FRES 2: The Revenge aka MIV

Do we have the ammo stocks to meet that level of useage now?
I doubt it - I think we had a load of emergency buys last time out. Remember that's the very highest rates for neutralising the hardest Soviet stylee targets so nothing like a 'normal' day.

BOXER with a 155mm has only a 2 man crew, caries 30 rounds, is into action in seconds and can fire 3 rounds and scoot in less than the time it took me to type this....
 
In theory, a NATO pallet or two, lengthwise. In practice, easier to bin the strapping and pallet and load the boxes/ shells/ mines loose.
If that's the case then why aren't Zulu 432s used for just that.

Maybe they are!
 

Londo

LE
IIRC the chassis couldn't take the recoil - up to 15 tons on max charge.
I also heard too much bounce on the suspension . I'm sure they could have found a cure though if they actually wanted to .
 
How wide is the door at the rear between the sponsons? Could you get a NATO pallet in there? Or just a jumble of boxes?
Alas, I am a mere neophyte. I don't know. It was a "wot about" thought. If it's the 1200x1000mm you mean You could certainly get a few in there, I would have thought. If it's the 463L not a chance.
 
I am sure i saw mentioned on resupply vehicles "some sort of armour on the roof"(?). Weight is everything and the powers that be prefer to put that armour around expensive troops than bottles of water and sleeping bags. I did not mention the warfighting stuff because it tends to be heavy and that eats into your load capacity. No good if 1/4 of your rear axle weight is taken up by armour before you even put stores on. 6t MAN in Afghanistan was exceeding its front axle weight with all the gubbins over it like armour, radios, ECM and those lardy SQ types driving the thing. Hence why most were only seen going around camp. 9t faired a little better but we were at the limit for a lot of the cargo vehicles, DROPS/EPLS included once you try and throw on a rack full of Arty stuff. I say this as i am working on a overseas mil clients requirement for a lot of stuff to be carried in the spec and we have already told them vehicle limitation has reduced the amount of stuff by 30%.
 
Alas, I am a mere neophyte. I don't know. It was a "wot about" thought. If it's the 1200x1000mm you mean You could certainly get a few in there, I would have thought. If it's the 463L not a chance.
You won't see a 463L anywhere near the FEBA I don't think!
 
Highest rates of fire for AS90 were around 396 RPG/Day (SOHB in Cold War days, as a result of BAS/RARS). Clearly you can't do that for long but with 19 rounds of 155mm in a ULC of which you can put 8 (12ish tonnes) on a DROPS MMLC or IMMLC you'll need 3 flatracks per gun for just one day at those (admittedly very intense) rates which I doubt the gun bunnies would find a whole lot of fun to load and fire . . .
c6efe452c7f7d5b07224883c70a13005.jpg


I doubt it . . . . Remember that's the very highest rates for neutralising the hardest Soviet stylee targets so nothing like a 'normal' day.

BOXER with a 155mm has only a 2 man crew, caries 30 rounds, is into action in seconds and can fire 3 rounds and scoot in less than the time it took me to type this....
Yes . . . that is the “rule-of-thumb” that I mentioned earlier.

In the “fog-of-war”, if a flat-rack of Arty ammo is going forward, chuck a 10-man rat-pack of COMPO in the vehicle cab ;) .
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
While not all the answers to Logistic questions, but maybe for the infantry, the Dutch have brought a few small UGV's for trails:
The Booties have been playing with a Qinetic UGV, dunno if 29 got to play with it though.
 
I am sure i saw mentioned on resupply vehicles "some sort of armour on the roof"(?). Weight is everything and the powers that be prefer to put that armour around expensive troops than bottles of water and sleeping bags. I did not mention the warfighting stuff because it tends to be heavy and that eats into your load capacity. No good if 1/4 of your rear axle weight is taken up by armour before you even put stores on. 6t MAN in Afghanistan was exceeding its front axle weight with all the gubbins over it like armour, radios, ECM and those lardy SQ types driving the thing. Hence why most were only seen going around camp. 9t faired a little better but we were at the limit for a lot of the cargo vehicles, DROPS/EPLS included once you try and throw on a rack full of Arty stuff. I say this as i am working on a overseas mil clients requirement for a lot of stuff to be carried in the spec and we have already told them vehicle limitation has reduced the amount of stuff by 30%.

Yet it's no good delivering supplies if the water, oil, fuel or any liquids had drained away thro frag holes, if the ration packs have added iron concentrates or the 1.4s SAA is similarly improved. I do believe that Javelin & NLAW may object strongly to having red hot chunks of metal inserted at high speed.

Given that our closet possible least friendly power in Europe has spent a lot of money & time on improving one of their already far too good components of their land forces to the point that ranges of 70Kms plus seem normal it seems sensible to consider how far back of the FEBA you have to protect as much as possible those supplies we do have.....
 
Yet it's no good delivering supplies if the water, oil, fuel or any liquids had drained away thro frag holes, if the ration packs have added iron concentrates or the 1.4s SAA is similarly improved. I do believe that Javelin & NLAW may object strongly to having red hot chunks of metal inserted at high speed.

Given that our closet possible least friendly power in Europe has spent a lot of money & time on improving one of their already far too good components of their land forces to the point that ranges of 70Kms plus seem normal it seems sensible to consider how far back of the FEBA you have to protect as much as possible those supplies we do have.....
Agree that the stores that leave the stores need to be in a serv condition when they get to the end user. The trouble is industry and the law does not allow a 55t truck to trundle around the battlefield. You probably can get a armoured truck that protects both the drivers and load but now you have a fully enclosed load surrounded by some sort of armour which also needs to be transported easily (ignoring the bridges and rubbish tracks the 55t thing has to go down) and then arrive with its precious cargo inside needing some sort of MHE to reach inside and pull it out. Even in 20ft guise it wont be easy. Yes we have MHE to "reach" inside but its limited to weight and there is not a lot of them. Funnily enough i am on a mil logistics conference now and i suspect this sort of issue will be brought up by the military attendees. But i go back to my original point, weight is everything. One of the last things i did before i left the Army was involved with the HLDC project which was to replace DROPS and other Log trucks such as the old GST fuel tanker. The requirement was a 60,000ltr fuel truck with armour on the cab and "investigate armoured load". The civilian experts (lets face it they know what they are talking about) came back "no problem"......as long as you know you will be carrying 20,000ltrs during peacetime due to weight issues and add about 50k to the price for the work we will need to do to the COTS chassis you insist on.
 
Last edited:

gafkiwi

War Hero
One of the last thing before i left the Army was involve with the HLDC project which was to replace DROPS and other Log trucks such as the old GST fuel tanker. The requirement was a 60,000ltr fuel truck with armour on the cab and "investigate armoured load". The civilian experts (lets face it they know what they are talking about) came back "no problem"......as long as you know you will be carrying 20,000ltrs during peacetime due to weight issues and add about 50k to the price for the work we will need to do to the COTS chassis you insist on.
Sounds like the old "Careful what you ask for, you might just get it".
 
Funnily enough i was at a German manufactuer the other week and they showed me ballistic protection that covers a 10,000ltr fuel tank for the military. The issue was that was the limit for the capacity with this protection on and it only stops AK type rounds. Well to be fair i can show you tens of pictures of Afghan civilian tankers with bullet holes in. No explosion, just fuel leaking out and you can stop that with a driver applied stick of wood....i kid you not. So whilst you could possibly stop bullets....frag from some other heavy ordinance, i refer you to my weight issue.
 

Top