System (SMSS) has passed a final round of tests at Fort Riley, Kansas, before scheduled deployment to Afghanistan in 2011. The system, which turns a six-wheeled amphibious ATV into a robotic packhorse and charging station, has been subjected to a variety of simulated warzone environments in both remote controlled and fully autonomous modes"

Squad Mission Support System (SMSS) is a robotic platform based on a turbo-diesel powered, high mobility six wheel all-terrain vehicle (ATV) capable of carrying 600lbs (272 kg) of payload. Current platforms are utilizing a commercial platform converted for a surrogate SMSS vehicle. Future versions will utilize specially designed platforms, optimized for the SMSS mission.

Gizmag has coverage

    The SMSS can carry a squad's food supplies, water, batteries, heavy weapons, ammunition, survival gear and can even accommodate casualties. Besides transporting up to 600lbs (272 kg) of gear, the SMSS also provides two to four kilowatts of power, and is capable of charging 146 batteries within ten hours.

    LM's SMSS technology frees the soldier of this payload but unlike the MULE, which LM does not see as being a direct competitor, the robotic control system employed here gives the option of a number of control modes including remote via the control unit, voice activated control and fully autonomous. In autonomous mode, the SMSS uses a 3D scanning LIDAR to navigate its immediate surroundings while following either the optical form of a certain soldier or predetermined way-points (which can be set by the operator or can be automatically dropped by the SMSS during allowing a trace back mode)

    The SMSS takes the load off the soldier's back, reducing fatigue currently experienced by those on the front line. The average warfighter these days is expected to carry around 100lbs (45 kg) on their back – this is like piggy-backing a teenager around the battlefield. Not only are fieldpacks heavy but they can also be cumbersome, reducing a soldier's ability to respond in combat.

 

[DirtyDog]

We've used gators (outfitted with a C6 on a pintle mount) on a few Ops to shuttle resupplies into tight built up areas.

To elaborate.  We used to them to ferry in supplies to dsmounted troops from the leaguer to our posistions deep in a built up area.  They were crucial as the only other options were either air drops (cumbersome and dangerous) or using dismounted troops as mules, which we had neither the manpower, nor stomach for.  A combat teams worth of dismounted troops burn up a LOT of water, rats and batteries during a 50 degree day.  Not to mention ammo when things happen.  Running an unarmoured Gator back a forth has risks, but it is a good option.  If we can't allow ourselves exercise options like this anymore, we're doomed.

 

[PanaEng]

Nice pics!

I noticed, however, that it looks like someone pissed on the front left tire - is that some form of statement on its reliability?  ;D