• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Meet the GM Defense ISV Army Truck

Like 99.99% of the other vehicles of its day.

Some units made V hull armor packages for them - but non of the Up Armor Hummers did well due to the additional weight.

Ideally you design a vehicle with the armor package from the ground up.
So everything is design to take the load, and the protection is optimized for the weight.

When designed with it armour becomes the chassis and body structure as well. When adding armour after the fact you already have a chassis and a body that you need to keep so that equals less protection for the weight or more weight for the same protection. Normal vehicle bodys also don't have the strength to hold up heavy armour so you would need to build framework to attach it to the chassis. This is why i imagine the MSVS SMP uses a removable armoured cab instead of bolt on armour
 
Like 99.99% of the other vehicles of its day.

Some units made V hull armor packages for them - but non of the Up Armor Hummers did well due to the additional weight.

Ideally you design a vehicle with the armor package from the ground up.
So everything is design to take the load, and the protection is optimized for the weight.

All vehicle of those day were not conceive to receive all that add on armour. As @Dana381 said, you need a vehicle design from bottom - up for that. Doing so, you run fast from the ''Light'' UV. It's back to square one. Light, mobility, small and concealment is something our last conflict helped us forget for a good chunk of our armies. We turn everything into ''fortress'' on wheels.
 
As for the more critical 2022 DOT&E assessment, the Army spokesman emphasized that the primary role of the ISV is as a highly-mobile troop carrier that reduces the need for infantry rifle squads to cover distances areas on foot, not as an armored fighting vehicle meant for a protracted firefight.

“The ISV increases squads’ speed, maneuverability and off-road mobility to avoid or evade threats while squads execute forcible entry and decisive action,” the spokesman said. “There is no requirement for protection or armor; the unit on the ISV is intended to avoid threats where possible.”

Shocking a Light Vehicle isn’t design for direct combat…
 
Is it GM fault when they are asked to built a light vehicle but then the reports come back basically sounding like that its not a Bradley? URGH

I would be more worried if the reports were the engine doesn't start.

The reason things are so expensive. Look at the Boeing problem with the T-7 Redhawk. There is now a more than two year delay because the MB ejection seat won't work with a 95 pound female pilot. Billions!

Then I was hearing about from friend about the UK Ajax. They enlisted GDLS-C help too. That same type of overblown standards are real problem. He did say the added weight of extra armour is one of the real problems. But noise problem is currently less than the warrior but that H&S standards changed as the contract was going on.
 
As for the more critical 2022 DOT&E assessment, the Army spokesman emphasized that the primary role of the ISV is as a highly-mobile troop carrier that reduces the need for infantry rifle squads to cover distances areas on foot, not as an armored fighting vehicle meant for a protracted firefight.

“The ISV increases squads’ speed, maneuverability and off-road mobility to avoid or evade threats while squads execute forcible entry and decisive action,” the spokesman said. “There is no requirement for protection or armor; the unit on the ISV is intended to avoid threats where possible.”

Shocking a Light Vehicle isn’t design for direct combat…

Such as...


1685681635961.png
 
I’ve got a bunch of GMV Hummer pics like that (well Mk19 and GAU and M240 weapons). But primary as a firebase and not as an assault vehicle trying to drive into the enemy…

However sometimes Big Army folks don’t alway think.

Or Marines....

P.S. I <heart> Capt. America ;)

 
Back
Top