wanttaja@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Ronald J Wanttaja) (09/02/89)
From: ssc-vax!wanttaja@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Ronald J Wanttaja) A good friend of mine was in the 9th Inf. Div. at Ft. Lewis... commonly known as the "Toys R Us Brigade." Their job was to test screwball, er, unconventional hardware and tactics such as this. His first assignment was with a company of off-the-shelf Dodge pickup trucks armed with TOW launchers and auto-40mm grenade launchers. After that, he commanded a small unit of thhe Dune Buggies, armed similarly. Their main job was antitank... and the buggies did fairly well, from a blunt theoretical point of view. On exercises, they lost three VWs for every tank killed... a good cost ratio, but rather hard on crews. It was definitely fun to roar about in them, but no one really wanted to take them into combat. If I remember right, reliability was poor. This was especially true of the Dodge trucks... they may be all right for civilian use, but civilians don't play "Rat Patrol" for weeks on end. The trucks and the VWs were eventually replaced by Humvees. Ron Wanttaja (ssc-vax!wanttaja)
grassm@eecs.nwu.edu (Mark O. Grasse) (09/02/89)
From: "Mark O. Grasse" <grassm@eecs.nwu.edu>
From around 1981 through early 1989, the U. S. Army 9th Infantry Division
(Motorized) has been equipped and or used "Dune Buggies" in several
configurations.
I do not have the technical specifications of the vehicles however I do
know that:
a. They had a crew of 2.
b. Armament ranged from the m16's of the crew through machine guns of
various calibers (M60's through M2 models), MK19 40mm grenade launchers,
DRAGONS, and TOW missiles.
As the 9th Division begins reconfiguring to a typical Mechanized Division
structure, the FAV (Fast Assault Vehicle, i believe this is correct) are
being phased out. The 9th I.D. was the high tech test bed for the
Army and were the ones chosen to test "exotic" concepts. The Buggies were
formed into several different battalion structures including Light assault,
Heavy Assault, and Combined Arms Battalions were tested. They were all
Infantry Battalions though.
Advantages: Fast, quiet, maneuverable, more fire power per squad.
Disadvantages: Lack of Armor protection, low number of infantry dismount
personnel, lack of "staying" power.
They were good for a quick projection of force; economy of force missions;
ambushes, and some recon work.
Their vulnerability to mines and artillery makes them a very delicate
asset.
Reference: the comment made that they were vulnerable to being run over
by tanks: As a tank commander, let there be no doubt, ANYTHING
on the battlefield is vulnerable to being run over by a tank.
Mark Grassedaveme%tekirl.labs.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Dave Mead) (09/02/89)
From: Dave Mead <daveme%tekirl.labs.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET> I saw a couple of these rigs at Fort Stevens Oregon this last weekend. They have fiber bodies (Kevlar?) and look like an Empi type VW dune buggy with non-airplane lug-treaded tires and a 50 cal. BMG mounted on the passenger side. They were National Guard rigs and the 50 had a belt of what looked to be live ammo........at least it wasn't painted black like many dummy rounds. I sure looked like trouble for some smart-alec kid......maybe the bolt was blocked from cocking or something(I hope). Dave Mead
davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) (09/02/89)
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) egvideo!timk@watmath.waterloo.edu (Tim Kuehn) writes: >What would be the implications of such non-armored, quick weapons >platforms in a combat such as this? Same as jeeps in the second world war. Everybody in the footsloggers wanted one. Except the people who had to fire 105's from jeeps, that is. They tended to want tanks (:-)). --dave -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@yunexus, ...!yunexus!davecb or 72 Abitibi Ave., | {toronto area...}lethe!dave Willowdale, Ontario, | Joyce C-B: CANADA. 223-8968 | He's so smart he's dumb.
jharper%euroies.ucd.ie@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Jerry Harper) (09/05/89)
From: Jerry Harper <jharper%euroies.ucd.ie@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> Chadian forces in the Chad-Libya conflict some years back used light jeeps armed with the Milan (French?) anti-tank missile which raced across minefields to attack Libyan forces. As the mines were mainly contact detonated, the jeeps in most cases would have passed over the minesafely just before its detonating (amazing but quite true). Jerry Harper jharper@euroies.uucp AI Research Centre tel: 353-1-693244 x 2484 Computer Science Department University College Dublin Dublin 4 IRELAND
wyle@uunet.UU.NET (Mitchell Wyle) (09/05/89)
From: mcvax!inf.ethz.ch!wyle@uunet.UU.NET (Mitchell Wyle) >From: smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) >supposedly used pickup trucks with anti-tank weapons >mounted in the back. After capturing enemy SAMs, a certain army mounted them on pickup trucks to test them. During one test firing against a low-flying drone, the truck kipped over from the kick of the rocket against the blast deflector.
ckd%bucsf.BU.EDU@bu-it.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) (09/08/89)
From: ckd%bucsf.BU.EDU@bu-it.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) On 31 Aug 89 09:38:47 GMT, egvideo!timk@watmath.waterloo.edu (Tim Kuehn) said: > Supposedly at one time there was a time when dune-buggy's were > considered for use in combat. The 9th Infantry Division (High Technology Light Division) did some stuff with these in the early 1980s at Ft. Lewis and Yakima Firing Center, WA. (I was young at the time, and most of my sources are from the Ft. Lewis RANGER paper; my impressions of my impressions (:-) follow:) Most of them seemed to be equipped with TOW anti-tank missile launchers or .50cal MGs. Early reports were fairly favorable (I think) with them taking out large numbers of tanks in wargames at YFC (which is generally rolling-hills type stuff, at least what I've seen of it), especially in combined-arms fighting alongside A-10s. I believe the program was a victim of budget cuts of some kind (the B-2 perhaps? :-) but I don't know for sure. Disclaimer: I think I was 12. My dad flys helicopters and wasn't there. / |/ |\ @bu-pub.bu.edu <or> | Chris Davis, BU SMG 90 | disclaim, disclaim... \ |\ |/ %bu-pub@bu-it.bu.edu | IGNORE THE PATH: LINE! | smghy6c@buacca.bitnet
carlson@gateway.mitre.org (Bruce Carlson) (09/12/89)
From: carlson@gateway.mitre.org (Bruce Carlson) >From: ssc-vax!wanttaja@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Ronald J Wanttaja) > >If I remember right, reliability was poor. This was especially true of the >Dodge trucks... they may be all right for civilian use, but civilians don't >play "Rat Patrol" for weeks on end. The trucks and the VWs were >eventually replaced by Humvees. The Dodge trucks didn't really get replaced by Humvees. The Army bought Dodges for several years (about 76- early 80's), and then in about 1984 they switched to buying GM products. For light tactical vehicles I think the evolution is something like: Jeep - to Humvee or 4WD Blazer (as in Chevy Blazer) Dodge 4WD - to GM 4WD pickup or to Humvee Gamma Goat - to Humvee The GM trucks are all diesels, so they use the same fuel as the 2 1/2 and 5 ton trucks. This simplifies fuel resupply. There are still a lot of gas powered generators left over, but I think there is a plan to switch to all diesel power at some time. The GM trucks are a major improvement over the Dodge 4WD (318, 2 bbl, full time 4WD, auto trans). The GMs have the big diesel V8 (around 7 liter, I think), 4WD with manual lock-out hubs, auto trans, built in black-out lights (they had to be added to the Dodges), grill mounted connector for jumper cables (this is supposed to be a NATO standard connector), and some other improvements based on lessons learned from the Dodges. The general nomenclature for these trucks is the the CUCV, which means something like Commercial Utility Combat Vehicle. The main problem I found was that all of the new vehicles are much larger than the jeep. There are places a jeep can go that these new vehicles can't make it, because they are too wide, too high, or too heavy. Bruce Carlson