Take one look at the Army’s new whip called the Ground Mobility Vehicle and your first thought is probably "no way am I getting in that thing." Recently the entire US Military has been adding unarmored fast lightweight off road vehicles like the GMV and the Infantry Squad Vehicle. The marines have their desert patrol vehicle that is so lightweight there are reports of it flipping over when they tried firing a recoilless rifle from it.
Join our Discord Channel! / discord
So what’s going on here with all these barebones infantry troop transports? I thought we just spent the last two decades up armoring every vehicle to the teeth till they could barely qualify to go over a bridge. Listen, if my squad leader gave me a briefing saying “Alright everyone we’re moving out to the enemy compound in our new unarmored buggy” They’d have to make me go kicking and screaming.
Follow the Host: / cappyarmy
Inquiries: Capelluto@taskandpurpose.com
#USARMY #MILITARY #VEHICLES
Written by: Chris Cappy
Edited Co Produced by: Rebecca Rosen
Sure, you might get a great scenic ride on the way over and that's all well and good until you’re within about 300 meters of the enemy. Look, everyone is wondering the same exact thing here “Where and when would these unarmored buggy vehicles be used because they look like a dang death trap” fair enough question. Lets answer it with this video!
Want more fun military content and news? Follow Task & Purpose!
Facebook: / taskandpurpose
Instagram: / taskandpurpose
Twitter: / taskandpurpose
taskandpurpose.com/
10 bucks that in 10 years these same vehicles are getting armour slapped on the sides and get dropped in a battle they aren't suited for.
this would be peak levels of irony lol I bet you're 100% right about this prediction
lol hell yes! what do you think that huge engine is for........upgrades!
@@Taskandpurpose they’d exceed the payload of the delivery vehicles, probably
Lol...100% correct and then the whole, why are the engines overheating all the time fiasco. The last time this happened was right before Iraq I think it was...they kept promoting light and fast strike forces...not taking into account russian ATGMs and other large weapons proliferation across the planet. Next thing you know...ive got sand bags under my feet and whatever metal on the doors...or the old, take the extra vests and put those on the doors. How the hell did we survive those first few years.
Yeah sounds like a easy bet to me. I remember riveting steel and Kevlar pleats to 5 tons and other vehicles in Afghanistan.
The Ground Mobility Vehicle has been around for years. It's called a Toyota Hilux.
The Africans are way ahead of us.
The African side of Toyota engineering is the path way to abilities some considered unnatural.
@@billyteflon1322 wait what? T-62 turret? The craziest Hilux that i saw on internet and magazine is the one who use soviet 57mm rocket pod as mobile MLRS.
I was thinking the same thing ... why not just go to the local Toyota dealer? No need for specialized vehicles. Just ask the enemy, who are likely driving a Toyota pickup.
@@jackbronsky They use SUV for such occasions. You think an American company will let a foreign competitor get that contract? There are a few occasions where some unit were given money to buy local Toyotas because they needed a vehicle quickly and they couldn't wait for the shipment to get there. Also because they haven't try to modify those pick up trucks so that they can survive a drop from the transport planes. The buggies are meant for airborne infantry. The Brit however, were very quick to see the opportunity to sell Toyota upgrade packages and the Russian already decided to have their own technical trucks, the UAZ patriot. It performes like a Hilux, reliable like a Hilux, cost like a Hilux, just without the Toyota logo on it.
I think the very obvious lack of armor is meant to remind both its riders and officers that it isn't an armored vehicle. The very fact that noone in their right mind would want to be in the thing within half a kilometer of an enemy, means it will most likely be used "correctly", aka with an early dismount.
The problem is this - are you SUUUURE you're at least a half kilometer away from the enemy? If somebody ever told me I was at least 500m away from the enemy I'd be like, how TF do you know that, dude? You got somebody on the inside of their Company CP?? Shoot, I'd rather hump a damned baseplate for an 81 than deal with this bullet magnet.
@@johncogswell2890 Drones, bro 😎.
@@hashtagunderscore3173 That's a good point assuming you have adequate coverage, but having known one too many Lance Corporal Snuffies, (PFC for Army, I guess) - I wouldn't be too trusting of that. "Yes, Corporal I checked the batteries for the PRC. They're good to go." Morgan Freeman: The batteries were in fact, NOT good to go.
@@johncogswell2890 And if this guy was you comrades in engagement with overwhelming enemy forces and they need support? You still wouldn't believe them?
@@adaslesniak Well you can be sure I'd be wiring up an exfil and arty to cover them for it, but I'd also be radioing the Casualty Collection Point to expect multiple WIA. We all look after each other, Adas, but we will give each other shit for doing dumb stuff if it could have been avoided - at the end of the day, not while the two-way rifle range is hot, if ya know what I mean.
When I entered the Army in the early 80's we had these....they were called jeeps. Worked incredibly well until being replaced by Hummers. Anyone remember all the nice paths in downrange Ft. Bragg that perfectly fit a jeep that were now to small for Humvees?! Gone downhill since then. They used to tell us that if we came under fire in a jeep to unass that shit or bug out. By the time I got out of the Army the vehicles were all siege machines. I would welcome these new vehicles.
Better un-ass that M151 when bullets fly, BECAUSE YOUR ASS IS 4 INCHES FROM THE GAS TANK! 🤷🏼♂️🤣🤣😵💫
I was not happy when we transitioned from the Jeep...
Does that make sense though? A couple guys can easily hide in the woods and shoot with their AK on such a vehicle and your crew has almost zero protection.
@@DerDudelino In a jeep, you WILL have to dismount and engage those couple of guys with AK. If you have more ammo and body armor, chances are you'll be able to neutralize your enemy. In a Hummer. you will hunker down inside and call for reinforcement. In the mean time, those couple of guys with AK will shoot your tires out, immobilize you, and turn you into bait while they set up ambush for the reinforcement you called for.
People don't realize how much fire 9 men can bring with a 3 pack left and right. Add a dozen switchblades and you get a driver/gunner & 2 more as tactical/ medic for support. Then blow smoke, regroup and hit the flank before the enemy can count. Two mobile platoons, --priceless!
> Unarmored Humvee becomes > Armored Humvee becomes > IED Proof MRAP becomes > Unarmored Offroader > *History repeats itself*
Reject armor, return to Toyota
I meet you again my friend
When military vehicles track with fashion trends taxpayers should start asking more questions
Light and fast, I mean slower and armored; I mean invincible behemoth. This is exactly how the humvee was presented, evolved and ruined.
Not quite true, they're not replacing MRAPs with these, they fill different purposes, these are lightweight for fast recon, the MRAPs are for situations where you think you'll take more fire or there's more risk of IEDs, while tracked IFVs are for the ultimate protection and firepower support of the infantry they carry. The Humvee was never originally designed for the purpose it started to get shoehorned into, it was fore rearline dutes as a utility vehicle.
What’s crazy, is the HMMWV was originally designed like this. Then we threw heavy ass armor on it, now we have come full circle.
The armour was only thrown on the Humvees because the most Iraqi insurgents had in the 2000s were small arms and RPGs that the armour could withstand. The issue now 20 years later is that every militia worth a damn is up to their necks in ATGMs that can cu through armour like paper and blow up any tank within 5km away. This was actually a serious issue in the war against ISIS with Iraqi army MRAPs basically getting point and clicked away by ISIS TOW gunners and it was only thanks to airstrikes that it didnt become more of a problem. At least with open topped vehicles theres a chance you'll be thrown clear of the vehicle in the explosion instead of whats left of your squad trapped inside the wreckage of your MRAP and slowly burned alive.
Get the paint can and stencils for "NO STEP", "NO HAND HOLD", "MOGAS ONLY".....
@@matchesburn Give them nice enough stuff and they just sell it to the highest bidder. Trying to get a bunch of child 7777ers to defend their own country was one of the dumbest things we've ever done, and we've done a lot of stupid things.
Ironic but acceptable.
This is all i could think about during the video- "This was LITERALLY the original idea for the Humvee, a fast light scout vehicle that shouldnt be used for frontline combat"
In a low-threat environment, they might be great for getting a squad up to a forward position. However, the U.S. Army hasn't fought a war like that since Korea, unless you count Gulf War I. It's basically an overgrown Willys-Overland Jeep from WWII.
I can understand it to quickly move troops in well protected areas but I seriously doubt they'll keep being used for that and just get random armor welded to it
Actually theyd be GREAT in low to mid threat/intensity tropical environment esp Latín América where these light vehicles WILL once again (like unarmored Humvees before it in late 1980s) Will prove themselves to be reliable fast hard hitting & Priceless in general. For Urban combat & Open field combat with near peer nations then a well armed well armored fast moving APC/IFV/LAV Will Be a better choice
@@fredcollins8919 Even in the near-peer case I’d rather give 500 more of my guys some dirt bikes than have just one more tank. Armored vehicles will remain valuable, but some forces can benefit greatly from dispersion and speed, especially under conditions of ubiquitous drones and ATGMs/RPGs. M1A1 tank costs $6.21M Dirtbike costs $10k That’s 621 dirt bikes
@@SoundsSilver am certain the US Army & USMC WILL most definitely do something along the lines of what you are mentioning, esp taking in everything that has been learned & mastered in diverse terrain, environments & battlefields large & small over past 25+ years......Amen! Cheers!
Special forces beards mfhahahaha...discipline in the army seems to have gone to f all these days...
This doctrine has been in use for a long time in the Indian subcontinent, this is not a vehicle for engagement and is very vulnerable to ambushes, but it is very effective in quickly mobilizing troops, especially in forest and hilly terrain, because it can go over narrow, muddy roads and less conspicuous than an attack helicopter
i'd imagine this wouldn't be used to replace any armored vehicles but rather be given to units that would be walking otherwise. They wouldn't have been armored anyways but now they are way quicker.
yes exactly this is almost entirely meant for the 82nd airborne to use in order to gather on an objective after an airborne drop. its supposed to be better than walking 100 kilometers there or yoinking a local car to get there.
@@Taskandpurpose Oh, we're not supposed to commandeer someone else's mode of transportation?
@@Taskandpurpose Shoulnd't they just pick a regular 4 person 4x4. The cost is 25% and it does not draw attention. Still this is far from enduro bike - the opposite of RPG7 target.
@@isaiahmiller9142 Just need someone who can speak foreign language and a stack of dollars, much more compact and lighter. But seriously, I did hear some service men said sometimes they get deployed without vehicle and when they asked for one,they were given some money and told to just buy a Toyota.
@@minhducnguyen674 And honestly, if they had the big lumpy reliable engine, coolant and the air filters, so it didn't die immediately while hauling 1-2 tonnes of people and cargo, that'd be better. Why? Because they have windows and air-conditioning. And that is important, no matter where you're fighting. Note: you can't easily airdrop something with civilian glass windows. The air-con usually breaks as well. Still not sure why basic toughened doors, air-droppable glass windows and reliable air-conditioning wasn't a priority here. Chunky diesel engines with good air filters and cooling solutions is pretty damn easy to do.
Good, we are slowly moving towards making warthogs a reality.
Gimmie that gauss hog
And the US Army quickly realizing why the Troop Hog was a terrible idea. Instant Killpocalypse anyone?
Was looking for this comment
@@slamshift6927 seriously has anyone thought about how tactically and logistically bad the hog is. If it’s a gun hog it’s only able to transport 3 dudes and if it’s troop hog it’s way to open and is screwd if it runs into a small armored vehicle.
@@thedude4840 The standard warthog is actually not a bad idea, it's a fast moving heavy weapons platform capable of hit and run tactics.
I'm not sure how it works, but with improvements to drones, thermal imaging and machine learning. It might be much harder to setup ambushes. So a buggy could be useful for quickly repositioning troops through areas already under surveillance. They also might be predicting that ATGM's will start developing/proliferating fast enough to make more heavily armored personal carriers just big expensive targets.
this comment aged well
Agreed!!! Gold comment!
For the people scrolling back in 10 years: This Nostradamus-Level comment was written several months before Russia invaded Ukraine.
IFVs will need active protection for sure and being able to spot targets and deal with them from range with an auto cannon. This comment aged sort of well though for sure. Yet there is still room for heavily armored IFVs. You still don't want a single ambush of small arms taking out entire squads ya know? ATGMs still only have so much ammo at hand! All vehicles IMO should have a 50 caliber at the very least.
@@dianapennepacker6854 Tanks and IFVs are definitely still important. There is a reason why both Russia and Ukraine can't get enough of them. Even old tanks are sought after. Its just tanks are used much more like in World War 1 as infantry support and suppression vehicles and they are not as able to "tank" hits. Granted Russia's fleet of T-72B3s are not exactly cutting edge in terms of armor.
I could see how light armor could cause officers to trust it more than it should be and send it out on more risky missions, whereas completely unarmored might force them to think more. Like they won’t try to use it like a tank because it’s not even remotely close in the first place
I was going to say light armour is a must at minimum but you're totally right.
But also it's important to remember that armour is a tiered system. Putting a body on it that's 3mm thick is just adding pointless weight as any bullet will just go straight through. If you are going to add an exterior you need to actually make it thick enough to stop something. This is something the Americans learned with the humvee where it's car body was so thin it couldn't actually stop anything but still added a considerable amount of weight, slowed down loading and reduced visibility. With the American army now has decided to create 2 cars, a large armoured car and a light buggy. If the vehicle is unarmoured you shouldn't pretend otherwise as that's just adding useless weight.
The US Army is literally going back to ww2 Jeep Willie's. Lightweight, reliable, sometimes have guns on them, can be paradropped, and no trace of armor.
back then there were clear battle lines and it was assumed you wouldn't get ambushed by the enemy when you're behind your own lines. I don't know what they're expecting to achieve with these except much higher casualties.
@@hughmungus2760 Well supposedly population growth is out of control...and it's cheaper to bury a soldier than pay his disability... I'm joking...but our loving leaders are not.
@@hughmungus2760 you're still thinking of the last war. The next big war will be against China, not Hezbollah.
@@userequaltoNull no it won't because MAD is still a thing.
@@hughmungus2760 MAD?
This vehicles role is currently being performed in every hot spot on the planet by Toyota Technicals at 1/8th of the cost on one of these.
Petition to manufacture the Toyota Hilux in the US
I’m sure the cost is much lower than even 1/8th...
@@reganbond61 dont you think us army is already op enough, you need to keep the competition.
@@alperakyuz9702 no, stonks
I feel like they could've bought a modified Chevy Colorado Duramax at a quarter of the cost with a front bench seat and the option to remove the doors and add bucket seats in the bed. They could've even wrapped it in Kevlar and it would've been almost as good as this
I could see these being useful for rapidly redeploying troops from behind a heavy screening force, green zone mobility, or even as a rapid airmobile unit as intended... Would be nice if it at least had a single-sheet of kevlar around the crew cabin so that when one of these inevitably drives into an ambush the crew in the trailing vehicle aren't immediate casualties from the shrapnel of the leading vehicle being blown up.
Ah but that is where the slippery slope begins. Remember the hmmwv. The High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle. As soon as someone put a little armor, the next person put a little more and then boom. Hmmwv can’t turn going more than 20mph or else is rolls.
As a former member of the 1/75th back in the early 80s, this is a vast improvement over the "gun jeeps" we used in combat operations. Being a M-60 gunner I rode hanging on to my gun as we unassed a rolling C-130 on a goodly number of occasions. These vehicles actually look a little bit safer than our old jeeps that we would use not only for quick raids, but for seizing and securing airfields. It is all about the mission, it obviously would not be good for mounted patrols in an area like Iraq or Afghanistan, but for the proper mission, it would be great.
I agree!!! All depends on the mission & terrain, applicable to BOTH SF troops AND conventional troops regardless. Need/want that weapons, gear equipment & vehicle variety for those special missions & beyond. Sure beats Needing then and NOT having them......
Light vehicle for specific operations. Airborne troops, long-range raiding missions, special forces type vehicles.
@@walangchahangyelingden8252 and Infantry + Elite USMC Infantry + USMC Recon/Force Recon & others. If the gear & vehicles etc ARE that good then they MUST be shared by ALL units that truly need/want them, in ALL global theatre of ooerations, past,,esp present & more so future & most especially in tropical jungle terrain where Infantry troop mobility is KEY & hence need/desire for improved mobility there (better than what we had massively in southeast Asia in 1960s). Its 2022 & we must have, and freely use even BETTER equipment weapons tactics training vehicles/logistics & much much more to ensure success & survival. Cheers!
So basically... The u.s is bringing back the Jeep Willie's
Willies are legit awesome, my family has a 1946 civvie version and it is the catsl
I was actually thinking the same thing.
Actually thought the same thing. It seems like a useful thing to have in a desert, that's why the russians switched out from the heavily armored units to faster lighter mobile ones.
@@Biggus_Nickus For the specific purpose, they’re awesome. Quick movement of infantry. Better than walking, actually safer and way faster
basically a less cool version but yes, jeeps.
Original unarmored humvee sitting in the corner crying... "But I thought you said you don't need me anymore!"
Time is a flat circle.
There were unarmored humvees??
@@vivosmartphone2280 :)
Even the ones with no armor have no balls and get stuck. Did it in Kosovo back in the day on goat trails. Needed the winch, log chain, and the other truck just to pull it back up the small hill.
@@vivosmartphone2280 There were Humvees without doors.
its like riding into battle on horseback, dismounting then fighting on foot.
I drove an M151 jeep for 2 years for the S4 in an infantry battalion (peacetime Germany). Very useful for rifle company commanders, staff officers, the colonel and his XO, as they needed to move rapidly and quietly behind the FEBA. A fighting battalion has a substantial logistical train, with jeeps riding herd. The new Polaris RAZRM sidebyside is perfect for this task.
As a marine who drove all though Iraq in 03 and 04 in a hmmwv w/no doors, I don’t get it. They’re fast, light, and so easy to get in and out of you know. Just take the armor off of what you already have!
that would be making too much sense! haha
GM needs new contracts
I've actually heard that unarmored humvees were safer than armored humvees because the explosion kicked you out of the vehicle and you didn't get smashed against the roof or trapped between the armor and the shockwave.
Thats what I was thinking. You could also use the truck version and put 2 more seats in to get it too a 6 man crew like this new vehicle. Also I'm sure GM could put a new, faster and more efficient Engine in the bloody thing if they needed it to go faster and farther. The only advantage to this new vehicle is that it would probably be narrower so it would be more suited to going down old backroads and trails that were made for old Hilux's and Landcruiser's in most other countries. Although being a US GM military vehicle I wonder if they actually thought of that. GM doesn't really make anything targeted to the off-road community like Jeep, Toyota or well "old" Landrover does.
Upside of a new vehicle is that Pep Boys and Auto Zone have spare parts. Not just a single defense contractor so if the sh*t ever hits the fan your unit can take their GPC to the local auto parts store and fix any faults overnight. They wont have to wait on parts assembled over 20 factories in 20 separate congressional districts.
Yeah, because the Humvee shows that no vehicle ever gets pushed into a role it wasn't intended for, right?
This was literally the original purpose of the humvee
@@afwaller So how are these going to be uparmored, because we all know the motor poll will be up armoring these vehicles Maybe they will mount racks for sandbags.
@@orlock20 they’ll just strap body armor to the sides, hang the whole pc from the door like clothes drying outside
laughs in russian and chinese.
@@orlock20 I am going to go out on a limb and say the first step to up armoring these is adding doors.
I've always thought about that. Like some humvees that don't have doors and stuff. It always made me confused. Thank you for explaining!
A "cutvee" vehicle similar to this was used in Somalia by one of the seal teams I believe, many soldiers were hit many times. Very important to understand this vehicle's limitations
Yea, you don’t drive a thin-skinned cucvee on an urban presence patrol.
So we’re just doing “Mad Max” now? Nice. “LT! WITNESS ME!”
WITNESS!
MEDIOCRE!
VAlHALLAAAAA!!!!
Witness
@@Sigmar_Heldenhammer WITNEEEESSSSS *runs over IED*
You’re spot on on how they can be misused
Put a javelin missile on the back of it and some smoke screen launchers, then swarm the enemy like tango and cash.
or just nuke them
@@bibekjung7404 WHAT
Here he is again
Yeah I see a col and Lt joy riding these things
Great analysis!!! Totally agree that used for proper Task & Purpose this would be quite useful on certain battlefields. Weaponized drones will make most troop carriers deathtraps. At least these can be replaced cheaper and are way more fuel efficient than M113. These little buggies are not for occupation....once airspace is controlled, these are not the Special Tool you're looking for.
i really enjoy your jokes in your videos, they make me laugh really often, lovin it :D
Even with the non existent armor, I imagine a lot more people are gonna die from rollovers than gunfire.
the vehicle does have a reinforced roll over protection kit installed but yeah that is definitely a big concern. Even if you're wearing your seatbelt I could see a limb or two not making it.
Just like halo.
@@Taskandpurpose That's what I was thinking. It starts rolling, limbs stick out and get chopped off when they get trapped between the bars and ground. There's a reason why so many new utvs have doors.
@@Taskandpurpose Cool, bullshit seatbelt you're stuck in (gear snagging) when you encounter an ambush or fuck all when hit with an IED or mine.
@@SonOfTheDawn515 yeah you can't remain safe for both senerios in an open air off road vehicle with today's safety restraints.
Suddenly, a shotgun shell booby trap becomes an actual IED threat.
Or one of those VC grenade-on-a-branch traps.
A 10 year old with a paintball gun could destroy them 😅
>SLINGSHOT AMBUSH INTENSIFIES
@@MrPoporucha "You'll put someone's eye out with that"
@@MrPoporucha Afghan sheppards are really good with slingshots
I am a VN vet with 18 months in country with A Trp, 2/17th Cav, 1st Bde, 101st ALL AIRBORNE DIV, running all over II Corps in a M-151 (JEEP), WITH NO DOORS, AND NO ROOF, we had 5 or 6 sandbags on the floor and a pedestal mounted M-60, with a crew of 3, car captain, driver and gunner, occasionly 2 extra grunts sitting over the rear wheel wells. We were the jack of all trades for the brigade, on our pony's, on our feet and in the air. On Nov 24, 1967 returning from a mission my jeep ran over (in todays lingo) a IED. Witch went off under the left rear wheel, I flew out of my seat, my gunner followed close behind me, the driver went left, and our interperturer went from facing inboard above the left wheel to facing to the rear straddling the steering wheel facing the rear, I picked up some shrapnal , my gunner hit his head , those 3 were medivacked out. So I like the concept of a light weight, fast moving vehicle as above, I have seen a M-48 tank torn apart, with no survvier's'. Sorry the later it gets the worse my spelling gets??
Try going on marches for many dozens of kilometers. Not only are they very rough, especially offroad and with 60kg of gear, but half of your troops have diminished combat capability after such long physical task. Now imagine you could just speed away on a light vehicle to do the same transporting of troops, but in a fraction of the time and with zero fatigue issues. The vehicle is also capable of carrying 100x more gear for the troops than just sending them on foot. This won't really be applicable for huge amounts of troops, but instead for recon and airborne missions where the key is speed. Missions where the squad is intended to sabotage something or gather intel. Same goes for patrolling, a light fast vehicle with easier logistics is a great addition for patrolling an area for enemy breaches. I could also see these being used for reinforcements and resupply. You won't always have to send in an entire truckload of supplies for every task. Sometimes it's a better move sending 2-3 light vehicles packed with ammo, food and water, and with a few replacement troops each. Obviously these vehicles fill a VERY different role than combat vehicles, which are armored to withstand at least small arms fire, and weaponized to bring greater firepower than soldiers can. A non-armored vehicle would be suicidal and idiotic to use for fire support. You would use an IFV for that. These are not meant to replace IFVs. They are meant to fill a role where the IFV would be overkill and too expensive for the requirements. However it would have been okay to have it wrapped in SOME form of protection to at least withstand shrapnel. A random artillery impact 5 lightyears away will shred the entire squad with zero doors on these things.
During my 36 year career, I've seen this cycle many times. It goes like this: "small....bigger....BIGGER....SUPER BIG"......then the switch happens...."we gotta get small...super small" (light, mobile, blah blah blah). Here we go again. This doesn't just apply to vehicles. It applies to everything from field messes to intel collection equipment. It keeps the budgets nice and high as there's always new equipment to buy and train on.
Can confirm, also happens with intel.
It's the circle of life. Starts of with an original idea, gets changed over a few years to the point it becomes useless and someone tells people how it was originally and they try to go back. If you've seen this cycle you can basically call yourself a fortune teller cause you can easily predict the future☺ it's kind of the reason why people start to sweat when they hear a senior say "watch this shit" 😂
Happens in ordinance too.... " this is overkill , and far too heavy! We need something lighter, faster, cheaper, with smaller projectiles but more capacity , so we can sustain constant fire...!" To "These are worthless pee shooters that bounce off everything with no range! We need huge guns that only take one shot to destroy anything!" Then repeat...
Wow that's like evolution is that funny saying evolution to the prescriptive who think they are leaving the collateral stuff that comes with intolerance/ prescriptive
It's all about solving the problems with the stuff you currently have. Bigger is always better until you get to the point where a small vehicle is needed to solve the problems of big vehicles. I'm old enough to remember the old CUCVs (Commercial Cargo Utility Vehicle) Which were Chevy 4x4 pickup trucks and Blazers which were modified for Army use. IMO these were the best _utility_ vehicles the Army ever had. They were never intended for front line use and were versatile, reliable, inexpensive repair parts - and came with the same warranty their civilian versions had.
"there are reports that they flip over when firing recoilless rifles" Huh, thought they were recoilless Edit: Its a joke. Y'Know, haha funny
That only means they recoil less.
Ask military intelligence about that.
Gun doesn't recoil, the vehicle does.
Recoilless rifles, ain’t -Murphy
Hold (X) to flip warthog
Back in the 1980s, we rode around in Jeep Cherokees. We were prohibited from taking them off a hard road unless it was an absolute emergency. We couldn't even set the thing into 4wd if we wanted to.
I love how streamlined and effect task and purpose is becoming.
The Army keeps trying to re-invent the Willys Jeep.
Yes
Im still surprised why we arent starting horse riding again. Horses worked for military like 4000 years. what can go wrong???
@@tadatada5 yes! and we can teach them to jump out of planes too!
@@waxdood You shure about that? Is there any new study about it? Hah lets spend 50 mil on study first. its even cheaper thanany other upgrade study!
@@dionp38 just recruit a bunch of pegasi, then you wont have to air drop them.. idiots these days smh
The lack of doors reinforces the need to GTFO it when there's contact.
when you think about it doors are a huge waste of time, they're the middlemen between you and being outside
it looks like the precursor to the ◾ M831 Troop Transport from Halo-3 does it not❓
guess just have to make sure kick up enough sand and dust for cover otherwise its 1 shot 1 kill (or maybe 2 kills) for the enemy
@Keith Marshall The problem is that it's a slippery slope. Adding reinforced doors add weights, so now you need a bigger engine and tougher components, adding cost. So now you might as well stay inside and fight from the vehicle instead of exiting, so the entire vehicle needs to be reinforced, adding more weight, tougher components, and more cost. At this point, you have an expensive vehicle, which reasonably should be able to withstand explosives and IEDs, adding more weight, tougher components, cost, and suddenly you have yourself an MRAP. There's very little middle ground between "Lightweight cheap vehicle not meant to be anywhere near a fight" and "vehicle meant to be used in combat"
@@Excludos Yes valid point, but adding light weight kevlar doors for protecting against small arms fire would probably be doable. There's no way its gonna protected from IED blast and if you end up on top of one you are using it wrong.
As a former 11B I was sold when you mentioned these vs humping. They're a go at this station.
You mentioned that it beats a 20-mile march with full packs and I would agree. But yea, huge abuse by the people who can and will abuse it. It needs like automatic GPS deactivation miles before hot zones or 100% exclusive squad management
This is the sort of thing that will be produced for 5 years, never used for their intended purpose and inevitably retrofitted to serve a function that is actually needed on a regular basis.
So, it's like half the stuff DoD orders?
Tbe US has been without a frontline APC for over 30 years, without integrated AA in their armour for 60 years, without a worthwhile SAM for 30 years, without a usable ATGM for over 20, without HE rounds for their tanks for 40, and if I bothered to dig, Id probably find more. A million projects to update some piece of equipment, or fix some lack of capability seem to start, go nowhere and then be forgotten for 5 years. This thing is filling the nieche the hmmvw was supposed to, but that got coopted, because the US had no APC.
When I get hit by an IED why would I want to get a scratch when I can get pulverized into liquid dust in my beach buggy instead?
At least your buddy will only take your skull fragments as secondary shrapnel instead of the door panels
at least you won't feel anything. The HUMVEE has enough amour to make your death more agonising
I just assumed I was dead already when the Blackhawk lifted for the FOB. Makes it easier to deal with the stupidity around you.
IED means you're dead as a light element anyway.
If you are fast enough, IED can hit you
This was prophetic. The part about imposibility of air drop anywhere near the object of interrest...
can be used in recon type missions before a full scale invasion. They get to the destination with ease. Not for heavy engagements
Oh, so exactly what the Humvee was intended to be? A lightweight, mobile, speedy vehicle reminiscent of the jeep? In before they get overly up-armored.
it is history first you add armor, then you take it off, then again the same thing of the next generation and this is repeated all since the Roman legions
IED’s
@@tihomirrasperic Same with tanks. In WW1 you put tons on, in WW2 you take some off for mobility, toward the end you put tons on, then in the cold war they took some off, again for mobility, then after that they put them back on with all kind of new tech like reactive and composite.
Where are they suppose to spend our tax dollars? It's not like the Humvee was specifically built for this role.
The Humvee started out way too bulky to begin with and had to armor anyways. Looks like the hood and front end are bullet rated, at least.
These will probably be very popular at the second hand market with beach people 👀
the military versions aren't street legal though they burn too much JP8
@@Taskandpurpose Ahh shiiii, v8 swap em bois, gotta stay environmental 🙌
@@Taskandpurpose No ATVs are street legal. that's kinda the point
@@mntahoe1759 what're you talking about? ATV'S are street legal under many state laws.
@@nathankeel4308 and besides that, police in states with ATV street illegal laws give 0 shits 9/10 lmfao
This was a thing beginning in the 90s too. Back when the Army tried testing a team of tanks against a team of buggies with ATGM's on them. Every single time, the buggies with ATGM's won against the tanks.
Solid idea. Giving light infantry the ability to mix speed into the equation - giving you a resupply and weapons platforms for everything for .50cals to 2.75" laser guided rockets. Speed and maneuverability has always been doctrine - these last low intensity wars have softened us to the fact that speed and violence on action is your best protection.
Shouldve & couldve easily been done 30 years ago
Now they can drive so quickly, the IEDs won't be able to explode in time to destroy them!
I mean, it's been done.
We did it guys, IEDs are not dangerous anymore gg
I mean, yeah that's how the US minimized casualties from IED's where they didnt have armored or mine resistant vehicles. Most IED"s use a remote detonator, generally cheap phones, and those have a semi-random delay of half a second to a few seconds, enough for a vehicle doing decent speed to be well out of the danger zone.
You only get IEDs when the local civilian population is hostile. don't fight stupid wars don't deal with stupid IEDs
@@williamt.sherman9841 The United States has chosen to set itself up in places maybe it shouldn't, and no politician is going to make a power vacuum in those places. It's dumb. But I guess if somebody is going to be the evil power in a region, it may as well be a first world nation that has rules of war.
So this seems like a high budget version of a Technical.
The high class technical, I like that
@@Taskandpurpose I want to see it's engine start after going trough the Top Gear stress test. Aka drowned in the tide and getting placed on a high rise building that gets demolished. Also slap like a 50 Cal on that bad boy.
....without a machine gun
Step 1: Aquire armed & armored vehicle Step 2: Unequip all weapons & armor Step 3: wroom wroom oof oof
Toyota all the way
For highly tactical strike situations I could see this being useful but not enough to order in mass quantities. I think my big question is how quietly can it run? If it can get you close enough it could be a great get away vehicle once the objective is complete. I think it’s a bit undercooked but not entirely useless
If this is going to be used, it needs to feature the militaries favorite buzzword: Modularity.
When a single machine gun burst can wipe out your vehicle and it's whole crew
Bro, do you even OIF-1?
Probably. But really as long it stay out of urban combat should be alright
@@brandodooferman9378 said no officer..... ever..... Send em in boys
or single shotgun shell
@@brandodooferman9378 I'd not want to take it within 200m of any forest, wood, copse, or spinny either.
US Army: "Bring on the fast vehicles!" Mines: "Waiting"
Rocks and slings are back in the game
The point is to throw them at hotly contested places with no mines where the first ones into the area have the advantage. ... Which sounds nice on paper, but the last three wars have all been centered on fighting in well-fortified areas which have been fully prepared for attacks...
@@giantmastersword Doesn't mean future wars won't need these.
I like the idea of a small 5 person car zooming around the battlefield shooting everything
Back in 1972 our unit got a box stock Dodge D100 PU Truck as a replacement for the box stock 1963 Ford Ecovan the main mission for these vehicles was hauling the unit laundry to the post laundry facility and running to get the First Kick a McD when the mess hall slop did not come up to his culinary standards.
Instead of cars that cost alot. Why not do what the Japanese did in WWII in the Malaya Campaign. B I C Y C L E S
Nahh, they will.make it out out some fancy space carbon alloy, bullet proof sprocket .., some crazy gears box, will cost USD50k per bike
@@kentershackle1329 Eh... You're right. Common sense don't exist in the US Military.
Bikes aren't great in the sand tbh
maybe use dirt bikes (MADE FROM PURE BIDENIUM, STALINIUM AND PUTINIUM)
TACTICAL BICYCLES!
"You cant destroy an armor when there is no armor to begin with"
This vehicle completely makes all enemy AT obsolete.
Don't even try to destroy if it unarmoured. They'd assume it's a civilian.
@@patrickmartin2202 lmao, imagine the weight on this
Who says, marines can throw a bunch of C4's into the back of it and drive it straight into a tank. Just need another person to press the detonator.
@@iamt_tl we have the same wavelength lmao
In many missions, in order to outmaneuver the bad guys, you need speed and flexibility. Well maneuvered platforms themselves offer good protection.
reminds me of the Long Range Desert Group 1940-1945 Go where the enemy least expect behind lines and off main roads and built up areas. Leave the armoured version for street fighting and major points of interest. This idea is to move quickly over areas normal armoured vehicles cannot go and out flank enemy.
The Dutch have been doing this for years. Mostly because lack of money.
The British army have been using vehicles like this for year's and they have worked out pretty well so far. Especially for things like recon and fast attach with a wmik attached for extra fire power
Just thinking the same. They remind me of the ones the Pathfinders use.
Pretty well cause they have never been ambushed or attacked in them....
Small car, big javalin
yes the HMT 400 Jackal.
@@lordemarsh6804 are you serious? Take a look at Land Rover WMIK, MWMIK, Jackal and Coyote. All open to the elements and not only have people been ambushed on them, they've literally sat there and fucking slogged it out out Iraqis and Afghans in them.
We had those dune buggys back in the Marine Corps during desert storm
The original construct is called the Expeditionary Warfare Operating Concept. The original design is from GEN Nicholson’s SAMS paper when he return from regiment. You are correct in identifying that is for off-set insertions to enable Airborne forces to seize key terrain. The reason it is light is so it can land at less than 12 g with all the supplies required for 5 days. The GMV was not the preferred vehicle. The Polaris DAGOR was because is is airdrop certified and two can load into a CH in less than one minute. Yep we planned it for extractions because nothing spells failure like a bunch of burning vehicles somewhere no matter what really happened. We also planned to have 99% of the parts to be available globally rather than the Gucci over complicated GMV. Your assessment is correct in that leadership keeps trying to overcomplicate it by adding heavier comms, BFT you name it. The original vehicles bought by the 82 and others cost about 50k and therefore could be considered disposable (less than 100). We opted to get to the objective quickly and then get the hell out even quicker from multiple PZs - everything is designed for mobility here armor was the trade off but the bottom line is that Airborne Infantry sucks at vehicle maneuver, doesn’t want to do it nor do the maintenance but they also don’t like getting shot jumping into a hot LZ or road marching 50 km with a crap the weapons and ammo they need knowing that they aren’t getting resupplied for 5 days. Oh and the DAGOR is not a typical truck - I went through Borrego Springs at 60 mph while a similar HMMWV was doing 5 MPH. The ride was so comfortable the passenger fell asleep while we were traveling g cross country
I think it’s under-protected on purpose, as a way to discourage misusing them. If you put a gun on top or any sort of armor someone would definitely drive them into battle and get killed as a result. The same reason why you don’t give everyone a sniper rifle so they don’t go plinking at targets 2 km away, sometimes being more capable doesn’t mean it’s more useful
This is a pretty valid point, no doors make it hard for even the stupidest lt to use it wrong. Source am soon to be stupid lt.
@@FollowedGaming you underestimate the potential of human stupidity. You can't make something idiotproof, because they'll just make a better idiot.
@@carlost856 Idiots can be so ingenious
You're underestimating stupid people's intelligence
As Einstein said There are only two things infinite in the world The universe and human stupidity And I'm not sure about the universe
The best part? You can't sleep in an air conditioned vehicle anymore and anyone can catch you sleeping or slacking in the vehicle!! Yay!!
And no mosquito protection
You better have some real strong insect repellant
Yup. Deadliest animal on the planet and they're making it a ridiculous hassle to do basic prevention (aka, you're now hauling around a ton of netting to cover a basic vehicle). Or, in other climes, you can enjoy things like sand flies (mmm, Leishmaniasis). There's also the complete lack of protection from other basic, basic things like dust, rain, and even a flying rock from the vehicles ahead of you in the convoy (50 mph gravel will be delightful to those folks in the back). I've known ultralight hikers with more packing sense than this thing.
Didnt the army just put in the regs somewhere that soldiers should be sleeping whenever they have the opportunity to?
the kevlar blanket is actually a great idea
I think they are thinking "we can't make light vehicles capaple of taking a hit from an At-4, not even an old RPG, so just make it cool, fast, and forget about the doors". Instead of considering: "which percentage of threats can we protect against for every pound added?" Protecting fron .22lr and light sharpnel: thin kevlar will do the job. In my country, not even 10% of the population has anything bigger than that. Protection against up to .454 cassul or a 50 gram 12ga hardcast slug going 400 m/s: Just slightly more UHMWPE than regular lvl 3A body armour. I doubt there are even 50.000 guns in my country that will go through that. Protection against 14,5mm R: About 1" of Ar-550 steel, so, forget about it. Clearly, up to a certain level, you can protect a vehicle and the people inside without adding too much weight. Also, protection from weather, Road debree, Having AC, and being able to COMMUNICATE inside a vehicle seem pretty important if you ask me. So, no. Give them enduro bikes, AND a decent vehicle.
A ballistic blanket would be helpful, those explosives are sometimes in weird locations and at least preventing shrapnel from hitting the important stuff sounds pretty good to me
so it would be like a convertible
We can tie the blanket on the sides and bam! Protection
The problem is the minimum thickness of steel just to stop AK rounds will massively increase the weight overall. Then you're slow enough that you're an easy target for RPG warheads.
@@Treblaine He's not talking about any steel, just something like a kevlar sheet to stop incoming shrapnel and other debris, would barely even count on the weight end of things.
@@ARandomGuy69420 A kevlar sheet may not be worth it as so much will go right through it but it will make it slower to get out of the vehicle. The riflemen need to be out of the vehicle to function as a squad of riflemen. Logistics supply chains are strained from how there's not enough vehicles to ferry all those crates of ammo and mortar bombs as you're limited by: 1) How much ammo the riflemen can physically carry 2) how fast they can march while carrying all that ammo This is why the Jeep "1/4 ton truck" was awarded by General Eisenhower 1 of the 5 war winning technologies for the US, the Atomic Bomb was on that list but the M1 Garand was not. The US had 650'000 Jeeps, each could ferry enough ammo to completely resupply a platoon of riflemen. This is the logistical advantage. By the way, if an RPG-7 warhead hits a Striker it'll do more harm to the occupants as when a shaped charge warhead "overpenetrates" armor, it imparts so much of the energy of the shaped charge into the armor turning much of the metal of the vehicle into hypervelocity fragments. Like a claymore mine. So Strikers are for a very particular type of protection, they protect from 14.5mm machine gun fire from the frontal arc and 7.62mm from the sides.
This feels like a military industrial complex equivalent to a Hilux with a machine gun mounted on the back.
75th rangers and other SF use Hiluxs with machine guns on them. They are armored though and made by battele.
The hilux would have been a better option
You are just describing the Humvee. This doesn't have a bed, doors, or a mg.
Hummers are too heavy, slow and wide. Hate those things
Yup. Here in Poland we picked Ford Ranger.
The desert rats used light heavily armed jeeps and dun buggies to great effect against the Africa corps douring world war 2. They didn't have any armor but did tons of damage behind enemy lines and made logistics for the axis force almost impossible.
Cappy, most of the posted clips you looked Baked. Or maybe there’s a lot of pollen in the air. Great videos you post, Thx 🇺🇸
Haven't the SAS been using stripped out and de-roofed Land Rovers for about three decades?
Awesome we should send these over to them.
Not just the SAS but also including Infantry Battalions in the 🇬🇧 Army whilst on operations.
dont start with me about sas. man o man
Since the ww2 in Africa against the Germans
Heard one of the main reasons for using them is that, them being open made navigation at night easier
This seems like an accident waiting to happen if in the hands of someone who is either being lazy or incompetent.
they added some nice roll over protective guards and intense seatbelts (that no one is going to wear probably) but yeah this could take a left turn if its used incorrectly
@@Taskandpurpose i don't think this is going to take off due to the fact that all it takes is one dude with an AK to destroy the entire vehicle. this could be used to get small amounts of supplies and troops for fort A to fort B quickly in case of an emergency but putting a tarp and a place on the top for mk19s, 50 cals, 240 Bs, SAWs, and rocket launchers would be reasonable as it gives it a massive (much needed) boost to its offensive capabilities.
like the trillion Dollar accident in Iraq? US used Jeeps and unarmored 998s for decades without any problems and only needed MRAPs after we decided it was a good idea to overthrow Saddam and become a friendly neighborhood occupier.
That's why you gotta keep the officers far away from them, duh.
You could say that about anything, really.
Good thing Philippines' Squad Vehicle Charlie prototype, simioto the GMB had a .50 cal RCWS on top on it's main specs illustration.
Seems like it would fit perfectly as mechanized light cavalry as in using it to get to the objective faster and deploy on foot
“We need a skeleton 4x4 to carry infantry quickly” “Sweet, just take the doors off that unarmoured Humvee, slap some extra MGs on it and we’re good” “No, I need millions of dollars of taxpayer money so that we can hit 60mph 2 seconds faster” The military industrial complex strikes again
More like a 4x4 that will soon be filled with skeletons...
the engine seems reliable as fuck though
@@ok0_0 Yeah that's about all that will be left after some small arms fire: the engine! As for the guys inside... skeletons.
@@TheLoyalOfficer yeah, I think its dumb because it will almost definitely be misused. But this'll probably be given to troops that would otherwise be walking, in which case they'd be unarmored anyways
@@ok0_0 It's another taxpayer boondoggle. I can't believe the host of the vid supports this vehicle. Just use a humvee. This reminds me of the USMC Growler. Ugh. God help us with these MIC crooks.
Used these in Afghan back in 2018 definitely a go! The ability to bring more ammo more fire power and quickly dismount to conduct operations while having a mobile base of fire out ways its negatives. The GMV has 4 hard points for light to medium machine guns and one heavy hard point for a 50. MK19/47 or MK44 mini. There's scenarios where they shouldn't be used but for small unit operations they are extremely fast and effective. Think of them more as an aid for ground operations not mounted ones thats where they shine.
Excellent answer. I hadn't thought about how much mores stuff you can carry vs marching. Also, having no doors means you can get out so much faster. I'd say they are ideal for fast response to a 'known' enemy and if things go wrong there's no harm in falling back quickly.
So this vehicle kind of operates like how the Dragoon units used to?
@@sidecharacter7165 How Dragoons were supposed to operate. Dragoons relatively quickly transformed into cavalry historically.
@ I am aware, but I suppose I could also suggest how chariot units were used as transport initially.
@@sidecharacter7165 Oh, the dragoons were actually a very good historical parallel for you to bring up! As far as I can tell the idea behind dragoons instead of cavalry was mostly about cost savings. The attempts by dragoons throughout history to become cavalry were about social climbing. Cavalry was more prestigious than (dis-) mounted infantry.
the short version: it's a very simple and quick troop transport for getting your units ready after a drop basically..
I personally utilize my atv/side by side lightly moded and we use a nice type of dune buggy with my buddys , I think they are pretty awesome 🤷🏻♂️
Put a surfboard on the roof, add a guitar and a bong! - It has no other use than being a hippie mobile.
Don't forget to paint flowers and psychedelic images on it. Almost forgot. And peace symbols.
Ha, the opening scene of apocalypse now 2029....
Holy shit imagine trying to drive this through vegetation, a sandstorm, snow, rain or a crowded city.
Or 60 mph at all. The bugs...
Why would you use that in a city? This goes back to leader ship not knowing how and when to use it and when not too
@@nssilver1 they do have that “windshield” that you can roll up. Old school keep style.
You could tarp it off but sandstorm woukd be brutal
Better than walking. For foot soldiers, it's awesome.
We use an armoured Vector SOF with a five man crew, it is based on the G-class by MB. It fits in the back of a Chinook an holds a crew of 5 with all the trimmings. And unlike this one it has armour and weapons.
Looks like someone took the warthog from Halo and decided to roll with it. Literally.
How does it work in Halo? Deathtrap, right? ;-)
As a veteran- i say no go. The mrap saved my life many times. 12 bravo
Thank you for your service!
13 brovo said fuck you
@@trinidadgardea8611 lolololol get back to barrel lickin
Sappers lead
Imo you dont really want too much bulk when your small size and speed allows you to shoot and scoot.
At this rate, they’ll make “military-grade” hover boards for each soldier lol
Hammers slammers individual skimmer boards for the infantry.
Don't forget the Hammer Of Dawn.
They do
I'd prefer jetpacks. Airborne baby!
maybe military grade mini tanks (either a smol m1a2, a smollllll maus or a smol t90) (the smol maus is a regular sized tank wth)
The idea itself seems like a go. It could definitely bring tactical and even strategic benefits. But there will definitely be instances of officers abusing this as you say.
You need both the jeep, and the halftrack (well, apc). The humwee was never a good jeep, so they tried turning it into an APC, because the m113 was thrown out, and it had no replacement until the stryker. Basically the polaris is what the humvee should always have been, whilst the stryker (or as it was called at the time, the LAV) should have been adopted 50 years ago.
I believe the humvee was superior in most encounters. Only problem was they are heavy and expensive. The APC didn’t fix any of the humvees problems. They made it more heavy and more expensive. The jeeps where worse off roading, not bullet proof, prone to breaking down and couldn’t carry more than 4 soldiers and a box of ammo.
@@rhettflatford2688 The humvee is obviously batter than the willys jeep from the fucking 30s, but its still a middling offroad vehicle. And the stryker is also quiet impressively shir, because it is also a halfarsed attemt at upgrading a 50 year old design. What the US actually needs is to design an entirely new APC from the ground up akin to the Patria/Rosomak, capable of protecting the dismounts from RPG7 fire, and whitstanding mines, whilst equipped with at least a 20mm cannon and good optics. But as you may notice, at this point this supposed design starts looking more and more like a bradley, because as it turns out, risk averse armies prefer IFV over APCs.
I appreciated the Go / No-go segment I think if used for it's *specified mission set* then it will be perfect but I hope they don't turn it into humvee 2.0
glad some people liked it I wasn't sure how people would feel about me being unapologetically on the fence with no real take on the vehicle other than "here's the arguments" haha
But let's be honest. They will.
@@StrangeTerror No they won't. Due to lack of even doors on this thing, Soldiers can now point out the VISIBLE lack of protection on their vehicles, instead of like now, having to argue about why the current STANAG level on the vehicle is insufficient for the threat expected.
It's a technical built by the US Military Industrial Complex. Why can't we used stripped down Humvees in the same role?
Slow, heavy, obsolete , wont take 9 guys
Because a stripped down humvee would be expensive compared to that thing. It is a 2.8l 4 cylinder engine after all.
The most obvious use would be for recon and hunter/killer teams armed with a Javelin launcher, a couple of MGs, and drones. Drones are used to scout ahead and avoid chance contacts, while weapons can be dismounted as the vehicle is hidden and camouflaged for a quick exfil. 2 IISVs can carry a 9 man section, supplies for 72 hours, 40 gallons of extra fuel cans, 4 M240s with 1000 rds each, and 2 Javelins with 4 missiles each. 4 spotter drones on each vehicle can scout positions and direct artillery fire. A heavy armored vehicle would be more difficult to conceal, lower situational awareness, attack fire, and lower off-road mobility. I predict a move towards smaller and lighter armed vehicles for the foreseeable future. The tracked and 8 wheeled IFVs, and large supply and fuelers will be phased out in militaries with smaller 6x6 vehicles capable of add on armor packages depending on mission requirements. The Pandur is a prime example.
6:57 as opposed to the past when everyone already knew the future and planned accordingly... the marketing is strong with this one...
These aren't even armored against the weather. Imagine low 40s and rain... mud splashing in your face...
The British have something like that called the Jackel. I'm surprised they seem to like it considering how miserable their weather is.
I’m waiting for the military to start consulting the company that made Warthogs in Halo
No doubt... Russia already has ducking Spartan low grade armor
I am waiting for them to cut 2 axles off the Oshkosh m1070 and call it a personel carrier
Man, I hope I get to drive one of those. Seems like fun.
I like it, I think it's good for airborne missions but for the type of missions I'm expected of doing as combat engineer I wouldn't want use this at all
To me they look like a new Jeep, a go anywhere drag everything, not really a front line unit, but everything in between, and is fast enough to dodge the odd round that comes in
None of our recent wars have had much in the way of a front line. And any war with a power big enough to have a "Front line" with is going to need NBC sealant when the mushrooms start sprouting.
@@DIEGhostfish our recent wars were idiotic clusterfucks. Don't invade countries and expect to nation build. That IS not the job of the US Army. Fighting other armies is. And if no one is threatening to invade or otherwise GOOD we don't need to constantly be at war. Primary purpose of the US Military should be to DETER war from major hostile nations (Russia, China) not go on Bullshit interventions in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya. How have those wars helped the US? how have they helped the locals? who have they helped? (no one except people who profit from such mis-adventures)
@@DIEGhostfish as for NBC that is not wise to assume you have no choice to use Nukes. Korea proved that wrong in 1950
@@williamt.sherman9841 and also, surely we can give the mounts personal NBC protection atleast for rear eshelon troops.
@@williamt.sherman9841 Those wars help to keep the US dollar its value.
"Full auto from the back seat baby!" Finger is clear of the trigger guard.
what? you never fire your gun using your mind?
@@Taskandpurpose Mind bullets! That's telekinesis!
THIS! is how far he is trained. He can't 😆👌
Finger discipline even for a joke with an airsoft
@@Taskandpurpose Shhhhhh! If you tell anyone that, they'll put you on Goat Staring detail😶 say goodbye to your weekend!
Its the Willys Jeep modernised. Not for heavy combat, but to get from A to B quickly and over rough terrain.
First it was the first true work horse, the Jeep. Then CUCV's, which were slightly altered Chevy pickups and k5 Blazers and rolled out for cargo transport. The HMMWV replaced that and soon got up armored. MRAP comes in there some where, and now this. This thing looks like they took those, striped down to bare drive train, added a roll cage for cargo and a few extra guys and said "Good enough". These things would be useful for transporting troops in non conflict zones, like bases or places you won't find improvised explosive devices, rocket / missile fire, or machine gun fire. You'll properly see these in mass quantity in Urban environments if the military gets called for Riot control or Martial law.