Does the military still use jeeps or is it all HUMVEEs and MRAPs now? Do they have any pickup trucks still being used like the M715 or CUCV?
Is there any modern equivalents to the Willys MB other than a two door soft top Jeep Wrangler? Is there anything like an M715? I guess the closest thing to a modern one would be a pick up built off of a Wrangler, is there actually anything like that?
Never seen any trucks used other than NTVs while deployed, they are starting to test LTATVs though
>>29478671
We Warthog now?
![m1161-mk-19[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/747wiPz.jpg "m1161-mk-19[1].jpg")
>>29478578
The Growler ITV in use by the USMC
$200k for a piece of shit jeep clone that breaks all the time
It's designed to fit in the back of an Osprey, but it's probably going to be replaced by the Flyer
>>29479571
Does a Wrangler not in in a Osprey?
>>29478578
RSOVs based on Land Rover Defenders, used by the Rangers.
The Marines used G-Wagons, classy af.
>>29478578
Which military?
Japan, South Korea, Israel,the UK pretty much still use their own version of "jeep", and that's just the first world countries
>military vehicles without doors or roofs
what the fuck is the point of this
>>29479571
So they have up armored their Humvee so much that they now buy something that is a Humvee in its original form?
>>29480100
>he's never been off-roading in a stripped HMMWV
Stay pleb
>>29480100
Lower silhouette
>>29480150
Needed to buy something under 5,000 lbs because thats all the osprey can lift.
Vroom!
>>29480150
Pretty much. Though word on the street is the Army at least wants to have multiple tiers:
MRAPs
JLTV
Inside Wire vehicle (replace unarmored humvees- there's a company shilling custom Wranglers right now)
The ATV pictured above for Airborne units
>>29480184
>all that armor
>doesn't even protect the occupants
>>29478578
it's most all mraps and humvees now, but I have seen a few modern cucvs. mostly on stateside bases like Sill, but they are still around.
>>29478578
>Is there anything like an M715?
Kia Motors has the KM450. Which is sort of a copy of the M715
It's popular with our military (Philippines) since it is an in-betweener of a Truck and a "Jeep."
>>29478671
that looks chinsy as fuck
>>29479799
No, its too wide.
You get two short, skinny beaners sitting side by side in a Growler and theyre touching shoulders and still hanging way out the sides. A midwestern white guy in full kit takes up the entire jeep.
The Osprey is narrow as fuck.
>>29480209
its sad that our auto industry cant comeup with hardware hearty enough for our military but the koreans can modernize proven designs and still put them in service to this day.
>>29480272
Can't do that if the people in charge of procurement are crooked
>>29480187
And once we get into another low intensity counterinsurgency and theyre getting mortared/IEDeded, theyll slap a couple thousand pounds of armor on it, then have to upgrade the engine and suspension, then it'll no longer fit in a C130 much less an Osprey, and we'll have to buy a new topless POS and start the cycle all over again.
All because politicians and the civilian populace have zero concept of acceptable losses.
>>29480287
ACCEPTABLE LOSSES?
What about just doing shit properly in the first place and bring tanks?
Not screaming "We need 100 billions dollars asap to buy all new vehicles because our shit sucks!"
>>29480272
We used to but then Toyota moved out.
Thanks Marcos!
>>29480306
Tanks are not the be all and end all.
Sometimes you want light, fast shit you can move by air, and that doesn't get 2 gallons to the mile
>>29480329
Sure
If the enemy has no tanks, or heavy weapons, or ATGM's, or artillery, or air support, and you are in fact back in the CONUS joyriding
Modded g-wagon aka MB Multi III
>>29480340
You just described every war since korea.
>>29480340
>hey we gotta do a patrol of this grid
>sounds good, should we bring the humvees
>nah lets take the best vehicles in our arsenal, the abrams
or
>we need to drop troops off at this location
>cant land a chopper there
>should we use humvees and 5 tons?
>nah let's do a full armor convoy
are you retarded?
>>29480209
That looks like someone stuck a popup canopy in the bed of a 1976 Hilux.
If you consider that "innovative" I have this concept of a global communication network to sell you.
>>29480374
*gets ambushed*
*dies*
At least you were brave right? Humvees & riflemen forever!
>>29480100
Invasion of Iraq 2003.
>>29480397
Abrams & bradleys led the way
Support assets get ambushed & killed when they make wrong turns
>>29480306
Because tanks do not fit in Ospreys, cannot be sling loaded by ANYTHING, much less Blackhawks/Hueys, cant be airdropped, and you can only fit two in a C5.
They also dont fit on third world countries' roads, are too heavy for 90% of the bridges in the world, cant drive straight up a mountain, and consume more fuel per hour than a couple different entire countries.
>>29480327
Replaced by Ford afaik (they took over toyota plant)
Also, no matter how hard you tried, you won't be able to beat Thailand automotive industry.
>>29480200
Except it does. That picture is one without the modular armour kit, and you can raise and lower the seats to match the situation.
Pic related shows the different for the driver cab people. The guys on top are sitting on the rails, but you can see how deep an area they have to play in back there.
>>29480412
When did support assets get ambushed and killed in 2003?
Thats right, they didnt.
A few drove off bridges/into ditches because the combat arms guys stole all their NVGs, but that was them killing themselves.
>>29480382
The size you nig. Smaller than a truck, bigger than a jeep. Which is nice for tiny roads in the Philippines. Nobody was saying it was innovative.
>>29480209
Can I buy one as a civilian?
>>29480422
>cant be airdropped,
COULD be airdropped, with gliders
The utility of transport helicopters in real wars is seriously limited, extremely expensive for what it does too
Nothing stops you from making lighter tanks, except doctrine & procurement incompetency, if its needed to have only 30-40 tons to go over third world bridges.
Or the real solution is to bring engineers along & build the infrastructure you need.
>>29480392
How's your military career going?
You must be rising through the ranks quickly with all of that hot knowledge you've got upstairs
Or you could shut the fuck up with regard to topics you clearly know nothing about
Cut your dick off
>>29480484
but if you build lighter tanks you end up with a retarded abomination like the bradley.
useless armor, oven-like insides, meh cannon, ect.
what the fuck are you gonna do, put 2 tanks with every engineer convoy to build a bridge over a glorified ditch?
do you realize how many tanks that would take and the fucking logistics needed?
>transport choppers are useless
just stop talking, man.
just stop.
>>29480480
Yeah, I suppose KIA distributors have them around somewhere. But most Kia trucks for sale here are delivery trucks and the like.
>>29480484
Light tanks are pointless when an IFV can do all the same things while carrying infantry. Neither will stand up to the same firepower an MBT will.
You cannot just ignore the massive logistical issues tanks present and go 'lol just rebuild an entire country while fighting a war there'.
>>29480422
>>29480515
I mean as a US civilian.
>>29480484
>gliders
Jesus thats an even worse idea than trying to use tanks for every fucking thing.
Also a glider capable of getting off the ground with a 62 ton tank in it would be the size of a C130 and couldnt land anywhere useful.
>>29480306
Fun fact, post surge we ditched tracked ABCT vehicles and violence in Iraq dropped substantially. You don't need that level of direct fire in daily COIN operations and having dismounted troops vanguard vehicle convoys is an effective way to reduce casualties from IEDs while still being able to offload all your gear and heavy weapons on a set of wheels.
>>29480531
Isn't that a sheriden? As in, a light tank that was retired for being worthless?
>>29480531
>using skycrane as reference
>hasn't been in service for decades
>max takeoff weight 47k pounds
>couldn't lift an abrams if it tried
please stop.
Why is /k/ full of idiots who think anything not capable of fighting Russian MBT's head on in the Fulda Gap is a useless death trap?
>>29480550
Right now it simply cannot be physically done
They say "we need a tank there" and the military says "no can do"
So they do these airborne operations without armor support.
With a glider, while it may be suboptimal, it could get the job done.
>>29480514
Smaller profile turretless Stug style light tank.
>>29480577
Because they have no understanding of logistics and force projection.
>>29480599
What the fuck do you think happens to a fucking glider in anything that isn't the most permissive type of airspace in existence?
They were shit in WW2, nowadays they'd be insane.
>>29480599
What is with this post-ironic glider meme bullshit. Please fuck off.
>>29480564
What about the CH-53K King Stallion?
It can carry 88k lbs.
Still a bit far away from a Abrams, but we could always just make a light tank designed for airborne use a King Stallion could carry.
>>29480599
>turretless light tank
Are you mad? You want to do COIN operations with something that does not even have a bloody turret? Go look up the M8, its a non retarded idea for an air mobile light tank.
>>29480605
At least its not the dumbass in the other thread who always tries to push his VLS ATGM tank idea.
>>29480599
>stug
>no traverse so prone to being ambushed
>light as hell armor that just about anything with more power than a M2 could punch right through
>vulnerable to mines like all hell
>no troop delivering ability
>useless in COIN
please stop.
>>29480451
>Who the fuck is Jessica Lynch?
>>29480615
Literally fucking nothing happens to them, because all anti-air missiles use very small warheads, and a glider doesn't have engines or tons of hot fuel
Further: If its not permissive airspace, you aren't flying helicopters or transport planes in it.
Right now they physically cannot land armored vehicles with their airborne troops. Yet it is very much possible to build a large glider that WOULD allow them to deploy M1's or Bradleys along side Airborne troops.
>>29480679
Not him, but...
>a stupid bitch that didn't clean her rifle
>>29480251
so a 6'2" 190lb guy wouldn't fit?
>>29480693
>Hey ahmed, what's that giant, slow moving box flying towards us?
>I dunno achmed, let's point our .50/20mm/AKs at it and fo nuts
>>29480718
Silent & deadly at night
Troops inside are in their armored vehicles, what do they care about HMG fire.
>>29480718
For a glider to be worthwhile/necessary
You need: An objective that requires heavy armor to take (not airmobile IFVs, which might make sense)
An objective that must be taken rapidly (because the Abrahms will immediately run out of fuel if you don't)
An objective that can only be reached by airmobile forces
An objective which has sub-manpad or dshk air defence around possible landing zones, which incidentally have to be huge
If you don't see what's wrong with the idea at this point, there isn't much anyone could do to help you.
>>29480615
>>29480718
Why are you feeding one of the most well known and obvious trolls on /k/
>>29478578
In 2010 I was driving a CUCV in Kuwait
>>29480251
Why don't we just design a new helicopter around being able to carry like an MRAP or something inside?
They only weigh like 15 tonnes right?
Why don't we make a turreted MRAP somewhat like pic related that's made to be like a light tank on wheels instead of a troop carrier?
>>29480100
what is get out faster? what is lighter weight so less wear and tear and easier transport?
>>29480801
Like an upgunned stryker. Why build something new?
>>29480650
Max hook load of 26000lbs, which cant even do a Stryker.
>>29480770
Landing zones are no larger than helicopters or parachuters need
So what you are saying is that airmobile forces have no purpose to exist
Gotcha
>>29480209
Philippines eh? Can you have guns there? Do you?
>>29480844
>Glider capable of carrying a fully crewed Abrahms is equal to a standard helicopter LZ
You're beyond saving.
>>29480707
Well I'm 5'10" 175lbs and I didnt fit, so...
>>29478729
you mean the Puma?
>>29480832
Because the Stryker MGS weighs 23 tons without cage or appliqué armor and over 30 tons with all the addons.
>>29480832
I didn't realize there was a Stryker with a tank cannon on it.
Does the US use it?
>>29480450
I kind of want one now...
>>29480900
Yes
>>29480801
Why? There has never been a battlefield where the 60mph cruise speed of a wheeled was deemed inadequate for ferrying it to the front line, while strapping it to a 200mph helicopter (which now has a greatly reduced range) would be an improvement.
>>29480900
They have one with a low velocity 120mm rifled gun.
Its not a true tank gun but they do have apfsds and HESH rounds available that will do in all the combloc tanks shy of the T90.
>>29480801
The Rooikat with the 90mm rifled gun comes pretty close.
I would also like one of the Bradley or M113 variants with the 120mm mortar. Especially if it also had a TOW launcher on it.
>>29480943
The only time it makes sense to airdrop a heavy MRAP type vehicle is during the initial invasion of a country where you are not left with other options (ex: a landlocked country where amphibious landings are impossible)
>>29480859
Considering safe distances between the chopper & other choppers/objects
Yes, you could land a large glider there
>>29480996
I would have very much liked to have SOMETHING armored when I was in the Afghani mountains, and you damn sure werent driving them to us.
Instead we had John Deer Gators that some poor schmuck got to putt along on while everyone else walked. Because they fit in a Chinook.
I sure we could make a modern day armored car capable of being sling loaded armed with a 25mm a 7.62 and some ATGMs with a 2-3 man crew capable of taking small arms fire weighs 3-4 tons
>>29480824
>wear and tear is a viable reason to completely remove any and all protection
Sounds like bullshit to me.
>>29480990
For what purpose would you give an indirect vehicle an ATGM, complete waste.
>>29481024
If choppers require a certain safe distance, why wouldn't the giga glider require a proportionally larger one?
>>29481052
Surprise tonk defense and because the entire TOW assembly only weighs like 400lbs.
What would it take for a helicopter to carry an MRAP or a Stryker? Would an M2 Bradley be a realistic target?
If
>a Stryker LAV is like 7 meters long, 2.7 meters wide and 3 meters tall
>an MRAP is 7.2 meters long, 2.5 meters wide and 3 meters tall
>an M2 is 6.5 meters long, 3.6 meters wide and 3 meters tall
Then you'd need a minimum cargo compartment of 7.2 x 3.6 x 3 meters but ideally it should have wiggle room, not sure how much would be nice though.
I think the Bradley is the heaviest of those at 28 tonnes, then a Stryker with a 100mm gun is around 19 tonnes and an MRAP is about 15t could such an aircraft be made?
>>29481068
Because he is envisioning Glider Jesus that can do no wrong.
>>29481097
Glider Jesus crashed for your sins
>>29481027
>believing you can drive anything, let alone a top heavy MRAP, up "afgani mountains"
I'm almost certain you never served but, please, prove me wrong.
>>29481029
okay, no.
for that to work you need something about the size of a suburban, which is ~3 tons
the armor would probably be another ~2.5 tons, and it would just protect up to .308, if you want it to protect up to or above .50, add another ton or so.
then there's the offroad upgrades to make this thing survive in the sandbox, another ton and a half.
a 25mm is just impossible, but a minigun is possible.
add another 1000 pounds for the minigun.
so you end up with something about 7.5 tons that can't be transported except via slingload or C130 that's barely adequate for COIN.
394
>>29481027
A glider could have been built to land whichever light tracked vehicle you wanted.
And picked back up afterwards.
Instead they insist to themselves that it cannot be done
>>29481027
Do the LTATVs fit in Chinooks?
>>29481120
>And lo, the Belkan military-industrial complex reached down from the heavens, and created glders. And they saw it was good.
I suggest attatching Iowa 16'' turrets to your gliders to help clear out ground based opposition. Use the GAU-8 as CAS in case they try to strike down the glider.
>>29481129
Do Chinooks fit in gliders?
>>29481076
If your indirect fire vehicle is surprised by a tank, ATGM's aren't going to help since you've seriously fucked up by this point.
>>29481156
>Do Chinooks fit in gliders?
What?
>>29480100
gotta go fast
>>29481108
>there are no roads in the afghan mountainsa
>>29481165
if a 62 ton MBT can fit in a glider, surely a chinook can.
>>29481156
You'd have to give the glider legs though, so that once its landed it could jump over tank obstacles then deploy its tanks aferwards.
>>29481173
What are you talking about?
>>29481191
there's an autist in this thread that thinks that we can use gliders to deliver tanks and shit.
we're making fun of him.
>>29481108
Didnt say anything about an MRAP, and no they wouldnt have worked where I was. A Bradley *might* have, but there was no way to get one there.
I was merely expressing a wish to have something more than my vest between my internals and the fucksticks on the neighboring mountain with a recoilless rifle.
But nice autistic strawman. How asspained are you?
>>29481076
Then give the TWO to rear eclon defense if that is a threat. TOW missiles and mortars have terrible synergy when mounted on the same platform.
>>29481173
>>29481165
Create a glider that can hold a team of 4 chinooks carrying an Abrahms like a Jaeger.
>>29481184
No, give it a small airstrip on the back and cruise missile launch capability.
>>29481191
lurk more son
>>29481197
>Did it in WW2
>Can't do it now though, all you get are humvees!
>>29481129
No idea, never saw one in person.
>>29481168
You just disproved yourself, if and where there are adequate roads you don't need air drop.
>>29478578
We used blownout jeeps at selection....pushed em around for a couple hours...
>>29481197
Can we be autistic about the super helicopter >>29481077 suggested instead? I want to see that happen.
How hard would it be to make like a Super Chinook that has enough space to fit LAVs in the cargo compartment and can lift 70k lbs?
>>29481200
>how asspained
Very
But in all honesty I do feel bad for the infantrymen who had to hump 120lb at 10000+ elevations all day. It's too bad we didn't invest more in bipedal platforms like bigdog to assist with that.
>>29481234
I think you're confused anon, I was pointing out to >>29481108 that you csn in drive up 'afgani [Afghani] mountains, since there are roads (albeit shit ones). It was my first post in the thread.
>>29481212
>something that was only pulled off effectively a handlful of times in a 70+ year old conflict should magically be better now just because we have better technology
![60file-page1_zps0f282ffc[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/O4bmNvX.jpg "60file-page1_zps0f282ffc[1].jpg")
>>29479571
Pick related is what SOCOM got and what the Marines are looking into. A wider version called the Flyer 72 fits 6 and is going to replace the Humvee based GMV. It can fit a 30mm cannon if they want
>>29481297
Handful of times? We are talking about tens of thousands of gliders landed throughout WW2
Despite being so hated by the army that they scrapped them all immediately afterwards.
It worked & worked well.
>>29480184
That is stupidly exposed for a vehicle of its size.
>>29481311
How long was the golfcart in service before being permanently canned to the motor pool?
>>29481077
Cost of designing something that could hold that much and still move at speeds to keep up with a blackhawk. Although engineers have always liked challenges.
>>29481048
Have you ever worked on an unarmored HUMVEE? they blow suspension all the damn time
>>29481692
Thats because they are pieces of shit built by the highest bidder
But thats how the military does it contracting nowadays
>>29481068
Anon is envisioning a glider that would be the one and only. No need for a second.
>>29478578
I guess current day a light strike vehicle able to fit inside the Chinook is an equivalent.
Both in an Expeditionary role and domestic base utility role the US uses some Ford models along with a wide range of specialist vehicles and even 'interims' like the G-wagon. Seen some concepts of up-armored pick ups; designed not to be a noticeable military vehicle.
Also JEEP itself has made a open-top expeditionary vehicle able to fit inside the Chinook. I think there's a large tender for that running, Flyer 2,
>>29481739
Its actually because most of them were built in the mid to late 80s and used hard for 30 fucking years with maintenance done primarily by completely untrained people.
Also sitting out in the weather their entire lives because lolnogarage
>>29478578
The CUCVs have been all but phased out of main units. There was a big selloff a few years ago; I picked up my M1008 in 2008 for a little over $1k. They were a great idea for logistics, but they were not deployed or implemented properly and so fell short of what they were pressed to do. In terms of basic trucks with offroad capability, they work great.
>>29481048
>any and all protection
What protection? Unless you actually armor it, the protection provided is pretty much just illusory: "if I don't see you and you don't see me, you can't hit me!" In reality, a vehicle like pic related is pretty much your own personal killbox. Being able to get out ASAP > a 1mm thick steel sheet between you and rifle fire.
>>29480392
>gets ambushed
>take ATGM to the side
>die in a fire
>take RPG-29 to frontal weakspot, or in the side or back
>die in a fire, or lose your feet
>take RPG-7 with tandem HEAT to the side
>die in a fire
>get de-tracked
>see options 1-3, die in a fire or lose your feet
>tank in convoy crashes into the back of you when you get hit
>drivers head slams into the drivers port, gets concussion, gunners head slams into the sights, suffers same fate
i'm not one of those morons who thinks tanks are out dated, but you're a retard
>>29480514
>useless armor, oven-like insides, meh cannon, ect.
>25mm shrubmaster
>meh cannon
BOOOOY HE ABOUTTA
>>29480562
Hey now buddy, the sheridian was far from worthless, and even if you consider it that you have to admit it was useless because it got stuck in design hell, like most of the U.S's military projects.
>>29480577
Because they kind of are, since 90% of wars nowadays are full of IEDs and sheepfuckers firing ATGMs at you from buildings in a rural area.
this isn't true 100% of the time but, it is a lot
>>29478578
Kawasaki Mules and Polaris Rangers are probably the closest thing.
They're typically used to drive around airfields.
>>29480693
>control surfaces
>wings
I sure do love not controlling my 100 tonne glider
>>29479970
Bullshit, I refuse to believe they gave Marines an AMG Benz.
>>29485243
Rolling in fucking style.
The Canadian Army uses them too.
>>29485293
I mad.
But seriously, what's wrong with the Land Rover Defender? Or even a fucking HMWWV?
>>29480888
what in sam hell is a puma
>>29486960
It's a mountain lion you dumbass.
>>29482845
Its still not remotely viable or sensible to just use MBT's for everything.
No Lord Humungus post apocalyptic wasteland cruiser?
>>29478671
>>29479571
>>29478578
>>29479982
What's the point of all these ? Why can't they use a Dingo or a Fuchs instead ?
>not using glorious Toyota
>>29485307
Note: every single one of them has a drip pan under it.
>>29486982
looks more like some kinda chupa-thingy to me.
>>29487939
Because
GOTTA GO FAST
>>29481029
German Wiesel.
>>29481113
So what about the super transport copter?
>>29481077
>>29481259
>>29486982
Yer makin' that up.
>>29487954
So does every vehicle in my battalion motorpool. It's an environmental thing, we have to place them there or we get yelled at. I'm sure the Canadians have the same rules.
>>29489057
Drip Pan Industrial Complex strikes again.
>>29487894
>>29487882
Hmmmmm
>>29481938
Man i remember seeing a whole motorpool full of these in korea back in 2005
