Re: My new Armoured Personnel Carrier
Okay, machineguns that don't require a gunner to stick his one and only head up exposed to enemy fire is a good thing. I'm reasonably sure that will be standard soon.
Thanks! :mrgreen:
Not only that but with 2 (or 3 machine guns with the trailer) in this machine -
- the vehicle gunners could even
defend against a crossfire, enemies ambushing the vehicle from different sides, which is a real problem for APCs with only one machine gun to defend against.
There is range of armoured personnel carriers now in operation in Iraq and Afghanistan - they are called "MRAP"s standing for "Mine Resistant Ambush Protected".
For the weight of them, say 14 tons or something, they are quite good at resisting IEDs. They use V-shaped hulls to deflect the blast coming up from the ground.
My APC designs also use V-shaped hulls so are equally as mine resistant as MRAPs.
Also, in the first picture it looks like you've got two of these conjoined side-by-side with steel crossbars... if so, that's not going to work. Too much width for urban ops, too awkward for open country.
The first picture is the design which I named the topic title after - " Conjoined All-Terrain Anti-Mine Ambush Repellent Armoured Next-generation (CATAMARAN) Vehicle".
Bear in mind the second picture is of a different design, which is simpler but gets stability from a telescopic rear axle.
The CATAMARAN is designed to have a changeable width configurations by changing - shortening or lengthening - the connecting bars between the two halves so it could have widths such as 9 feet (narrowest), 12 feet (the same as a tank) and 16 (wide for off road).
Remember that the halves of the CATAMARAN are only 4 feet wide - single file only!
I appreciate already the point about the wide configurations being not what you want for urban but as for off road, actually, width is generally better because it increases stability.
A tall wheeled vehicle such as the MRAPs are never going to be the absolute best for off road compared to a tracked vehicle such as a tank, but the CATAMARAN is a better off-roader than a MRAP.
Better to use a remote-controlled vehicle with under-armor for the point-vehicle. If it sets off a mine powerful enough to destroy it, no lost personnel.
Well you sound like an experienced solider. I am not - just a guy with some some good APC design ideas - more of an engineer and a scientist than a soldier.
However, the big prob in Afgan and Iraq is roadside bombs that are remote-detonated by an observer. They can decide to ignore the first vehicle/etc to set it off on the juiciest target. Not sure how to beat that without heavy plate armor underneath, and even then a shaped charge can be a problem.
Well that was the idea of the V-shaped armour - to protect against bombs that APCs were not avoiding.
However, if the enemy puts a big enough bomb or a not quite so big shaped charge bomb then it can knock out any APC or even tank, if the bomb is big enough.
So it is not a complete solution - building better APCs and tanks - because the enemy will just build bigger bombs.
In the long run, the best idea is to avoid driving over mines and IEDs by securing the main supply routes which our forces and their allies (Iraqis in Iraq, Afghans in Afghanistan) must use using a supply route protection plan and force such as described in my post here -
http://www.debatepolitics.com/warfa...end-supply-lines-and-through-afghanistan.html
Then for the smaller out of the way routes our forces don't drive on so much, the forces can go off road or by helicopter, to by-pass any mines and get surprise for raids on the enemy and so on.
Nice pics though. Keep thinking out of the box though, you might hit on something brilliant.
Thanks again! :mrgreen: