Armoured logistical vehicles/soft skin trucks

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

Shaka of Carthage RE:Armoured logistical vehicles/soft skin trucks 6/20/2003 8:18:48 PM

I kinda would like the answer as well. I'm not a armor guy, so I have some holes in my knowledge. Assuming I am in a "combined" battalion, here is how I see it (remember, this is "my" to&e, not a actual mixed/matched company). Battalion HQ and his "reserve" tank platoon of 14 M1s, along with 8 SP arty is in the rear somewhere, providing fire support to the companies. Assume all three companies are engaged for the moment. Company has 9 M1s, 13 M2s and 2 Mortars. From other posts, those M1s have roughly 40 rounds each. What happens when the M1s run out of ammo? I ask this because I know the SP Arty has some sort of armored vehicle that carries ammo for it. So when those vehicles are empty, they go to brigade and get more ammo, while the SP Arty has a full load. So what do the tankers do? Brigade has a Supply Battalion, so is one company feeding ammo to the brigade, battalion or even company? Curious how you armor guys do it.

Quote Reply

AlbanyRifles RE:Brigade CSS operations 6/24/2003 8:28:54 AM

In the US Army, the forward support battalion attached to the brigade is organized like this: HQ & Supply Company Maintenance Company Medical Company Supply company runs fuel, water/rations supply points and an ammunition transfer point (ATP). The FSB supply points often are run by soldiers from that unit but the trucks/tractors/trailers/ racks are in fact from corps support units. This is especially true of ammunition. The ATP only stocks high tonnage/high useage ammo, i.e., tank 120mm, 155mm arty, 25mm BFV and TOW missiles. The support platoon from the attached infantry/armor comes to the the ATP/supply points and loads up there. Then they are convoyed forward to the line companies who are usually resupplied in service station type operation (this works both in heavy and light forces) The FA Battalions have an entire service battery run by a captain that suppliesw the 3 firing batteries with ammo. The ammo supply vehicle you refer to is the M992. There is 1 per SP M109A6 howitzer and is an integral part of the firing battery (18 guns/18 M992s) gun crews (think the limbers/caissons in Civil War era artillery). The service battery is equipped with 21 PLS trucks. Now to your original question...part of the problem of loggie vehicles is they tend to be multi-use. Hard to armor them too much since you have to be able to remove the side panels for over size loads. You also have to be careful not to put too much armor on them and cut into their hauling capability (you'd be surprised at how quickly you can over gross a 5 ton truck). May have to use Kevlar armor and increase the protection/training for the vehicle crews. Maybe also throw in a few of SHaka's cavalry? :-) Actually, this is seriously under study these days. Division CSS troops usualyy can handle and fight their way forward because of the training they get at JRTC/NTC/CMTC. It is the corps level CSS folks who have had the most trouble.

Quote Reply

macawman RE:Brigade CSS operations-Albany Rifles 6/25/2003 1:58:42 AM

What are the load factors at the various organizational levels for different types of logistic supply for the US military. Most foreign military supply organizations strive to maintain a load factor of 3 at the various command levels. Is that factor typical for the US operations?

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Brigade CSS operations-Albany Rifles 6/25/2003 2:07:45 AM

macawman: what is meant by load factor?

Quote Reply

macawman RE:Brigade CSS operations-Albany Rifles 6/25/2003 8:27:32 AM

Load factor: The % amount resupply ratio of fuel,ammo,rations,ie. expendables used to replace the basic issue which are located at various supply organizational levels. Example, the basic fuel load for the Abrams is 500 gals. of JP-8. Usually the Corp/Div supply fuel point would have 3 times the basic load of fuel for all the Abrams tanks in the Div before a major operation started. While at Company level, there would only be .5% resupply of the basic load of expendables. The reason load factor has significance is that it indicates the potential sustainability of a unit in combat. Note: without transport means, the load factor ratios would be worthless in determining potential unit sustainability.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Brigade CSS operations-Albany Rifles 6/25/2003 8:44:23 AM

Ok load factor = how many "reloads" of different stuff is available. Problem is getting it there. Do You have the same load factor for all kinds of supplies? If an armoured force achieves a breakthrough it is more liable to need fuel than grenades. And vise versa: If you are awaiting a hostile assault, you are more liable to need ammunition than fuel. Secondly. do you keep the same load factor for all arms. F.i. It could be more advantageous to stock light infantry higher, as heir supplies are cheaper and lighter.

Quote Reply

AlbanyRifles RE:Brigade CSS operations-Albany Rifles 6/25/2003 6:27:40 PM

Thomas, thanks for asking the question Okay, the way the US Army (and in my experience, most Western armies) works is you want to keep the supplies forward to a minimum. In the JP8 supply point of a US Brigade, you have 55,000 gallons (11 x 5,000 gallon tankers) of JP-8 to refill the fuel trucks of the infantry/armor battalion fuel vehicles (2,500 gallon HEMTT tankers). The battalion owns the fuel trucks, not the companies, Reallocate as needed. Same applies to other suppply categories. If you need more fuel/ammo/water/chow than the supply unit can supply in one day, corps pushes assets forward to fill need. A forward support battalion stocks 1 day or less of most needed commodities

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Brigade CSS operations-Albany Rifles 6/26/2003 3:24:05 AM

And they get the need estimate from the daily reports - OK

Quote Reply

macawman RE:Brigade CSS operations-Albany Rifles 6/26/2003 5:52:00 PM

It appears that modern western armys PUSH more supplies forward than retain stocks in the forward area. This is due to our large number of advanced transport vechicles and command/comunications/computer (C3)systems.

Quote Reply

macawman RE:Brigade CSS operations-Thomas 6/26/2003 7:27:05 PM

Point 2: It is not based upon price or cheapness. Supplies are pushed forward based upon essential needs to accomplish the mission. That need is determined by the chief logistian (S-4 or G-4)officer with the consent of the Commander. You answered point 1.

Quote Reply

M4A3E2(76)W Partially armoured truck 8/7/2003 4:19:30 PM

Hello Albany Rifles (and everyone else) What do you think about, taking the basic military truck and modifying it so that the cab is survivable in the event of a catastrophic explosion? My thinking goes like this, more armour = less hauling capacity, so only armour the most valuable part of the truck (the crew).

Quote Reply

Maple Leaf RE:Armoured logistical vehicles/soft skin trucks 9/21/2003 12:10:36 PM

Canadian units have had armoured logistics vehicles since the days of the Cold War. Armoured logistics vehicles are located at the company/squadron/battery level and hold ammunition and a small amount of fuel. They are responsible for re-arming and re-fuelling the combat vehicles in the forward areas. The unit has both a supply and a transport platoon/troop equipped with regular trucks at the unit level. These vehicles move rearwards and pickup supplies from the brigade service battalion and then move forward and either resupply the combat vehicles if they can withdraw from the fighting for long enough. If they cannot withdraw, the armoured logistics vehicles from the company/squadron/battery move back and shuttle supplies to the combat vehicles. This is the Canadian way of doing things.

Quote Reply

Maple Leaf RE:Armoured logistical vehicles/soft skin trucks 9/21/2003 12:15:13 PM

An example of the Canadian organisation: When the LAV-III was first introduced the mechanised infantry company was organised with 14 LAV-III Mechanised Infantry Combat Vehicles armed with a 25mm chain gun. Supporting the combat vehicles and the dismounted infantry were 2 LAVs carrying ammunition, 1 LAV carrying fuel, a recovery LAV, a maintenance repair LAV and a LAV ambulance.

Quote Reply

WinsettZ RE:Armoured logistical vehicles/soft skin trucks 9/21/2003 6:43:25 PM

Armored-During a offensive maneuver or in enemy territory. Day One of the attack also as the enemy will attempt to bomb the snot out of every soft-skinned vehicle until you gain air superiority. Soft Skin-During peacetime pre-positioning of supplies. When war is winding down and MSRs are secured.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aus Armoured logistical vehicles/soft skin trucks 12/27/2003 3:47:15 AM

There is a change in focus to replacing trucks with armoured versions (mainly as a result of the lessons learnt in Iraq) This is separate to the COMBATT programme. [January 2004 Army Wants Trucks That ?Survive? Combat Competition under way for $42 million concept technology demonstration by Sandra I. Erwin Repeated attacks on truck convoys in Iraq have prompted the Army to revisit its requirements for future logistics vehicles. Notably, the conflict challenged the traditional notions of trucks as support vehicles that stay out of the line of fire. Many U.S. casualties in Iraq were drivers or occupants whose vehicles were struck by rocket-propelled grenades, road mines or other forms of explosive devices. The fundamental question that Army vehicle developers are trying to answer is whether the next generation of battlefield trucks will be ?just trucks? hauling supplies in the rear, or whether they should be enhanced with protective armor, weapons, advanced electronics and communications systems, so they can serve in combat roles on the front lines. The next question the Army faces is whether it can afford all these high-tech features, which would make a truck almost as pricey as a combat vehicle. The Army finds itself in a bind today, because it has to assign expensive fighting vehicles, such as Bradleys and Abrams tanks, to protect the trucks and secure the supply lines from Kuwait into Iraq. The reason is that trucks never were designed for survivability?they have no ballistic protection (except for up-armored Humvees), no self-defense weapons and limited situational awareness. They lack the advanced electronics needed to connect with the combat force, and become part of an overall command and control network. ?Our trucks can?t handle what they are being asked to do,? said Nance Halle, who runs an Army program called Future Tactical Truck System. The FTTS is a five-year $42 million project to develop a replacement for the current light, medium and heavy trucks. While fuel efficiency and mobility remain high priorities in the FTTS, survivability has moved to the top of the list, in light of what?s happening in Iraq, Halle told an industry conference in Dearborn, Mich., sponsored by the Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command. ?The Army is sucking combat vehicles away from the fight to protect these convoys,? Halle said. ?It?s the reason the Bradleys are going through tons of track over there. They are running up and down the roads protecting supply convoys, instead of being in the front lines, like they are supposed to.? If the Army doesn?t do something soon to make trucks more survivable, the price will be paid in human lives, she said. ?Truck drivers are getting killed more than the combat force.? Although the Army is accelerating the production of armor kits for trucks and up-armored Humvees, in the long term, it will rely on the FTTS program to develop new technologies that can drastically improve the survivability and overall performance of the entire fleet. Further, any vehicles coming out of the FTTS project would have to be compatible with new vehicles developed under the Future Combat Systems program. In future brigades, called ?units of action,? equipped with FCS technology, the Army wants the combat vehicles to be able to directly request supplies from the trucks, which would require that the trucks be part of the command-and-control network. ?The truck will be operating with the unit of action, in the thick of the battle,? Halle said. Under the FTTS program, the Army is considering developing an 11-ton ?maneuver sustainment? truck that can move ISO containers, and a 2.5-ton to 5-ton utility truck. The 11-ton vehicle (with payload) has to be transportable by C-130 cargo aircraft. According to current plans, each unit of action will have about 300 combat vehicles, 375 trucks and 30 trailers. The question, said Halle, is ?can we afford it?? The unit of action is expected to fight for three to seven days without re-supply. ?The combat vehicles can?t carry all those supplies. They admit it,? Halle said. ?They are only giving us so many trucks. So they have to be capable.? Future trucks also will have to be more reliable and require less maintenance than current vehicles, she said. ?We only have a fraction of maintainers in the unit of action, compared to what we had in the brigade.? Continuing changes to the roles and functions of the FCS, additionally, translate into new requirements for the FTTS trucks. ?There are things that FCS is tossing over the fence to the combat service-support community?things they can?t deal with, so we?ll put it on a truck,? Halle said. One example is mine laying. But while the FCS program is ?tossing over? requirements, ?they are not throwing money? into the FTTS effort, she said. Most of the funds for the FTTS are in the Army?s budget. But a small percentage comes from the Defense Department Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration program. ACTDs typically are intended to accelerate the development of technologies and get equipment into the hands of soldiers faster, bypassing the normal procurement cycle. The FTTS, however, will not be like any other ACTD, because the Army will be developing new technology, rather than just speeding up existing projects. ?The point of the exercise is to help the program office for combat service support produce vehicles for the units of action,? said Richard E. McClelland, program director at the Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center. Under an earlier FTTS competition that was not part of the ACTD, four companies (Oshkosh, Stewart & Stevenson, United Defense and GPV) received contracts to develop concepts, and demonstrate hybrid propulsion, C-130 transportability and pit-stop maintenance. The ACTD competition, scheduled to get under way in 2004, will be ?full and open,? independent of the first round of awards, McClelland said. Companies that did not win in the first competition will be considered with ?no prejudice.? The winners of the ACTD will be asked to build 5-10 trucks that the program managers can test and send to the field for soldier feedback. McClelland noted that the $42 million budget ?may go up with congressional add-ons,? but he seemed skeptical about the prospect of FTTS delivering a truck with all the bells and whistles the Army wants. In PowerPoint briefings, he said, ?we see fancy trucks with lots of capabilities.? But if these trucks end up costing half-a-million dollars a piece, the Army will not be able to afford them, in which case FTTS may end up becoming an upgrade to a current truck, rather than a new one, McClelland said. The wish list for the FTTS includes, for example, ?intelligent load handling systems,? so soldiers can move cargo around without having to get out of the cab. Automated load handling would preclude the need for special K-loader equipment, used to lift cargo from aircraft ramps. ?That eliminates a C-130 sortie,? Halle noted. A C-130 typically flies in the K-loaders, then flies a second sortie to bring in the cargo or passengers. The trucks also would need command-and-control computers, not only to receive supply requests from the combat force, but also to be able to fire weapons remotely. ?It would be nice to have 700 additional nodes looking out for bad guys,? said Halle. ?That can?t be done with legacy trucks.? In the FCS unit of action, the trucks ?would need more information than normally a truck driver would get.? With C2 computers aboard, FTTS vehicles could transport, launch and control unmanned aircraft or ground robots, she said. More importantly, the trucks will need to provide water and electric power for the FCS force. The Army is seeking technologies that can produce water from air or engine exhaust. ?They want to get rid of all the generators and get power off the truck,? Halle said. ?Energy storage is huge?batteries are everyone?s Achilles heel.? Hybrid-electric engines would help with fuel economy, but so far the Army is not convinced the price of the hybrid drives is worth the fuel savings, she added. ]

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - December 3, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us