RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Morrow Project/ Project Phoenix Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-01-2019, 04:42 PM
Desert Mariner Desert Mariner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 91
Default Vehicle updates

Has anyone looked at the FMTV or M-ATV or related vehicles produced by Oshkosh? I'm thinking they'd be a great fit for the Project but I'm having difficulty with armor ratings.

Last edited by Desert Mariner; 03-01-2019 at 04:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-01-2019, 11:59 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 221
Default

The Olive Drab web site has a good view of the FMTV:

https://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_fmtv.php

And a useful general manual:

https://fmtvtrucks.com/wp-content/up...0-366-10-1.pdf

Plus:

https://fmtvtrucks.com/fmtv-history/

The cab and body are by all accounts "mild steel sheet metal", presumably the same as used on commercial trucks. Probably around 16 or 18 gauge (1.6 mm to 1.3 mm), thus by TM 1-1 Third Edition about 1 point of armor.

I see the standard FMTV show plow is 11 gauge steel (3.2 mm); 20' long ocean cargo containers are usually made from 8 gauge (4.4 mm) sheet steel.

The Steyr 12M18 is similar (the original FMTV is derived from it). The cab windows are normal "import car" thickness of glass.

--
Michael B.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-02-2019, 12:25 AM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 221
Default

In the Vietnam War, "gun trucks" modified with armor used a kit with 3/8" thick (9.5 mm) hardened steel (not mild steel). Armor class is thus at least 15.

In the 1980s Roscommon Equipment got a contract to build "protective" cab tops for the existing (pre-FMTV) Army cargo trucks; the panels used were 11 gauge steel. These weren't meant for bullet protection, but rather overhead protection from falling tree limbs, rocks, etc. (since a lot of those trucks had only canvas cab roofs). It's not clear from the contracts if the rest of the "existing" cabs were also 11 gauge. In any case, 11 gauge = 0.32 mm, about armor class 3 or 4 (Third Edition doesn't seem to take differences between hardened vs. mild steel into account).

I'd say the "older" military trucks have 3 points of armor in the cab and hood (with of course no overhead crew armor for trucks with a canvas top).

--
Michael B.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-02-2019, 06:28 AM
Desert Mariner Desert Mariner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 91
Default

I'm specifically looking at the Oshkosh Defense https://oshkoshdefense.com/vehicles/fmtv/ produced FMTV units which are "Long-term Armor Strategy (LTAS)" compliant, featuring A- (factory installed) and B- (field configurable) armor kits.

The M-ATVs https://oshkoshdefense.com/vehicles/m-atv/ utilize a Plasan composite armor plus blast seats for the crew.

Finding any kind of data on or description of the kits or composite has pretty much been fruitless since the systems are current and I was hoping someone on the forum might have a guesstimate based on prior knowledge of armor systems (not my specialty).

Last edited by Desert Mariner; 03-02-2019 at 07:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-02-2019, 08:09 AM
ChalkLine's Avatar
ChalkLine ChalkLine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 432
Default

Do they give the STANAG 4569 protection levels?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-02-2019, 09:13 AM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 557
Default

The armor class would greatly depend on the b-kit available. This paper outlining the plan through 2025 and beyond speaks in somewhat generic terms, but the implication is that a-cab is some mass producible base armor and mission specific b-kits of the best available at the time are added in the field.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...v-strategy.htm
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-02-2019, 09:32 AM
Desert Mariner Desert Mariner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChalkLine View Post
Not specifically. Again, I think this is due to it being a current, customizable system.

For the Plasan composite, they say it "provide lightweight, cost effective protection against all levels of ballistic threats, up to STANAG levels 5 and 6, as well as against fragmentation and spalls." More than likely, this composite includes Plasan's SMART (Super Multi-hit Armor Technology) armor is a ceramic, metal, with or without a third layer of fabric composite. The confined ceramic matrix segments are sized and shaped to offer optimum ballistic performance. This unique confined structure allows freedom for the armor designer to protect complex flat or curved shapes, offering optimal ballistic protection.

For the LMTVs, it refers back to LTAS compliance where the A-kit (aka A-cab) seems to provide at least STANAG 1 and the B-kits have varying levels of protection but I haven't found any details.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-03-2019, 01:26 AM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 221
Default

At least as of 2010 the actual armor performance was classified; this report ...

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a518022.pdf

... does mention in one un-redacted drawing some 0.25" thick armor, backed with about an inch of spall liner. The armor is welded; I assume it's steel (rather than aluminum) ... though one un-chosen option was far too expensive and not available in sufficient quantities -- titanium perhaps? This is all for a "replacement" cab, rather than the bolt-on "additional/applique" armor packages.

Anyhow, 0.635 cm of steel is at least 8 points of armor (by TM 1-1 Third Edition). The spall liner doesn't do much to directly stop projectile penetration, but instead keeps chunks of broken armor from injuring the crew and damaging the vehicle.

An interesting conundrum: even the U.S. Defense Department had trouble making these armor kits fast enough during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Imagine the Army's problems if the Morrow Project is buying all the armor kits!

--
Michael B.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-03-2019, 03:12 PM
Desert Mariner Desert Mariner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelrir View Post
Imagine the Army's problems if the Morrow Project is buying all the armor kits!
...or maybe MI is the parent of the manufacturer and is pulling a one for you, two for me.....

Thanks for the input Michael. Guess I'll finish getting the other stats and descriptions put together and then come back and attempt to put a reasonable armor rating together. If anyone has any further input on armor, please don't hesitate.

My main desire for using these vehicles is the ~80% parts commonality in a mix of 4x4 and 6x6 vehicles covering everything from troop/cargo movement to C&C, wreckers, line-haul, tankers, mobile shops, recon/assault and even MLRS; some of which feature enhanced armor (MRAP) systems.

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-05-2019, 08:03 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 221
Default

As of February of 2018 the actual materials and thicknesses, etc. of the Protection Kits are still classified as Secret.

--
Michael
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-05-2019, 10:47 PM
cosmicfish cosmicfish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelrir View Post
As of February of 2018 the actual materials and thicknesses, etc. of the Protection Kits are still classified as Secret.

--
Michael
Which opens the door for the Project to order (or run off) a version designed to their own specifications, heavier, lighter, or unofficially the same. Pick a number that seems reasonable and go with it.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-06-2019, 10:07 PM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 221
Default

Eastern Surplus (www.easternsurplus.net) sells various LMTV/FMTV models as surplus. There's a side-opening trailer available; as long as the info is around, here goes a conversion to metric.

https://www.easternsurplus.net/Vehic...p-Side-Trailer

M1082 Drop Side Trailer, 2-1/2 Ton
  • Fitted with super single tires (35 R 20) and central tire inflation system, anti-lock brakes, parking brake tail lights, etc. . Bows and a nylon top are provided to cover the cargo.
  • Interior bed dimensions: 3.78 m long x 2.3 m wide. Deck height, when unloaded 1.5 m. The side walls of the bed are 0.5 m tall.
  • Overall trailer dimensions: 5.32 m long x 2.4 m wide x 2 m tall (with sides folded up)
  • Curb weight empty: 2.96 tons
  • Gross vehicle weight: 5.23 tons (as with most military trucks, this is the off-road allowed weight)

And yes, if the Project can out-order and out-spend the U.S. government, there's no reason for them to stick with a "stock USGI" design.

--
Michael B.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-07-2019, 08:50 AM
Desert Mariner Desert Mariner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 91
Default

Thanks again, here's my current take on the M1082 (still a work in progress)....
Attached Images
File Type: pdf M1082 Trailer.pdf (120.7 KB, 9 views)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.