This looks solid for FSSG/Logistics types but I am skeptical about its front line capacity. 18 troops is not a lot for a vehicle of that size, and todays mantra seems to be speed, flexibility and mobility over security. Those trucks are slow movers, and stuffing a bunch of guys in an uparmored 5-ton still has its advantages over a battlebox.

I could see these serving in good use on the LCACs. I have many disturbing memories of being stuffed into Connex boxes on the deck of an LCAC with no ventilation in 120 degree outside temps (meaning close to 140 inside) and having to plug marines with IV's in the dark.

Also, you're links are not working.

"18 troops is not a lot for a vehicle of that size"

Compare to other options:

AAV7 "Amtracs": Realistically, 17 Marines
Future EFV: 17 Marines
M2 Bradley: 6-7 soldiers
M1126 Stryker ICV: 9 soldiers
Cougar mine-resistant vehicle: 6 soldiers

Not bad, and they're getting that protection in a flexible platform that's easy to ship and turns the heavy truck fleet into a potential force multiplier. Future versions will include medical facilities, leveraging EADS' Transhospital experience to turn any heavy truck into a hardened mobile surgical unit that can reach people during the "golden hour" of trauma. The benefits of taking this approach begin to stack rather quickly.

And yes, you could cram people into the backs of MTVR or FMTV medium trucks... but the cargo area is NOT protected. Which may explain why that isn't being done very often.

"todays mantra seems to be speed, flexibility and mobility over security"

A mantra that is changing throughout the West as people come home in body bags, and the full meaning of "non linear battlefield" begins to sink in.

Going forward, all vehicles designed to carry personnel are going to have to be protected vehicles, since no safe "rear area behind the front" exists. You'll see that in the Hummer replacement, as we're seeing it in emergency orders all around NATO for vehicles like Dingos, Bushmasters, RG-31s, Cougars, et. al.

Of course, the Battle Box scenarios envisioned in the above link go way beyond what EADS is doing, and see containers as permanent living facilities among other things (a role they're already playing in some places). The containerized concept is much larger than MuConPers....

I have many disturbing memories of being stuffed into Connex boxes on the deck of an LCAC with no ventilation in 120 degree outside temps (meaning close to 140 inside) and having to plug marines with IV's in the dark.

Air conditioning may be the one key element missing from EADS Transprotec as currently fielded. I suspect this will become clearer in Afghanistan.

Also, you're links are not working.

Hmm, they work for me. Anyone else having problems?

Hmmm . . . immobilize vehicle; boil contents of box. With more patience . . . plug the toilet drain and the air vents; jam the communications. They'll have to come out at some stage or other. What am I missing?

Valid points Joe, but I tend to see that vehicle as single purpose troop transport,mobile box and not something that will take troops into the battlefield. In urban areas, that box becomes a mega target. RPG7's are just the tip of the iceberg for whats on the horizon and since its been demonstrated that they can defeat our M1's how long will it be before one of these lumbering behemoths is taken out.

I like the idea of the BattleBox as a portable staging area/command post, but their usage as troop transport doesn't strike me as particularly smart. The weight alone of the trucks that will be carrying these boxes provides a host of troublesome factors, not to mention their limited maneuverability.

Hjalmer,

That's a problem with all existing vehicles: not seige resistant.

But get real: these are fighters in that box. Immobilize the vehicle, and they'll come out, all right. Not that you'd want them to.

"What am I missing?"

That fact that there are humans in them who will employ them to best advantage, travel in groups, and will not simply sit around inside for whatever you think up. Also, the fact that many of your 'options' would require extreme amounts of effort.

Ultimately, the question is, as with all military things, effective and efficient compared to what alternatives? This question applies reflexively to a Transportec, or Battle Box, et. al. as well.

A man I knew and died a few years ago was an officer with the Italian Army in Russia during WWII. Already then, the told me the motto was "An immobile tank is a dead tank".

The non-linearity of future battlefields will have to be tackled in some way. The TransProtec is no magic bullet (or armor), but it goes in that direction.

Gabriel (#4),

An RPG-7 cannot defeat an M1 Abrams.... indeed, there are numerous reports of RPGs bouncing off their hulls. You need a powerful dual-stage warhead AT-13 Metis or AT-14 Kornet to have a shot at an M1. Or a very large amount of explosive detonated under the hull.

Agree that a Transprotec is not meant as an urban combat patrol vehicle; for that, you want an RG-31, Cougar, Rock, et. al. It seems well suited to traversing long road routes in greater safety, however, when deploying people forward or back between staging areas. This is a common task, and one that creates problems. Afghanistan is an excellent example. Leveraging the existing military truck infrastructure is a useful step in such places, and the shippable container is a plus for getting there quickly. The modularity then becomes a bigger plus as more modules become available.

With a medical container attachment, you do get something that can move around to locations near combat areas. One US Navy medic earned a decoration in Fallujah by doing this using soft-skinned trucks, and setting up shop in a semi-wrecked building. Would a mobile TransHospital alternative be better or worse? I suspect the answer is better, on a number of levels.

Now, when we get to mobile, hardened housing containers, towable by military vehicles like APCs, that can be emplaced quickly, partially dug in, and surrounded by hollow blast walls filled with dirt from on site that will take an explosion... and you have something interesting. Something better than the tents currently in use, and potentially better than the plywood checkpoints currently in use in places like Iraq.

Something that also doesn't create the same double infrastructure burden because troops live and train as they'll fight, then ship themselves to the combat zone in their base housing. Which can be arranged in formations that create the effect of an instant fort, a la the Romans.

There's a British commander in southern Iraq who got tired of being shelled in his fixed base every night and went mobile. It has had a positive effect in the southern provinces because he's always moving around and seeing people, and attacks on his forces have dropped sharply because finding him is hard and planning time for an attack is very low. Now throw something like a containerized, mobile living infrastucture into this mix so the nightly camps are hardened/ fortified and even less vulnerable to attack.

There's a lot to like about that concept, and the tools that can enable it. Tools that largely substitute for portions of the military infrastructure budget whose current contribution to combat power or disaster relief capabilities is near zero.

Joe,

I remember reading a story of an RPG that blasted a clean hole through the side armor of an MA1 tank. I can't remember whether it was an RPG-7 or 29 offhand, tho.

Another good aspect of the containerize system is that moving containers around quickly an effectively is a very well developed art now. Thinking about it, a simple shipping container filled with dirt would make a formidable barrier. Cheap to erect, and it can be emptied and transported elsewhere.

The RPG-29 is a dual-warhead design, so it's at least possible. Would be interested in that report if you can dig it up.

With respect to dirt-filled barriers, containers would be excellent in this role. The thing is, light metal or plastic frameworks that weigh less and cost less to transport into place are better because they do a very similar job (dirt-filled stuff of any size is very heavy) and are easier to get into position.

Of course, a Battle Box living container with fold-out bunks that come down from the sides can be used to ship materials (like collapsed metal and plastic frameworks) on the way in, then be unloaded to create the vehicle & blast barrier perimiter/ protection (just add dirt) and convert to living quarters.

The Leggo-like idea of the battle box seems Soviet-style in the best sense, and with no air-conditioning also in the worst sense. In principle, I'm all for it.

Nevertheless, I can't help asking...

Gabriel: "todays mantra seems to be speed, flexibility and mobility over security"

Joe Katzman: "A mantra that is changing throughout the West as people come home in body bags, and the full meaning of "non linear battlefield" begins to sink in.

Going forward, all vehicles designed to carry personnel are going to have to be protected vehicles, since no safe "rear area behind the front" exists."

What kind of non-linearity are you talking about here? The kind that accompanies truly dynamic operations hasn't sent body bags trickling home for years. It was seen briefly in the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Non-linearity in the sense that we have no successful doctrine to counter unconventional war fighting approaches including and not limited to modern jihad - yes that has cost us a stream of casualties - in return for poor results. It's non-linear in the sense that a knife dropped in acid is in a non-linear conflict. The ideal would be to restore linearity and get back to using the knife as it was meant to be used, not to bake it into a brick and thus let it last longer in a corrosive environment.

I am all for force protection, so armoring everything is good.

Nevertheless, anything suggestive of adjusting the army to better fight a losing kind of war, one where the enemy calls the tune, does send up a mental red flag.

Our current enemies, with their jihadist doctrine, would have not the slightest difficulty in imposing good non-linearity or a useful (to them) linearity if they had the technical edge that we had.

That we lose, or at least fail to win consistently, with what would be an easy winning hand if the enemy was playing it, sits awkwardly with me.

Joe:

I had an email conversation with an Army Times reporter who covered the early stages of the war where the first Abrams M1's were taken out, and he confirmed to me that it was not a Kornet but an RPG7 that had taken out one of our M1's.

I distinctly remember being astonished as I was under the impression that the RPG7 didn't have that kind of penetration and thats why I contacted the reporter in the first place. To the best of my knowledge though, this was a modified RPG-7 and its penetration downed the tank, and slightly injured the crew.

And David:

We have a doctrine for "unconventional" conflict, the problem is we are not allowed to follow it. If this adminsitration really wanted to win the war, we wouldn't be restricting our forces so much, and in essence, tying their hands behind their backs.

At the end of 2006 (to 31 January 2007) Krauss-Maffei took place the assumption of the military technology section of Blohm + Voss Industries (BVI).