Stryker-based High Mobility Battlefield Logistics Transport

Old Wombat · July 01, 2012, 08:29:49 AM

Folks,

I'm going to be building a HMBLT using 2 Stryker IFV's as my base as soon as I've finished with the RAM's Challenger 1 - which (minus base) shouldn't be too long now.

One will be the "tractor" unit, the other will be the "trailer" unit.

The tractor is going to have the rear end cut down & a hitch mechanism mounted. At the moment I'm going with something based on a "5th Wheel" or semi-trailer type connection but a bit more rugged, which will allow turning & fore-&-aft vertical flexibility. However, if anyone has any better ideas, let me know.

The trailer is going to be extended by anywhere up to 2m in length &, at this stage, I'm thinking of having the hitching pin connected to a plate which will provide limited lateral (sideways) movement to improve cross-country performance. What I'm really unsure about is whether to enclose (armour) the cargo space or leave it open-topped (the sides will be armoured whichever way I go) & whether I should raise the sides or leave them low for stability & silhouette reasons (my preferred option, right now).

Any suggestions will be welcomed with open mind.

PS: A rough expression of my idea using Paint.

Note: This image has a slightly raised top to the trailer unit which might be pushing it a bit for build purposes.

TallEng · July 01, 2012, 09:01:56 AM

How about a connection between the vehicles like the Volvo BV202 and BV206 or it's modern equivalent the Viking? That looks like a tough but flexible joint. And if you did it that way there would be more space for stowage as the fith wheel/hitch wouldn't be covering some of the tractor units rear. If you see what I mean.

Regards
Keith(who knows less than nothing about Army type vehicles)

Old Wombat · July 01, 2012, 09:14:28 AM

Unfortunately, Keith, I've looked at them both but the joint system, although flexible, would (as far as my limited engineering predicts) have to be beefed up too much to lug the mass of an armoured trailer, let-alone its cargo.

However, if you, or anyone,else, can give me better engineering data I'd be happy to revisit the idea. (I haven't cut plastic, yet!)

Guy

PS: Oh, & here's a modification of the 1st image.

Old Wombat · July 01, 2012, 09:31:33 AM

Oh, & here's a modification of the 1st image.

Guy

Go4fun · July 01, 2012, 09:38:42 AM

This looks like an interesting build. Is the trailer unit going to be powered? Will the rear have any steering capability? I think with the four axels it would be hard to 'horse' the trailer around corners without some steering on the rear unit on the rear two axels at least.
Armored or not on the trailer depends on how far forward toward the FEBA (Forward Edge of Battle Area) you are going.

lenny100 · July 01, 2012, 09:46:59 AM

i did something simmler a few years ago

Old Wombat · July 01, 2012, 09:49:40 AM

Go4,

Steering is a definite.

Power is problematic;
As is it would take up too much cargo space if the engine is installed in the trailer.
If I go for a Volvo BV202/206 or BAe Bv10 Viking type connection, I could put a 2nd engine in the tractor unit to power the trailer, as I wouldn't have to modify the tractor as much.
However, as I said to TallEng on the other thread, I'm not sure the Volvo/BAe system could be suitably up-scaled (although I'm happy to be shown I'm wrong, there).

... & this is pretty-much a front-line transport, used to get as many supplies to the front-line troops as quickly as possible in effective quantities.

Old Wombat · July 01, 2012, 09:55:37 AM

Cool!

Guy

TallEng · July 01, 2012, 09:57:40 AM

How about using something based on this?

http://www.jcbstore.co.uk/Marketing/MarketingStore/MarketingStoreDownloadDatabaseFile.aspx?MAF=15137

If you scroll down to the bottom there is a side view, where you can see the 'joint' better.
It says it's good for 20tons, would that be enough for your armored trailer?

Regards
Keith

Go4fun · July 01, 2012, 10:04:05 AM

Well then you wouldn't want some dirty Behind-The-Lines troopy throwing a few grenades in your open topped cargo trailer then, would you? I've even go with a tented roor so things would roll off or explosions would be dirrected sideways and upwards.
Just my own humble thoughts.

pyro-manic · July 01, 2012, 10:41:47 AM

There's a 10-wheel variant of the Piranha, so what about making a cargo version of that? Just have an open-topped cargo bed instead of the command post module seen here:

Images from: http://www.soldf.com/piranhaiii_acv.html

Old Wombat · July 01, 2012, 06:18:47 PM

Which is one of the reasons I was leaning towards "armoured top", although an RPG could spoil your day a tad, too.

Obviously, with any articulated transport, the articulation is going to be a point of vulnerability. This has been my biggest concern whilst searching for alternatives to the standard semi-trailer type hitch. Not only does the system I use need to be capable of off-road flexibility, it also needs to be less vulnerable to combat damage. Which is probably the reason I haven't really settled on any single idea, yet. The Volvo/BAe systems used on the BV202 & Bv10 (Viking) look as though they are part-way there but up-scaling for the greater weight of the Stryker & the need to add extra protection to hydraulic & electrical cables is an issue.

Old Wombat · July 01, 2012, 06:59:36 PM

Hi, pyro!

One reason I'd not do the 10-wheeler is that I'm using 8-wheel Strykers. Also, I doubt my kit-bash-fu is up to doing a decent job of inserting an extra wheel section (Although, I might try it, as I said; "I haven't cut plastic, yet!") & I don't really want to increase the profile more than I have in the pic's, &, for some totally inexplicable reason, I seem to be being drawn to doing an articulated vehicle. Also, the more I think about it, the more I intend going with the fully-armoured version (as Go4fun pointed out, with an open top, some insurgent kid with a hand-grenade could totally ruin your day).

Obviously, with any articulated transport, the articulation is going to be a point of vulnerability. This has been my biggest concern whilst searching for alternatives to the standard semi-trailer type hitch. Not only does the system I use need to be capable of off-road flexibility, it also needs to be less vulnerable to combat damage. Which is probably the reason I haven't really settled on any single idea, yet. The Volvo/BAe systems used on the BV202 & Bv10 (Viking) look as though they are part-way there but up-scaling for the greater weight of the Stryker & the need to add extra protection to hydraulic & electrical cables is an issue.

rickshaw · July 01, 2012, 07:06:04 PM

Interesting idea. The Italians were marketing something similar back in the late 1980s - an armoured tractor unit and an armoured trailer but they'd gone for something much more simple than what you're proposing - putting a honking big engine in the tractor and then using a simple A-frame tow-bar and a steerable front axle on the trailer on a turntable. As far as I am aware, it never sold.

The South Africans developed a Log version of the Ratel APC - 8x8 with an extended chassis with the engine moved to the rear to give better weight distribution. Their intention was to side-ways load. Again, not adopted being deemed too expensive.

The Russians during the Cold War had some very sophisticate articulated drive trains with multiple, jointed drive shafts which ran back through the turntable coupling. This was for some of their most specialised missile resupply vehicles IIRC. Seemed overly complex and nowadays you'd put a separate engine in the trailer and couple it electronically to the throttle in the primemover.

Going further back, you had the obvious solution being adopted by Letournier (?spell) in the US with his various specialist earth moving/logistics/crash dozer vehicles - electric drive. Put a big dynamo and string cables to the motors in the wheel hubs. Then, relatively expensive but nowadays with lower commodity prices, superior conductors, better electronics, it would be quite easy.

The real problem with your design is steering. That middle pair of wheels is going to make it a lot harder. Much larger turning circle. They will ease cross-country movement though.

While big vehicles carry more stuff, they also represent bigger targets the closer they get to the fighting. Which is why military logistics often seems from the Loggies' viewpoint an awful lot of transhipment and breakdown into smaller and smaller unit lots. The closer you get to the sharp end, the smaller the vehicles, as are distributed to units. Which is why, I have to admit I like the look of your prime mover. Just extend it by about 5-10 feet in the middle and put some light armoured or even just timber sides around it and call it at that. Its the perfect vehicle for movement forward to the Squadron (being held at the Squadron) level. Anything further back would be truck. Give it a self-load capability with a Hiab crane it'd be perfect!

kerick · July 01, 2012, 07:12:06 PM

I'm sure you've noticed by now but there seems to be two post on the same subject here. Maybe the moderators know how to put them together.
I really love this idea. I thought of making a LAV trailer to tow behind a regular LAV. It would be a wartime use of a LAV that got its front end shot off. This is like Stryker meets the tractor trailer HEMTT M983. Awesome!
Also the HEMTT system has a pallet system for loading and unloading ammo pallets. I've seen the same system used for roll on roll off 9 yard trash dumpsters.