The Technical - Page 2




 
--
 
November 10th, 2011  
headwards
 
Brinktt i dont mean to undermine what you have said but at the same time your army has stacks of cash. For the price of an armoured vehicle it would be possible to mount many utes with fast moving anti tank and infantry weapons. Life isnt valued as highly in other armies as your own.
From your point about infantry becoming too attached to vehicles i think you are very right- however i think most modern armies would become innefective very quickly with the loss of logistics by way of vehicles. War has moved far faster then footsoldiers for a long time.
Utes are cheap, very fast and unobtrusive. They also dont get stuck much and a regular ute has a bigger motor then even a pinzgauer.
We use them in afghan at the moment from my understanding.

Of course in a firefight I totally would love to be the guy in the abrams, however there is strength in numbers and utes move people very fast, jumping out is also much easier then a unimog.
Mbt's and bradleys are a pipe dream for poor armies, stingers, speed and surprise are not.
November 10th, 2011  
brinktk
 
 
I'm aware of your points and I thought I made it clear that they were useful for the very type of fighting you are talking about. The US 1151's (Up-armored Humvee) has been used quite effectively throughout Iraq and Afghanistan. They offer excellent mobility, a good variety of weapons systems, and are virtually invulnerable to SAF. They also provide decent protection from roadside bombs and are remarkably affordable. I much prefer them to the MRAPs we are using at the moment even though they are not as well armored. Their mobility and lack of dead space near the vehicle with the crew served weapon makes it a fair trade off in my opinion.
November 10th, 2011  
headwards
 
Sure the Humvee is a much more effective tool having been designed specifically for the purpose.
The trade off of course is by comparison to utes they are very heavy, thirsty, expensive and I would not really rely on one offroad.
They also are not ideal for armies with limited mechanical means- American made and all that =p
Ontop of all this in a significant engagement you still lose by staying in the vehicle.

I realise my thinking is limited in that I have only ever operated out of machines intended to be dismounted from at any sign of contact.

Great for roadside bombs though.
--
November 10th, 2011  
Zultra
 
Plus one thing with Technicals, they can blend in, just park up somewhere, take weapon off, hide it somewhere and go on your merry way, can you do that with a Abrams?
November 10th, 2011  
brinktk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zultra
Plus one thing with Technicals, they can blend in, just park up somewhere, take weapon off, hide it somewhere and go on your merry way, can you do that with a Abrams?
No, I can't...but with an Abrams I can just run over all the parked technicals without so much as "bump". If you try to run off I can just blow you away with the 120mm cannon that will vaporize you out over 2 miles. We're a professional, uniformed, military...we don't hide from anybody...
November 11th, 2011  
headwards
 
Zathra is right, for guerilla warfare you cant go past a ute as well.
Your tank on the other hand without a menangarie of help which is a logistical nightmare will be of little more use then a set artillery piece.

It takes a lot if arrogance and costs a lot of lives to not think about stealth. a lot of warfare is deception and im sure the americans are experts as well
November 11th, 2011  
wayword son
 

Topic: an american technical


Quote:
Originally Posted by headwards
Zathra is right, for guerilla warfare you cant go past a ute as well.
Your tank on the other hand without a menangarie of help which is a logistical nightmare will be of little more use then a set artillery piece.

It takes a lot if arrogance and costs a lot of lives to not think about stealth. a lot of warfare is deception and im sure the americans are experts as well
But the us did think of stealth, and deception, and this vehicle is faster, quieter, more maneuverable, and has superior cross country performance, than any traditional technical.


Iím not sure, but I think there is also a javelin missile next to the gunner, so ambushing tanks is a possibility, (Iím sure you could also stuff a stinger on board. as well)

in truth, the US military would have no use for a civilian pickup, with a heavy gun. because we have this vehicle, optimized for raiding. and the m-rap. m-atv, and the armored hummer for patrolling, and convoy protection.

(IMHO), the technical is an obvious solution in bush wars (all a warlord needs is a heavy machine or AA gun, and access to a Toyota dealership) but a primarily technical armed force would not be a serious threat against even a moderately armored and armed opponent.
November 11th, 2011  
brinktk
 
 
Apparently my sarcasm didn't come through on my previous post. And that's not a Javelin missile, it's an AT-4 rocket. Of course we have stealth, but stealth on the battlefield. We are not supposed to "blend" with the local population save for some select Special Forces units. Rules of War and all that. We wear a uniform to let everyone know who we are, of course we stay camouflaged while operating in the bush. But in a insurgency when you go into a city with the local population...there is nowhere to hide. As soon as you leave your compound you are being watched. Everywhere you go you are being watched by the locals and usually by the enemy. Even though it would be easier to adopt the tactics of the insurgents, we don't because we "play" by the rules. I get it, the technical is good for a low budget military not having to deal with ANY armor or city fights. It's maneuverable and can transport troops...I get it...BUT, on the modern 3 dimensional battlefield, I think, its uses are limited.
November 11th, 2011  
headwards
 
Basically its limited in wars against an insurgency when operating among a hostile population and against a wealthy country with a well developed military.
Well thats fine I dont need to tell you how bad an idea the first is, and the second- the 'modern battlefield', seems to consist of smashing people who live in mud huts and caves with an MBT and high altitude bombers. Hardly a case of wealthy countries fighting each other, the locals have no chance whatsoever regardless of what they have.
In any total war there is a significant chance you will get outgunned by something whether you are driving a LAV or a unimog and the solution remains the same- start digging or run. In the other 90% of wars going on in Africa, South America and anywhere else the utes are perhaps a leaders greatest asset despite its limitations because they are played to thier strengths. This conversation has run its course and I still think you underestimate the usefullness of the trusty ute because it hasnt been so effective in your experiences.
November 12th, 2011  
CH3TN!K
 
 
What all you guy's meant to say, and I'm assuming here, is that this is a SUICIDE MACHINE. Any dumb*** found on a battlefield in one of these would totally get owned. These days there are extremely strong and versatile APC's and IFV's. Shoot, today's APC's are practically IFV's with all the armament they are packing. A vehicle more like Serbia's sought after Lazar BVT makes A LOT more sense, to me at least. And every day that passes, these things are getting cheaper, so I see no professional army ever jumping into techies again.
 


Similar Topics
Capture and Trade Strategy - Technical Term
Capture and Trade Strategy - Technical Term
What's your MOS (Military Occupational Specialty)?
Technical Failure Blamed in Deadly Crash (AP)