AM General MTVR Prototype

[fuzzytoaster]

For those who haven't been following the 5TTR/M939 ESP thread, it is intertwined with the development of the MTVR concept. I felt there's enough merit to have a separate thread in order to keep information organized as more is discovered. 5TTR/M929 ESP Tread: https://www.steelsoldiers.com/threads/5-ton-esp-prototype-m939-5ttr.222411/

---------------------------------------------

We all know the outcome of the MTVR program and winner of the production contract (Oshkosh) but little is known about AM General's submission to the program. The "what could have been" and what actually still is. You can see the common traits, parts, and concepts that were incorporated to meet the program requirements. I have photos, info, and a quirky story to share from a primary source on AMG's side of the program.

 

[fuzzytoaster]

***Please note: All information below is listed as factual as possible but may be changed as new info is discovered.***​

AMG and Oshkosh have been rivals in the defense contract business for ages to no ones surprise. They were the "big two" that submitted multiple test trucks for the 5TTR and MTVR programs that the US Army and USMC joint ventured. All this is covered in the 5TTR thread in more detail so I'll refer you there and focus on the MTVR side from here.

When program requirements were published, both companies focused on building the "next generation of truck" which didn't exist by weight class. Obviously bigger than a 5 ton but smaller than a 10 ton (HEMTT). The Army and USMC were looking for cost effective alternatives due to the aging fleet of many generations of vehicles that was burdening the system. Both companies utilized existing parts inventory to reduce cost, logistics, and bureaucracy in order to get any advantage over their competitor. The claim of being "less expensive" was a big thing since new parts, concepts, and etc were necessary to design a new truck from scratch. There had to be enough "fat" for profit, skinny enough to be "digestible" by the DoD, still be just under their competitor's cost to make claims, AND still meet program requirements (not necessarily in that order).

The primary source on this project shared insight into the final standings at the end of the research project. It was concluded that AMG was projected at a higher price per truck vs Oshkosh. AMG had the better truck on paper (speculation - no info). AMG had better course and test results (speculation - bias, but good story). Oshkosh was more willing to negotiate on end pricing to obtain the contract (speculation - but this trend has been proven in the current FMTV rebuilt contract so plausible). End conclusion: AMG had the better truck but the DoD wanted it at a price point.

AMG was requested to meet DoD pricing demands to secure the contract. Supposedly the only way to reduce end cost was to make compromises on the vehicle and was declined. After continued DoD negotiation with AMG and Oshkosh, AMG withdrew their bid submission as Oshkosh continued to lower their bid. Once AMG was officially out, Oshkosh reinstated their initial higher bid for MTVR production being the only offer left on the table.

I don't have enough information or insight to know why the USMC accepted Oshkosh's contract but the Army declined and used the info to design the FMTV. That's a story for another time and a pot of coffee.

 

[fuzzytoaster]

I've located and acquired AMG's MTVR Truck #1. I've validated that this truck is indeed the one posted in the first post of this thread. I'm unaware of any others at this time. It's preserved and mostly intact due to the climate. I'll know finer details when it arrives at my motor pool.

You can quickly identify common M-series parts and components prominently the M939 cab, hood, fuel tanks, and mirrors. It has standard M-series headlight buckets, turn signals, 3 way light switch, and other parts. The engine is the Cat C12 just like we've come to know and the transmission is an Allison 4070 7 speed just the same as the Oshkosh unit. The bed is nearly identical to the produced unit with a few changes to the tailgate area, tail lights, and troop seat storage cover. The air filter assembly is standard to the MTVR but the exhaust is nicely shop made unit with what appears to be an M35A3 exhaust tip.

The suspension is a similar TAK-4 setup but Oshkosh owns the rights to the design so that begs the question of what it is exactly. The tires are 16.00r20s and rims look about the same abet the CTIS is non-stock production of course. The dash is the same plastic module that was installed on the 5TTR prototype listed in the other thread so there was some sort of a semblance of parts commonality over multiple families of trucks.. or at least so was the goal I presume. The battery boxes under the cab are identical to the 5TTR as well and very cool. The bumper is something to behold in itself. It looks like a counterweight but some engine photos show it's hollow and reinforced to protect the steering box which is in the same location as the M939 series trucks.

I'm unaware of this vehicle's history post project and how it ended up here. I'm still looking into that.

 

[HDN]

What an awesome find! You might have to build a museum of your MV prototypes at some point

 

[HDN]

AMG had the better truck on paper (speculation - no info). AMG has better course and test results (speculation - bias, but good story). Oshkosh was more willing to negotiate on end pricing to obtain the contract (speculation - but this trend has been proven in the current FMTV rebuilt contract so plausible). End conclusion: AMG had the better truck but the DoD wanted it at a price point.

This reminds me of the F-22 vs. the F-23. The F-23 was the better ATF offering, but the USAF was banking on Lockheed's reputation and success with the F-117.

AMG was requested to meet DoD pricing demands to secure the contract. Supposedly the only way to reduce end cost was to make compromises on the vehicle and was declined. After continued DoD negotiation with AMG and Oshkosh, AMG withdrew their bid submission as Oshkosh continued to lower their bid. Once AMG was officially out, Oshkosh reinstated their initial higher bid for MTVR production being the only offer left on the table.

Now that's pretty gamey

 

[swbradley1]

This reminds me of the F-22 vs. the F-23. The F-23 was the better ATF offering, but the USAF was banking on Lockheed's reputation and success with the F-117.

I don't know how many were made but I know a YF-23 is sitting about 10 miles from where I'm sitting.


Great find Fuzzy

 

[HDN]

I don't know how many were made but I know a YF-23 is sitting about 10 miles from where I'm sitting.


Great find Fuzzy

Only two YF-23 were built. I've seen the one you're talking about - what a beautiful plane

 

[NDT]

Nobody bought it cuz it’s too ugly

 

[fuzzytoaster]

Nobody bought it cuz it’s too ugly

There will be a "faceoff" for ugliest truck in the future. I know it gives the M35A3 a run for the money!

 

[fuzzytoaster]

What an awesome find! You might have to build a museum of your MV prototypes at some point

I hope to have the opportunity to do that. I've come into possession of some unique modern vehicles that people simply don't know exist. It makes me question what other oddities are out there as every production military vehicle had a prototype for testing or at least proof of concept.

 

[NDT]

Most prototypes get cut up by the manufacturers. My prototype HMWWV escaped this fate as some South Bend scrap yard didn’t follow instructions…. It didn’t pass an airdrop test however.

 

[US6x4]

The suspension is a similar TAK-4 setup but Oshkosh owns the rights to the design so that begs the question of what it is exactly.

Typically, doesn't the DoD own the "Technical Data Package" that is produced for a given contract and is free to have those designs manufactured by an entity of choice?

Did Oshkosh develop the TAK-4 suspension independent of a military contract?

 

[aw113sgte]

Typically, doesn't the DoD own the "Technical Data Package" that is produced for a given contract and is free to have those designs manufactured by an entity of choice?

Did Oshkosh develop the TAK-4 suspension independent of a military contract?

Is tak4 even Oshkosh or one of their subcontractors....dana, spicer, Eaton, etc. seems everything has a Oshkosh PN regardless of the manufacturer.

 

[fuzzytoaster]

Did Oshkosh develop the TAK-4 suspension independent of a military contract?

I've discussed this with a contact I know who's under the Oshkosh family umbrella. He did say the TAK-4 was their design and Pierce uses it frequently in Fire Truck applications. I wonder if the TAK-4 was a requirement for the MTVR platform so they were able/forced to use it? I mean.. they both used the Cat C12, Allison Transmission, and etc so it's not far fetched to assume they wanted comparable trucks on major components.

 

[biscuitwhistler37]

Oshkosh TAK-4 Independent Suspension System - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

According to this, TAK4 is a joint effort product of Oshkosh, Rockwell, and Timony Technologies of Ireland.

The article is a good read

 

[fuzzytoaster]

Story #1:

I was told a story related to this truck during the road test phase of the evaluation. The truck had a 200-ish mile preplanned route in Michigan that it had to complete under max GVWR while carrying three occupants: Driver (AMG employee), Army Evaluator, and 3rd Party Observer. Both of the non-AMG persons would be rotated out per completed trip as good testing would demand.

The driver had the route pre-approved. During the the later part of the first trip, the truck make a "weird sound" and the driver requested a stop for inspection. It would just so happen that the closest parking lot available was at a Hooters. They parked out front and decided on lunch while the truck cooled off. A corner booth was specifically chosen to have the vehicle remain in sight of the observers during their lunch. After their meal, they mounted back up and when the driver put the truck into reverse.. nothing happened.

Pure terror overcame him but he had to maintain his composure in front of the observers. He worked the parking brake and put the truck into low range then applied throttle. The truck jolted but backed up as it should. He shifted back into high range then got on the road to finish the route before this something happened again. The truck passed the mechanical inspection upon return - no faults found.

The following day the truck began its route and would just so happen to have a weird noise happen again. Oh man! It must be something that happens at specifically 165.2 miles exactly!! (I'm making this number up of course ). The truck comes rolling into the parking lot like it did the day before and they are greeted by the Hooter's Manager. The driver took him to the side and asked what the problem is and it went something like this...

Manager: "Sir. I'll have to ask you to park around back."
Driver: "We can't. The truck must remain in our sight at all times."
Manager: "I can't let you park here. We have a camera out back for our deliveries. It will be safe."
Driver: "That wont work. It has to be our direct sight at all times."
Manager: "You can't park out front after the last time."

Again, terror.

Driver: "What do you mean last time?"

The truck had previously sank in the asphalt parking lot leaving 6 perfect impressions of the tire treads. There was nothing wrong with the truck when they were trying to leave. It simply sank due to the loaded weight and couldn't climb out in high range. It was at this point it occurred to him that this discovery would A) blow his cover story about the weird noise B) show they were here before C) damages to property & contract potential.

The driver asked the manager to give him a moment and made a call to his higher ups to explain the situation. The solution was presented and agreed upon. The group would be allowed to have lunch that day and a following 3rd trip. Hooters would receive a new parking lot.