Castilla y Belmonte
30-01-2008, 18:52
I recently posted this as a topic on the NS Drafroom (http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=2054), and I rather have people respond on that thread - but, I want to open this thread because I'm aware not everyone on NS is on the Draftroom (if you're not, you should join!).
The vehicle will be sold by Sistemas Terrestres Segovia Land Systems (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=547939).
Castilla y Belmonte’s defense company MecániCas, known for the Tiznao-60 modular armored truck, is currently in the development phase for the upcoming Tiznao-10 ‘Vehículo de Alta Movilidad’ (VAM). The VAM is going to be heavily based on Iveco’s Light Multirole Vehicle (LMV), except since I don’t know the specific materials used on the LMV I’m going to have to ‘invent’ an armor based on what I have available in papers on my computer and in the various magazines/journals I have. Ideally, the vehicle is also going to be a tad larger in height, because I’m going to trade the LMV’s flat composite floor for a v-shaped hull floor (not as dramatically shaped as some of the United States’ MRAP trucks, but it’s going to be better designed to deflect the blast of a mine). Regardless, the vehicle’s main customer for now is going to be The Macabees (TM is going to start to buy its land vehicles from Sistemas Terrestres Segovia and MecániCas, so that I don’t have to start making two of each vehicle, for each nation I play). Some of the most important areas in a vehicle like this are the glass windows – ideally, I want to make the windows proof against 14.5mm heavy-machine gun armor-piercing ammunition. The thickness of ballistic glass is limited by the fact that the thicker an armor becomes the heavier the vehicle becomes – and the chassis’ armor will be heavy enough – and the thicker transparent armor becomes the less light is transmitted through the armor. Given the ceramic industry’s current state in the European Union, some newer transparent ceramic armors have not yet been applied to combat vehicles because they cannot be produced in current European factories, and they are too expensive to produce in the United States (and more expensive to import). In other words, they are still being developed and they have not entered a stage in their development where cheap production has become a priority (like titanium).
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i291/Macabees/typicalarmor.jpg
With that taken into consideration, small-arms armor penetration is highly dependent on the material of the round or of the core of the round. For example, a tungsten carbide (WC) core will offer more potential penetration than an all-steel projectile (higher hardness and density). I know that on NationStates there has been a more widespread introduction of newer armor-piercing projectiles in the calibers between 4mm and 15mm, and I want to see if I can provide the VAM with protection at least against 7.62mm – that is, if I can’t provide protection against heavy machine-guns, as well. Therefore, I want to take a survey on the type of armor-piercing ammunition in use around NationStates, especially from those who frequent the NS Draftroom. This information will play a role in the materials I decide to use for the armor (if I can choose a cheaper material, then I will choose it – if not, I will have to weigh cost versus ballistic protection and go with a more expensive material), especially the glass. What’s more, I’m willing to bet money that a large number of armies on NationStates use depleted uranium (dU) cored small-arms armor-piercing ammunition! Obviously, that will make my job much more difficult. So, if you are willing, please respond to the following questions (your post doesn’t have to mention the questions and you don’t have to answer them like you were writing your response on a piece of paper with space to answer – answer like you want to, and if you want to add extra information go for it):
1. What type of armor piercing projectiles do your infantry use?
2. What type is the most common? The more specific, the better.
3. What caliber heavy machine gun is issued at platoon level or company levels?
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i291/Mac...amplerounds.jpg (http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i291/Macabees/examplerounds.jpg)
And for the sake of interest, although nothing I have hints on the protection of the LMV’s windows, Spain is acquiring forty LMVs as an emergency measure and these will reportedly be fully armored – protection against 14.5mm armor piercing ammunition on the chassis on the front panel (not engine block), roof panel, upper rear panel (basically, the frame of the back window) and the side panels. The windows are not included in this package, because the article my reference is from suggests that the windows can be armored independently (not sure if Spain will go for the transparent armor package), and the article doesn’t mention what these glass armor panels are proof against. Based on production centers, it’s likely that the ballistic window panels on the LMV have a front-plate of Quartz glass (produced in Italy). To stop a 7.62x51 AP8 NAMMO (WC core) projectile, a glass panel would need at least seven 8mm layers of glass (56mm), plus a 7mm front plate of quartz glass (total of 63mm). This is an educated guess – depth of penetration into quartz glass seems to be lowest of all available transparent front plates (float glass and glass ceramic, made in the Czech Republic). I need to find some sort of formula for the dissipation of light for a given thickness – protection against 14.5mm NAMMO projectiles might be impossible, with existing materials, for the windows.
An alternative is to offer two separate modules for the vehicle’s doors – one with larger windows, and one with a firing port. The former could be used in less intensive peacekeeping operations, so that the soldiers can keep in contact with the local population (largely, the theory behind vehicles like the Golan and all of that), while the second module could be used in vehicles that are escorting convoys and are more likely to be engaged by heavy assets. The firing ports can’t be protected, but a greater surface area of the door would now have complete protection against 14.5mm armor piercing WC-cored projectiles (and I can use more mass efficient materials than glass) – the firing ports can be designed high enough on the door so that it forces a soldier to take a knee while firing, but it means that stray shows into the ports will be unlikely to fatally wound a soldier in the vehicle, or harm something else important. The problem is that I have never been peacekeeping, so I don’t know the design theory behind primarily peace keeping vehicles and high mobility reconnaissance vehicles – there must be a reason most of these vehicles have large window panels. I will have to ask some veterans. But, the idea is still out there – given that the doors can be easily exchanged, it shouldn’t be an expensive module to acquire for a percentage of the total vehicles procured. Given the modular nature of the vehicle, some will be turned into smoke generators, others into command vehicles, other into artillery command vehicles, et cetera – some will be fine with larger windows and will prefer them, while specific urban combat vehicles will be able to be more heavily armored, with reduced ‘weak points’.
Personally, I think mounting an active protection system is out of the question. Even if the vehicle is destroyed, the majority of its occupants will survive (as has been shown in Iraq and Afghanistan), meaning the economic loss is the value of the vehicle (Spain is purchasing 40 LMVs for 14.4 million Euros or 360,000 euros per vehicle). What I need to figure out is the cost of an infantry man (to train). Ultimately, what decides the question is the amount of life loss per vehicle, plus the average life lost in the same vehicles per month, compared to the total amount of vehicles in the fleet. Let’s say that each Ariete active protection system will cost about $250,000-300,000 (I’m not sure between the cost of the cost of the X-band phased array radar of the Ariete on the Lince, and the current Doppler radar on the T-80UM1, or the future X-band sensor radars developed in Italy; Arena is thought to cost up to $400,000, while I’m sure that Rafael has claimed that their Trophy costs about $300,000 per package – production of the Ariete may decrease due to the sheer amount of systems produces for the almost one hundred thousand Lince tanks sold so far, and the amount which will be sold on the Lynx (different type of grenade, but this is irrelevant), and those which may be sold on surrogate vehicles based on the Lynx chassis. Nevertheless, we can agree that installation the system will almost double the price of the VAM! If we put a price of $300,000 per installation for a total of two thousand VAM vehicles acquired by Castilla (far, far more by The Macabees) that means total installation costs will be 600 million dollars! How many soldiers are fatally wounded, or wounded enough to be put out of action indefinitely, in similar vehicles in Iraq? How much does it cost to train the average U.S. infantryman (I’m pretty sure the price our drill sergeants told us is inflated – they claimed over a million just to recruit us from MEPS)? Even then, the installation of an active protection system will not increase protection against small-arms.
The design of a light vehicle is more complicated than one could have originally thought.
Armor design is probably the easiest part, given that the general idea for lightweight defense already exists, and it’s mainly an issue of which material to use for what. The vehicle will be constructed from a single structural rectangle which is what holds the crew, and to this a unit can issue either standard modules (low ballistic protection) or armored modules (ballistic protection versus 14.5mm armor piercing ammunition). The floor panels will only have one module, which will be armored to deflect and absorb the blast of an improvised explosive device or anti-vehicle mine. Principally, this is to sell the vehicle as wars on NationStates don’t seem to be asymmetrical – but, players who take the time to role play guerilla warfare will have this vehicle. The floor panels will be more inclined than those of the LMV (very slight angle, to form a very obtuse V), which will add height and a bit of weight (longer panels), but only the height will be incremented to a point where it will be noticeable (increase in weight should be minimal, as the space is largely hollow). In general, the armor of the chassis and the ballistic paneling for the windows will be the same – a number of layers of composite. The vehicle’s armor will be similar to that of the Tiznao-60, only thinner (no protection versus shaped charges), and the window panels are going to be layers of glass, with a strong backing layer (probably S-2 glass, which is superior to E-glass) and a hard front-plate (which has to be decided). What will ultimately decide the materials to use are the answers I receive in this thread on the type of ammunition used, and on research I will have to conduct simultaneously (although, for the most part I have enough information on my computer). As expected, the ballistic panels will be centered on the rectangular crew module, and the back area of the propulsion module (part of what surrounds the crew is part of the propulsion module). I don’t think the engine will be heavily protected, although I’m not sure. It doesn’t seem to be protected on the Italian LMV. The same seems true for the Israeli Golan, given that the visible modules can only be seen behind the engine, where the crew is. In fact, the same is true for a lot of the MRAP vehicles – a lot of bolts around the crew modules, but no bolts on the engine module. The vehicle is a 4x4, and will run on run-flat (which is copyright, but there is scientific term for them that I know of and everyone uses the name Dyneema and Kevlar to describe what is in reality fiber reinforced polyethylene or aramid – so, I should be fine) tires to increase its chances of survival even if the tires are shot-up.
In regards to weaponry, the vehicle will mount a primitive version of the HammerFist remote weapon station (at $215,000 per HammerFist, with everything included, the system is hardly affordable on a vehicle that should cost less than $500,000), which can mount any type of automatic weapon up to a 15mm heavy machine gun, and a 40mm grenade launcher. This will allow the client to make the ordnance as versatile as he or she wants it to be, and the HammerFist includes four grenade launchers with the possibility to increase the amount of grenades by mounting a grenade module (similar to the grenade modules used on the Israeli remote weapon stations on their heavy armored personnel carriers). Given the vehicle’s role as a cavalry vehicle or as an escort vehicle, heavy armament is not really a priority – so one weapon should do. As usual, Sistemas Terrestres Segovia Land Systems (export conglomerate and not to be confused with Sistemas Terrestres Segovia the company) and MecániCas (manufacturer) will advertise mountable ordnance from Doomingsland Defense Industries (DDI). But, a client can use whatever he or she wants as long as it fits in the system.
It will be powered by a compact diesel engine, which still has to be designed/acquired. Power output is simply too small to justify the use of a gas turbine; the technology of Turboas’ TA series 600 gas turbines used on our heavy armored fighting vehicle can’t be designed for a horsepower production of less than 900hp, or the engine begins to decrease in efficiency. Consequently, as far as I know a gas turbine is out of the question and this shouldn’t be a problem anyways, since the diesel will be multi-fuel. The engine’s output will depend on the weight of the vehicle, but it will probably be about 200hp. For the sake of affordability, the transmission will be mechanical (and for the sake of efficiency), despite the weight – I don’t feel comfortable enough with the technology to begin introducing lightweight electric transmissions for vehicles of this size, or for vehicles in general (that is, vehicles that are going to be exported). The general idea is that the mobility assets will be designed in such a way to maximize survivability of the people inside the vehicle. What I’m afraid of is that the lack of armor around the engine will cause insurgence to begin to aim for the power pack, and therefore conduct a mobility kill. There is a chance that if the vehicle is stopped, then the area that the vehicle was stopped at will likely become the perfect area for a firefight – which may end up with dead soldiers. The problem is that on NationStates all the forces automatically know all the enemy’s weak points, and even untrained insurgents find it fairly easy to target areas of a vehicle that are more likely to result in a kill. I don’t know if mobility kills are a current problem in Iraq, and I don’t know how well a diesel engine can stand-up to small-arms ammunition. In the end, the power pack may have to be defended against 7.62mm ammunition. I will have to find some statistics for the use of these vehicles in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Lebanon, with special interests on statistics on kills involving these vehicles.
It’s interesting to note that in Spain’s case the best vehicle armor proved to be pig blood – well, really, any blood that can be said to be pig blood. In Bosnia and Kosovo (I haven’t heard of this being used by Spanish troops in Iraq (2003-2005) or in Afghanistan (2001-present)) Spanish armored fighting vehicles (such as the BMR) were bathed in blood from one (animal) source or another, but was ‘advertised’ as pig blood. Militia fighters refused to fire against Spanish vehicles which these characteristics for religious purposes. I’m willing to bet that such ‘protection’ has its limits, and I’m not sure how effective it would be in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, despite Spanish soldiers generally being more respected and better liked in Bosnia than their U.S. allies, I’m not sure that such a method would be respected in general. I think that Iraq is a poor example of a successful peacekeeping operation (which is what it is, only much more violent than those normally conducted) because of the general mentality of the U.S. soldier. I remember talking to a captain in Fort Benning’s hospital’s kitchen about the Arabic culture and Iraq, and his explanations and descriptions were poor and very biased. When I was still in college, in San Diego, my professor of ‘history of film as an art’ talked to us fairly frequently about American soldiers and their relations with the Arabic population in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, the only American soldiers which really preformed well in these types of war were the Army Special Forces (according to him), because they’re trained to integrate themselves in the society and culture. On the other hand, the average U.S. Soldier (all branches included) are not – during basic training, we were issued a handbook on Arab culture, and I know for a fact that the majority of the recruits never opened it (and we were never ordered to, unlike the IET Soldier’s Handbook). For example, my professor explained that one of the bigger issues is that U.S. soldiers tend to wear sunglasses even when entering a building, or talking to the local population. This is a sign of major disrespect in the Arab culture, and is explained in the handbook (which isn’t read, and this is evident that U.S. soldiers still wear sunglasses in these situations). In regards to what my professor has witnessed, and his position to judge, he’s been to Afghanistan multiple times (according to him, at least twenty) and to Iraq (less than to Afghanistan) – he’s an independent director and an artist, and goes to do some jobs for documentaries and such. Interestingly, he found out that his photographs of the Afghan population had to be taken from his chest, as not cover the face, to avoid disrespecting the subject of the photograph.
This VAM isn’t only designed for asymmetrical warfare, and in conventional wars I don’t think heavy armor will be entirely necessary (low threat of ambush and the vehicle is not likely to be used during a planned firefight). Nevertheless, even in asymmetrical warfare some vehicles generally have large windows to increase the vehicle’s occupant’s contact with the local population. In other words, these vehicles cater to countries that have a mentality of winning the hearts and minds of the population. Back to the subject of two different modules for the doors – the windowless modules can be fitted by nations not interested in a pacific occupation of a country, and instead wish to conduct a violent repression of the local population. Heavily armored vehicles will always be superior for this type of strategy, and I don’t see a reason to have large windows on a vehicle if there are no plans to interact with the local population.
If you’re asking why this is so long and why I keep going in circles, it’s because I don’t have internet access at home – so, I write this at home and them go to an internet café and post it. So, when I’m bored at home I try to write, and normally end up writing abnormally long posts for things that should probably be simpler. For example, this last sentence should have probably been shorter and more direct. And this second sentence should have most likely been omitted from the text, as should have this sentence. Up to here, 3,269 words total.
Given that I’m bored and that I’m hoping that this vehicle will be the ‘ice breaker’ for Sistemas Terrestres Segovia Land Systems (the storefront on International Incidents) I’ll make this into a more complex questionnaire. Ideally, this is to cater to everyone possible so that sales will increase. This is probably the first vehicle on NationStates that is going to be designed based on such a type of questionnaire.
1. What do your armed forces use high mobility vehicles for?
2. What do you believe should be present in a ‘future’, or more ‘advanced’, high mobility vehicle?
3. What is the most common threat faced by your armed forces, and what do future projections dictate that your next conflict will be? Conventional? Asymmetrical?
4. What would be the ideal price range, keeping in consideration the ideal technological level?
The vehicle will be sold by Sistemas Terrestres Segovia Land Systems (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=547939).
Castilla y Belmonte’s defense company MecániCas, known for the Tiznao-60 modular armored truck, is currently in the development phase for the upcoming Tiznao-10 ‘Vehículo de Alta Movilidad’ (VAM). The VAM is going to be heavily based on Iveco’s Light Multirole Vehicle (LMV), except since I don’t know the specific materials used on the LMV I’m going to have to ‘invent’ an armor based on what I have available in papers on my computer and in the various magazines/journals I have. Ideally, the vehicle is also going to be a tad larger in height, because I’m going to trade the LMV’s flat composite floor for a v-shaped hull floor (not as dramatically shaped as some of the United States’ MRAP trucks, but it’s going to be better designed to deflect the blast of a mine). Regardless, the vehicle’s main customer for now is going to be The Macabees (TM is going to start to buy its land vehicles from Sistemas Terrestres Segovia and MecániCas, so that I don’t have to start making two of each vehicle, for each nation I play). Some of the most important areas in a vehicle like this are the glass windows – ideally, I want to make the windows proof against 14.5mm heavy-machine gun armor-piercing ammunition. The thickness of ballistic glass is limited by the fact that the thicker an armor becomes the heavier the vehicle becomes – and the chassis’ armor will be heavy enough – and the thicker transparent armor becomes the less light is transmitted through the armor. Given the ceramic industry’s current state in the European Union, some newer transparent ceramic armors have not yet been applied to combat vehicles because they cannot be produced in current European factories, and they are too expensive to produce in the United States (and more expensive to import). In other words, they are still being developed and they have not entered a stage in their development where cheap production has become a priority (like titanium).
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i291/Macabees/typicalarmor.jpg
With that taken into consideration, small-arms armor penetration is highly dependent on the material of the round or of the core of the round. For example, a tungsten carbide (WC) core will offer more potential penetration than an all-steel projectile (higher hardness and density). I know that on NationStates there has been a more widespread introduction of newer armor-piercing projectiles in the calibers between 4mm and 15mm, and I want to see if I can provide the VAM with protection at least against 7.62mm – that is, if I can’t provide protection against heavy machine-guns, as well. Therefore, I want to take a survey on the type of armor-piercing ammunition in use around NationStates, especially from those who frequent the NS Draftroom. This information will play a role in the materials I decide to use for the armor (if I can choose a cheaper material, then I will choose it – if not, I will have to weigh cost versus ballistic protection and go with a more expensive material), especially the glass. What’s more, I’m willing to bet money that a large number of armies on NationStates use depleted uranium (dU) cored small-arms armor-piercing ammunition! Obviously, that will make my job much more difficult. So, if you are willing, please respond to the following questions (your post doesn’t have to mention the questions and you don’t have to answer them like you were writing your response on a piece of paper with space to answer – answer like you want to, and if you want to add extra information go for it):
1. What type of armor piercing projectiles do your infantry use?
2. What type is the most common? The more specific, the better.
3. What caliber heavy machine gun is issued at platoon level or company levels?
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i291/Mac...amplerounds.jpg (http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i291/Macabees/examplerounds.jpg)
And for the sake of interest, although nothing I have hints on the protection of the LMV’s windows, Spain is acquiring forty LMVs as an emergency measure and these will reportedly be fully armored – protection against 14.5mm armor piercing ammunition on the chassis on the front panel (not engine block), roof panel, upper rear panel (basically, the frame of the back window) and the side panels. The windows are not included in this package, because the article my reference is from suggests that the windows can be armored independently (not sure if Spain will go for the transparent armor package), and the article doesn’t mention what these glass armor panels are proof against. Based on production centers, it’s likely that the ballistic window panels on the LMV have a front-plate of Quartz glass (produced in Italy). To stop a 7.62x51 AP8 NAMMO (WC core) projectile, a glass panel would need at least seven 8mm layers of glass (56mm), plus a 7mm front plate of quartz glass (total of 63mm). This is an educated guess – depth of penetration into quartz glass seems to be lowest of all available transparent front plates (float glass and glass ceramic, made in the Czech Republic). I need to find some sort of formula for the dissipation of light for a given thickness – protection against 14.5mm NAMMO projectiles might be impossible, with existing materials, for the windows.
An alternative is to offer two separate modules for the vehicle’s doors – one with larger windows, and one with a firing port. The former could be used in less intensive peacekeeping operations, so that the soldiers can keep in contact with the local population (largely, the theory behind vehicles like the Golan and all of that), while the second module could be used in vehicles that are escorting convoys and are more likely to be engaged by heavy assets. The firing ports can’t be protected, but a greater surface area of the door would now have complete protection against 14.5mm armor piercing WC-cored projectiles (and I can use more mass efficient materials than glass) – the firing ports can be designed high enough on the door so that it forces a soldier to take a knee while firing, but it means that stray shows into the ports will be unlikely to fatally wound a soldier in the vehicle, or harm something else important. The problem is that I have never been peacekeeping, so I don’t know the design theory behind primarily peace keeping vehicles and high mobility reconnaissance vehicles – there must be a reason most of these vehicles have large window panels. I will have to ask some veterans. But, the idea is still out there – given that the doors can be easily exchanged, it shouldn’t be an expensive module to acquire for a percentage of the total vehicles procured. Given the modular nature of the vehicle, some will be turned into smoke generators, others into command vehicles, other into artillery command vehicles, et cetera – some will be fine with larger windows and will prefer them, while specific urban combat vehicles will be able to be more heavily armored, with reduced ‘weak points’.
Personally, I think mounting an active protection system is out of the question. Even if the vehicle is destroyed, the majority of its occupants will survive (as has been shown in Iraq and Afghanistan), meaning the economic loss is the value of the vehicle (Spain is purchasing 40 LMVs for 14.4 million Euros or 360,000 euros per vehicle). What I need to figure out is the cost of an infantry man (to train). Ultimately, what decides the question is the amount of life loss per vehicle, plus the average life lost in the same vehicles per month, compared to the total amount of vehicles in the fleet. Let’s say that each Ariete active protection system will cost about $250,000-300,000 (I’m not sure between the cost of the cost of the X-band phased array radar of the Ariete on the Lince, and the current Doppler radar on the T-80UM1, or the future X-band sensor radars developed in Italy; Arena is thought to cost up to $400,000, while I’m sure that Rafael has claimed that their Trophy costs about $300,000 per package – production of the Ariete may decrease due to the sheer amount of systems produces for the almost one hundred thousand Lince tanks sold so far, and the amount which will be sold on the Lynx (different type of grenade, but this is irrelevant), and those which may be sold on surrogate vehicles based on the Lynx chassis. Nevertheless, we can agree that installation the system will almost double the price of the VAM! If we put a price of $300,000 per installation for a total of two thousand VAM vehicles acquired by Castilla (far, far more by The Macabees) that means total installation costs will be 600 million dollars! How many soldiers are fatally wounded, or wounded enough to be put out of action indefinitely, in similar vehicles in Iraq? How much does it cost to train the average U.S. infantryman (I’m pretty sure the price our drill sergeants told us is inflated – they claimed over a million just to recruit us from MEPS)? Even then, the installation of an active protection system will not increase protection against small-arms.
The design of a light vehicle is more complicated than one could have originally thought.
Armor design is probably the easiest part, given that the general idea for lightweight defense already exists, and it’s mainly an issue of which material to use for what. The vehicle will be constructed from a single structural rectangle which is what holds the crew, and to this a unit can issue either standard modules (low ballistic protection) or armored modules (ballistic protection versus 14.5mm armor piercing ammunition). The floor panels will only have one module, which will be armored to deflect and absorb the blast of an improvised explosive device or anti-vehicle mine. Principally, this is to sell the vehicle as wars on NationStates don’t seem to be asymmetrical – but, players who take the time to role play guerilla warfare will have this vehicle. The floor panels will be more inclined than those of the LMV (very slight angle, to form a very obtuse V), which will add height and a bit of weight (longer panels), but only the height will be incremented to a point where it will be noticeable (increase in weight should be minimal, as the space is largely hollow). In general, the armor of the chassis and the ballistic paneling for the windows will be the same – a number of layers of composite. The vehicle’s armor will be similar to that of the Tiznao-60, only thinner (no protection versus shaped charges), and the window panels are going to be layers of glass, with a strong backing layer (probably S-2 glass, which is superior to E-glass) and a hard front-plate (which has to be decided). What will ultimately decide the materials to use are the answers I receive in this thread on the type of ammunition used, and on research I will have to conduct simultaneously (although, for the most part I have enough information on my computer). As expected, the ballistic panels will be centered on the rectangular crew module, and the back area of the propulsion module (part of what surrounds the crew is part of the propulsion module). I don’t think the engine will be heavily protected, although I’m not sure. It doesn’t seem to be protected on the Italian LMV. The same seems true for the Israeli Golan, given that the visible modules can only be seen behind the engine, where the crew is. In fact, the same is true for a lot of the MRAP vehicles – a lot of bolts around the crew modules, but no bolts on the engine module. The vehicle is a 4x4, and will run on run-flat (which is copyright, but there is scientific term for them that I know of and everyone uses the name Dyneema and Kevlar to describe what is in reality fiber reinforced polyethylene or aramid – so, I should be fine) tires to increase its chances of survival even if the tires are shot-up.
In regards to weaponry, the vehicle will mount a primitive version of the HammerFist remote weapon station (at $215,000 per HammerFist, with everything included, the system is hardly affordable on a vehicle that should cost less than $500,000), which can mount any type of automatic weapon up to a 15mm heavy machine gun, and a 40mm grenade launcher. This will allow the client to make the ordnance as versatile as he or she wants it to be, and the HammerFist includes four grenade launchers with the possibility to increase the amount of grenades by mounting a grenade module (similar to the grenade modules used on the Israeli remote weapon stations on their heavy armored personnel carriers). Given the vehicle’s role as a cavalry vehicle or as an escort vehicle, heavy armament is not really a priority – so one weapon should do. As usual, Sistemas Terrestres Segovia Land Systems (export conglomerate and not to be confused with Sistemas Terrestres Segovia the company) and MecániCas (manufacturer) will advertise mountable ordnance from Doomingsland Defense Industries (DDI). But, a client can use whatever he or she wants as long as it fits in the system.
It will be powered by a compact diesel engine, which still has to be designed/acquired. Power output is simply too small to justify the use of a gas turbine; the technology of Turboas’ TA series 600 gas turbines used on our heavy armored fighting vehicle can’t be designed for a horsepower production of less than 900hp, or the engine begins to decrease in efficiency. Consequently, as far as I know a gas turbine is out of the question and this shouldn’t be a problem anyways, since the diesel will be multi-fuel. The engine’s output will depend on the weight of the vehicle, but it will probably be about 200hp. For the sake of affordability, the transmission will be mechanical (and for the sake of efficiency), despite the weight – I don’t feel comfortable enough with the technology to begin introducing lightweight electric transmissions for vehicles of this size, or for vehicles in general (that is, vehicles that are going to be exported). The general idea is that the mobility assets will be designed in such a way to maximize survivability of the people inside the vehicle. What I’m afraid of is that the lack of armor around the engine will cause insurgence to begin to aim for the power pack, and therefore conduct a mobility kill. There is a chance that if the vehicle is stopped, then the area that the vehicle was stopped at will likely become the perfect area for a firefight – which may end up with dead soldiers. The problem is that on NationStates all the forces automatically know all the enemy’s weak points, and even untrained insurgents find it fairly easy to target areas of a vehicle that are more likely to result in a kill. I don’t know if mobility kills are a current problem in Iraq, and I don’t know how well a diesel engine can stand-up to small-arms ammunition. In the end, the power pack may have to be defended against 7.62mm ammunition. I will have to find some statistics for the use of these vehicles in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Lebanon, with special interests on statistics on kills involving these vehicles.
It’s interesting to note that in Spain’s case the best vehicle armor proved to be pig blood – well, really, any blood that can be said to be pig blood. In Bosnia and Kosovo (I haven’t heard of this being used by Spanish troops in Iraq (2003-2005) or in Afghanistan (2001-present)) Spanish armored fighting vehicles (such as the BMR) were bathed in blood from one (animal) source or another, but was ‘advertised’ as pig blood. Militia fighters refused to fire against Spanish vehicles which these characteristics for religious purposes. I’m willing to bet that such ‘protection’ has its limits, and I’m not sure how effective it would be in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, despite Spanish soldiers generally being more respected and better liked in Bosnia than their U.S. allies, I’m not sure that such a method would be respected in general. I think that Iraq is a poor example of a successful peacekeeping operation (which is what it is, only much more violent than those normally conducted) because of the general mentality of the U.S. soldier. I remember talking to a captain in Fort Benning’s hospital’s kitchen about the Arabic culture and Iraq, and his explanations and descriptions were poor and very biased. When I was still in college, in San Diego, my professor of ‘history of film as an art’ talked to us fairly frequently about American soldiers and their relations with the Arabic population in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, the only American soldiers which really preformed well in these types of war were the Army Special Forces (according to him), because they’re trained to integrate themselves in the society and culture. On the other hand, the average U.S. Soldier (all branches included) are not – during basic training, we were issued a handbook on Arab culture, and I know for a fact that the majority of the recruits never opened it (and we were never ordered to, unlike the IET Soldier’s Handbook). For example, my professor explained that one of the bigger issues is that U.S. soldiers tend to wear sunglasses even when entering a building, or talking to the local population. This is a sign of major disrespect in the Arab culture, and is explained in the handbook (which isn’t read, and this is evident that U.S. soldiers still wear sunglasses in these situations). In regards to what my professor has witnessed, and his position to judge, he’s been to Afghanistan multiple times (according to him, at least twenty) and to Iraq (less than to Afghanistan) – he’s an independent director and an artist, and goes to do some jobs for documentaries and such. Interestingly, he found out that his photographs of the Afghan population had to be taken from his chest, as not cover the face, to avoid disrespecting the subject of the photograph.
This VAM isn’t only designed for asymmetrical warfare, and in conventional wars I don’t think heavy armor will be entirely necessary (low threat of ambush and the vehicle is not likely to be used during a planned firefight). Nevertheless, even in asymmetrical warfare some vehicles generally have large windows to increase the vehicle’s occupant’s contact with the local population. In other words, these vehicles cater to countries that have a mentality of winning the hearts and minds of the population. Back to the subject of two different modules for the doors – the windowless modules can be fitted by nations not interested in a pacific occupation of a country, and instead wish to conduct a violent repression of the local population. Heavily armored vehicles will always be superior for this type of strategy, and I don’t see a reason to have large windows on a vehicle if there are no plans to interact with the local population.
If you’re asking why this is so long and why I keep going in circles, it’s because I don’t have internet access at home – so, I write this at home and them go to an internet café and post it. So, when I’m bored at home I try to write, and normally end up writing abnormally long posts for things that should probably be simpler. For example, this last sentence should have probably been shorter and more direct. And this second sentence should have most likely been omitted from the text, as should have this sentence. Up to here, 3,269 words total.
Given that I’m bored and that I’m hoping that this vehicle will be the ‘ice breaker’ for Sistemas Terrestres Segovia Land Systems (the storefront on International Incidents) I’ll make this into a more complex questionnaire. Ideally, this is to cater to everyone possible so that sales will increase. This is probably the first vehicle on NationStates that is going to be designed based on such a type of questionnaire.
1. What do your armed forces use high mobility vehicles for?
2. What do you believe should be present in a ‘future’, or more ‘advanced’, high mobility vehicle?
3. What is the most common threat faced by your armed forces, and what do future projections dictate that your next conflict will be? Conventional? Asymmetrical?
4. What would be the ideal price range, keeping in consideration the ideal technological level?