Com-Central.net

bsmart · Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 10:16 am Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

'Hi Mike, I always wondered why it never made it to the troops as well.'

Think back to those times. Vietnam was sucking all the funds that the Army could get. As that drew down the budget was cut in the anti-military feeling of the time. Then came the carter years of 'belt tightening'

Weapons development programs were all seen as wasteful by the media and there was no support for anything military. The army had to make very hard decisions about what programs it wanted to keep on life support so that they could be revived later. Research for what became the Abrahms and Bradley programs got some funds as did the Attack Helicopter that became Apache and teh lift helicpter that became Blackhawk. Some funds went into Air Defense systems (Patriot and Divads) but lots of promising programs were killed off.

Scary thing is I think I see it happening again

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:38 am Post subject: Re: Scout vehicles

Hi Folks!

To Recon 4

I agree with you about the Bradley being to big for a Scout vehicle. When I was running M114 (LINGLES) through the forests of Germany, I could get through places only a M151 Jeep could follow. When we upgraded to M113s, that made it harder to get away from other infantry carriers, but it was still easy to find cover and escape from tank units. When I first read in Armor Magazine that the Bradley was going to be used as a Scout vehicle I was shocked. Then I saw a suggested load plan which encluded a motorcycle. That had me thinking that it would be OK. Two scouts working on motorcycles would make up for the size and noise level of a 30+ ton AFV. Your comments about gunnery doesn't surpise me. There is an old saying that goes something like, 'if it looks like a tank, someone will use it like a tank'. The Brads with that 25mm chain gun and the TOW AT system was a setup for going over board into tank gunney type training. I left the scouting field before the Bradleys arrived, but have always tried to keep up with what was going on. Not fielding the motocycle was another one of those cost cutting events that destoryed a lot of the scouting functions of the Bradley. I think the Army should have went ahead and fielded the M800(T). Dropping the M800 ARSV has came back to bit the Army in 6 o'clock position. Sad

To David,
The Red X seams to be related to the Boss's computer. When lurking at home, I can see the photo. Nice looking vehicle. Confused

To Dontos,
Additional personnel...During my time, the scout TOE for a M114 was three people. During my four years in Germany working with a M-TOE, the four squad leader vehicles and the platoon leader only had two people assigned. So in some ways it would be better to have a four man vehicle with four duty positions so headquarters can not take slots away to save on manning. I don't know. I guess it is possible that if the Army had fielded the M800(T) ARSV that a M-TOE would have still been used and we would have seen vehicles running around with only two crewmen. Neutral

To Neil,
I agree with Neil that if the M800(T) had been fielded, it would still be around with some upgrades. Possible a turret right off the Bradley. Comment set of parts and S4/G4 requirments. Razz

Neil quoted a section from Hunnicutt's Bradley book. For the longest time, I understood the comments about "lateral instability and directional control" in reference to the tracked M800. Sometime back while reading that again, I got the impression that the sentence layout was a bit hard to following and the comments were talking about the wheeled XM800W. I request those who have Hunnicutt's book to take another look at that paragraft.

If the XM800T was superior to both the M113A1 and the XM800W in overal performance, how could it have a lateral instability and directional control problems? If it was superior to the M113A1, then the M113s should have had a greater lateral instability and directional control problems.

Does anyone else see what I talking about or am I just lost in the woods?

My 2 cents, sorry for the late follow up folks.

Sgt, Scouts Out!

Dontos · Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:14 pm Post subject: Re: Scout vehicles

- Roy_A_Lingle

To Dontos,
Additional personnel...During my time, the scout TOE for a M114 was three people. During my four years in Germany working with a M-TOE, the four squad leader vehicles and the platoon leader only had two people assigned. So in some ways it would be better to have a four man vehicle with four duty positions so headquarters can not take slots away to save on manning. I don't know. I guess it is possible that if the Army had fielded the M800(T) ARSV that a M-TOE would have still been used and we would have seen vehicles running around with only two crewmen.

Roy

Perhaps I misspoke. Having been in and around the 'Lingle', I assumed a similiar MTOE as a Bradley Scout platoon. Thus mounting more than the crew to enable vehicle functionability and additional dismounted scout activities. Unfortunately, it made sense to me that way.

The Luchs is a small tank. It allows barely enough room for the crew. The M114 is more adapt at facilitating additional personnel, hence the benefit of the M114 in comparison to the Luchs.

The XM800W has no room for attitional crew but would have been a good vehicle for the job (Recon), as I have seen. The XM800T is just a mini Bradley ( 'Bradley-ette?' ) and I'm not sure dismounts would have worked with it either.

I think the commonality of chassis was the intent with the IFV / CFV concept.

Thanks for the clarification,
Don

Doug_Kibbey · Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:14 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

[quote="Neil_Baumgardner"]

- recon4ww2

Nope, scouts definately got screwed in the late 70s/early 80s by the decision to cancel ARSV and merge the requirement with the emerging MICV program that lead to the Bradley. Its probably a good IFV, but its "scouting in a winnebago."

IMO, the XM800T would have made a good scout vehicle and would probably still be in service today - upgraded with a second gen FLIR, etc. I think the XM800s often get a bad rap. Yet note the following from Hunnicutt's Bradley (page 244):

"In comparing the two XM800 vehicles with the baseline M113A1, the test report concluded that the XM800T was superior to both the M113A1 and the XM800W in overal performance as an ARSV. The XM800W performed well on roads and its quiet operation and high road speed were goals to be achieved for future scout vehicles. However, its limited cross country capability and safety hazards associated with lateral instability and directional control made it less effective than the M113A1."

XM800T

Gotta love the plaque: "Armor will achieve this ground mobility [ie the scout role] by organization, training, mission and a state of mind."

XM800W

Neil

Just gotta' get my Armor Board plug in here...(I always loved that line from Hunnicutt's "Bradley").

Doug_Kibbey · Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 2:00 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

Roy,
I read that line from "Bradley" as meaning the XM800T had superior performance (in all regimes, including firepower) to the other two. The M113 A1 (note the comparison is to an A1) was superior to the XM800 wheeled version because the wheeled version was squirrely in the handling department.

I think the M113 would have faired MUCH better had the comparison been with not just an M113A2, but one up-engined to the Sheridan powerplant, which was just the same DD engine with a turbo, basically. Note in the other thread here from Ft. Irwin what is going into the OSV's....essentially that. More "Ooomph"....and add a power turret and suitable gun and the 113 starts looking pretty darn good.

BTW, Jeff and I watched an M113 OSV running on the same ground as I drove the halftrack on....it obviously had the blown engine and it could really scoot! Ran like a Sheridan on Nitrous....

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:07 am Post subject: Re: M114/Bradley TOEs

Hi Don! Hi Folks!

"Perhaps I misspoke. Having been in and around the 'Lingle', I assumed a similiar MTOE as a Bradley Scout platoon. Thus mounting more than the crew to enable vehicle functionability and additional dismounted scout activities. Unfortunately, it made sense to me that way."

Not completely Don. From what I remember, the Bradley Cav Platoons had the same number of troops as the older M114/M113 platoons did. The big difference was the older platoons had ten (10) vehicles vis only six (6) vehicles in a CFV unit.

If you look up the BRT TOE which was using Hummers, it had the same number of vehicles and troops as the older M114/M113 battalion scout platoons.

I was headed home from CQ on a Saturday morining at Hunter Liggett MR back in the early 1970s. A team from FMC had one of the XM800Ts running around on one of the firing ranges. I knew what it was as soon as I saw it and pulled over and stopped. I walked over to two civilains and talked with them for a few minutes. They were testing a stabiliser system with live ammo. That vehicle had a M139 auto cannon mounted on it and boy was I impressed! The vehicle was running around, turning, stopping, chargeing off and during all that the turret remained on target and the they were just cutting it apart! I got a chance to walk around it and get a good look at it. I wasn't brave enough to ask if I could climb up and look inside. I wished them luck at winning the ARSV contest. Man, I wished I had a camera with me.

Sgt, Scouts Out!

Neil_Baumgardner · Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:14 am Post subject: Re: Scout vehicles

- Roy_A_Lingle

Hi Folks!

Neil quoted a section from Hunnicutt's Bradley book. For the longest time, I understood the comments about "lateral instability and directional control" in reference to the tracked M800. Sometime back while reading that again, I got the impression that the sentence layout was a bit hard to following and the comments were talking about the wheeled XM800W. I request those who have Hunnicutt's book to take another look at that paragraft.

If the XM800T was superior to both the M113A1 and the XM800W in overal performance, how could it have a lateral instability and directional control problems? If it was superior to the M113A1, then the M113s should have had a greater lateral instability and directional control problems.

I understand the lateral instability bit to refer to the XM800W, not the T. Especially considering that the 800T had superior cross-country mobility. Believe the lateral instability & safety issues were due to the W's articulated body.

Neil

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:21 am Post subject: Re: Status for the XM800s

Hi David! Hi Folks!

Found some status for both 800 vehicles in an old 1976 copy of Jane's World Armoured Fighting Vehicles.

Basic Data...........Tracked...........Wheeled
Crew........................both 3
Weight Loaded......8.618 kg..........7.697 kg
Weight empty.......7.980 kg..........not listed
Length.................4.673 m............4.914 m
Width.................. 3.438 m............2.438 m
Height..................2.399 m............2.489 m over top of weapons
Height..................1.663 m............not listed top of the hull
Ground Clearance..... both .406 m
Track...................1.955m..............1.981m (my note: don't understand this one.)
Track Width..........0.482m
Wheelbase.....................................3.682 m
Lenght of track on ground..2.743m
Ground Pressure.....32 kg/cm2..........43 kg/cm2
Maxium Road Speed 88.5 km/hr........104.6 km/hr
Max Reverse speed..40.23 km/hr.......not listed (my note: I think these is very important to scouts)
Max speed in water...7.2 km/hr...........8 km/hr
Acceleration 0-48 km/hr...10 seconds....8 seconds
Range......................both 725 km
Fuel..........................397 liters.............341 liters
Fording......................both amphibious
Gradient....................both 60%
Side Slope.................both 60%
Vertical Obstacle........0.762 m................0.914 m
Trench.......................1.828 m...............not listed
Engine.......................GM 6V53 AT..........GM 6V53T (my note: wonder what the 'A' stands for in the tracked engine? My guess is the 'T' in both engines stands for tubocharger)
Engine type.................both diesel
Engine HP/RPM.............280/2,800............300/2,100
Armament...................both 1x20 mm cannon (My note: the first layout mounted the M139 20mm auto cannon, same as on the M114A2 Lingle) At that time the Army was running the Brushmaster program to pick a new auto cannon. Both 800s had room to mount the any of the four systems that where being looked at.)
....................................both 1x7.62 mm MG (My note: M-60Ds)
Ammo...........................both 20mmx500 rounds and 7.62mmx2,000 rounds
.....................................Rear hatch to pull power pack out (like the M8 AGS)

David, sorry I took so long, this is another one of those threads that I had to wait until I cleared up home PC problems.

Spot Report!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:33 am Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

- Neil_Baumgardner

XM800T

Neil

Hey Neil! Is this your photo sir?

If not Neil's, I would like to know who's took it. I would like to use it as the back ground on my home PC.

?
Sgt, Scouts Out!

Dontos · Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:15 am Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

Roy

I have similiar shots...U want it?

DCCLarke · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 62

Hey Roy, thanks very much for the statistics! Smile

Now I can make a better comparison between the XM800T and the Lynx. My bet is that physically they are very close (except of course in the electronics department).

Thanks again, well worth waiting for!

Best Regards,
David

Neil_Baumgardner · Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

- Roy_A_Lingle

Hey Neil! Is this your photo sir?

That is indeed my picture feel free to use it. In fact, I'd hesitate to say I dont think you really need to get the owner's permission to just use it for your PC's background. But if you were going to post on the web somewhere, then thats different - I'd ask you to give me credit. My appreciated nonetheless.

Neil

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:41 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

- Dontos

Roy

I have similiar shots...U want it?

Hi Don!

Photos received! Thank you SIR!

I am always looking for photos of that vehicle. Someday I hope to try and scratch build a M800(T) with a Bradley turret.

Hey everyone, if you don't already know, check out Mister Bradford's AFV front page, He has added a link to Don's site on the Ontos.

Thanks again Don,
Sgt, Scouts out!

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:43 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

- Neil_Baumgardner

- Roy_A_Lingle

Hey Neil! Is this your photo sir?

That is indeed my picture feel free to use it. In fact, I'd hesitate to say I dont think you really need to get the owner's permission to just use it for your PC's background. But if you were going to post on the web somewhere, then thats different - I'd ask you to give me credit. My appreciated nonetheless.

Neil

I wasn't sure either, but though it would be better to ask just in case. Thank you Sir!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

Dontos · Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 6:32 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Roy!

Hey everyone, if you don't already know, check out Mister Bradford's AFV front page, He has added a link to Don's site on the Ontos.
I am honored to be included in AFV links.

Thanks George!!

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big