Erik,
I was not lucky enough to see those vehicles when I was there. However, there was one similar in size, but fully enclosed. It had a hood like a crocodile snout. Do you know which one I'm refering to?
Hosted by Darren Baker
Afghanistan Hummers
18Bravo
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 06:31 AM UTC
Erik67
Buskerud, Norway
Joined: July 31, 2005
KitMaker: 1,871 posts
Armorama: 1,423 posts
Joined: July 31, 2005
KitMaker: 1,871 posts
Armorama: 1,423 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 06:59 AM UTC
Sorry, I'm not sure. It might have been the MB 290P, armoured Geländerwagen... I know for sure that US Special Forces used some of them during OP Anaconda.
Erik
Erik
Frenchy
Rhone, France
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,719 posts
Armorama: 12,507 posts
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,719 posts
Armorama: 12,507 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 07:16 AM UTC
Quoted Text
However, there was one similar in size, but fully enclosed. It had a hood like a crocodile snout.
What about a French Panhard VBL (Véhicule Blindé Léger) ?
Frenchy
18Bravo
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 07:25 AM UTC
That MIGHT be the one. You'd think the distinctive louvers on the side would be a dead giveaway, but it's been five years. The French were not on that compound when I was there, so I'm wondering who else might have used it as well. They were also sand in color.
Boggie
Newfoundland, Canada
Joined: December 08, 2005
KitMaker: 1,370 posts
Armorama: 1,331 posts
Joined: December 08, 2005
KitMaker: 1,370 posts
Armorama: 1,331 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 07:25 AM UTC
18 Bravo a good description of the vehicle Frenchy posted, just like a crocodile snout.
Bill
Bill
Erik67
Buskerud, Norway
Joined: July 31, 2005
KitMaker: 1,871 posts
Armorama: 1,423 posts
Joined: July 31, 2005
KitMaker: 1,871 posts
Armorama: 1,423 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 07:31 AM UTC
It must have been it. The Greeks operated VBL from Camp Invicta. I forgot about them.
Erik
Erik
CombatKrieg
Singapore / 新加坡
Joined: January 19, 2008
KitMaker: 517 posts
Armorama: 382 posts
Joined: January 19, 2008
KitMaker: 517 posts
Armorama: 382 posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 - 02:15 AM UTC
I came across this photo album of what seems to be a SF guy's mission... I think it's Afghanistan...
Military Photos
Military Photos
Boggie
Newfoundland, Canada
Joined: December 08, 2005
KitMaker: 1,370 posts
Armorama: 1,331 posts
Joined: December 08, 2005
KitMaker: 1,370 posts
Armorama: 1,331 posts
Posted: Monday, December 14, 2009 - 08:19 AM UTC
18Bravo
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Monday, December 14, 2009 - 08:29 AM UTC
Bill, based on the antenna and the length of the side armor I'm going to go out on a limb and say that is a MARSOC GMV-M.
Boggie
Newfoundland, Canada
Joined: December 08, 2005
KitMaker: 1,370 posts
Armorama: 1,331 posts
Joined: December 08, 2005
KitMaker: 1,370 posts
Armorama: 1,331 posts
Posted: Monday, December 14, 2009 - 08:32 AM UTC
18Bravo
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Monday, December 14, 2009 - 11:06 AM UTC
Bill,
They're fairly similar (although not identical) to the SF GMV, which someone has been nice enough to school me into now calling the GMV-S. The main differences I can discern are the lengthened armor panels, oddly shaped doors, BII stored on the hood, and the supplemental suspension kits underneath. Plus the Jarheads use that antenna pictured. I have not seen USSF using it. I thought you had these pics. Email coming.
They're fairly similar (although not identical) to the SF GMV, which someone has been nice enough to school me into now calling the GMV-S. The main differences I can discern are the lengthened armor panels, oddly shaped doors, BII stored on the hood, and the supplemental suspension kits underneath. Plus the Jarheads use that antenna pictured. I have not seen USSF using it. I thought you had these pics. Email coming.
Boggie
Newfoundland, Canada
Joined: December 08, 2005
KitMaker: 1,370 posts
Armorama: 1,331 posts
Joined: December 08, 2005
KitMaker: 1,370 posts
Armorama: 1,331 posts
Posted: Monday, December 14, 2009 - 11:36 AM UTC
Robert
Any idea what the green boxes are from in the first MARSOC GMV-M I posted today?
Message received and much appreciated.
regards
Bill
Any idea what the green boxes are from in the first MARSOC GMV-M I posted today?
Message received and much appreciated.
regards
Bill
SteveTyliszczak
Joined: September 19, 2007
KitMaker: 17 posts
Armorama: 16 posts
KitMaker: 17 posts
Armorama: 16 posts
Posted: Monday, December 14, 2009 - 04:50 PM UTC
Holy crap, how the hell do you shoot that 240B on top of the ammo can?! I'm short admittedly at 5'7 and I need to stand on ammo cans to run my 240 efficiently in the standard claw mount behind the shield. I can't imagine trying to shoot with that mount, though I suppose I can see it's utility in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan.
Crazymoses
United States
Joined: December 15, 2009
KitMaker: 20 posts
Armorama: 19 posts
Joined: December 15, 2009
KitMaker: 20 posts
Armorama: 19 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 04:08 PM UTC
for those of you asking about the drum mount configuration on the M249 saw, there is an adapter which converts the bottom mount drum into a sidemount drum which has recently been fielded within the last few years. That's why there's a variance. It mounts into ths magazine well and drum mounts to it from the side. The reason is that some mounts interfere with the bottom mount ammo drum and many gunners had to bungii cord the drum to the mount, which was obviously substandard. So...by today's standards you could mount the saw drum underneath or to the side and be correct either way. There are also short barrel variations for the 249 as well as collapsable M4 style stocks, but they're still M249 saws. Note: The MGO (machine gun optic) that is commonly mounted on 249s on models as well as in combat is technically unauthorized. Technically, the MGO is only authorized for mounting on the 240B, M60, and 50 cal. The feed tray on the saw rattles too much and an optic is completely useless. Additionally, the excessive vibration can damage the scope. I correct people at work all day when they try to put an MGO on a saw because it looks pretty. I have supporting documentation available if anyone wants to validate my claims.
cya
cya
Crazymoses
United States
Joined: December 15, 2009
KitMaker: 20 posts
Armorama: 19 posts
Joined: December 15, 2009
KitMaker: 20 posts
Armorama: 19 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 04:17 PM UTC
Hey Jeff.
Regarding the doors....If the unit has any bit of decision making allowance and not higher command micro-managing them, the 1025/1114 doors are actually preferable. The 1051 has a rollover pitch of only 13 degrees, so anywhere you can save weight the better. They've loaded the humvee up so much that it's now very vulnerable to rollovers in rough terrain. It's almost an asphalt vehicle now. A trick they'd do during my second deployment in 05 is to get a second window and mount it underneath the original drop-down window. those ballistic windows work beautifully.
Regarding the doors....If the unit has any bit of decision making allowance and not higher command micro-managing them, the 1025/1114 doors are actually preferable. The 1051 has a rollover pitch of only 13 degrees, so anywhere you can save weight the better. They've loaded the humvee up so much that it's now very vulnerable to rollovers in rough terrain. It's almost an asphalt vehicle now. A trick they'd do during my second deployment in 05 is to get a second window and mount it underneath the original drop-down window. those ballistic windows work beautifully.
Quoted Text
Bill you sure that is a humvee? Doesn't look like any humvee to me! haha
Anyway, what interests me the most is that after all that armor they have the basic armor doors from M1025s, doors that have almost not ballistic protection. But there is yet another example of a rear mounted weapons mount.
Jeff
18Bravo
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 04:27 PM UTC
Quoted Text
for those of you asking about the drum mount configuration on the M249 saw, there is an adapter which converts the bottom mount drum into a sidemount drum which has recently been fielded within the last few years. That's why there's a variance. It mounts into ths magazine well and drum mounts to it from the side. The reason is that some mounts interfere with the bottom mount ammo drum and many gunners had to bungii cord the drum to the mount, which was obviously substandard. So...by today's standards you could mount the saw drum underneath or to the side and be correct either way. There are also short barrel variations for the 249 as well as collapsable M4 style stocks, but they're still M249 saws. Note: The MGO (machine gun optic) that is commonly mounted on 249s on models as well as in combat is technically unauthorized. Technically, the MGO is only authorized for mounting on the 240B, M60, and 50 cal. The feed tray on the saw rattles too much and an optic is completely useless. Additionally, the excessive vibration can damage the scope. I correct people at work all day when they try to put an MGO on a saw because it looks pretty. I have supporting documentation available if anyone wants to validate my claims.
cya
Na, the guy who thinks that stuff looks sexy posts over on ML. I used this setup for house clearing after a particularly nasty encounter. Note that it is not the M145, but rather an M68. No documentation needed. I do all of my own tests.
Crazymoses
United States
Joined: December 15, 2009
KitMaker: 20 posts
Armorama: 19 posts
Joined: December 15, 2009
KitMaker: 20 posts
Armorama: 19 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 - 05:52 PM UTC
that's a great idea putting a 68 on that 249...especially that shorty variation you have. Not sure if I've seen it before, but it makes a lot of sense. It's all about quick, close target acquisition. I'm a strong advocate of the M68 even though most people hate them. They're switching the NCOs to ACOGs and I argue daily that the soldiers need the 68.
SteveTyliszczak
Joined: September 19, 2007
KitMaker: 17 posts
Armorama: 16 posts
KitMaker: 17 posts
Armorama: 16 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 06:20 AM UTC
Quoted Text
for those of you asking about the drum mount configuration on the M249 saw, there is an adapter which converts the bottom mount drum into a sidemount drum which has recently been fielded within the last few years. That's why there's a variance. It mounts into ths magazine well and drum mounts to it from the side. The reason is that some mounts interfere with the bottom mount ammo drum and many gunners had to bungii cord the drum to the mount, which was obviously substandard. So...by today's standards you could mount the saw drum underneath or to the side and be correct either way. There are also short barrel variations for the 249 as well as collapsable M4 style stocks, but they're still M249 saws. Note: The MGO (machine gun optic) that is commonly mounted on 249s on models as well as in combat is technically unauthorized. Technically, the MGO is only authorized for mounting on the 240B, M60, and 50 cal. The feed tray on the saw rattles too much and an optic is completely useless. Additionally, the excessive vibration can damage the scope. I correct people at work all day when they try to put an MGO on a saw because it looks pretty. I have supporting documentation available if anyone wants to validate my claims.
cya
I would love for that documentation. I loathe the 145 and have had 3 of them crap out on me, all on live fire ranges. Last time was at JRTC during our LFX and it rained and the dmaned thing fogged up from the inside! That's the same issue I had with the other two previously. Command tried to make us SAW gunners use the MGO's but I was at least able to get my platoon to see how crappy they were and now we're looking into putting 68's or ACOG's on them. I am talking to an Aimpoint rep right now about a new mount they are working on. It's the Aimpoint T1 Micro with a new machine gun mount developed by MaTech (the guys that make our BUIS). It has special 5.56 and 7.62 cams that can be installed and you can adjust for range on the mount. They are trying to get MaTech to send me a mount and optic for my coming tour in Afghanistan to T&E.
Posted: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 - 10:50 AM UTC
Is that gun painted sand color or am I seeing things?
okdoky
Scotland, United Kingdom
Joined: April 30, 2007
KitMaker: 1,597 posts
Armorama: 806 posts
Joined: April 30, 2007
KitMaker: 1,597 posts
Armorama: 806 posts
Posted: Monday, December 28, 2009 - 08:15 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Eric/Rob, no worries, it's all good. I got some more pictures ready for the Revell Wolf kit, Eric you must be excited?
Bill
Bill/Erik
I am sure you will have seen that the Revell Wolf is the short wheelbase version whereas the gun platform you used Erik was the longer version but still with two door. Your Revell kit will need to be stretched.
This kit is the right length in 1/24 scale and just needs rear doors smoothed over.
My 1/24 chassis for comparison
Hope these might help you.
Would appreciate any more pics of this beastie if you find any.
All the best
Nige