Hello Dave,

I think the purpose of the vehicle is sound and when used in conjuction with current tactical defensive driving procedures will be very effective in detering an attack against someone.

I belive that this vehicle would not be prudent as it's based on a common sport utility vehcile base. It's frame, engin and basic layout all coincide with trying to be "under the radar" so to speak.

The idea of the mini gun is a nice touch but it's not practical if a group finds themselves in a drawn out fire fight. There's lots of rounds going down range but those rounds are going fast and will run out soon.

The current use of military vehciles today serve their purpose well and will continue to be adapted to the urban warfare modle. They have the armour, fire power, radio communications and properly trained military personel operating the vehicle.

No matter how well paid someone is you can not compete with a properly trained and motivated PROFESSIONAL solider.

Thanks for your time,

Arcticnull

[edit on 11/6/0707 by Arcticnull]

I see one major problem with it. Flat bottom w/ a SUV frame.. that means it's cannonfodder so to speak for an IED or mine. The Blackwater (I know, I hate them too..) Grizzly is a much better design.
That being said the minigun is nice if you have the room for ammo, I guess. But ammo has weight, so if you take too much, you can't pull off those fancy maneuvers.

Good day Mostly Harmless,

You bring up some very vaild information about IED's and their use against vehicles.

I would like to add something to this post about that topic. When looking at urban combat or movement where this vehicle might be employed the use of IED's is ever present. One thing that you should consider is that this type of vehicle would be on your typical hardstand in more than likely a well groomed pavement or concreted area. That does NOT mean to say that IED's can't be planted as directional mines from the side of the vehicle or in a top down fashion.

I would assume that this vehicle is well armoured and has a hard shell under carriage which would absorbe most of the shock of the explosion of most IED's if they were used in a hard stand urban setting. Granted it would more than likely disable the vehicle and prevent it from moving on to it's destination; that is where the mini gun comes into play if the vehicle is ambused by a force and the gun used to remove that that force from the area.

Unless I was given a direct order to take that vehilce off the hardstand I would refuse to operate in a soft setting.

That's just my two cents on the IED issue.

As for the mine issue, well that's a different story.

Considering that most mines are used in a stacked setting this vehicle would be instant recycle material.

Thank you all for your time,

Arcticnull

I've seen this video before. But in the description for it back then, I think it said these trucks are part of the president's motorcade.

What every vehicle need for better IED survivability is thick V hulls. that way the blast is directed out and away from the crew, instead of being absorbed by a flat bottom.

Now that's a machine gun! I don't see that configuration useful in a combat situation, though. If you put it on an APC and ran the gun from inside, then Wow! The shooter is so exposed in the GMC that a brave shot back could take him out. If it had the element of surprise it would be awesome, but once the enemy knows what it is, I'm not so sure.

*sigh*

The v-hull is indeed a "better" option than a flat bottomed undercarriage. . .

But what if the IED charges were angled as well, so that they hit those angled sides at a 90 degree angle? This would negate any advantage the design would have.

Besides, windows are never as strong as the armor, hit one spot on with an RPG and watch people die en mass. . .

Someone told me that Blackwater was using this in Iraq but I can't confirm. Anyone know?

Dave