±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: TylerK93
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6591

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 102
Total: 102
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Photo Gallery
02: Community Forums
03: Community Forums
04: Community Forums
05: Community Forums
06: Photo Gallery
07: Photo Gallery
08: Community Forums
09: Photo Gallery
10: Community Forums
11: Community Forums
12: Community Forums
13: Photo Gallery
14: Community Forums
15: Photo Gallery
16: Community Forums
17: Photo Gallery
18: Photo Gallery
19: Community Forums
20: Community Forums
21: Photo Gallery
22: Community Forums
23: Community Forums
24: Community Forums
25: Photo Gallery
26: Community Forums
27: Home
28: Community Forums
29: Community Forums
30: Photo Gallery
31: Photo Gallery
32: Community Forums
33: Photo Gallery
34: Community Forums
35: Com-Central Videos
36: Community Forums
37: Home
38: Community Forums
39: Community Forums
40: Community Forums
41: Photo Gallery
42: Community Forums
43: Community Forums
44: Community Forums
45: Community Forums
46: Photo Gallery
47: Community Forums
48: Community Forums
49: Photo Gallery
50: Community Forums
51: Photo Gallery
52: Community Forums
53: Community Forums
54: Community Forums
55: Community Forums
56: Photo Gallery
57: Photo Gallery
58: Home
59: Community Forums
60: Community Forums
61: Community Forums
62: Photo Gallery
63: Community Forums
64: Community Forums
65: Community Forums
66: Photo Gallery
67: Photo Gallery
68: Community Forums
69: Home
70: Community Forums
71: Photo Gallery
72: Photo Gallery
73: Community Forums
74: Your Account
75: Photo Gallery
76: Community Forums
77: Photo Gallery
78: Community Forums
79: Photo Gallery
80: Photo Gallery
81: Photo Gallery
82: Photo Gallery
83: Community Forums
84: Community Forums
85: Community Forums
86: Photo Gallery
87: Community Forums
88: Community Forums
89: Photo Gallery
90: Community Forums
91: Photo Gallery
92: Community Forums
93: Community Forums
94: Community Forums
95: Photo Gallery
96: Home
97: Photo Gallery
98: Downloads
99: Community Forums
100: Community Forums
101: Community Forums
102: Home

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
M104 Wolverine at Ft Hood...
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SFC_Jeff_Button
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 1311
Location: Ft Hood, TX
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:51 pm
Post subject: M104 Wolverine at Ft Hood...

I dont just post rare old armor, I post rare "new" armor as well! Per the article below, there are only 44 of these in the U.S. inventory. There were these 6 in the 36th ENG BDE, 4th ID motor pool and 6 more in a motorpool next door. When I was here in 2000 with 3-66th Armor, 4th ID, civilians brought one to our motor pool as a "demo" and it was pretty neat. Now they are actually stationed here. I haven't seen any in the 1st Cav area motor pools but I'd bet they have some too. I was in this motor pool to photograph an M4A3 that I cant seem to find a serial number for. I purchased some sandpaper this afternoon however and that serial wont be hidden long! Below is some info on the Wolverine.

The M104 Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge is an armored combat engineering vehicle designed to provide deployable bridge capability for units engaged in military operations.

For over a quarter of a century the US Army has made use of armored bridgelaying vehicles based on the M60/M48 Patton series of tanks. In recent years, however, the Army discovered that the aging M60 AVLB (Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge) was too slow to keep up with the M1 Abrams during field maneuvers. Additionally, the M1 was so heavy that it could safely cross the AVLB's bridge only at a very slow speed.

Program development for a new armored bridgelaying vehicle began in 1983, and by 1994 General Dynamics Land Systems had been awarded a contract. The first prototype vehicles were being tested by 1996, and the first production models were delivered to the Army by 2003.

Because the Wolverine is essentially an M1A2 SEP tank with bridgelaying gear instead of a turret it shares virtually all of the parent vehicle's speed, mobility, survivability, and automotive components. This commonality was a key design factor in the Wolverine's development. The Wolverine also features an advanced communication package designed to keep it in contact with local field commanders. However, the vehicle itself is completely unarmed.

The Wolverine is operated by two crewmen who sit within the hull. Both crewmen have access to the bridging controls, while the bridge itself is carried in two sections above the hull. Once a bridging site is chosen the vehicle securely anchors itself in place with a spade. The two sections of the bridge are joined together, and then the entire bridge is extended across the obstacle and dropped into place. During launch the crewmen have the ability to make minor corrections if needed. Once operations are complete the Wolverine drives across the bridge and retrieves it from the other side simply by reversing the process. The bridge can be launched in under 5 minutes or retrieved in less than 10, all without the crewmen ever leaving the safety of their vehicle.

Once launched, the 26 meter bridge can support a 70 ton vehicle moving at 16 km/h. The Wolverine allows even the heaviest of vehicles to cross craters, ditches, and even partially damaged bridges at combat speed. This mobility is a decisive advantage for armored units.

To date the U.S. Army has received 44 Wolverines, which have been distributed to a few select engineer units. The Army had originally intended to purchase 465 vehicles, however budget cuts and the recent shift in philosophy toward a lighter fighting force have cast the future of the Wolverine program in doubt. Currently the Army does not plan to purchase any more Wolverines, but it has reserved the right to restart production in the future if necessary.

_________________
SFC Jeff Button "High Angle Hell"
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Photo Gallery
Maple_Leaf_Eh
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 517

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 7:50 pm
Post subject: Re: M104 Wolverine at Ft Hood...

"The M104 Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge is an armored combat engineering vehicle designed to provide deployable bridge capability for units engaged in military operations.
...
However, the vehicle itself is completely unarmed."

Yikes!! That's got to change. If this is such a rare bird, the opposing forces are going to know it too. Their troops will do what they can to harass or attack it. Even a .50 in a protected remote controlled weapons pod would be an improvement over nothing.
Back to top
View user's profile
SFC_Jeff_Button
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 1311
Location: Ft Hood, TX
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:54 pm
Post subject: Re: M104 Wolverine at Ft Hood...

I agree, I was surprised to see that it wasn't armed at all. Especially since its such a high-dollar vehicle. I wouldn't want to crew this.

_________________
SFC Jeff Button "High Angle Hell"
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Photo Gallery
JimWeb
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 1434
Location: The back of beyond
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:32 am
Post subject: Re: M104 Wolverine at Ft Hood...

Lets face it the M9 ACE is the same. I was amused to read in a combat report the following description of it 'one man, alone, unarmed'

Cool

_________________
TTFN
Jim

If your not a member of JED then your
not serious about anything military..

***********************
www.jedsite.info
JED Military Equipment
***********************
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website ICQ Number
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:57 am
Post subject: Re: M104 Wolverine at Ft Hood...

Hi Folks!

The proto-type M-48 AVLB had two cuplo mounted M2 50 cal machine guns. The production versions didn't have them. The M-60 AVLB were also unarmed.

That vehicle should never be sent out by its self. There should be more than enough firepower around it to ensure the crew only has to work on getting the bridge down in the right spot so over vehicles can cross ASAP.

Jeff, super thanks for this set of photos. I have hopes of some day trying to scratch build a Wolverine sense none of the model companies will most likly never do one.

It is my understand that in place of buying more Wolverines, the Army funded a program to upgrade the MLC 60 bridges on the M-48/60 AVLBs to a MLC of 70. Much cheaper to buy upgraded folding bridges than rebuild a M-1 into a Wolverine.

Spot Report!
Sgt, Scouts Out!

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 22, 2006
Posts: 2516
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:14 am
Post subject: Re: M104 Wolverine at Ft Hood...

- Roy_A_Lingle
Hi Folks!

It is my understand that in place of buying more Wolverines, the Army funded a program to upgrade the MLC 60 bridges on the M-48/60 AVLBs to a MLC of 70. Much cheaper to buy upgraded folding bridges than rebuild a M-1 into a Wolverine.

Spot Report!
Sgt, Scouts Out!


But you loose the advantage of commonality and have to continue stocking parts in the system for the older vehicles that you would not otherwise have to have.

I can see and advantage to modifying the older AVLBs in the short term but as there are extra M1 chassis in the inventory I would think that converting some to support vehicles such as AVLBs, recovery vehicles and engineering vehicles would make sense.

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 28, 2006
Posts: 2024
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:28 am
Post subject: Re: M104 Wolverine at Ft Hood...

But there is commonality with the old AVLB's, it's called the Hercules M88A2 and they have a very good track record. We also have plenty of M88A1's too. If you look closely at the M60 AVLB/AVLM systems they are now using M88 components when rebuilt. Much cheaper than converting old M1 hulls, Also cheaper to operate. BTW, the Wolverine uses the old M1 hull, just like the SEP's. One automotive difference is the the hydraulic pump is driven off the angle drive of the transmission and the generator was moved to the Auxillary Gear Box from what I saw in 98. What the Wolverine has is speed, but with the current fight we are in it's a moot point.

Joe D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:57 am
Post subject: Re: M104 Wolverine at Ft Hood...

Hi Bob! Hi Folks!

- bsmart

I can see and advantage to modifying the older AVLBs in the short term but as there are extra M1 chassis in the inventory I would think that converting some to support vehicles such as AVLBs, recovery vehicles and engineering vehicles would make sense.


I have to agree with that Bob. However the problem is a lack of funds. The Wolverine and the Grizzle are programs that were cut to free up funding for the Stryker FOVs and has yet to be restored.

It's like Joe D said, their are just not needed in the current fight. Look at the M1117 ASV. It was also one of those programs that was cut to free up funding for the Stryker FOVs. If's fund has been restored some because they are needed.

This is another one of those things where funding is the controlling factor and not common sense.
Sgt, Scouts out!

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 22, 2006
Posts: 2516
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:05 am
Post subject: Re: M104 Wolverine at Ft Hood...

- Roy_A_Lingle
Hi Bob! Hi Folks!

- bsmart

I can see and advantage to modifying the older AVLBs in the short term but as there are extra M1 chassis in the inventory I would think that converting some to support vehicles such as AVLBs, recovery vehicles and engineering vehicles would make sense.


I have to agree with that Bob. However the problem is a lack of funds. The Wolverine and the Grizzle are programs that were cut to free up funding for the Stryker FOVs and has yet to be restored.

It's like Joe D said, their are just not needed in the current fight. Look at the M1117 ASV. It was also one of those programs that was cut to free up funding for the Stryker FOVs. If's fund has been restored some because they are needed.

This is another one of those things where funding is the controlling factor and not common sense.
Sgt, Scouts out!


I think there is very little that is not controlled by short term funding issues.

I'm noticing a trend that we saw in the 60s where long term programs are being sacrificed to pay for growing operational costs while trying to stay within lower 'acceptable' budgets. Crying or Very sad I remember living in the aftermath of that on the flightline in the mid 70s with not enough parts because although they bought a new fighter ( the F-15) they scimped on the supporting kit to hold the cost of the program down.

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:19 am
Post subject: Re: M104 Wolverine at Ft Hood...

Hi Bob! Hi Folks!

- bsmart

I think there is very little that is not controlled by short term funding issues.

I'm noticing a trend that we saw in the 60s where long term programs are being sacrificed to pay for growing operational costs while trying to stay within lower 'acceptable' budgets. Crying or Very sad I remember living in the aftermath of that on the flightline in the mid 70s with not enough parts because although they bought a new fighter ( the F-15) they scimped on the supporting kit to hold the cost of the program down.


The 1970s! The last half was hard on all of DOD. I remember reading about new F-16s coming off the production line in Ft. Worth. The Air Force would install an engine, send the aircraft up for a test flight and then remove the engine so it could installed in the next aircraft. The Army was putting a lot of it's available funding into the new Abrams/Bradley vehicles and there was very little funds for very much of any thing else. God help the AFV Crewman who lost a tool needed to work on his vehicle because the supply room didn't have any funds to buy replacement tools.

Hell, costs and the need from funds for other programs is the only reason the Navy has retired the F-14 Tomcats. I have heard, but I have not confired it, that the S-3 Vikings have been or are being retired, or there is a plan to retire them for the same reason.

All this is an outstanding example of why the DOD doesn't always buy good things at the right time. Sad
Sgt, Scouts Out!

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 6 Hours



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum