MSVS Mil-COTS Gun Tractor (Split From: MLVW restrictions)
- Thread starter TSM A
- Start date
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,143
- Points
- 1,160
Cam net and road moves, remember them well, they were comfy and toasty.
Kreslin01 said:
The MSVS-M was never designed to be deployed in theatre, it is a domestic operations vehicle only. The SMP MSVS is in the bidding process now and from the looks of the companys who have offered bids and their proposed designs, its going to be a cab over design similar to the look of the HLVW able to be fitted with uparmor. The contract will not be awarded until 2013 with a delivery date of the first vehicle in Spring 2014
The new Trooplift course, at least as taught on my course, states that you cannot have anything in tow behind the vehicle while carrying troops in the cargo area. As well, cargo and troops cannot be carried at the same time. In the event of an emergency, it causes a hazzard if they need to bail. Un-necessarily endangering the lives of soldiers to save a few seconds is not a good idea.
Well i can assure you that the Troop lift MSVS is currently being used as all of the above. It is towing the M-777 Howitzer as its prime mover. Gun stores ARE in the back with troops and its going off road. We have also used it as a Gun tractor for the LG-1 in the same role. The only thing not being carried in the back is 155mm Ammunition as that's on a separate HL, although 105mm Ammunition is still carried in the back with the troops. In the Artillery troops are not troops, but they are classified as gun stores and therefore carried in the back. Not sure how much the doctrine will change with the new gun tractors, we shall see.
I also understand it is not an operational vehicle and only for domestic operations, but this i see as one of the flaws in the design as you lose the capability to use it in a pinch. What good in a non-operational vehicle to the Army, specifically the combat arms as a gun tractor if you cant use it in the job its needed for? You use a non-operational MSVS as a gun tractor for training, but then when you go over seas you have to learn a new vehicle and a new system, this is not "Training as you fight" as the chain of command likes to keep telling us. I hold firm in my belief that a non operational vehicle should NOT be used in a combat arms trade in any capacity. I might work for MSE ops on Domestic operations, but not for Combat Arms as a viable alternative for an combat ready vehicle.
The Artillery is all about saving a few seconds, and we do what it takes to do so, this is now we train and its how we fight. Because we know our jobs, and we know our duty, ask an Infanteer what a few seconds means. Using that statement, then means the dangers we create for the job should be addressed, if theres a way to engineer them out then it should be looked at and addressed. We have come along way from what it used to be though. I highly suggest you go and watch an Artillery deployment, or ride in a ML after a crash move cross country with kit bouncing everywhere. its an MSE Safety nighmare i would imagine, but its the only way we can do our jobs for now.
Yes I agree with safety, in not some guy who needlessly endangers his soldiers for a few seconds to be faster than another gun, however I do believe in a balance between the to. I'm actually one of the few guns that makes my guys climb out of the back of the truck and not jump for safety reasons. But there is such a thing as to safe, I've seen it and was almost killed do to safety believe it or not. I also believe that Danger is an inherent part of my job in many diffrent forms, and as controversial as it is to say, the truth is that danger keeps you sharp. You can put as many guards and safety's and write books and pubs and create drills to keep someones hand away from a hot stove, but you never realize the danger that way, you get lazy and slack and really your only protecting the dim witted. I'm sure theres a million people who disagree with this, but hey I played with sharp sticks as a kid, and we didn't always wear our seatbelts on a long road trip, and we turned out fine. Now look at some of your younger soldiers and ask the same question. Maybe they could have used some danger in there lives in order to teach them things like common sense. You won't really keep your hand from the stove unless you feel the heat.
I also understand it is not an operational vehicle and only for domestic operations, but this i see as one of the flaws in the design as you lose the capability to use it in a pinch. What good in a non-operational vehicle to the Army, specifically the combat arms as a gun tractor if you cant use it in the job its needed for? You use a non-operational MSVS as a gun tractor for training, but then when you go over seas you have to learn a new vehicle and a new system, this is not "Training as you fight" as the chain of command likes to keep telling us. I hold firm in my belief that a non operational vehicle should NOT be used in a combat arms trade in any capacity. I might work for MSE ops on Domestic operations, but not for Combat Arms as a viable alternative for an combat ready vehicle.
The Artillery is all about saving a few seconds, and we do what it takes to do so, this is now we train and its how we fight. Because we know our jobs, and we know our duty, ask an Infanteer what a few seconds means. Using that statement, then means the dangers we create for the job should be addressed, if theres a way to engineer them out then it should be looked at and addressed. We have come along way from what it used to be though. I highly suggest you go and watch an Artillery deployment, or ride in a ML after a crash move cross country with kit bouncing everywhere. its an MSE Safety nighmare i would imagine, but its the only way we can do our jobs for now.
Yes I agree with safety, in not some guy who needlessly endangers his soldiers for a few seconds to be faster than another gun, however I do believe in a balance between the to. I'm actually one of the few guns that makes my guys climb out of the back of the truck and not jump for safety reasons. But there is such a thing as to safe, I've seen it and was almost killed do to safety believe it or not. I also believe that Danger is an inherent part of my job in many diffrent forms, and as controversial as it is to say, the truth is that danger keeps you sharp. You can put as many guards and safety's and write books and pubs and create drills to keep someones hand away from a hot stove, but you never realize the danger that way, you get lazy and slack and really your only protecting the dim witted. I'm sure theres a million people who disagree with this, but hey I played with sharp sticks as a kid, and we didn't always wear our seatbelts on a long road trip, and we turned out fine. Now look at some of your younger soldiers and ask the same question. Maybe they could have used some danger in there lives in order to teach them things like common sense. You won't really keep your hand from the stove unless you feel the heat.
- Reaction score
- 28,185
- Points
- 1,090
Kreslin01 said:
It is that sort of dumbassery that gets troops killed.
Never said i agreed with it, but that's how its explained to me. Not sure where its written down or even if it is, but that is an actual answer one of my questions posed about troops in the back of a truck. Not to say we actually treat them like stores, but I do believe its how we can do some of the things that we do. Its a paper work thing. But like i said before, until the problem is recognized, addressed and a viable solution is found it is a necessary evil and has been for years. Since mechanized Artillery actually.
- Reaction score
- 79
- Points
- 680
Just a point to note just like the Engineer SEV the section/detachment are all housed in the cab of the veh not in the box. So there should not be a problem of mixing troops and kit/ammo/stores.....
But what happens when you run out of room in the back? Theres 10 men to a M-777 crew, and with full kit on, the back gets full in a hurry. What happens if you want to run 11, or 12 men in the crew, in Full FFO and winter kit, in the back of the Truck? Maybe im just playing devils advocate for now, but the question is valid. I hope it all works out, i do, but then you run into the problem that this is not the vehicle we use to fight with, so if something happens that we revert to having to have troops in the back with the stores your going to see injury rates go up and then there will be a panic that people are getting hurt. Its a step in the right direction..... kind of. I just think they need to find a real solution to the problem instead of wasting money on this further.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,865
- Points
- 1,260
Far be it from me to criticize however I have a major issue with this :rage:. We cannot carry troops in the MLVW. Now people are saying that its OK to carry troops in the back of the MSVS with potentially several hundred pounds of High Explosives.Kreslin01 said:
A troop is a human being, not a "gun store". What BS. :rage:
Rant ends.
- Reaction score
- 28,185
- Points
- 1,090
Kreslin01 said:
As has been stated:
The MSVS SMP, currently under procurement, will provide the prime mover for the M777.
Leaders are responsible for the safety of their subordinates. If there is a problem they have an obligation to report it up their chain of command. And, if need be, stop doing what they're doing to make things safe. Blindly carrying on regardless can lead to avoidable injury or death.
- Reaction score
- 4,803
- Points
- 1,160
Kreslin01 said:
MSVS-COTS is supposed to be for DOMOPS and the PRes....
- Reaction score
- 28,185
- Points
- 1,090
Kreslin01 said:
MSVS gun tractor variant is intended for use with the 105mm guns, primarily for the Reserves.
The way our military purchases 2 separate vehicles for the same job is beyond logical understanding. (MilCOTS / G Wagon, MSVSM / MSVSSMP) When we arnt deployed, the "Operation" variant will do the same thing as our VOR'd HLVW fleet awaiting repair.........Rot away.
- Reaction score
- 28,185
- Points
- 1,090
Hurricane said:
Do a quick examination of cost per unit of SMP vs COTS. We need the SMP for deployed operations, but we can't afford enough to meet all our needs. So we buy two: a cheap COTS for day to day, and the SMP for deployment.
Does it cause some problems? Yes. Is it better than the alternative, of having only a too-small fleet of SMP? Yes.
Kreslin, you've been stuck on send so much you evidently haven't heard (read) what anybody else has said.
The MSVS MilCOT gin tractor is intended/designed to pull only the 105 fleet, not the M777
The SMP variant is being specifically designed to not only pull the M777, but deal with it much heaver payload and wiring harness for the DGMS
Gun detachments for a 105 are still 7 people, if someone wants to exceed that they're doing it outside of doctrine and established orbats for that size of gun
M777 detachments ride in two vehicle's, there is still work ongoing to get a 2nd vehicle per M777
No one is supposed to be riding in the back of either gun tractor, although the MilCOT variant may have a small bench seat in back for two people, its intended as a work area
Having the 105 gun det ride in the cab is a compromise, but the differences in time between them dismounting from the cab, and an M777 det dismounting from 2 vehicles is not going to be that large. Having them ride in the cab was decided for safety reasons, and user community was consulted
In any event, there will be trials conducted late this summer and into the fall to measure the effectiveness of the MilCOT design, a lot of work has already gone into the SMP variant design too.
But you're swinging after the bell Kreslin, the fight is over
If you have a gripe, and its related to gear, then start an UCR (don't believe the urban myth story they don't work. I've seen the other side of this in the staff duty world, and truth be told they do work, but very few users ever complete one)
The MSVS MilCOT gin tractor is intended/designed to pull only the 105 fleet, not the M777
The SMP variant is being specifically designed to not only pull the M777, but deal with it much heaver payload and wiring harness for the DGMS
Gun detachments for a 105 are still 7 people, if someone wants to exceed that they're doing it outside of doctrine and established orbats for that size of gun
M777 detachments ride in two vehicle's, there is still work ongoing to get a 2nd vehicle per M777
No one is supposed to be riding in the back of either gun tractor, although the MilCOT variant may have a small bench seat in back for two people, its intended as a work area
Having the 105 gun det ride in the cab is a compromise, but the differences in time between them dismounting from the cab, and an M777 det dismounting from 2 vehicles is not going to be that large. Having them ride in the cab was decided for safety reasons, and user community was consulted
In any event, there will be trials conducted late this summer and into the fall to measure the effectiveness of the MilCOT design, a lot of work has already gone into the SMP variant design too.
But you're swinging after the bell Kreslin, the fight is over
If you have a gripe, and its related to gear, then start an UCR (don't believe the urban myth story they don't work. I've seen the other side of this in the staff duty world, and truth be told they do work, but very few users ever complete one)
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,143
- Points
- 1,160
In the old days the term "gun tractor" just meant a regular Deuce that happened to tow a gun. These trucks were lent to other units and other duties which meant carrying troops in the back. so it made sense to have the benches. The ML with the modified box limited this usage, the new trucks limit it even more. The ability of the brigade to move troops tactically goes down however.
dapaterson said:
Well, since we do not know the PPU of the SMP variant yet, we cant exactley do that, but I get your point. Yes the MSVSM will probably be cheaper, but thats just what it is.....CHEAP! The superstructure is flimsy, the glad hands are easily breakable, the ladders are easily breakable, the tail gate is a tripping hazzard for dismounting troops in darkness, the pintle hook is too high for proper weight distribution on any SMP trailer, the bench seats have small tie down points that stick out and can jam into a soldiers back during TC Tasks, suspension is worse than an MLVW for those in the rear, weapons rack is in an inconvienent location, what in gods name is the purpose of the cargo net storage box behind the drivers seat?
Anyways they could have chosen a better researched truck.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Hurricane said:
Weapons rack are fine for admin moves, but that's it. The cargo net storage is designed for 3x Rucksacks. How you're supposed to get them in or out without looking like a total retard is beyond me though. I agree on all the other points.
I can't help but look at the the ladder storage area and think "that would be an awesome place for a moving-truck style ramp..." That would make it really easy to dismount and load up heavier items.
Hurricane said:
This thread is about the MSVS MilCOT gun tractor, with that in mind...
Glad hands: might be a problem as it is a common assembly in all variants, but the 105mm howitzers this truck is intended to tow do not have air brakes. If someone is towing an M777 (which does have air brakes) with the MilCOT variant, then they are using it for a purpose it wasn't designed for. Considering most of the times the det doesn't hook the air lines up anyway I'm not sure how much of a problem it will be
Troops dismounting in dark: not sure what tripping hazard you're talking about, but gun det will dismount from cab when coming into action, and use ladder to access stores. There will be no bench seats in back (there may be a storage area with a seat on it for two people - maybe)
Already identified that pintle location may have to be modified for the LG1 or C3, much as it was for the HLVW to tow an M777. Technical trial at TPOF this summer/fall will determine the ability to tow cross country and extent of mods, if any, required
Speaking of research, guess how many UCR's I had from the gunner community to help me help the MSVS project define the requirements of this particular truck?
A. None
Similar threads
