The Technical
Airpower, yes, plus the 'bad' guys aren't dumb.
brinktk
Active member
Sigh...please leave the war fighting to the soldiers...
If your implication is that it is dumb to use the technical then wouldn't that mean you have just contradicted yourself?
If you're using it against bandits or against a group that has no mobility, than I suppose it would have its' advantages. BUT, once that thing is put into action it instantly becomes a bullet magnet...the fact that any standard assault rifle can riddle these things like swiss cheese makes it a less than ideal weapons system for ANY army.
brinktk
Active member
So please explain to me the use this weapons system has on the modern battlefield. Why do you think this wonder weapon is underestimated? I'm really curious to know.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
My uncle was a member of the LRDG, first of all issued with Chevvy 4x2 trucks and armed with all manner of fire power, including weaponry removed from crashed aircraft, then issued 4x4 Jeeps, which were again fitted with various weapons.
He loved the Jeep. He related how once the clutch burnt out on one vehicle, they unloaded it, turned it over on its side and replaced the clutch far quicker then it would have been possible for the Chevvy.
brinktk
Active member
In an open environment where speed is needed then you will hardly find a better vehicle...It's good for raids and quickly transporting troops on the battefield.
On the other hand it can easily be taken out by just about any weapons system. It's only good for fighting against lightly armed opponents, and its effectiveness and mobility can be mitigated by roadside bombs.
If you can manage to keep them out of cities agaisnt an even moderately armed opponent, then you'll probably have some success with them. There is a saying among motorized/mechanized forces in the US Army..."If you can't truck it...F*ck it!" Having a vehicle to carry ammo and supplies is nice to have so that the dismounts don't have to carry them. With that being said, if one uses the truck in this way then the entire truck becomes a platform from which to fight from. The implications are that the dismounts are tied to that vehicle, you take out the vehicle, you effectively take out the team operating from it.
Put them against anything resembling a modern army or even a force with a few AFVs and they will quickly go by the wayside. I had a 1SG during the invasion who summed it up rather nicely...Technicals were being used to fight against our forces as we moved towards Baghdad. He had us go by one of the technicals that we destroyed to look at the dead occupants inside. He stated "gentleman, don't be like these guys, don't die dumb. They were outranged, out gunned, out armoured, and outclassed...this is what will happen to you if you lose your mind over here." The point was driven home abrubtly with that statement.
On the other hand it can easily be taken out by just about any weapons system. It's only good for fighting against lightly armed opponents, and its effectiveness and mobility can be mitigated by roadside bombs.
If you can manage to keep them out of cities agaisnt an even moderately armed opponent, then you'll probably have some success with them. There is a saying among motorized/mechanized forces in the US Army..."If you can't truck it...F*ck it!" Having a vehicle to carry ammo and supplies is nice to have so that the dismounts don't have to carry them. With that being said, if one uses the truck in this way then the entire truck becomes a platform from which to fight from. The implications are that the dismounts are tied to that vehicle, you take out the vehicle, you effectively take out the team operating from it.
Put them against anything resembling a modern army or even a force with a few AFVs and they will quickly go by the wayside. I had a 1SG during the invasion who summed it up rather nicely...Technicals were being used to fight against our forces as we moved towards Baghdad. He had us go by one of the technicals that we destroyed to look at the dead occupants inside. He stated "gentleman, don't be like these guys, don't die dumb. They were outranged, out gunned, out armoured, and outclassed...this is what will happen to you if you lose your mind over here." The point was driven home abrubtly with that statement.
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.
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.
brinktk
Active member
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.
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.
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.
brinktk
Active member
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...
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
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
wayword son
Active member
an american technical
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.
I’m not sure, but I think there is also a javelin missile next to the gunner, so ambushing tanks is a possibility, (I’m 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.
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.
I’m not sure, but I think there is also a javelin missile next to the gunner, so ambushing tanks is a possibility, (I’m 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.
brinktk
Active member
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
CH3TN!K
Active member
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.