Oshkosh - your opinion?

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by Run_Charlie!, Mar 30, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I'm about to go on an Oshkosh course. I was wondering what the collective opinion is on these vehicles?
  2. By all accounts from our blokes, they love em! fastest in the fleet, beds, BV, GPS, what's not to like?
  3. mmmmm?!! Depends how you look at them. From a technical drivers point of view they could be better. From a bog standard drivers point of view they are better than what we had a by a long shot. From a fuel operators point of view they are pretty poorly designed.
    And ill back up what i have said....
    Technical POV. 2 steering boxes?? Hence why you get that detached feeling when driving them. Big bonnet....good in large open roads, bollox in nice country villages and built up areas. Fecking big truck for what it has to do. Already certain Units are saying they are not what they want and are too big. And even with front bonnet, you still need to take cab off to remove engine.
    Bog Standard POV. Good at going x-country, in fact apart from Viking and other purpose built vehicles, in HERRICK they are one of the best for x-country travel. But the truck is very rudimentary in construction, fitting armour is'nt the easiest due to panel fit.
    Fuel Operators POV. Poorly laid out controls, no remote pump operation when bulk discharging and delivery. No way of accurately gauging fuel quantity once its in the tank unless its 3/4 full. One compartment, which causes infrastructure problems.

    There are good things but personally i think the bad ones outweigh them.
    Go on the course and see for yourself, but how you rate them maybe reliant on how much experience of other tankers and trucks you have.
  4. I think Blomeister is talking about the TAR variant and you are talking about the CST.

    Two distinctly differing roles and therefore (bearing in mind what they had before 4000 Ltr Bedford/DAF) possibly two completely differing opinions.

    Or I could be talking complete B*llocks :D :D

  5. I have my fingers crossed that you were not on the trials and development team.
  6. Well for the driving side of life the TAR and CST are the same and the Unit that told me they were too big for what they want, use TAR's.
    But having seen reports coming back from Units that hold CST, the majority of complaints are about some of the training and what i have already mentioned, the design of the fuelling bit of it.
  7. LOL, funny you should say that i wasnt, but on the General Support Tanker replacement, i am. In fact im on a SRD meeting on Tues.
  8. Not that I am an expert in any way, however, with the arrival of AH, an uplift of 4000 Ltrs was almost certainly required :D
  9. Too true, i heard that a AH with underwing tanks could empty one TACB. Have to say TAR side of life isnt my expertise.