When designed with it armour becomes the chassis and body structure as well. When adding armour after the fact you already have a chassis and a body that you need to keep so that equals less protection for the weight or more weight for the same protection. Normal vehicle bodys also don't have the strength to hold up heavy armour so you would need to build framework to attach it to the chassis. This is why i imagine the MSVS SMP uses a removable armoured cab instead of bolt on armour
Meet the GM Defense ISV Army Truck
- Thread starter daftandbarmy
- Start date
When designed with it armour becomes the chassis and body structure as well. When adding armour after the fact you already have a chassis and a body that you need to keep so that equals less protection for the weight or more weight for the same protection. Normal vehicle bodys also don't have the strength to hold up heavy armour so you would need to build framework to attach it to the chassis. This is why i imagine the MSVS SMP uses a removable armoured cab instead of bolt on armour
WLSC
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 489
- Points
- 840
All vehicle of those day were not conceive to receive all that add on armour. As @Dana381 said, you need a vehicle design from bottom - up for that. Doing so, you run fast from the ''Light'' UV. It's back to square one. Light, mobility, small and concealment is something our last conflict helped us forget for a good chunk of our armies. We turn everything into ''fortress'' on wheels.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,755
- Points
- 1,160
A licenced built modified with North American parts VBL would have been an excellent choice in the 1990's
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,662
- Points
- 1,160
The Army says it's made 'significant improvements' to its troubled new infantry squad vehicle
The Army is full speed ahead with the beleaguered Infantry Squad Vehicle.taskandpurpose.com
- Reaction score
- 21,698
- Points
- 1,260
As for the more critical 2022 DOT&E assessment, the Army spokesman emphasized that the primary role of the ISV is as a highly-mobile troop carrier that reduces the need for infantry rifle squads to cover distances areas on foot, not as an armored fighting vehicle meant for a protracted firefight.
“The ISV increases squads’ speed, maneuverability and off-road mobility to avoid or evade threats while squads execute forcible entry and decisive action,” the spokesman said. “There is no requirement for protection or armor; the unit on the ISV is intended to avoid threats where possible.”
Shocking a Light Vehicle isn’t design for direct combat…
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
Is it GM fault when they are asked to built a light vehicle but then the reports come back basically sounding like that its not a Bradley? URGH
I would be more worried if the reports were the engine doesn't start.
The reason things are so expensive. Look at the Boeing problem with the T-7 Redhawk. There is now a more than two year delay because the MB ejection seat won't work with a 95 pound female pilot. Billions!
Then I was hearing about from friend about the UK Ajax. They enlisted GDLS-C help too. That same type of overblown standards are real problem. He did say the added weight of extra armour is one of the real problems. But noise problem is currently less than the warrior but that H&S standards changed as the contract was going on.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,874
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 21,698
- Points
- 1,260
I’ve got a bunch of GMV Hummer pics like that (well Mk19 and GAU and M240 weapons). But primary as a firebase and not as an assault vehicle trying to drive into the enemy…
However sometimes Big Army folks don’t alway think.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,874
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 10,343
- Points
- 1,260
...such as the RSO in a yellow high-vis vest?
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,689
- Points
- 1,040
I have protection and survivability concerns.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,755
- Points
- 1,160
and worse no BV
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
It's an optional upgrade when ordering right drive only
OceanBonfire
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 392
- Points
- 1,080
Minister Blair announces $35.8 million investment to equip Canadian troops in Latvia with 90 new tactical vehicles - Canada.ca
Today, the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence, announced that Canada is investing $35.8 million (including taxes) to deliver 90 Light Tactical Vehicles (LTVs) to Canadian Army personnel deployed in Latvia under Operation REASSURANCE – Canada’s mission in support of NATO’s...
Fabius
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,063
- Points
- 810
So if that vehicle is good enough for Light Force Enhancement Phase 1, why do we have to waste time, effort and money doing a separate process for Phase 2 and the purchase of 222 vehicles?
Do we not have other urgent needs that need the project staff?
This is an example of the inefficiency of our system.
I believe these vehicles will all be in Latvia minus a small training fleet in Canada that will rotate between the light Bns. If the GRTF goes elsewhere than Latvia…
I bet the troops will love them until it’s raining and cold, if they are anything like the US soldiers I have had conversations with
.
Do we not have other urgent needs that need the project staff?
This is an example of the inefficiency of our system.
I believe these vehicles will all be in Latvia minus a small training fleet in Canada that will rotate between the light Bns. If the GRTF goes elsewhere than Latvia…
I bet the troops will love them until it’s raining and cold, if they are anything like the US soldiers I have had conversations with
.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,755
- Points
- 1,160
Same conversation with the Dune Buggy squads in Ft Lewis/Yakima in the 1980's. Mind you at the time we had M36 jeeps running around with no tarp. But at least on Admin moves they could mount their tarps.So if that vehicle is good enough for Light Force Enhancement Phase 1, why do we have to waste time, effort and money doing a separate process for Phase 2 and the purchase of 222 vehicles?
Do we not have other urgent needs that need the project staff?
This is an example of the inefficiency of our system.
I believe these vehicles will all be in Latvia minus a small training fleet in Canada that will rotate between the light Bns. If the GRTF goes elsewhere than Latvia…
I bet the troops will love them until it’s raining and cold, if they are anything like the US soldiers I have had conversations with
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,079
- Points
- 1,160
This is an example of why those who understand the system warn that UORs are an inefficient means of addressing institutional requirements. This was a UOR purchase. It is only funded and authorized to address the immediate operational requirement. A UOR always results in doing the work twice.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,342
- Points
- 1,260
Our Recce Platoon guys had the Iltis and it looked cool with it stripped down,,,until the weather got cool. Actually it sucks.I bet the troops will love them until it’s raining and cold, if they are anything like the US soldiers I have had conversations with
As I look at this vehicle what is it intended to do? What's its capacity weight wise?
Last edited:
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,874
- Points
- 1,160
