ST Kinetics Bronco New Generation

Some interesting new features, no doubt a result of analysis of the Warthog’s performance in Afghanistan

ST Kinetics – Bronco New-Gen All Terrain Tracked Carrier Simulation + Field Trials [1080p]

I like the way they approach helicopter transportability with rear modules.

Bronco New Gen
Bronco New Gen


Read more


About The Author

Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!

Leave a Reply

18 Comments on "ST Kinetics Bronco New Generation"

Notify of

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Dangerous Dave
August 12, 2014 11:14 am

Always nice to see a good run around the test track, but the first part of the video just kept on reminding me of being a kid and playing with Action Men. Well that and humming the Thunderbird’s theme tune once it got to the part where they swap the modules!

I wonder how much space is in the front car? As per X’s well documented suggestions, would it make a useful, smaller, complement to the FRES SV? OR would all the recce and sensor gubbins take up too much room?

paul g
August 12, 2014 11:59 am

Ahem cough cough, I posted that vid in one of the FRES articles age-eeeeeeees ago!! :-)

August 12, 2014 3:35 pm

Replacement for FV432? waaay better than those 8-wheel behemoths.

August 12, 2014 5:18 pm

quite apart from questions of doctrine, i like these things.

how well do they work in an urban environment, where a traditional tracked vehicles ability to turn on a sixpence is useful?

Mike R
August 12, 2014 5:21 pm


What a perfect replacement for CVR(T) except Scimitar unless it was fitted with something like a Rafael RCWS and Bushmaster cannon, chambered for the Rarden round perhaps. I guess the RN will sill be using this ammunition for some years to come (as regards commonality).

John Hartley
August 12, 2014 5:35 pm

If you like ST armour go & look at the tracked Bionix, 23 tons, 25 or 30mm gun, 7/9 dismounts, or the 8×8 Terrex, 28 tons, 30mm gun (there is a 120mm version), crew 3, up to 10 dismounts. Both are amphibious. Both meet the A400M weight category.

August 12, 2014 7:22 pm

How does this vehicle compare to say a DT-30?


August 12, 2014 8:24 pm

GAB, that is like comparing a UTE/pickup with a land train. Totally different weight classes and usage.

Dave, it’s ok more or less. Doctrine wise, recce use it more like a mobile supply dump than a sensor outpost currently. There are plans to do something similar to your artillery/UAV conversion but as an add on to the normal foot/bike recce (UAV platoon). The Bronco carries spares for the electronics and a pair of spare bikes, food, fuel, water, ammunition and batteries. We don’t deploy with it, but after we use up our initial load, we pull back to the supply dump to resupply, or they move up to meet us halfway. Via land/water though, we don’t heli lift the thing, only the bikes and the teams.

Jedi, urbans, not much worry, despite all the theory about urban terrain and locked thread turns, most cities are not laid out in lanes so narrow you can’t turn. It’s something like a car. Cars can’t do locked thread turns, but you don’t see them having many problems negotiating city streets do you? If a truck can handle the streets, the ATTC would have no problem. The “urban=turn on a dime” originates more from theory than actual troubles in usage.

JH, think the Terrex fails the A400 size category. Don’t think it can fit. And airlift medium armour… ug… :( Lots more useful things to airlift than a single armoured vehicle. Like a platoon of light strike vehicles with a mix of AT and AP weapons *and* a platoon+ of infantry to boot.

paul g
August 12, 2014 9:06 pm

DT-30 in my ideal world JCB would get the licence rights to make this in the UK and it becomes the armoured regiments support vehicle, following the CR2s’ with lots of lovely ammo ,fuel and rations! It can take shitloads anywhere

paul g
August 12, 2014 9:19 pm

DT-30 delivering stuff, no worries about overloading the bridge when you don’t use it!!

A Different Gareth
August 13, 2014 9:08 am

RE: Bronco

If you wanted more speed at the expense of carrying capacity can two drive units be joined together? If it could go backwards as fast as it can go forwards too you could have two drive units back to back, or even a middle passenger unit or two a bit like a train. Not sure it would be useful just wondering what it can do.

Can the passenger/cargo units be daisy chained to make a longer (but slower) vehicle? Would be useful in humanitarian missions where outright speed was less of a priority.

August 13, 2014 9:23 am

ADG – ref roadtrains – see here: – 1934 24×24 cargo hauler, let down by insufficient torque from the one engine. Still fairly impressive though, and loaded with interesting engineering.

Paul G – the second semi-trailer river crossing was quite scary – the tractor unit wasn’t far off being turned over by the river current. The first vehicle obviously could float; not sure if the second was to drive on the river bed?

August 13, 2014 9:34 am

“If you wanted more speed at the expense of carrying capacity can two drive units be joined together?”

Nice try, no :) It’s like saying that joining 2 cars together will make them go faster.

Drive units on both ends, yes, provided the center unit has connectors on both ends.

Daisy chain, yes too.

Drive cabin, crane module, equipment bin. 3 units.

In the end though, what really counts is if you think it fits your requirements. I think it’s an average vehicle that is useful, something like a swiss army knife, but not really outstanding, there are other manufacturers that offer similar products for about the same effect, especially the Viking Mk 2. Question is, do you really need it?

A Different Gareth
August 13, 2014 1:55 pm

Observer said: “Nice try, no It’s like saying that joining 2 cars together will make them go faster.”

Not really. You’d double the power without much change in weight. Strange people do it with cars now and then adding a second engine to get better performance and it is also what some hybrid vehicles essentially are – an engine driving one axle and an electric motor driving another. Power to weight ratio improves significantly.

What I hadn’t considered is the gearboxes – that would certainly limit the top speed but the added power would improve acceleration. To get around the speed limit and to make this idea even more complex if the transmission had a high and low range you could use the low range for the regular vehicle consisting of a drive unit and a passenger module and the high range for fixing two drive units together as some kind of fast attack variant.

Brian Black
August 14, 2014 7:00 am

“Cars can’t do locked thread turns, but you don’t see them having many problems negotiating city streets do you? If a truck can handle the streets, the ATTC would have no problem.”

Cars and trucks don’t regularly turn around in the middle of the road, and when they do they often cause a significant holdup. Also, on a warlike operation, it may not be convenient to follow a one way system for half an hour just to get back to the junction that you passed a minute ago.

A Bronco probably could handle residential streets that had been designed to accommodate busses, fire trucks, bin wagons, and pantechnicons; but only if you adhere to the normal rules of the road. In a conflict situation, faffing about trying to turn around a string of vehicles to go back the way you came could become a deadly delay, while carrying on ahead may not be an option.

The Landrover and 430 combo faired quite well on urban patrols in recent times. The little M113 has also been extensively used in urban areas by a number of armies. A small single component tracked APC would have the advantage over a Bronco or similar. I don’t know if the Army will be keeping its Bulldogs for such situations in future.

August 15, 2014 11:48 am

Observer: “GAB, that is like comparing a UTE/pickup with a land train. Totally different weight classes and usage.”


For clarification, the Vityaz is a family of vehicles from the DT10 to the DT30 – I am looking at the qualities of the vehicle, not so much the size.



August 15, 2014 12:09 pm

Odd, I distinctively thought you said DT-30, not the Vityaz family.

Anyway my opinion is still 12 of one, dozen of another. You pick the one that suits you best.

August 18, 2014 12:24 am


I did say DT30 initially – thank you for the observation as I am not familiar with the advantages of these various tracked logistics vehicles.