G-Wagon turret

[lostrover]

As a side note the base GVW rating opt the Glendelwagon is 5423lbs, the armoured version 8900 lbs, approx 10500lbs with pers and kit............add the turret to either vehicle and the average battle load.....the vehicle will be stressed same as the uparmoured M1114's (Humvee.base 7200lbs uparmoured 9800lbs, with pers and kit approx 12000lbs), in adding armour the platform is stressed, on the M114 primarily along the b-channel (regretfully no word is out on the Glendelwagon as yet).  Taking into account the track width of the Humvee at 72" versus that of the Glendelwagon 59", and the operating environment, most mobility/serviceability benefits of the platform are negated, save for the armour.  TLAV = Yes, approx same mileage as an uparmoured light vehicle, increased capacity, more weaponry  options and the list goes on.....something to ponder  (the kit the CF now has is cats-ass better than what we used to..........but so has the theatre of operations)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So why don't they use the same turret on the Bison?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

TLAV = Yes, approx same mileage as an uparmoured light vehicle, increased capacity, more weaponry  options and the list goes on.....something to ponder(

Yeah but T-LAV's NOT deployable overseas. I drove 3 or 4 different versions of the T-LAV's and as result of a test done by LFTEU these vehicles are not ready to go overseas. In a 3 month period we went through 15 powerpacks (engine and transmission) when used with max combat weight of the vehicle so there is something wrong with that.

Incidentally when they first trialed the T-LAV the engine used was the CAT engines but when they went to production they dumped in a Detroit Diesel upgraded powertrain with a 400 hp 6V53TIA electronically controlled engine.

So why don't they use the same turret on the Bison?

By the way the Bison does not have a turret.

 

[sabot41]

why would'nt they mount a RWS on top, plenty of spares sitting around??

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Where would you hide all the hydraulics/electrical motors to allow it traverse and the like? The vehicle is already cramped as it its.

 

[sabot41]

all external components are attached to the mount, day camera w/ uncooled 3rd generation thermal sight, eletrical traverse and elevation motors, C-6 MG, about 300 lbs in total. Heads up display and joystick mounted inside, takes up little room at all. Plus it goes with army policy of being able to fight vehicle from closed down position, sounds like current turret option does not allow for this.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Like I said earlier, can't really see the RWS platform on these type of vehicles as you still need to be able to access the wpns system to clear jams and to load/unload. This would mean that the system would have to be mounted to one side of the roof and this will result in a stable vehicle (more so that what it is now).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

By the way the Bison does not have a turret.

I know they don't, I am asking why does the Bison's I see only have a MG ring and the G-wagons have a protected weapon station, why not add the same protection to the Bison MG?

 

[Black Watch]

From the video, they can mount a .50 cal or a C6.  I believe the armoured school was (is) experimenting with diffeferent grenade launchers and Anti-armour.

ERYX?

 

[Enzo]

ERYX?

Are you asking which anti-armour option or the ERYX specifically?

 

[Black Watch]

yes

 

[GO!!!]

Black Watch,

The Eryx is not used for a number of reasons, most of which are directly related to;

1) Virtually no gunners who have fired a live missile (rounds too expensive)

2) Missile is extremely fragile, making it unreliable even when man - packed. I think that this would be exacerbated if it were affixed to a vehicle.

3) No system (that I am aware of) to fire an Eryx from a vehicle - shoulder and ground mount only.

4) Short range.

5) Optically tracked (gunner must remain exposed and pointing at tgt until impact)

6) No reliable (or realistic) simulators.

7) No requirement. There is no armour threat in Afghanistan right now, with most veh threats being limited to soft skin vehicles, an Automatic grenade launcher or M2 will work just fine. These are cheap, reliable, proven, and simple to use. The Eryx was made, and purchased for the cold war.

 

[Infanteer]

Here's a pic of a nice RWS that I spied a while back - Javelin + M2.

 

[combatbuddha]

The Turret ring is a good idea but very, very poor design. We can thank the people at Mercedes for that. The addition of the gunshield and accompanying equipment was not the direct cause of turret ring failures. These items amplified and hastened a condition that would have happened otherwise. This was proven when we "stole" rings off "Op Stock" vehicles that didn't have gunshields, and found the mounting inserts on these to be stripped as well. It was better to have the gunshield kits installed than to leave our gunners exposed, so we stole rings and bastardized things to keep the PRT on the road, in good EME fashion. The greater good. Lets not forget the Mat Tech who was also involved throughout the whole process of procurement, installation and fault finding/ investigation.
Once Mercedes or DND find a good turret ring to mount to the roof of not only the G Wagon, but ALL our soft skinned wheeled vehicles, we will be heading in the right direction. Force protection is a defintie need.
PS we also experimented on an armoured glass windshield for the Bison, and tried to mount a gunshield for the CC, but both these proved ineffective. Best thing we found to work.............eyeball defilade and speed.