Military vehicle (APC) with connecting trailer. MRAP replacement design concept.

[fractionMan]

I think peter is doing invaluable work here.

 

[Peter Dow]

Impressive. What is it?

 

[Crispy]

Alaska Land Train

http://www.diseno-art.com/encyclopedia/strange_vehicles/alaskan_land_train.html

EDIT: or something similar, the cabs are different

 

[Peter Dow]

Did I miss the engine specs?

No I have not given any engine specifications.

I suggest an engine most likely in a Cab over configuration, so as distribute some weight (1/8 th of the total) forward of the front axle and to give the driver a good look at the ground ahead.

I'd be looking for enough power to pull the vehicle up slopes, despite the armour. It is not really built for speed. For speed you need light and light means blown to bits by IEDs.

 

[Lemon Eddy]

Impressive. What is it?

TC-497 Overland Train MkII

 

[ferrelhadley]

No I have not given any engine specifications.

I suggest an engine most likely in a Cab over configuration, so as distribute some weight (1/8 th of the total) forward of the front axle and to give the driver a good look at the ground ahead.

I'd be looking for enough power to pull the vehicle up slopes, despite the armour. It is not really built for speed. For speed you need light and light means blown to bits by IEDs.

I take it you have no military experiance, no engineering experiance and little experiance with reality.

 

[kyser_soze]

TBF. Peter's probably about as on the money for this design as any of the muppets who sign off on new hardware at the MoD.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ah, you are one of those foolish people who thinks he knows better and every time you explain one little bit to him he jumps to the next thing he misunderstands and always thinks he knows better but never quite understands.

You haven't explained anything to me, imbecile. That's the first post of mine you've replied to.

Firstly it is not a bendy-bus. It doesn't articulate laterally, to the left or the right. So it is not like any trailer or bendy bus you have seen, OK? It only articulates vertically so it can bounce on its own suspension and go over rises and dips in its path without losing an axle off the ground.

Have you ever been in an APC and deployed from one, Peter? They already have independent suspension, and your addition of a trailer close-hitched to the rear, even if it had it's own independent suspension, would need to articulate, otherwise, unless it steers through every set of wheels, it won't turn worth a damn, and the APC and whoever is benighted enough to be travelling in it will be open targets.

Secondly, it doesn't hinge at the connection between the vehicle and the trailer. It bolts on there. The hinge is integral to the rear part of the front vehicle as explained above and clearly marked in the image.

Thirdly, just in case you or someone else jumps to "well how do the trailer wheels point in the right direction then if it can't move left or right" (and then some insult, like "You noddy!").

Listen up fool, it has got "steerable" trailer wheels, which follow the front wheels but in the opposite rotation of the clock, OK?

You do realise that the only possible way to have "steerable" trailer wheels would be a hard linkage between APC and trailer, and that unless you route it through the interior of those bodies (which will take up valuable space), your linkage would be extremely vulnerable to rough terrain?

[/QUOTE]

Yes, you're definitely a noddy. As a former soldier, I'd have stabbed myself with my L1A3 rather than travel in such a clusterfuck. Even a Humber Pig seems a safer proposition in comparison.

 

[ViolentPanda]

View attachment 11443

Bloody hell, is there enough low-hanging clutter underneath that piece of shite?

 

[Fruitloop]

I think those CCTV cameras with the massive guns were Tony Blair's idea actually. Kind of a super-super-ASBO.

 

[Crispy]

Also, wtf are the telescopic axles for?

 

[Peter Dow]

You haven't explained anything to me, imbecile. That's the first post of mine you've replied to.

Well I wonder why?

Have you ever been in an APC and deployed from one, Peter? They already have independent suspension,

You don't say.

and your addition of a trailer close-hitched to the rear, even if it had it's own independent suspension, would need to articulate, otherwise, unless it steers through every set of wheels, it won't turn worth a damn, and the APC and whoever is benighted enough to be travelling in it will be open targets.

I anticipated you were going to make that point so I have already answered it by posting a steering diagram showing the paths in the ground followed by the wheels.

The HUMPBAC steers beautifully, even better than the US military's Gamma Goat, a six wheeled vehicle which although it had trailer wheels which steered did not, I am told, have the benefit of a horizontal hinge and therefore was less predictable in its steering behaviour.

The HUMPBAC trailer is solidly, rigidly bolted to the front vehicle, as firmly as an engine cylinder head is bolted to a engine block, only with much bigger bolts, to the rear of the front vehicle, all along around the rim.

It is the hinged rear of the front vehicle itself which is hinged and the trailer is therefore hinged because it is rigidly attached to the part of the front vehicle, "the hinged rear" which is hinged.

Imagine if you had super-glued your own arse to a toilet seat. OK, you would be quite rigidly attached to the toilet seat, maybe not quite as rigidly as the trailer is to the vehicle, but as firmly as your arse was glued, you would still be hinged because the toilet seat itself was hinged, and you could bounce up and down, slamming the toilet seat up and down, but remaining firmly glued to the toilet seat. Get the picture?

So the trailer is hinged vertically by virtue of being rigidly attached to a hinged part of the front vehicle.

If it did not have at least a horizontal hinge allowing vertical rotation or bending and was simply a long rigid vehicle with 3 widely spaced axles, it would end up stranding one of the axles in the air on anything but a flat surface.

So the articulation is vertical to keep all 3 axles on the ground.

Got it?

You do realise that the only possible way to have "steerable" trailer wheels would be a hard linkage between APC and trailer, and that unless you route it through the interior of those bodies (which will take up valuable space), your linkage would be extremely vulnerable to rough terrain?

Thanks for the tip.

Yes, you're definitely a noddy. As a former soldier, I'd have stabbed myself with my L1A3 rather than travel in such a clusterfuck. Even a Humber Pig seems a safer proposition in comparison.

Apart from the fact that it could be driven onto an IED because someone hasn't previously secured the route, or terrorists are intent on ambushing it, or the driver might roll it down a hill, which could happen to any APC, the HUMPBAC is perfectly safe.

The Humber Pig looks to have no mine protection to speak of. Therefore it would not be safer than the HUMPBAC.

 

[Crispy]

Why not just have a high clearance with independent suspension of all six wheels, so one half of the vehicle doesn't have to be tilted when traversing an obstacle? And again, WTF are the telescoping axles for?

 

[Peter Dow]

Bloody hell, is there enough low-hanging clutter underneath that piece of shite?

Ground clearance complaint is a fair point. I created the image photoshopping from an image of an Iraq-era MRAP APC road vehicle. So it looks to have the ground clearance that vehicle has.

I would like the HUMPBAC's manufacturer's design engineers to design in a respectable ground clearance suitable an off-road vehicle; that and bigger tyres.

This is just a design concept, showing main features but poor ground clearance is not a feature I am advertising.

 

[Peter Dow]

Also, wtf are the telescopic axles for?

The telescopic rear (or middle) axle are to allow the driver to change the width between the rear (or middle) wheels to suit driving conditions.

• Wider to increase lateral stability to prevent roll-overs on poor quality rural roads, or off road.
• Narrower to squeeze between gaps in the road, between traffic, narrow bridges, whatever.

 

[Peter Dow]

Why not just have a high clearance with independent suspension of all six wheels, so one half of the vehicle doesn't have to be tilted when traversing an obstacle? And again, WTF are the telescoping axles for?

Are you talking about the hinge?

It is not so much obstacles but simple rises and dips in the path. I don't know, sand dunes or something - an undulating path on a loose surface where you need all 6 wheels for stability and grip but it is not flat enough for a straight long vehicle and you need it to bend in the middle.

This guy is OK the way he is going but supposing he had to go up those embankments in a long stiff vehicle with 3 axles. He might end up with only 2 axles on the ground. So you need it to bend in the middle.

If you go for super high ground clearance, like the Alaska Road Train, then you need super width as well, to stop it rolling over. Then it is too wide for the roads.

 

[Lemon Eddy]

I don't think enough praise has been given to Bee's design. I really liked the stabiliser wheels.

 

[mauvais]

Have you considered calling it the 'Gunshine Coach'?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I don't think enough praise has been given to Bee's design. I really liked the stabiliser wheels.

 

[Pingu]

 

[Pingu]

just out of interest what would this offer over the mastiff2?

 

[Crispy]

The telescopic rear (or middle) axle are to allow the driver to change the width between the rear (or middle) wheels to suit driving conditions.

• Wider to increase lateral stability to prevent roll-overs on poor quality rural roads, or off road.
• Narrower to squeeze between gaps in the road, between traffic, narrow bridges, whatever.

And if, when in e axle extended mode, one or both of them are damaged, the whole thing sags in the middle and can't go anywhere. Independent articulation of each wheel is redundant and safer.

 

[Addy]

Replace Hinge with Articulated.

Designed what?? Lol

I worked on Alvis ATV's 20 odd yrs ago, and what we produced back then ( as a body in white 16 Wheel Drive, All Terrain W.A) was 20x better than your illustration, before the armour and artillary was attached.
Since then I have worked on Challenger tanks, P90 Robots and P12 Backhoe Loader projects.
Such info as you are showing would never be shown on an internet forum, I have had to get Military clearance for my involvement with such projects as stated above, but project numbers are all I would reveal without breaching my confidence.

 

[Lemon Eddy]

I was so inspired by this thread that last night I designed AND built this prototype:

 

[kyser_soze]

Peter's Battlefield Delivery System:

 

[Pingu]

yeah


well i am currently prototyping this bad baby...

will pis all over the eurofighter

and have this in production on my moonbase

 

[extra dry]

getting this built for the MOD as we speak...

 

[Peter Dow]

just out of interest what would this offer over the mastiff2?

Well start here.

Mastiff 2 ban: British soldiers told not to go faster than 30mph in Afghanistan bomb-proof vehicle- in case it rolls over
- Exclusive. By Rupert Hamer 16/08/2009

Drivers of a bomb-proof vehicle used to carry British soldiers in Afghanistan have been banned from going faster than 30mph - in case it rolls over.

The heavily armoured £400,000 Mastiff 2 is the only vehicle immune to roadside bombs, so it is hugely popular with the 9,000 troops.

Not a single soldier has been killed in a Mastiff 2 by blasts that have claimed 96 lives in Afghanistan so far. But its armour makes it capable of rolling over. A military source explained: "The Mastiff 2 has got so much more armour it has become top heavy. That means it is at real risk of 'rolling', with the potential for killing or seriously injuring those inside.

"Driving it above 30mph puts it at greater risk of that, so they put the limit on." But the restriction means troops will be more vulnerable since the vehicle - capable of reaching 60mph - can only trundle away from an ambush.

The roll over problem is what started me designing replacements for MRAP-type APCs such as the Mastiff some 2 weeks ago.

The concept of the telescopic rear (or middle) axle offers greatly enhanced dynamic stability for either cornering at speed or static stability on left-right slopes such as off road.

The front vehicle of the HUMPBAC would be about the same size as the Mastiff but the HUMPBAC including its trailer it is bigger, up to 18 passengers in total when you add the armoured passenger trailer or you could have specialist trailer units which you could swap for specialist functions -

• armoured medical and surgical trailers,
• armoured fuel carrier trailers,
• armoured ammunition carrier trailers

HUMPBAC can rotate on the spot which Mastiff can't do.

HUMPBAC has the roof-mounted remote weapons which could I suppose be retrofitted to Mastiff as they can be to any APC.

Also Mastiff is a fixed product in the here in now. HUMPBAC only exists on the drawing board so I can make improvements to it any time I like!

 

[fractionMan]

You should be concentrating on giant mechwarriors with laser eyes, not this crap.

In kilts.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well I wonder why?




You don't say.



I anticipated you were going to make that point so I have already answered it by posting a steering diagram showing the paths in the ground followed by the wheels.

Yes, I noticed.
Did you factor in deviation in the turning circle caused by traversing uneven terrain?
I ask, because you mat not have noticed that terrain has a significant effect, even if suspension is fully independent.

The HUMPBAC steers beautifully, even better than the US military's Gamma Goat, a six wheeled vehicle which although it had trailer wheels which steered did not, I am told, have the benefit of a horizontal hinge and therefore was less predictable in its steering behaviour.

The HUMPBAC trailer is solidly, rigidly bolted to the front vehicle, as firmly as an engine cylinder head is bolted to a engine block, only with much bigger bolts, to the rear of the front vehicle, all along around the rim.

It is the hinged rear of the front vehicle itself which is hinged and the trailer is therefore hinged because it is rigidly attached to the part of the front vehicle, "the hinged rear" which is hinged.

Imagine if you had super-glued your own arse to a toilet seat. OK, you would be quite rigidly attached to the toilet seat, maybe not quite as rigidly as the trailer is to the vehicle, but as firmly as your arse was glued, you would still be hinged because the toilet seat itself was hinged, and you could bounce up and down, slamming the toilet seat up and down, but remaining firmly glued to the toilet seat. Get the picture?

So the trailer is hinged vertically by virtue of being rigidly attached to a hinged part of the front vehicle.

Which means that you'll have articulation through a single plane, whether you're a human on a loo seat or a vehicle. The problem with this is that if you encounter conditions that aren't amenable to your plane of articulation, you'll be screwed.
Imagine an artillery piece articulated to a vehicle in a similar fashion. Now imagine traversing a steep hill followed by a v-type gulley. See the problem?

If it did not have at least a horizontal hinge allowing vertical rotation or bending and was simply a long rigid vehicle with 3 widely spaced axles, it would end up stranding one of the axles in the air on anything but a flat surface.

So the articulation is vertical to keep all 3 axles on the ground.

Got it?

Probably a lot more solidly than you.

Thanks for the tip.




Apart from the fact that it could be driven onto an IED because someone hasn't previously secured the route, or terrorists are intent on ambushing it, or the driver might roll it down a hill, which could happen to any APC, the HUMPBAC is perfectly safe.

Nothing is "perfectly safe", even supposedly idiot-proof tech.

The Humber Pig looks to have no mine protection to speak of. Therefore it would not be safer than the HUMPBAC.

For it's time they were efficient against the threats they were deployed against.
BTW, mine protection is a trade-off. You have to balance prevention of penetration with diffusion of blast. If you don't diffuse the blast enough, there doesn't need to be penetration to cause nasty concussion effects inside the vehicle.