A new Universal Carrier

CBT mobility pl

1 per pl and coy hq , but not of the pl. Plus 2 ea for mgs and atk. Plus 10%. 18 in total.


Something like above (old supacat)

Enough to move a company, say 16, and one each for mortars, atk, mg, pnrs. The latter crewed by that pl. Trailers for mortars, at and pnrs.

I'd you need armour where you're going don't send these carriers.

as an aside is there any mileage in putting warriors in separate organisations?

I'd all inf is light inf but can hitch a lift for periods of time?
 
Marauder. Think Hammond had one to play with on Top Gear.



Trailer on the back and Bob's a menkle dictator.
 
@LJONESY



..and that's going to batter the Golden Hour. If you can't guarantee air superiority, extraction is going to be be far harder. Probably means armour rather than rotary, and it probably errs towards guys being more mobile - which either means more guys in vehicles or better portage solutions.
Golden hour already accepted as battered by US
No guaranteed ‘golden hour’ for Marines headed into the next big fight
How Long Can the U.S. Military’s Golden Hour Last?

US SOF are saying the 72 hours casulaty care axiom they use for their specialists is also stretched/often wrong
Special Warfare Magazine Articles: “Loss of the Golden Hour” & “18D: The Lifeline.”
 
From Dr Karber's 2015 Ukraine report Page 27 & 28
https://prodev2go.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/rus-ukr-lessons-draft.pdf
Troop losses are so high soldiers on both sides prefer riding on top of the vehicle as opposed to riding in it;
Thus, the survivability of infantry on the modern battlefield poses serious challenge to those likely to face Russian mechanized forces and being on the receiving end of their artillery and MLRS firepower. Will the challenge be met with a reconsideration of the role of light armored vehicles and renewed effort at tank equipment protection for mounted infantry? Or, will the criteria of cost and strategic deployability remain dominant, and consequential infantry losses remain determinative?
 
CBT mobility pl

1 per pl and coy hq , but not of the pl. Plus 2 ea for mgs and atk. Plus 10%. 18 in total.


Something like above (old supacat)

Enough to move a company, say 16, and one each for mortars, atk, mg, pnrs. The latter crewed by that pl. Trailers for mortars, at and pnrs.

I'd you need armour where you're going don't send these carriers.

as an aside is there any mileage in putting warriors in separate organisations?

I'd all inf is light inf but can hitch a lift for periods of time?
Dont know if its been mentioned up thread but on Think Defence ( sorry cant link ) there are some very interesting articles on this subject , military quad bikes , the overburdened infantry soldier , the light strike brigade etc. makes some very interesting reading .
 
Dont know if its been mentioned up thread but on Think Defence ( sorry cant link ) there are some very interesting articles on this subject , military quad bikes , the overburdened infantry soldier , the light strike brigade etc. makes some very interesting reading .
Home - Think Defence
Home - Think Defence
 
my first instinct is that we're increasing the cost per unit significantly in order to satisfy things that would be secondary requirements however a call would need to be made about the role of the vehicle. if it's primary function is to carry kit and stores then it seems over the top, if you're going to start using it as recce veh or for moving troops close in to the point of an attack then i can see the use for it though.

i like the idea of providing a charge point as it's something that should be relatively cheep to add.
Will there be a BV?
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top