Thanks for the link Mr. T!
Note: Earlier I did a post on the Mungo being the only vehicle that "off the shelf" met the requirements put out by the US Army for an Ultra Light Combat Vehicle. It was pointed out that the legacy Mungo had problems off road. Its to be expected with an internally transported vehicle (inside CH-47), but the new Mungo LCV seems to have worked the problem. I remain convinced that the Mungo is the only off the shelf vehicle that will meet army specs.
Note: Earlier I did a post on the Mungo being the only vehicle that "off the shelf" met the requirements put out by the US Army for an Ultra Light Combat Vehicle. It was pointed out that the legacy Mungo had problems off road. Its to be expected with an internally transported vehicle (inside CH-47), but the new Mungo LCV seems to have worked the problem. I remain convinced that the Mungo is the only off the shelf vehicle that will meet army specs.
I find the idea of ITVs used as armored troop carriers flawed, you are getting reduced off-road capability, you make a large movement of these a logistical nightmare (refueling via air re-supply, maintenance, etc). If the idea is small unit using them, then why not substitute armor for speed? Its not like the Mundo a really low viz vehicle, it will undoubtedly make a lot of noise off road. I just don't see the upside....
ReplyDeleteThat might be but considering the ULCV brief this is what they are looking for. You are right this is a bus not a recon car but its footprint is about the same as that of an Humvee. So you are ither airlifting 2 Wolf 4x4s or one Mungo. Remember original Mungo had only basic armor and open top but once it was put to use as an general purpose vehicle ,requrements for fully armored cab came into the play .
ReplyDeleteProbem might not be the vehicle itself but how its put to use ,as its very specialised piece of gear same as Wiesel 1 ,both are great tools for the job till you are able to bring in the heavier armor after that they are not really needed.
Detail ind internal photos
http://tank-masters.de/?page_id=257
Here some more pictures:
Deletehttp://www.panzerbaer.de/helper/bw_mzfz_mungo_var_1-a.htm
http://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/in_detail/mungo/mungo.htm
http://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/in_detail/mungo_cont/mungo.htm (multipurpose)
Wiesel MK20: http://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/in_detail/wiesel_mk20/wiesel_mk20.htm
Wiesel RMK30: http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_watr_wiesel_1_bmk_30mm-a.htm
(muzzle energy about 3/4 of GAU-8 Avenger)
There aren't many vehicles that match Mungo, but one vehicle to keep an eye on and is Turkar 4x4. Turkar 4x4 is licensed to US manufacturer, JWF Defense Systems, with the intent of bidding in ULCV.
ReplyDeleteThe Turkar 4x4 is far to big. The drive train is placed below the driver. Mungo's engine is located behind the driver. Therefore the ESK is just 1.9 m high. Just compare the civil versions:
Deletecivil Mungo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicar
civil Turkar 4x4: http://turkar4x4.com.tr/en/models/atuzo/4/
Just because a vehicle performs well doesn't mean we go out and buy a bunch, they have to fit into some kind of a mission, what purpose would it serve? How do you support it? What is the maintenance footprint? What are the requirements for keeping it in the fight?
ReplyDelete