I see "tactical" Silverados all over Navy bases.
Posted on 02/26/2019 5:36:17 AM PST by Drago
In the 60s and 70s, we had 1/4 ton trucks in a variety of configurations, from command and control, forward observer, scout, machine gun, anti-tank, radio relay, etc. It had a handy, 1/4 ton trailer we could configure in a variety of ways.
We had a 3/4 truck for larger applications, including communications shelters.
What replaced them has done poorly. Again, the “One-size-fits-all”, which started with the ATF under McNamara (who also gave us the M-151 1/4 ton widow-maker, instead of the Jeep CJ product), continues to result in substandard successes, if not abject failures.
What does the IDF use? Probably would work well for us.
They did, about 15 years ago. I think it was going to be called the Joint Tactical Truck but it wasn’t really “tactical”. Something like the old CUC-V trucks we had for support roles. No commercial truck would have made the cut. Consider that they’re migrating many roles from the HMMWV. Commercial trucks simply aren’t designed, built or configured for military operations.
The Jeep CJ was a widowmaker, too. They rolled over more than the M151.
Yep! That's what Boeing requires with their P-8A. Navy maintainers aren't allowed to touch half the stuff on their planes. Gotta call tech reps. Civilian tech support is a pretty good racket if you're a 45-year old retired Navy Chief and you want to keep the income coming.
I see "tactical" Silverados all over Navy bases.
The M-38 and M-38A1 didn’t have that problem.
It was the independent suspension that was added to give the Ford M-151s more mobility. That, and the weapons got bigger and heavier (TOW, etc.).
all that armor and NO slats on the radiator
Yeah, a really dangerous design. There initially were no mechanical stops to keep the individual wheels from pivoting under the vehicle. This resulted and “snap rolls” with no warning other than the ground hitting your helmet.
An example of well-meaning engineers with no understanding of the operational requirements and realities of a system. As usual, the military doesn’t do a good job of operational requirements definition.
I speak as a retired Army Officer and retired Systems Architect.
They started putting roll-cages on the M151 in the 1980s, but it took a while to get around. My last M151 was our survey jeep because there weren’t mounting kits for the HMMWVs for the survey gyro.
They installed the roll cage on my survey jeep three weeks before they took it away and replaced it with a HMMWV with the correct mount.
The roll cage was a good idea. Stiffened up, a flexible mount for guns, or a rest for a light, anti-tank weapon.
The problem remains that the scouts haven’t had a good replacement for the 1/4 ton. The Army remans stuck on stupid thinking that bigger is better. They need to apply what is really needed to the mission of the operator.
Bingo!
I was out at Ft. Lewis when the 9th ID (Motorized) was testing FAVs and up-gunned HMMWVS. They were strapping TOWS on the top of FAVs and wondering why the things wouldn’t stay upright, while mounting 25mm Bushmasters on HMMWVs and thinking it would work.
I remember when The Army was experimenting with loud Kawasaki 250s as scout vehicles, requiring special helmets that would deal with the insane noise and also let them hear. I was on a REFORGER exercise when I saw a Canadian IFV rolling by with a Trek mountain bike strapped to the back.
IDF uses Humvees
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.