Com-Central.net

Neil_Baumgardner

Here's my XM800T pictures for good measure...

I think I have more, but they're not immediately handy / on photobucket.

Neil

Doug_Kibbey

YEEEHAAAA!

A-109E

- Roy_A_Lingle

Hi AJ2! Hi Folks!

- armyjunk2

Anyone have anything special they would like me to attempt to photograph this weekend, I'll do my best to do it, but no guarantees....

A 360 walk around of the XM800T would be great if you have the time AJ2.

Thanks,
Sgt, Scouts Out!

I'll add my shots of the XM 800 to AJ's excellent series, Roy, but in the continuing saga of "Ft. Knox scenes - pics #3". Was going to do this in a week or so but it seems topical now.

What's the story on this vehicle? I mean, beyond what I can read on the plaques.

--Bob Steinbrunn

Doug_Kibbey

- A-109E

What's the story on this vehicle? I mean, beyond what I can read on the plaques.

--Bob Steinbrunn

Continnuing saga of the eternal struggle between wheeled vs. tracked proponents, especially vis-a-vis the recon role...so they built and tested both versions. In the end, neither offered significant mobility advantages over vehicles already in the inventory (like the M113) and represented a huge investment that would have diverted funds from other programs. It was fortunate that neither was pursued because the Bradley was not far over the horizon and this was money far better spent. Too little, too late for the returns.

This is why I maintain now that the Dutch YPR concept series should have been adopted as an interim vehicle instead of wasting money on schemes like this...proven, something we already had experience with. Basically a Product Improved M113A1 without the funky turret/hatch layout of our version that never got off the boards.

The wheeled version:

A-109E

- Doug_Kibbey

- A-109E

What's the story on this vehicle? I mean, beyond what I can read on the plaques.

--Bob Steinbrunn

Continnuing saga of the eternal struggle between wheeled vs. tracked proponents, especially vis-a-vis the recon role...so they built and tested both versions. In the end, neither offered significant mobility advantages over vehicles already in the inventory (like the M113) and represented a huge investment that would have diverted funds from other programs. It was fortunate that neither was pursued because the Bradley was not far over the horizon and this was money far better spent. Too little, too late for the returns.

This is why I maintain now that the Dutch YPR concept series should have been adopted as an interim vehicle instead of wasting money on schemes like this...proven, something we already had experience with. Basically a Product Improved M113A1 without the funky turret/hatch layout of our version that never got off the boards.

The wheeled version:

Thanks for the history, Doug. And great action photos: Yeehaaah! times two!

--Bob

Neil_Baumgardner

Doug, I think we continue to disagree on the subject, although I'll defer to your Armor Board knowledge. But if Hunnicutt's Bradley has any weight (page 244), it appears that the XM800T at least was superior than the M113:

"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."

Neil

Doug_Kibbey

- Neil_Baumgardner

Doug, I think we continue to disagree on the subject, although I'll defer to your Armor Board knowledge. But if Hunnicutt's Bradley has any weight (page 244), it appears that the XM800T at least was superior than the M113:

"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.
Neil

It was, but marginally so, the benefits primarily due to weight and size...but not nearly by enough to justify the cost to field it and the time it would have taken to get it there. See my comment "too little, to late". It would have been nearly 1980 by the time this thing could have been fielded in numbers and the Brad was well in the works by then...a choice had to be made and this wasn't it (even though the role of the Brad wasn't pure Scout, the concept was sacrificed for something the Army wanted more).

On balance, it was a worthwhile sacrifice, IMO.

Neil_Baumgardner

Okay, understood & granted. We're talking the age-old capability vs cost. Was a dedicated scout vehicle worth the cost.

However, I would point out that the abandonment of the ARSV led to both HMMWV and Bradley mounted scouts. And the Army has recently abandoned HMMWV mounted scout units as too vulnerable, leaving "scouting in a Winnebago" as the only mechanized scout capability (besides Stryker RSTA vehicles - which would probably be good scout vehicles across the board IMO).

Neil

Doug_Kibbey

- Neil_Baumgardner

Okay, understood & granted. We're talking the age-old capability vs cost. Was a dedicated scout vehicle worth the cost.

However, I would point out that the abandonment of the ARSV led to both HMMWV and Bradley mounted scouts. And the Army has recently abandoned HMMWV mounted scout units as too vulnerable, leaving "scouting in a Winnebago" as the only mechanized scout capability (besides Stryker RSTA vehicles - which would probably be good scout vehicles across the board IMO).

Neil

Neil,

After how many years? And only after the experience of Iraq and the IED's attendant thereto. Recall that the forerunner to the HMMWV, the X311, was a proposed wheeled scout vehicle at one time with substantial armament capabilty for the day and was seriously considered. Gotta' consider these things in the context of the times, not what is known today. Wink

D.

Neil_Baumgardner

True enough, although folks back then I believe knew that the HMMWV was too light for scouts and the Bradley was too heavy...

Certainly the Iraq IED issue exposed one big facet of HMMWV vulnerability in this role - but isnt that merely one aspect (albeit a new one) of an overall vulnerability & inadequacy in the scout role that has been known for some time?

Neil

Doug_Kibbey

There is always a problem with the concept of a dedicated "Scout Vehicle"...if it's mobile/fast enough, it's necessarily vulnerable to all sorts of stuff....the converse situation is obvious. That's why I think a dedicated Scout vehicle (on land) is an anachronism and has been for a couple of decades. Scouting needs to be a combined operation itself...with a light arm and a backup. Not unlike the Cav units that combined tanks with lighter AFV's or even Sheridans for scouting. Bob (A 109 E) can probably relate to this, but I think of an analogy to the Air Cav "pink team"...the light scouting helicopter...nimble, but vulnerable, with a gunship (or two) in support. Something like a "mothership".

Increasingly, the need for this as a dedicated unit is probably diminished over what it was in the '70's, what with UAV's, other imaging, etc., but it's always nice to send somebody out there for a look-see without getting your a$$ shot off just for the effort. And it's nice if you can carry some guys with you, just in case. Three-man scout vehicle...I'm not sure the need still exists..., but that's just me.

MarkHolloway

Here's the door that was 'unlocked'.

A-109E · Last edited by A-109E on Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

- Doug_Kibbey

Bob (A 109 E) can probably relate to this, but I think of an analogy to the Air Cav "pink team"...the light scouting helicopter...nimble, but vulnerable, with a gunship (or two) in support. Something like a "mothership".

I wonder if it's all relative, to wit: Sitting up here at 3000 ft. AGL with a fully-loaded XM-21 Weapons Sub-system seemed relatively safe. Stats bore this out. No one wanted to mess with the front end of this one.

On the other hand, we didn't particularly consider it safe to be down there despite the overhead cover of two gunships. There are two Loaches here and I ain't gonna tell you where they are. You hafta find 'em on your own, then calculate their survival quotient when their rotorwash uncovers a full NVA squad manning their 57mm AA gun.

I mean, it's a very serious situation.

Doug_Kibbey

- A-109E

There are two Loaches here and I ain't gonna tell you where they are. You hafta find 'em on your own,

One just right of center, one at 11o'clock...now you find mine... Mr. Green

(copy and paste "properties" for full size)

Neil_Baumgardner

- Doug_Kibbey

There is always a problem with the concept of a dedicated "Scout Vehicle"...if it's mobile/fast enough, it's necessarily vulnerable to all sorts of stuff....the converse situation is obvious. That's why I think a dedicated Scout vehicle (on land) is an anachronism and has been for a couple of decades. Scouting needs to be a combined operation itself...with a light arm and a backup. Not unlike the Cav units that combined tanks with lighter AFV's or even Sheridans for scouting. Bob (A 109 E) can probably relate to this, but I think of an analogy to the Air Cav "pink team"...the light scouting helicopter...nimble, but vulnerable, with a gunship (or two) in support. Something like a "mothership".

Increasingly, the need for this as a dedicated unit is probably diminished over what it was in the '70's, what with UAV's, other imaging, etc., but it's always nice to send somebody out there for a look-see without getting your a$$ shot off just for the effort. And it's nice if you can carry some guys with you, just in case. Three-man scout vehicle...I'm not sure the need still exists..., but that's just me.

I agree that UAVs and other sensors are increasingly supplementing, possibly replacing conventional scouting and reconnaissance, but I think there is also still is a role for dedicated scout vehicles. These tend to come in two varieties: the 3-man versions as you mentioned, but now fitted out with lots of sensors; and the scout-team carrier variety. The Army sorely needs a sensor-equipped scout vehicle, especially one with a mast. I understand an NTC rotation a few years back was extremely jealous of the Canadian Army Grizzly (LAV III) recon vehicles that have a mast-mounted sensor. The US Army simply doesnt have this capability today. It was intended for FSCS/TRACER (ie the ARSV successor) and now the FCS MGV RSTA vehicle... The current question appears to be whether scout-team carriers are needed. Recent thinking seems to have shifted away from them, but I suspect Iraq may cause a rethink of this...

Neil

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