From: paul carrier (paulc@teleport.com)
Date: Fri Jun 20 2003 - 06:49:17 PDT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Military Vehicles Mailing List [mailto:mil-veh@mil-veh.org]On
> Behalf Of Bjorn Brandstedt
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 4:53 AM
> To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [MV] Mule vs Gator
>
>
>
> Originally the vehicle types were developed to fill specific
> needs. If the
> vehicles are "dropped", they leave holes in the system and if
> these "holes"
> can only be filled with commercial substitutes, that sounds like
> piss-poor
> planning to me.
Not necessarily, more a choice of economice to reduce the number of chassie
types in service to reduce the logistical train required.
> Commercially the Mutts (CJ jeeps) are selling in great quantities as we
> speak. Obviously dropping the Mutts and Mules left big holes in
> the system,
> which the Humvee often is too large to service.
>
The M998 series replaced the M151/M715/Gamma Goat. While I agree the light
infantry needs something like the Mule/Gator for support doctrine and army
policy didn't. That shortcoming was revealed during the Afganistan ops. I
also understand the SF bought some Land Rover Defenders because of thier
ability to fit inside a Chinook.
> The Sherman continued to develop into the Abrahms so why not the
> Mules and
> the Mutts, I guess that was my query.
The Sherman developed into the Abrahms only in the sense they are both MBT.
They share little in common other than having tracks and a turret.
A need for a small low speed support vehicle has been shown but I doubt the
Army will commit the R&D funding to fill the role.
You may see the Gator adopted to fill the role.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:21:45 PDT