_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Modern - USA
Modern Armor, AFVs, and Support vehicles.
Hosted by Darren Baker
One rough Humvee...
keenan
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: October 16, 2002
KitMaker: 5,272 posts
Armorama: 2,844 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 01:51 AM UTC


New Assault Weapon System package under development. Packs an MK19, 50 cal and two Tows.

Full article at link below.

Shaun

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/TNSarchives/September04/093204.htm
Mech-Maniac
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Joined: April 16, 2004
KitMaker: 2,240 posts
Armorama: 1,319 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 02:00 AM UTC
wow, a bit overkill eh :-) being on the receiving end of that one must be a bummer.
matt
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: February 28, 2002
KitMaker: 5,957 posts
Armorama: 2,956 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 02:07 AM UTC
Uh.... Spectre Gunship on Wheels!!!!!!
LogansDad
Visit this Community
North Carolina, United States
Joined: March 30, 2004
KitMaker: 938 posts
Armorama: 416 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 02:19 AM UTC
Yeah, & with all that crap+ammo+armor slagged onto an unmodified HMMWV chassis & drivetrain, it'll be a sitting duck for an untrained militiaman w/ a 20.00 Rpg& 3 2.00 rounds. Not to mention the fact that most of our field expedient mods have shortened the maintenance cycle on our 'new' Hummers by 73%.
Nifty idea, just not suited to current tactics or conditions.
That being said, I'd LOVE to get my paws on one!
USArmy2534
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 03:00 AM UTC
I'd both hate and envy the gunner: "Hmm, with what should I engage this target with? A .50 cal, an automatic grenade launcher, or a friggin anti-tank missile? Tis a tough choice!"

Jeff
targetdriver
Visit this Community
Alaska, United States
Joined: September 21, 2004
KitMaker: 40 posts
Armorama: 35 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 03:45 AM UTC
I agree with LogansDad!

That's an awfull lot of fire power for an unarmored vehicle. Zero protection for the gunner and the thing is probably top heavy too.
Red4
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: April 01, 2002
KitMaker: 4,287 posts
Armorama: 1,867 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 05:01 AM UTC
I hope they do something to boost the power to the engine. Plain ole' unmodified HMWWV's have some serious get up and go issues or more appropriately, lack of get up and go. Some dont, but the majority that I served on, were gutless wonders. I foresee lots of "uh-oh's" with this set up. Top heavy, blind spots, lack of armor protection...yada, yada, yada.. "Q"
Trisaw
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: December 24, 2002
KitMaker: 4,105 posts
Armorama: 2,492 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 05:04 AM UTC
Yup. I don't know WHERE in the world the Army plans to find those niffy hull-down positions so that only the weapons stick up on top, especially for non-armored or light armored vehicles. Seems that the most recent battles have been charging in with guns blazing. Since when did the U.S. Army adopt a defensive posture recently? Certainly not 1991 Gulf War, Somalia, Kosovo, Haiti, OEF, and OIF.

TRADOC would serve better if they found a light armored chassis to use...like the AGS one or a Wiesel one.
sgtsauer
#065
Visit this Community
Missouri, United States
Joined: March 30, 2002
KitMaker: 2,605 posts
Armorama: 1,814 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 05:35 AM UTC
It looks impressive but I find it hard to imagine that it is a practical modification. In a combat environment, hitting the right switch for the right weapon may be a trick.

Also, there should be some sort of armor protection for the weapon mount. The weapons/aiming system has no protection from direct fire/shrapnel damage.

Just my .02 cents!

chuckster
Visit this Community
Missouri, United States
Joined: May 30, 2003
KitMaker: 289 posts
Armorama: 170 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 06:52 AM UTC
I'd love to take that down the freeway at rush hour. This is one vehicle Nobody gives the finger!
GSPatton
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: September 04, 2002
KitMaker: 1,411 posts
Armorama: 609 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 06:59 AM UTC
Although all that firepower is cool, the poor HMMWV is grossly overloaded. The lack of protection of the crew makes the guns/missles a waste.

The gun truck conversions going on in Iraq shows that the grunts on the ground are trying to fix the weaknesses of the vehicle. The additional armor, and guns make people survivability improve although vehicle life is greatly reduced.

Sometimes more in not necessarily better.
DRAGONSLAIN
Visit this Community
Distrito Federal, Mexico
Joined: February 22, 2004
KitMaker: 779 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 07:31 AM UTC
I wonder if Anti-tank rifles will make a big return(unlikely, I know) I mean, they would be perfect against this targets.
sgtsauer
#065
Visit this Community
Missouri, United States
Joined: March 30, 2002
KitMaker: 2,605 posts
Armorama: 1,814 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 08:01 AM UTC
Barrett Firearms is currently fielding a 25mm version of their 50 caliber sniper rifle. I would say that borders on being an anti-tank rifle given the performance of the Bushmaster 25mm chain gun. In both Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, Bradleys knocked out IFV's and T-55's, T-62's and some T-72's with their 25mm guns.
USArmy2534
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 08:06 AM UTC
Yeah, a respectable about of velocity and thus "punch" is due to the barrel length of the Bradley. The question would also hinge on what cartridge would be used for the rifle. Also, one would need a mule to carry it. The .50cal version is already a heavy mother, how much would a 25mm (i.e. heavier barrel, heavier components) version weigh? It would definetely have to be vehicle mounted. Or it'd have to be vehicle transported and the soldier dismounts and sets up nearby with the vehicle hiding close.

Jeff
Trisaw
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: December 24, 2002
KitMaker: 4,105 posts
Armorama: 2,492 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 08:46 AM UTC
Oh, yeah, I also noticed the EXPOSED soldier in the bed trying to reload the darn mount, which of course means that the Humvee has to stop to reload and the crew has to get out to do so. So typical....guns and no autoloader except the human grunt. So...uh...what's so special about this thing then? Just more guns?

Would be nicer if TRADOC mounted an Avenger turret and gave that Avenger turret the guns and TOWs on the side instead of the Stinger pods. BTW, the Avenger turret already HAS a light-50. But I guess that would make too much sense :-).
tom
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: December 01, 2003
KitMaker: 681 posts
Armorama: 452 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 10:37 PM UTC
Now that would be a humvee lovers dream scap build, I would love to see if I can do that humvee one day.

Thanks for the pic,

Happy Modeling
blaster76
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: September 15, 2002
KitMaker: 8,985 posts
Armorama: 3,034 posts
Posted: Friday, October 08, 2004 - 12:52 AM UTC
I seriously doubt this is intended for anything other than a publicity shot, or to show the press all the various weapon systems that can be fitted to a HUMVEE. Brings back memories of the old "Rat Patrol" though.
 _GOTOTOP