"75 years after it was first deployed, will US Army..." Topic

… bring back the 'jeep'?

"Were it not for efforts by the U.S. military to develop a lightweight, unarmored, all-terrain vehicle for the battlefield there might not be a market for SUVs today. It all began 75 years ago last December when the United States military adopted the 'jeep', and while the iconic military vehicle was phased out and replaced by the Humvee – the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) in the early 1980s – the Army could go full circle and bring back the jeep.

Last year the Army began gearing up its Ground Mobility Vehicle Program for fiscal 2017. It was part of the Army's Combat Vehicle Modernization Strategy that sought to procure lightweight combat vehicles for infantry brigade combat teams. The vehicles considered sound very much like what first entered service back in 1940…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

The US Army is better off starting with the side-by-side 4-wheelers. The modern Jeep Wrangler has about 1000lbs of safety features that the Army does not want.

It's like scale creep, you start off with something like the jeep (cheap, unarmoured get-around vehicle) and the halftrack (armoured APC)

And then they pile on features, so that the jeep gets an MG, capacity to carry more guys and cargo, a bulletproof windshield, it gets a hardtop, anti-mine and IED and at some point it's right in the armoured APC category.

Meanwhile the APC is pretty much a tank in all but name, CF the Bradley.

Then some brilliant mind figures that getting around in a massive, heavily armoured designed-to-seat-10 vehicle isn't practical and they need a cheap, unarmoured get-around vehicle.

And the next brilliant mind figures that it could use some upgrades …

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Yep, the first time one gets blown up by an IED everyone will be screaming about how it should be armored and some TV network or other will be showing film of how it isn't proof against a 2000 lbs. bomb or 120mm tank gun.

LOL, nailed it PatrickR!

What's old is new again.

Cheaper to buy an over counter mini suv with fold down roof. Spray poop brown. Stick on a guv number plate done.
But someone will lose out on that contract to enrich his 1%er life more, so never gona happen and Mary will never get that lifesaving op.
Real workable kit for a real world never. 1000% inflated need to fix over a 20 year period expense sounds about right eh?

Maybe they should have just kept all the MRAPs … I don't see mines, IED/Boobytraps going any where any time soon …

Meanwhile the APC is pretty much a tank in all but name, CF the Bradley.

Not really … any commander that would use the M2 Bradley as an MBT. Would be making a big error. The 25mm is there to support the dismounted Infantry. With suppressive fire, etc., … And of course eliminate light vehicles of all types. And that 25mm can also do a lot of damage to some structures. Especially the mud brick huts found in the Mid East and A'stan. In many areas.

The TOWs are really there to support the ground troops and get the M2 and it's remounted Grunts out of trouble. If you tried to go toe-to-toe with an MBT in an M2. You'd lose, in most cases. You may get the first shot off. But any return fire could be very deadly. You may just have to "Shoot & Scoot" … And use terrain masking, etc., … (and call-in Gunships & CAS !)

Hence they train the M2 crews to operate as a heavily armed IFVs. It's Not an APC (M113) which is lighter armored and armed. Even the M2s after up armoring still won't stand up to an MBT's main gun round. Few things can.

The AFV crews especially IFVs/APCs must use terrain, cover and concealment, etc., to increase their survivability. Just like the dismounts must do.

My 2 Cents … as I was an M113 Mech Co. Cdr., '87-'89. And served in 3 Mech Bns in the ROK, CONUS and (West)Germany …

A jeep sized vehicle that can easily be carried internally by helicopters and tilt-rotors has a lot of advantages. Yes the CH-53 and others can carry HMMWVs externally, but it cuts down on the range and maneuverability of the aircraft.

I think They're talking about having a vehicle that can be sent down the road to buy fresh milk for the COs coffee folks not some uber fighting vehicle.

A helo deployable vehicle that can carry water, ammo, engineer material (barbed wire, tools…) food and when required casualties is a very useful item.

After the Jeep, bring back horse cavalry!

No kiddin', it could still be very useful in places like Afghanistan -- mobility where vehicles won't go, not even jeeps, and where helicopters are too vulnerable or noisy. I bet the insurgents are using horses to get around and carry light supplies.

@Piper: more likely mules, but yeah, they are using pack animals.

Yep, the first time one gets blown up by an IED everyone will be screaming about how it should be armored and some TV network or other will be showing film of how it isn't proof against a 2000 lbs. bomb or 120mm tank gun.

And what the TV isn't going to say is that NOTHING mobile is proof against a 2000lb bomb.

In the 101,'80-'83 time frame. We'd load Jeeps/trlrs in CH-47s. And sling load them under UH1s. Was glad to get the UH-60 in late '82-'83 which replaced many UH1s. You could carry more internally in a UH-60. And still sling load underneath.

Yep, the first time one gets blown up by an IED everyone will be screaming about how it should be armored and some TV network or other will be showing film of how it isn't proof against a 2000 lbs. bomb or 120mm tank gun.

As I said few things can survive an MBTs main gun round.

NOTHING mobile is proof against a 2000lb bomb.

Few things immobile as well are not proof against 2000lbers. … And if so … call in a MOAB …

Since the 90s the USMC has used various models of "Fast Attack Vehicles" which included modernized jeeps and Mercedes Benz "G" models for helo borne operations. They were used as weapons carriers and to transport water, ammo and casualties. One could be carried in each CH-46 and up to three in a CH-53.

The "Expeditionary Fire Support System, is basically a 120mm mortar which includes two 'modernized JEEPs one which tows the mortar and one carries ammo.

Various types of all terrain vehicles have been used in Afghanistan for the same reason. Air assault forces are much more capable if they have at least some mobility when they get off the helo. They have no armor, other then the Marine's individual body armor.

The US ARMY experimented with FAVs back in the '80s. And as Apache noted a number have been used and deployed in Iraq and A'stan. And I agree, light units especially in the desert need mobility once on the ground.

Read about the UK SAS Tm deployed 140 miles behind Iraqi lines in GWI. To look for SCUDs. Was not a success. If they would of had a some FAVs or something similar. That op would have turned out differently … Some very good soldiers were lost …

And from what I can tell the 101 units that deployed to Iraq and A'stan. Had a lot more HMMWVs than the M151 Jeeps we had in '80-'83. Part of that was because of the previous war in SE Asia, vehicles had less uses in that jungle terrain. But once the paradigm changed to Desert Ops. It was clear more light highly mobile vehicles were required. Read about the UK SAS and LRDG in WWII North Africa.

I had also heard that they were looking at the old Ford Mutt or a variant.

Lets see, take the 'follow me' system they are developing for the robot mules and graft it onto a fairly standard 4WD light truck and you have something that can provide transport for a lot of the heavy gear troops require, and no need to write a letter when it gets blown up. You could still use it to give troops a free ride in rear areas or when foot speed is insufficient. Also a fearless ambulance to evac wounded under fire.

The US army have been using horsed in Afghanistan.

Some US Special Forces were using horses for transport in some of the early ops. They said basically, they used what was available to get the job done. Which is one of the hallmarks of Spec Ops. There is a much published picture of some SF riding horses in A'stan.

Don't know if they use horses much anymore. But as any Infantryman knows … anything is better than walking …