• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conjoined All-Terrain Anti-Mine Ambush Repellent Armoured Next-generation Vehicle

Peter Dow

Banned
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
213
Reaction score
14
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This would be good for Afghanistan and Iraq.



Conjoined All-Terrain Anti-Mine Ambush Repellent Armoured Next-generation (CATAMARAN) Vehicle

© Peter Dow
The CATAMARAN vehicle concept is the original idea of Peter Dow of Aberdeen, Scotland and was published on 26th July 2010. All copyrights are retained by Peter Dow.


More details of the CATAMARAN Vehicle here.
 

Peter Dow

Banned
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
213
Reaction score
14
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

apdst

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,925
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
No offense, Pete and I admire the effort, but something like that will only get people killed.
 

Peter Dow

Banned
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
213
Reaction score
14
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My new Armoured Personnel Carrier

No offense, Pete and I admire the effort, but something like that will only get people killed.
I don't think so but what about something like this then?

Armoured Personnel Carrier Designed by Peter Dow.

Features
  • Front vehicle seats a maximum of 11 people
  • Armoured passenger trailer seats a maximum of 7 people
  • Vehicle with trailer seats a maximum of 18 people
  • Roof mounted remote-controlled machine guns
  • Trailer wheel steering
  • Telescopic Rear Axle & Wheels
  • Rotation on the spot
  • Even axle weight distribution
  • 5 : 3 weight & length ratio, 5 (vehicle) : 3 (trailer)


See bigger






More details ...
 
Last edited:

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,504
Reaction score
50,052
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.


What makes it anti-mine?


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.

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.

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.

Nice pics though. Keep thinking out of the box though, you might hit on something brilliant.
 
Last edited:

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: My new Armoured Personnel Carrier

MRAPs are a technical solution to a problem that really can't be solved technically. It is quite simple to make a mine that can disable an MBT or obliterate an MRAP, as evidenced by the successful IED attacks on M1's. The only reason that MRAPs are useful is because thankfully most of the insurgency has proven to be fairly incompetent. If our enemies showed the same ingenuity as the NVA did in Vietnam, no vehicle in existence would be safe. Daily patrolling into unsecured areas results in an unavoidable risk of ambush by mine. Since our current war strategy is patrol around for a decade until the local government somehow manages to stabilize the region, we are vulnerable to heavy losses if our weakness is exploited. The only reason the plan has worked so far is because the enemy isn't able to consistently muster up some basic technical skills. If the guys who took out the Abrams managed to share their knowledge, the **** would really hit the fan.
 

Peter Dow

Banned
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
213
Reaction score
14
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.

What makes it anti-mine?
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:
 
Last edited:

theangryamerican

Can't stop the signal...
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
1,184
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: My new Armoured Personnel Carrier

When the job positively needs getting done, consider the Grizzly.
 

Peter Dow

Banned
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
213
Reaction score
14
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: My new Armoured Personnel Carrier

MRAPs are a technical solution to a problem that really can't be solved technically. It is quite simple to make a mine that can disable an MBT or obliterate an MRAP, as evidenced by the successful IED attacks on M1's.
Well exactly; how big is an IED? It is like asking how big is a piece of string?

I am just trying to improve on the current MRAPs but I am totally realistic about the problem and indeed I even spent a lot of time working on the real solution before I started work on MRAP / APC design.

The only reason that MRAPs are useful is because thankfully most of the insurgency has proven to be fairly incompetent.
If our enemies showed the same ingenuity as the NVA did in Vietnam, no vehicle in existence would be safe.
Again let me stress I appreciate improving MRAPs is not a substitute for a better strategy.

Daily patrolling into unsecured areas results in an unavoidable risk of ambush by mine. Since our current war strategy is patrol around for a decade until the local government somehow manages to stabilize the region, we are vulnerable to heavy losses if our weakness is exploited. The only reason the plan has worked so far is because the enemy isn't able to consistently muster up some basic technical skills. If the guys who took out the Abrams managed to share their knowledge, the **** would really hit the fan.
Right! That is what I have been very concerned about. You understand where others don't. Our generals are lame. As a strategy, it sucks!
Good well done!

:agree

Now here is my real plan.




These are two posts from my topic in the warfare forum here, titled "Afpak strategy: build and defend supply lines to and through Afghanistan"
 
Last edited:

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,185
Reaction score
32,768
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: My new Armoured Personnel Carrier

MRAPs are a technical solution to a problem that really can't be solved technically. It is quite simple to make a mine that can disable an MBT or obliterate an MRAP, as evidenced by the successful IED attacks on M1's. The only reason that MRAPs are useful is because thankfully most of the insurgency has proven to be fairly incompetent. If our enemies showed the same ingenuity as the NVA did in Vietnam, no vehicle in existence would be safe. Daily patrolling into unsecured areas results in an unavoidable risk of ambush by mine. Since our current war strategy is patrol around for a decade until the local government somehow manages to stabilize the region, we are vulnerable to heavy losses if our weakness is exploited. The only reason the plan has worked so far is because the enemy isn't able to consistently muster up some basic technical skills. If the guys who took out the Abrams managed to share their knowledge, the **** would really hit the fan.
thank you, exactly.

we have about as much chance of out-armoring the IED problem as ancient knights did of out-armoring the first firearms.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,504
Reaction score
50,052
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: My new Armoured Personnel Carrier

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.
:
Well, I'm glad that those who bothered to teach me some elementary tactics apparently got a bit o it pounded into my head, but I was declined service due to a hearing problem. (I'm an ex-cop, not a veteran.} I hang out with a lot o soldiers though, including some that have spent a lot o time in the sandbox over the past decade, and I listen.
 

Peter Dow

Banned
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
213
Reaction score
14
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Peter Dow

Banned
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
213
Reaction score
14
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
APC with walk-through connecting trailer

Introducing HUMPBAC - an armoured personnel carrier with a connecting doorway from the rear of the vehicle to walk through into the armoured passenger trailer. Tickets please! :D

HUMPBAC
Hinged Under-floor-Mine-Protection Battle-ready Armoured-personnel Carrier
Copyright © Peter Dow, 7th August, 2010.




HUMPBAC Features
  • Trailer bolts firmly to the rim of the vehicle forming a rigid joint
  • Rear section of vehicle is hinged to articulate the trailer's vertical motion
  • Movement of hinged rear section accommodated by a hump in the roof
  • Vehicle rear door can serve as a connecting doorway to the trailer section
  • Front vehicle seats a maximum of 11 people
  • Armoured passenger trailer seats a maximum of 7 people
  • Vehicle with trailer seats a maximum of 18 people
  • Roof mounted remote-controlled machine guns- front, top & tail gun
  • Trailer wheel steering
  • 6-wheel drive
  • Telescopic Rear Axle & Wheels
  • Rotation on the spot
  • Even axle weight distribution
  • 5 : 3 weight & length ratio, 5 (vehicle) : 3 (trailer)
 

The Giant Noodle

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
7,333
Reaction score
2,010
Location
Northern Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: APC with walk-through connecting trailer

I play Battlefield on PC.
We would die many times over in something like this.
 

Peter Dow

Banned
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
213
Reaction score
14
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: APC with walk-through connecting trailer

I play Battlefield on PC.
We would die many times over in something like this.
HUMPBAC is an APC designed for transporting troops and infantry equipment and you can't afford to move 20 tons per person all the time otherwise you'd put everyone in tanks. Clearly it is not an infantry fighting vehicle (no tracks, no big guns, no low profile) and not "battle ready" in that sense.

It is designed as a MRAP replacement and so "Battle-ready" in HUMPBAC means not much more than "Ambush Protected" in MRAP, although it does have 2 or 3 machine guns which is more than your average MRAP.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,550
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: APC with walk-through connecting trailer

Roads in the Afghan mountains, when they exist, don't exactly have a reputation for being... wide...
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,117
Reaction score
21,520
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Re: APC with walk-through connecting trailer

Roads in the Afghan mountains, when they exist, don't exactly have a reputation for being... wide...
maybe they need an armour plated motorbike.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,185
Reaction score
32,768
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: APC with walk-through connecting trailer

no, what we need are buggies armored against SAF. mobility plus armor in case of firefight.

but, then, i haven't been to afghanistan, so i'm going off of what i read rather than what they see.
 
Top Bottom