67 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 24, 2014 7:08 am

42 tonne bridge classification. A lardy thing. Won’t get to lots of places without a Sapper train behind it.

Deja Vu
Deja Vu
October 24, 2014 10:40 am

@RT

Follow the Sapper

Rocket Banana
October 24, 2014 10:45 am

Dampers need tuning when it pulled to a stop at the end otherwise you’d have spilled you tea ;-)

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 24, 2014 10:49 am

DV,

Easiest way to defeat a Boxer-equipped enemy?

Go light. Blow up every bridge with MLC>10. Concentrate fire on crossing points. Attack their sappers, even giving a bonus to civilians who spot Sapper wagons, to then be hunted down in real time. Write an app for it for free download, with pictures of enemy Sapper wagons so that Joe public knows what he is looking for.

How many 10 men lightly armoured Boxers can we afford to lose to asymmetric tactics before the public has enough?

Monty
October 24, 2014 1:39 pm

Red Trousers,

I agree it’s very heavy, but it is exceptionally well protected – it’s probably the best protected infantry carrier vehicle currently in service. The German Army is very pleased with it by all accounts. I also happen to know that the British Army likes it a lot too. Had a good look at one at Eurosatory. Excellent suspension system. The build quality is superb. The design moved on a lot since the Trials of Truth in 2007. I wonder if this thing is now the lead contender for FRES UV?

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
October 24, 2014 1:50 pm

Monty,

The version mix in the German and Dutch orders does not help transparency, but what would you wager as the unit cost for the “plain” infantry carrier?

I love that little 42 marking by the recovery winch attach points: Don’t try this if you haven’t got a 42 t winch!

monkey
monkey
October 24, 2014 2:22 pm


At least we wouldn’t have to have a different engine fitted as its the same as in the FRES SV

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 24, 2014 2:51 pm

Monty,

No doubt that it is dandy. But it is still 42 chuffing tonnes. That significantly reduces strategic utility.

Sometimes, I think that European and American defence planners sort of assume that the next war is going to be in a flat desert. They are buying their wagons on that assumption anyway.

IXION
October 24, 2014 3:05 pm

RT

To right!

Not just 42 tons but have you will notice how ‘unmuddy’ all that terrain it is charging around is?

Off road in a wet Cambridge fen in February, or Cumbrian field any time of the year this sucker is going down to it’s axles.

Is amazing how our military planners are not just assuming dessert activity but that all future wars will take place with the unencumbered use of a decent road network.

Chris
Chris
October 24, 2014 3:27 pm

Ref the next war being the same as the last – its always been that way. The sorry tale that is CVR(T) replacement veered between light air-portable and heavy protection requirements more than once – it would be an interesting exercise to map the changes in requirement to the types of conflict just completed (NI, Falklands, Gulf 1, Balkans, Gulf 2, Astan) to see if the ‘new understanding’ of the requirement aligned to the recent deployment. I think there would be extremely obvious correlation. But this should be no surprise – those that make the decisions are generally recent front line officers who would have seen the issues of the wrong kind of armour and so write new requirements to get something better (er – for their last war, that is). As it stands, the FRES merrygoround stopped just after two desert deployments characterized by IEDs, so FRES is big wide heavy and well protected. No surprise really.

Boxer is a bit different, in that the major requirement holder was Germany; a state famous for not fighting on other nations’ territory (well, since 1945 anyway). This presumably means Boxer in Bundeswehr service is expected to perform policing actions within German borders, where the roads are wide and the terrain well mapped. I doubt the German forces would have seen the need for more compact mobility-focused armour as perhaps the US Britain and France did. In any case they have Wiesel…

Obviously I think these are all on the heavy side, but even my (very fine) designs would be heavy by RT’s criteria. There is a continuous spectrum of AFV weights with the associated consequences in mobility & protection – what’s right in one situation will not be right in another. This is why I think its wise to keep a mixed weight fleet.

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 24, 2014 4:19 pm

Chris,

Chenowth, you know it makes sense…. And a stretch Chenowth for the Queen of the Battlefield, with 8 basic seats facing outward, and no sides or roof. :)

My first ever operational tour, in Fermanagh, we had a week of helicopter no-fly due to some air safety thing going on with Puma. So I commandeered a Bedford 3 tonner that the QM wasn’t using, the boys and I lined the flatbed with filled sandbags, removed the canvas roof, mounted a Gimpy on the cab roof, and tore around Enniskillen. The locals didn’t like it, but it was a surprisingly flexible platform. You could jump on and off in a jiffy, it took up to 20 people, the dogs could be heaved off board and hit the ground running, and it was wide enough to block a country lane.

More seriously, we need something in the 2-5 tonne range.

monkey
monkey
October 24, 2014 4:40 pm

@RT
The US Army is testing a 9 occupant (driver + 8) car called the Ultra Light Combat Vehicle (ULCV) which comes in empty a 2t, no armour just a roll cage and a smaller lighter scout recon vehicle called the Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (LRV) which might just be a Chenowth !
They aren’t designing their own but have just asked industry to submit their best candidates. The ULCV contenders are being trailed now by the US Army and the LRV canditates are to be delivered 3rd / 4th quarter next year.

Chris
Chris
October 24, 2014 4:40 pm

RT – ref “we need something in the 2-5 tonne range” – send money and I’ll see what can be done… The subsystems I have used as common building blocks across the set of vehicles are a bit too chunky to get to that weight range. 7t 4×4 is as small as I can do. Starting again from scratch would allow lower protection lighter weight designs to emerge, eventually that is. None of these designs happen overnight.

wf
wf
October 24, 2014 5:02 pm

: how about this:-

Design an armoured man sized pod, shaped to deflect blast on the base, a small armoured parasol/rollbar on the top within which is a suspended lightweight seat.

– spaceframe body
– 4-6 wheels, all electric hub motor powered thus avoiding a transmission
– diesel and generator in armoured box
– 4-6 mounting points for aforementioned armoured pods

Bet that should be a great Jackal replacement. Call it 2.5 tonnes with 4 passengers and some MG/GMG?

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 24, 2014 6:11 pm

Haha TD, I fell for that… :)

I thought that might be a Unimog site that you were linking to, and those were (are???) cracking wagons. We used to have a small fleet for running Hohne ranges: as safety officer, you’d go down range on one behind a Troop or Squadron firing exercise. Better than rovers for cross-country, just imagine one with no box on the back but a roll cage, 4 basic seats fitted facing sideways and outwards on each side, and a few pintles on the running boards for the Gimpys. Not bad for £40k.

Gloomy Northern Boy
Gloomy Northern Boy
October 24, 2014 6:16 pm
Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 24, 2014 6:43 pm

Young Master GNB,

Your father has often told us of your fascination with Mega-Bloks, but this is a grown up conversation (it must be, because the subject matter is a 42 tonne tin box that only grown ups with a lifetime of complexity in their heads and having to sit on a Euro committee could possibly have dreamt up).

However, I have good news. Blok construction is really fashionable for amazingly huge but useless boats. A full career in BAE Systems is yours for the taking.

Gloomy Northern Boy
Gloomy Northern Boy
October 24, 2014 7:16 pm

He actually fancies architecture, but I’ll pass the message on… :-)

GNB

WW
WW
October 24, 2014 7:20 pm

@RT re Unimog

What about this …..

A Unimog truck modified by Carat Security Group for the Belgain Army Special Forces Group
10 units converted/purchased. A poor man’s solution no doubt, but what’s not to like?

http://www.mil.be/nl/materiaal/unimog-19t-4×4-jacam [dutch]
http://www.mil.be/fr/materiel/unimog-19t-4×4-jacam [french]

Observer
Observer
October 24, 2014 8:56 pm

RT, second the Unimog, it really is a nice little vehicle. Too bloody handy to ever get rid of.

TD, nice concept, I really love the idea, really do, but there is one flaw to module swapping. What the hell do you do with the 3-4 other modules that you are not using most of the time? My guess would be most of them would be collecting dust in some warehouse while the commonly used ones get semi-permanently fixed onto a chassis.

Gloomy, you ever googled up “LSV Mk 2”? I suspect some copyright infringement going on. :)

as
as
October 24, 2014 9:33 pm

@Observer & RT
There is a video of it.

Monty
October 25, 2014 12:27 pm

It is clear to me that we need an a wheeled APC with good cross-country mobility and that’s capable of carrying a full section of infantrymen (which means a crew of 2 plus 8 dismounts).

The US Army’s M1126 Stryker (LAV III) now weighs 18-19 tonnes. The Boxer is a similar size in terms of length, width and height, but weighs twice as much. The armour package on the Boxer is standardised for all deployment types, which is why it is generally so heavy. With FRES SV we have opted for modular appliqué armour solution instead. This can be upgraded / downgraded depending on the task / threat. If we were to adopt the Patria AMV XP, we would also be able to use a similar armour solution. The basic vehicle weight is around 20 tonnes and is upgradeable to around 33 tonnes (still a lot).

FRES UV has to be between four vehicles: Boxer, AMV, Piranha (LAV III DVH) and VBCI. The ST Kinetics Terrex and Mitsubishi MCV platforms are very similar and probably just as good.

Irrespective of any 8×8 utility vehicle that we might adopt, I think there is a very clear requirement for a go-anywhere lightweight tracked AFV cable of mounting a decent cannon – a true CVR(T) replacement. The more we discuss this topic, the more obvious it becomes. TD we ought to start a CVR(T) replacement tread. I expect lots of interesting ideas from Phil – if he’ll share them ;-)

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 25, 2014 1:09 pm

I think that Carat Unimog is sex on wheels. Almost as good as a Chenowth, and certainly good enough for the infantry***.

*** Assuming that it does not break down every half mile, has enough diesel in it for 24 hours, and does not roll over at the sight of a slight slope, as Saxon did. Otherwise, all good. But get rid of the shiny glass windscreen.

Chris
Chris
October 25, 2014 2:03 pm

Monty – true CVR(T) replacement? Easy-peasy-done. Next?

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 25, 2014 2:53 pm

Good grief, Chris, why ever would you want to replace CVR(T)? It was the most useless POS ever.

Chris
Chris
October 25, 2014 5:54 pm

RT – some people quite liked it. I get the slightest hint you didn’t. I s’pose its a bit like other chaps wives – some you like, some you really like, some you can barely remember and some you can’t stand (although etiquette requires politeness, of course). Some like CVR(T), some don’t give it a thought, and some are called RT…

Gloomy Northern Boy
Gloomy Northern Boy
October 25, 2014 6:12 pm

@RT – Unimog – our favourite ski resort keeps one to ferry the kiddy-winks from the nursery slope to their nudel-suppe; with chains on it tackles the slopes almost as well as the Pisten Bully, so no worries on that front…

GNB

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 25, 2014 6:18 pm

Chris,

I’ll bet that the ones who quite liked it never actually went to war in it. Those of us who did mostly think it was a useless POS. And I want to meet both the original designer, and the head of “quality control” in Alvis to impress my opinions upon them in an unmistakeable manner.

Frankly, I’d rather have walked.

mr.fred
mr.fred
October 25, 2014 6:25 pm

RT,
If you’ll forgive my erratic memory, and save me doing an archive trawl, was it the concept or the implementation that caused you grief?
To go a bit further, was it the role in which you were forced to use it in that inspires such ire, or would it have been equally deficient in all roles?

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 25, 2014 6:44 pm

Mr Fred,

Both, although it really should have been shat on and then hung, drawn and quartered at birth. Product of some utter twonks in the civil service who should never have drawn a pension, and the lunacy of quality control of the mid 70s in a British company that thankfully no longer exists.

It was too big and too heavy. You could hear the engine idling from over a mile away. The tracks slapped the sponsons something rotten above 15 mph. It broke down every 100 miles. It was a gas guzzler. The optics were utterly fucking crap. The Rarden was rubbish, the 76mm removed your kneecap and was basically a warmed over WW1 25 pounder, the Spartan remote weapon station had more play in it than a Kindergarten, the Swingfire roof tray had to be hand cranked after the first missile was fired, on all wagons the aluminium handles for hatches and doors sheared off, the turret master switches failed every 30 miles, the coax link extraction tubes shoved link straight into the turret races, jamming traverse, the gear engagement selectors fell off, the J60 engines had the world’s most crap gear ratios, the gearboxes were sub-optimal because transversely mounted, the radiators gummed up due to the fins being proud of the mounting points and so got flattened. The power supply to the radios was inadequate, the hull batteries unreachable with traversing rear, the fuel supply leaky, the rubber fuel tank liner rotted and deposited bits of liner into the carburettor, the fuel tank then leaked petrol directly onto the hull batteries….

Do you want me to go on?

IXION
October 25, 2014 6:55 pm

RT

As a matter of interrest assuming all the above and any more could have been fixed…

Was it ok size wise. In other words Was there anything wrong in princible with a 7.5 Ton small tracked vehicle. In fact would a small tracked vehicle be any good at all?

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 25, 2014 7:11 pm

IXION,

as a recce wagon, it was a bit too big, but worse it was tracked, which made it noisy. Of course it had other roles, but for recce, it was utterly rubbish.

It was also about 7 tonnes too heavy. It limited your abuts to manoeuvre.

Monty
October 25, 2014 7:53 pm

RT,

Given your comments about CVR(T) you must love Jackal – wheeled, fast, reliable, good off road, stealthy, light and even some protection against mines.

mr.fred
mr.fred
October 25, 2014 8:08 pm

RT,
Always good to hear the gripes about service kit. Hopefully someone will take heed and avoid such problems in the future.
The problems so far don’t seem too problematic – Band track, modern engines and automotive components, modern weapon systems, quality control etc. Chris and Monty’s CVR(T) replacement would feature some or all of them.
A modern engine would be quieter, a series hybrid would be all but silent.
Weight’s a problem that you aren’t going to get around without changing the concept, but it sounds like we could do with a lighter class of vehicle anyway. At 1-3 tonnes, there will be little or no protection, so it would be scant use outside of recce by stealth, but at the same time it would be cheap (save the million quid’s worth of sensors and comms kit you’d likely carry, unless there is some sensible minimum).

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 25, 2014 8:38 pm

Mr Fred,

I genuinely think a recce wagon should look like a mini Moke with a bicycle in the back, and none of that useless froth like a windscreen or canvas roof. Perhaps more reliable, more cross-country performance.

A Willys Jeep? But still with a mountain bike in the back.

Mike W
October 25, 2014 8:55 pm

RT

After your pretty comprehensive list of the CVR(T)’s shortcomings, I must confess I am puzzled and somewhat disillusioned. If it really had all those failings, why was it exported to nearly 20 countries, including Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Chile, Venezuela, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, New Zealand, Iran, Jordan, Oman the UAE and now Latvia?

Must have had something going for it or were those nations all stupid or gullible or did they not test the vehicle properly? ‘Cos that’s quite an export record.

as
as
October 25, 2014 8:56 pm

Every soldier should have Montague paratrooper folding bike.
http://www.militarybikes.com/

Chris
Chris
October 25, 2014 9:14 pm

mr.fred – I recall 7 or 8 years back having a look-see at the US JTRS software programmable radio project. Gucci idea; one radio set capable of synthesizing waveforms to join any known net (if waveform data installed). The downside was all that processing took a lot of hardware to run on, so big heavy and thirsty, and of course needed to be secure so special hardware etc. I’m not sure if JTRS went ahead – I seem to recall one military mind being very anti when finding out that the basic jeep-like HMMWV runaround, once fitted with the radio, needed lots of security measures to be enforced (no parking it in town to nip in the McDonald’s) and the addition of the radio almost doubled the jeep’s cost. Personally since the proliferation of mobiles I’ve not understood the military desire for vastly expensive thirsty point-to-point comms systems. All the soldiers carry mobiles (everybody carries the things) so make use of them – either a message encryption system using commercial networks, or, if necessary, through military deployed cells. Pocket terminals costing £200 each, multi media GPS capable comms centre already developed tested and in the field. How much do we pay for each Bowman set? But hey – the MOD will buy lots of expensive kit and fit it to everything they can, and hang the expense.

Monty – Jackal looks like a jeepy thing but its not small – must be best part of 2.2m to the top of the hamper and 6m long. It is narrow though. Its also no lightweight – 7.5t max, 5.5t basic weight. Interesting to put one next to a Landie. Mind, Foxhound is the same size & weight.

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 25, 2014 9:19 pm

Mike W,

I have no idea. It was a product of the 70s, and I looked on it from the perspective of the 80s and 90s. It really was shit. But then again so was my Fiat Strada of the same epoch, and I actually paid real money for that. More fool me.

Chris
Chris
October 25, 2014 10:03 pm

Fiat Ritmo?? You’re the one that bought the thing? Made by robots, styled by children under the affluence of incohol, fitted with nice twangy lateral leaf springs and as comfy as a dry stone wall. I will bear this fact in mind in future vehicular discussions. RiTmo – it is sort of appropriate…

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 25, 2014 10:13 pm

Don’t know about a Ritmo, mine was a Strada. I managed to bag a girlfriend once who also had a Fiat Strada, we both broke down on the A303 at Hazelgrove roundabout in Somerset on a Sunday evening, she was trying to get back to London while I only needed to get back to Tidworth. We managed to swap car parts enough to get one functioning Strada together to get us back to my room in the Mess, followed by swapping liquids. I put her on the 6am train from Grateley the next morning, she had to come back the next weekend for her car, and we hung out together for a couple of months.

Very 80s.

Obsvr
Obsvr
October 26, 2014 12:43 am

Not sure that Boxer will be much use in Germany. Water meadows in the river valleys after a bit of rain can effectively bog just about anything.

It’s useful to remember that mobile phones were invented by the British Army (hat tip to R Sigs who had the vision). It was called Single Channel Radio Access (SCRA) and was an add-on to Ptarmigan. One of the reasons for net radio is ‘all-informed’, it is not just a one to one medium. Of course some of us can work three nets simultaneously and the intercom to the driver despite having only two ears and one mouth (and avoid the embarrassment of telling the driver to turn left on the main command net).

Observer
Observer
October 26, 2014 2:25 am

Who ever calls an M-113 a “Gavin”? It never had a nickname assigned to it.

*I edited a few choice words after the “who”*

Chris, in exercises, handphones are what happens when you lose comms, but in war, cellphone towers are too easily taken down.

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 26, 2014 4:14 am

Obsvr,

All very 80s, am feeling quite retro. I remember SCRA(T)s, chuffing heavy and normally did not work.

While we are feeling retro, anyone else recall girls borrowing razors to keep themselves neat and tidy?

Fire up the Quattro.

IXION
October 26, 2014 8:19 am

RT

Ritmo and Strada same car. Just called Strada in UK.

Bit like the
Honda Breeze motorbike. Rumour has it….. called in the Japanese market ‘ The passing wind’

But hey my sexual adventures started with am unfeesably large breasted farm girl in a Morris Oxford,

IXION
October 26, 2014 8:23 am

On a more serious note. Can someone who can explain electrickery in small words inform me as to why we cant use suitably encripted mobiles and satellite phones. Modern mobiles are way tougher thay ww2 radios and walki talkies…..

The Other Chris
October 26, 2014 9:43 am

Number of limitations which would affect military use:

– Dependent on a network of receiving stations (“masts”) to handle the bulk of the actual transmission (the “backhaul”)
– Only enough power to reach the nearest mast
– Chips are manufactured to provide hardware support for the civilian transmission protocols (GSM etc)
– Limited range of transmission frequency bands
– Tend to transmit in a steady stream of packets with little regard for making triangulation difficult (to the contrary, networks want to know where you are to ease routing)
– “Chatter” needed to negotiate with masts is constant
– etc etc

Chris
Chris
October 26, 2014 10:36 am

TOC – all true but… local cells can be distributed to replace the duff masts I understand? Micro/Pico/Nanocells I have heard them called. In any case, replacing a radio picket with a GSM station should present few problems, surely. As for commercial GSM protocols, good! The best thing to hide in a forest is a tree. If the mil transmissions are indistinguishable from civilian ones then opposition forces COMINT just gets much harder…

mr.fred
mr.fred
October 26, 2014 11:58 am

Chris,
You can hide a tree in a forest, but it tends to stand out a bit if you put it on a plain, or cut the rest of the forest down. (Brief power-cut? The ones still transmitting are the military ones.)
A networked radio system seems sensible, but there also seem to be some serious reasons why the civilian model wouldn’t suit the military.

Observer
Observer
October 26, 2014 1:34 pm

I was taught that if you were lost and friendlies needed to triangulate to retrieve you, hold down your PTT on your set, count to ten, then backwards to one. That is how long it needs to triangulate your location, about 20 seconds. Work in reverse, that is also how long it would take for the enemy to find you if you were constantly broadcasting like a cellphone. It’s a recipe for artillery shelling or an airstrike. Even more so for the nodes that need to be constantly transmitting too.

Dan R
Dan R
October 26, 2014 2:19 pm

Interesting comparison to the Jackal would be the old Fox armoured car. They both weigh about the same have about the same power though the fox is much better protected against enemy fire (you can close up) and is substantially better armed.

Obviously the Jackal has more modern automotive components but that’s a factor down to the age of the vehicle not the concept.

I suspect that if you put a three man crew in the hull and mounted an remote weapons system you could probably create a fire support and recce vehicle with RPG IED protection in the 12-15tonne range.

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 26, 2014 5:52 pm

Dan R,

Don’t confuse a Fox with being armoured. It would just about keep the rain off you.

We had a CVR(T) comprehensively shredded by MG fire by a T-59 in Gulf One. Same armour. You’re better off with the massively improved visibility in a Jackal, and sod the armour.

Chris
Chris
October 26, 2014 8:41 pm

Obs – I get the triangulation thing, when the mil net has an identifiable signature. The point of using something like commercial GSM is that all the transmissions, mil or civilian, have exactly the same signature. With access to network data the content of the datastream can be used to get a rough fix based on which cells are in contact with a specific phone but as yet that doesn’t seem fast. Probably needs some foreknowledge of technical details gathered over time too.

mr.fred – any powercut will close the base stations in the affected area, but the mobiles will just scream louder if they lose their connection. True any mil base station would probably rattle on, and might be put at risk, but the mobile-using soldiers would be no more noticeable than the civilians in the area. If I understand chatty-mobile comms right.

Dan – Fox had an unfortunate relationship between suspension roll-centre and CofG – a bit top heavy like. Not something to treat enthusiastically as up might suddenly become the new down. Of all the historic vehicles I could have used for good ideas, Fox was the one I chose not to investigate. Well, that and Saxon. Saladin, Ferret, Saracen, Humber Pig, and yes CVR(T), and older armour too, have thrown up useful characteristics. Unlike Fox, Jackal started as a good off road chassis with focus on mobility, then turned military and (sort of) armoured – Jackal, and its unarmoured sibling, can be used with great enthusiasm.

RT – your position is understood – there are parts of the Army that follow that approach. Jackal earned its 1.6t of armourplate because the bits of the Army that don’t squirm towards enemy positions flat on their stomach to see what they’re up to didn’t like the idea of no protection on their wagons. So if there’s enough gelt in the piggy-bank, perhaps you can have your buggy and other bits of the army can have something with a bit of armour?

Dan R
Dan R
October 26, 2014 8:54 pm

That would have presumably been a 12.7mm HMG, if you wanted to provide fire support for some dismounted infantry a 30mm cannon and an MG protected with armour sufficient to stop LMG and AK would be better than the 0.5cal on a Jackal which the user is very exposed operating.

Also the two crew in a turret have the option to stick their heads out in which case would they not have the same visibility as the crew of a Jackal?

mr.fred
mr.fred
October 26, 2014 9:07 pm

Chris,
Yep, power cut then hit any base stations still transmitting. Render whole units out of communications.
The other problem is that military forces move differently to civilians. If I see 30-odd signals moving across open ground in unison then I can have a pretty good guess who they are. Plus there are areas where civilians don’t tend to be but the military like, so large groups there would be a bit of a giveaway.
Then there is working with the civilian signals to discern troop movement. Quite understandably civilians don’t want to be in close proximity to either side so I could look at signal movement to see people moving out of the way. That would work regardless of the radio technology in use, but if I can then triangulate a group moving with purpose amongst others moving out of the way, I can then get strength information.

Observer
Observer
October 26, 2014 10:17 pm

Chris, this signal leakage is why most units operate “dark” with regards to comms when not in use. When most of the units are not actively communicating, there is no signal out, so nothing to triangulate. A handphone gives off signal constantly.

Not that it is a bad idea, you get a local version of it called a Battlefield Management System, or BMS with limited range and limited access. Then there are handheld modems to send text messages, they compress/encrypt the message and send it out in a single burst. It’s portable, about a lunchbox in size, and very densely armoured, I dare say using one on a helmet would crack the helmet easily. Interesting thing about the encryption is that the decrypt code ID is in the front of the signal sent out, so sometimes when the front part of the signal is degraded, the text ends up “japanese” as we like to call it because the mis-decrypted message looks like Japanese.

Chris
Chris
October 27, 2014 8:34 am

New news! RT with his recce wagon! http://www.milweb.net/webvert_images/74754/f.jpg

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 27, 2014 3:19 pm

Good grief, Chris, that’s a bit lame.

The last time I was seen in something that lardy I was doing her for a wager, and had to produce her knickers as proof before I was given my winnings. And then spent a fortnight trying to fend her off.

Chris
Chris
October 27, 2014 3:48 pm
Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 27, 2014 4:13 pm

Chris,

A bicycle, horse, quad bike…all acceptable.

Anything over 2 tonnes and that is taller than I am…not.

Also nothing with the reliability of a Belgian.

monkey
monkey
October 27, 2014 4:41 pm


That MG carrier, who says men cannot multi-task , steer with your feet ,lying prone , throttle control with your feet and feeding an MG !

as
as
October 27, 2014 5:00 pm

@RT so
What we are looking for is a modern equivalent of the Austin Ant, Nuffield Guppy/Gutty and the Standard jungle bug.
A light vehicle only just big enough to carry radios and other relevant surveillance equipment.
There are quite a few vehicles that could serve as a base.
There are lots of Buggies with varying numbers of wheels from 8×8 from Argo to small 4×4 from Polaris.

Chris
Chris
October 27, 2014 6:37 pm

monkey – probably why it never caught on. Or maybe it was just a useless machine?

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 27, 2014 7:17 pm

Chris,

Have you ever tried to fire more than 20 rounds from a Scimitar’s coax? Twenty being about the amount of link it took to jam the expended link chute.

You had to use your left hand to support the belt, your right hand to constantly clear the feed tray, your gunner’s left hand to hold the sight steady in case it vibrated itself to death, and if you wanted to avoid the wagon being shot to shit by OPFOR, you needed a neck like a giraffe to actually look outside at the same time and do your day job.

Probably why most recce commanders dismounted their Gimpys and used them from the top of the hatch.

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
October 27, 2014 7:32 pm

Did anyone else ever bastardise a 58 Pattern ammunition pouch with a folded piece of coat hanger to make a ready round tray for a gimpy? Or was it only me, in which case ™.

Held about 130 rounds, I never had a stoppage.