Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/14/2005 5:48:55 AM EDT
What is up lately with all the people complaining about armor and our troops? I mean we have the best equipment any infantry has ever used. Yet the more we get, the more people complain.

Considering that we replaced these.....



with these......



And also considering that we replaced these.........



with these.........



And last but not least, we replaced this.....



with this.........



....I don't see what all the complaints are about. Our troops today have the best battlefield protection they've ever had. The HUMVEE offers much more protection than a Jeep, the Interceptor stops bullets whereas the flak jacket of 10-15 years ago did not and the PASGT helmet offers greater protection that the old M1 steel pot.

Yet we sent our guys into battle in Jeeps, flak jackets and M1 helmets for years. So why is armor only an issue now that we've actually got decent armor? Why was there no complaints in 60's, 70's or 80's when we were using junk compared to what we have now?
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 5:54:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 5:54:39 AM EDT
Because the Left is desperate to use any and all negative aspects of the war to further their agenda of putting Hitlery in office in 2008, even if it means outright lying about some perceived deficiency in our armor.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 5:54:45 AM EDT
I made ALL of those transitions!


body armor... biggest threat is an IED... and there is not much that'll save you when a 155mm(~) goes off under your vehicle.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 5:55:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By C-4:
Because the Left is desperate to use any and all negative aspects of the war to further their agenda of putting Hitlery in office in 2008, even if it means outright lying about some perceived deficiency in our armor.


+1!!!
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:03:39 AM EDT
Assholes reporting the news?
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:04:48 AM EDT
Just another bust on Bush campaign.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:11:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 6:13:14 AM EDT by usmctopgun]
Charging_Handle, to pose a question like this, you obviously do not have a clue as to the kind of war we a involved in right now. Until you gather some more facts, STFU.

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:13:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 6:18:00 AM EDT by garr]
Due to the danger of IEDs We also should be using
instead of But that is just one opinion.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:14:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By usmctopgun:
Charging_Handle, to pose a question like this, you obviously do not have a clue as to the kind of war we a involved in right now. Until you gather some more facts, STFU.




UH-OH
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:14:28 AM EDT
The simple reason is that the post-Viet Nam public paid almost no attention to our military and there wern't any wars to speak of during that time frame. I was on active duty during the 80's and we were pretty much ignored by the public and more importantly, the media. It was only in the early 90's and GW1 that the media had a story to report and all the new toys were rolled out. Also you have to take into account that the American public doesn't handle it's sons and daughters coming home through Dover AFB in caskets very well. During Viet Nam, the CBS evening news would scroll through the list of the dozens of kia's while now it's a huge loss, rightfully so, when a few soldiers/marines are killed. We, as a society, are much more in tune with the events in the Middle East and the media is bringing right into our lives in real time. We also have a much thinner skin than at any time in our history. The year that I spent in the Middle East, when it kicked off in 2002-2003, was completely different than the 5 years that I spent floating off the coast of Iran waiting for a mission that never happened.

You also have to realize that we haven't always sent our forces to war with the best tools to do the job. In WW2 we fielded the Sherman tank, not even close to the German tanks but we had lots of them and we could afford to trade 3-1 with the Germans. That also meant trading 3-1 in tank crews. We sent Marines into battle with the Reising machine gun. A weapon thrown into the field without adequete development and marines would dump it and soon as possible and pick up anything else that was available. We sent our green troops and reservists into Korea with old, used equiptment and we took our loses because of it.

So sending troops into combat without all the right tools to do the job is nothing new. The biggest difference now is that tha American public knows it due to the media coverage.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:19:20 AM EDT
The media doesn't really know much or understand the military.

Hell, think to situations you were directly involved with that got media coverage, and you saw the media's take on it.

If you experience was anything like mine, the media didn't even grasp the basic issues of the event. Plus they made a lot of basic factual errors (like misspelling names and streets).

Then extrapolate that, consider all the stories the media covers that you're not directly involved with (i.e., 99.99%) and you quickly realize media reports, while the best source of information you have, are not airtight or infallible. Far from it.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:29:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 6:32:57 AM EDT by OODA_Loop]
"Yet we sent our guys into battle in Jeeps, flak jackets and M1 helmets for years. So why is armor only an issue now that we've actually got decent armor? Why was there no complaints in 60's, 70's or 80's when we were using junk compared to what we have now?"

--Because what we have isn't protecting against the current threats on the battlefield.

I've got a friend passionately working the issue - he was one vehicle behind an IED and took a pic through his windshield. FP/AT guy. Anyway, in a nutshell, the Humvee is a jeep replacement, not the right vehicle - even up armored to protect against small arms, it can't protect against the threat. In fact, some vehicles were DESIGNED to protect against road mines and IEDs - see the text below:

"In brief, the Humvee, and the Stryker vehicle for that matter, are wholly under-armored. There are daily reports of IED blasts destroying these vehicles and killing or maiming the occupants. This is tragic, particularly in view of the fact that there are so many purpose-engineered vehicles that are, and have been, available.
The South Africans learned the lessons that we are learning now many years ago. They designed a family of vehicles (RG-31, Mamba, Buffalo, Nyla, Casspir, Wer’wolf, to name a few) rated to withstand heavy blasts. Enclosure one depicts an early Casspir, which was subjected to a Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED), which was many more times more powerful than the IEDs normally encountered. Note that mass and shape of the vehicle contributed it to being rolled onto its side as opposed to being shattered to smithereens as would have happened had that been a Humvee of any variety.
The U.S. Marines have begun procuring the Cougar, based on the South African design, which is far superior to the M1114 uparmored Humvee. The Cougar is depicted in Enclosure 2. The M1117 Guardian Armored Security Vehicle (ASV) used by the military is one of the main vehicles of choice in Iraq. It has a ballistic rating many times over that of even the Stryker much less the Humvee. Not only that, the gunner is completely protected and is able to return fire at attacks in the case of a complex ambush. The ASV is depicted in enclosures 3. The Stryker is depicted in enclosure 4. The ASV is frequently used to escort dignitaries such as the ambassador and the secretary of defense who generally are transported in a vehicle such as a Rhino Runner, which provides many times more the ballistic resistance of an armored Humvee. The Rhino Runner is depicted in enclosure 5.
The chassis and drive trains of the Humvees are suitable for little more than carrying their originally designed aluminum body and their rated cargo. It performs dismally with the added armor, which greatly increases the potential for rollover, which has killed many troops. The Stryker suffers the same deficiency; the increased armor makes it top heavy and rollover-prone, which has resulted in the deaths of occupants (the problem with the Styker is compounded because the seat belts won’t go around soldiers wearing body armor)."

(pics coming)
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:35:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By usmctopgun:
Charging_Handle, to pose a question like this, you obviously do not have a clue as to the kind of war we a involved in right now. Until you gather some more facts, STFU.




I just gathered a whole page full of facts. Evidently you failed to look at them or somehow can't grasp them.

Is the standard HUMVEE better than a Jeep? Considering the Jeep was wide open, I would say yes. Would you argue otherwise?

Is not the Interceptor vest much better than the old PASGT flak vest? Considering the Interceptor will stop 30-06 AP rounds while the PASGT was only rated against shrapnel, I'd definately say yes.

And considering the PASGT and MICH helmets offer far better ballistic protection than the old steel pot, I will again say this is a dramatic improvement.

So where exactly am I wrong?

I also know exactly the type of war that's being fought. I also know that in some cases, no amount of armor will save you. But in a war, nothing is gauranteed. Obviously we should strive to offer our troops the best protection possible, but there are some things you simply can't protect against. That's my whole point. We have the best armor feasible at the moment. Not all HMMWV's are armored, but they were never meant to be an armored vehicle. If we want that, we need to dump the HMMWV's and have everyone ride around in M113 APC's. No Hummer, no matter how well armored, is going to equal a dedicated, purpose built APC.

And as for your STFU comment, you can take it, turn it sideways and shove it up your fucking ass.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:41:07 AM EDT
I saw that comin'
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:44:46 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:57:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 7:11:12 AM EDT by Chaingunzz]
You know this post almost sounds like one of the "Well back in my day...up hill in 3' of snow both ways... boots held together- er wait we had newspaper..." Now with this phylosiphy in mind, you're right, as a member of this fun organization on vacation in the sand for a while now (since 11NOV01) I guess I can say we are weak. We should go back to the flack jacket and embrace the steel pot and any other means of archaic technology that we can subvert to and not raise issue with the pencil pushers and bean counters on capitol hill who are just trying to save a buck. Matter of fact the Roman short sword felled more foe than any weapon in history- I'll trade in my SOPMOD right now for one (with -10 included) of course.
Look the point of this satiric retort is simply this, we now have the technology to produce better weaponry and defensive measures against the ever changing threats found on the battlefield. To ensure that me and the rest of the troops (service folk) over here have what we need to protect ourselves is the job of the Legislature and appointed cabinet members. And when that job isn't fullfilled then damn right it is somebody's job to hold those responble's feet to the fire. Think about it this way, if you had a boy over here would you not want the absolute best protection for him? There's still Humvee in Iraq that have scrap metal welded to the sides of them (yet on Air Force bases stateside they have brand friggin new Up armored Humvees but that's adifferent rant all together)
I normally don't reply to post like this but it just irks me to see that someone raising an "issue" of armor could clearly not understand what is going on over here- as much as you say you do, I can asure you, if you haven't went down a street over here then you have no idea. Trust me, when an IED goes off in the same Zip code you're in, you want to be on the other side of the door at say, NORAD. Weapons and defensive gear- hell gear in general needs to constanly be revised and tested and revised again unless you want us to go back to linear battlefield warfare Revolutionary/Civil War style. hing,

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:04:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 7:10:59 AM EDT by usmctopgun]

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

Originally Posted By usmctopgun:
Charging_Handle, to pose a question like this, you obviously do not have a clue as to the kind of war we a involved in right now. Until you gather some more facts, STFU.


I just gathered a whole page full of facts. Evidently you failed to look at them or somehow can't grasp them.
I guess one tour in Afghanistan and two in Iraq would not allow me to grasp your facts.


Is the standard HUMVEE better than a Jeep? Considering the Jeep was wide open, I would say yes. Would you argue otherwise?



Define better. Will it go thru more mud, probably. Will it stop a 155mm at 20 yds any better, NO. The HUMVEE was not designed for the battlefield, and it was definitely not designed for the kind of war we are raging in Iraq.

Is not the Interceptor vest much better than the old PASGT flak vest? Considering the Interceptor will stop 30-06 AP rounds while the PASGT was only rated against shrapnel, I'd definately say yes.

Well I would hope so, its called technology, we have progressed in the last 30yrs.

And considering the PASGT and MICH helmets offer far better ballistic protection than the old steel pot, I will again say this is a dramatic improvement.

ditto

So where exactly am I wrong?

I never said you were wrong in your comparisons. Your comparisons were almost a mockery. Now don't get me wrong, the personal body armor we have today is top notch...but the vehicle armor/vehicles in use leave a lot to be desired. Too many times were we forced to scrounge up metal from the Iraqis, and hire there welders to put it on our vehicles.

I also know exactly the type of war that's being fought.

Oh really, from your recliner watching CNN, until you have been there, you don't have a clue. Just like when I sit down and talk w/ the Vietnam Vets, those guys tell me stories that are almost unbelievable...stuff I cannot even imagine...because I was never there.

I also know that in some cases, no amount of armor will save you.


Duh.

But in a war, nothing is gauranteed. Obviously we should strive to offer our troops the best protection possible, but there are some things you simply can't protect against. That's my whole point. We have the best armor feasible at the moment. Not all HMMWV's are armored, but they were never meant to be an armored vehicle. If we want that, we need to dump the HMMWV's and have everyone ride around in M113 APC's. No Hummer, no matter how well armored, is going to equal a dedicated, purpose built APC.

Now you are making sense.

And as for your STFU comment, you can take it, turn it sideways and shove it up your fucking ass.

I'll pass on that, I am not in to putting stuff up my ass...maybe that is more your style. Have a good day.


BTW, I can't seem to get he quote button to work for me today, so your questions were bolded.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:04:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 7:06:30 AM EDT by hardcorps1775]

Originally Posted By OODA_Loop:
The chassis and drive trains of the Humvees are suitable for little more than carrying their originally designed aluminum body and their rated cargo. It performs dismally with the added armor, which greatly increases the potential for rollover, which has killed many troops. The Stryker suffers the same deficiency; the increased armor makes it top heavy and rollover-prone, which has resulted in the deaths of occupants (the problem with the Styker is compounded because the seat belts won’t go around soldiers wearing body armor)."



man oh man...my dad was one of the marines responsible for developing the humvee for the marine corps and they said this same goddam thing twenty whatever years ago when someone suggested adding armor. and now guys have died for doing just that...the corps' response was that this is a frigging UTILITY vehicle NOT A TANK, NOT AN APC...you want a tank? get a frigging tank!

it's kinda funny to see this development in anti-mine vehicles cuz I remember the corps looking at south african vehicles years ago but not adopting them because there was just no threat. this was pre-'89, during the cold war...

i wonder if we're gonna end up just replacing the humvee altogether with cassipirs, buffs, and cougars and relegating humvees to base duties or conus duties...
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:09:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Chaingunzz:
You know this post almost sounds like one of the "Well back in my day...up hill in 3' of snow both ways... boots held together- er wait we had newspaper..." Now with this phylosiphy in mind, you're right, as a member of this fun organization on vacation in the sand for a while now (since 11NOV01) I guess I can say we are weak. We should go back to the flack jacket and embrace the steel pot and any other means of archaic technology that we can subvert to and not raise issue with the pencil pushers and bean counters on capitol hill who are just trying to save a buck. Matter of fact the Roman short sword felled more foe than any weapon in history- I'll trade in my SOPMOD right now for one (with -10 included) of course.
Look the point of this satiric retort is simply this, we now have the technology to produce better weaponry and defensive measures against the ever changing threats found on the battlefield. To ensure that me and the rest of the troops (service folk) over here have what we need to protect ourselves is the job of the Legislature and appointed cabinet members. And when that job isn't fullfilled then damn right it is somebody's job to hold those responble's feet to the fire. Think about it this way, if you had a boy over here would you not want the absolute best protection for him? There's still Humvee in Iraq that have scrap metal welded to the sides of them (yet on Air Force bases stateside they have brand friggin new Up armored Humvees but that's adifferent rant all together)
I normally don't reply to post like this but it just irks me to see that someone raising an "issue" of armor could clearly not understand what is going on over here. Trust me, when an IED goes off in the same Zip code you're in, you want to be on the other side of the door at say, NORAD. Weapons and defensive gear- hell gear in general needs to constanly be revised and tested and revised again unless you want us to go back to linear battlefield warfare Revolutionary/Civil War style.




Well said, thanks for saving me some typing. And like you, I normally would not reply either, but like I said earlier, Charging_Handle, STFU until you get some real/not copy and pasted info from the internet facts.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:13:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OODA_Loop:
"Yet we sent our guys into battle in Jeeps, flak jackets and M1 helmets for years. So why is armor only an issue now that we've actually got decent armor? Why was there no complaints in 60's, 70's or 80's when we were using junk compared to what we have now?"

--Because what we have isn't protecting against the current threats on the battlefield.

I've got a friend passionately working the issue - he was one vehicle behind an IED and took a pic through his windshield. FP/AT guy. Anyway, in a nutshell, the Humvee is a jeep replacement, not the right vehicle - even up armored to protect against small arms, it can't protect against the threat. In fact, some vehicles were DESIGNED to protect against road mines and IEDs - see the text below:

"In brief, the Humvee, and the Stryker vehicle for that matter, are wholly under-armored. There are daily reports of IED blasts destroying these vehicles and killing or maiming the occupants. This is tragic, particularly in view of the fact that there are so many purpose-engineered vehicles that are, and have been, available.
The South Africans learned the lessons that we are learning now many years ago. They designed a family of vehicles (RG-31, Mamba, Buffalo, Nyla, Casspir, Wer’wolf, to name a few) rated to withstand heavy blasts. Enclosure one depicts an early Casspir, which was subjected to a Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED), which was many more times more powerful than the IEDs normally encountered. Note that mass and shape of the vehicle contributed it to being rolled onto its side as opposed to being shattered to smithereens as would have happened had that been a Humvee of any variety.
The U.S. Marines have begun procuring the Cougar, based on the South African design, which is far superior to the M1114 uparmored Humvee. The Cougar is depicted in Enclosure 2. The M1117 Guardian Armored Security Vehicle (ASV) used by the military is one of the main vehicles of choice in Iraq. It has a ballistic rating many times over that of even the Stryker much less the Humvee. Not only that, the gunner is completely protected and is able to return fire at attacks in the case of a complex ambush. The ASV is depicted in enclosures 3. The Stryker is depicted in enclosure 4. The ASV is frequently used to escort dignitaries such as the ambassador and the secretary of defense who generally are transported in a vehicle such as a Rhino Runner, which provides many times more the ballistic resistance of an armored Humvee. The Rhino Runner is depicted in enclosure 5.
The chassis and drive trains of the Humvees are suitable for little more than carrying their originally designed aluminum body and their rated cargo. It performs dismally with the added armor, which greatly increases the potential for rollover, which has killed many troops. The Stryker suffers the same deficiency; the increased armor makes it top heavy and rollover-prone, which has resulted in the deaths of occupants (the problem with the Styker is compounded because the seat belts won’t go around soldiers wearing body armor)."

(pics coming)




tag for pics
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:15:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 7:15:47 AM EDT by kavik]

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
[
Not all HMMWV's are armored, but they were never meant to be an armored vehicle. If we want that, we need to dump the HMMWV's and have everyone ride around in M113 APC's. No Hummer, no matter how well armored, is going to equal a dedicated, purpose built APC.




This is the real information, the fucking media keeps treating the humvees as if they should be apc or tanks, and it's the military's or bush's fault they aren't. They are the replacement for jeeps. They are not made to and even with armor packages, will not stand up to a mine or ied. The armor will help defeat small arms fire, and provide SOME protection against roadside ied's. I have seen very few issues out there with people not having interceptors either, at least in the combat areas.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:20:32 AM EDT
I have the photo attachements that went with my post but can't crack them out of the MS word document for some reason.

My friend in question I met while working in Bosnia in 1998. He preceded me to Kosovo and was pulled out of a TDY billet in Germany and sent to Baghdad specifically to work on the issue. Came back and spent the last 1.5 years writing letters, harassing congressmen and so forth. Looks like it has been picked up by the mainstream media as well as the dems and the left (just googled it and found it on Michael Moore's page!)

For the record, this is not, or should not, be a political issue. My subject matter expert buddy is a mature, Harley-riding, southern, gun-owning, conservative gentleman and I trust him with my life. This is about getting the right equipment to the troops rather than procuring more of the same (jobs for people in congressional districts).

The vast majority of wounds and deaths of Americans in Iraq are from IEDs. 12,000 IED attacks in 2004 (est.) Would you send troops to fight from humvees against 155s? Hell no. But this is what we are doing. A lot of IEDs are 155mm artillery shells. We are wasting money on up-armoring when things like the cougar are available.

Those Marines who were killed by 3 stacked AT mines? Some of the SA designed vehicles were designed SPECIFICALLY against this threat - 12 to 20kg (!) of HE. Replace the axle and wheels and get back to it!~

Really, really frustrating to see this degenerate on the board. We CAN protect against the threats in question, Do the research; here's a start - http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/06/ny-times-on-procurement-issues-for-armored-vehicles-to-iraq-updated/index.php

and consider writing a letter to your congresscritter.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:23:51 AM EDT
Can anyone help me with cracking out these photos from an MS word document?
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:32:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OODA_Loop:
Can anyone help me with cracking out these photos from an MS word document?



You need to host the pics on a web based site like putphoto or hunt101.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 7:35:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 50cal:

Originally Posted By OODA_Loop:
Can anyone help me with cracking out these photos from an MS word document?



You need to host the pics on a web based site like putphoto or hunt101.



No, no - I have a photobucket account. The problem is that I have the pics I want in a MS Word.doc someone sent to me, but I cannot seem to save them, cut them, move them to photoshop...could be that my wife has the new laptop and I am using a 1999 vintage iMac today. I need someone to try to spring the photos free, mail 'em to me, and I'll host and put them here.

Meanwhile, $21m more on Humvees:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/08/350-more-m1114-uparmored-hummers-on-the-way/index.php
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 9:39:00 AM EDT
"why so much talk" = 100% politics.

The technical issues, procurement history, and even the safety of the troops are all secondary to a large number of people out there. "Getting Bush" is their highest priority. Those who want to discuss this reasonably in public will be caught up in the politics every time, it can't be avoided. People can't even discuss it here without being told to shove objects up their ass.

300m people (plus the illegals who vote Democrat) just don't see themselves as a country at war. Maybe a third or a even half, but they certainly are not the vocal ones. Not even on Sept 12 could Bush have said "no more pork and wasteful spending, it's all going to the military". Bringing home the cash to their own state/district matters more to politicians who want job security, and sadly the evidence shows that it matters the same to their voters.

Link Posted: 8/14/2005 10:28:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OODA_Loop:
I have the photo attachements that went with my post but can't crack them out of the MS word document for some reason.

My friend in question I met while working in Bosnia in 1998. He preceded me to Kosovo and was pulled out of a TDY billet in Germany and sent to Baghdad specifically to work on the issue. Came back and spent the last 1.5 years writing letters, harassing congressmen and so forth. Looks like it has been picked up by the mainstream media as well as the dems and the left (just googled it and found it on Michael Moore's page!)

For the record, this is not, or should not, be a political issue. My subject matter expert buddy is a mature, Harley-riding, southern, gun-owning, conservative gentleman and I trust him with my life. This is about getting the right equipment to the troops rather than procuring more of the same (jobs for people in congressional districts).

The vast majority of wounds and deaths of Americans in Iraq are from IEDs. 12,000 IED attacks in 2004 (est.) Would you send troops to fight from humvees against 155s? Hell no. But this is what we are doing. A lot of IEDs are 155mm artillery shells. We are wasting money on up-armoring when things like the cougar are available.

Those Marines who were killed by 3 stacked AT mines? Some of the SA designed vehicles were designed SPECIFICALLY against this threat - 12 to 20kg (!) of HE. Replace the axle and wheels and get back to it!~

Really, really frustrating to see this degenerate on the board. We CAN protect against the threats in question, Do the research; here's a start - http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/06/ny-times-on-procurement-issues-for-armored-vehicles-to-iraq-updated/index.php

and consider writing a letter to your congresscritter.



Your friend must have been able to tell the future...nobody had a clue what enemy tactic would arise and what we should buy.

That said, your friend "in the know" must not know much about what is going on. The US government is designing, buying, and fielding new vehicles and add on armor kits for existing vehicles at a rate never before done in history.... not even in WWII did we go from concept to field so fast. The same for countermeasures.

The South African vehicle you speak of? We have them, and we are buying them as fast as the manufacturer can make them. I know, I am responsible for maintenace and logistics on the largest fleet of them in Afghanistan. We have maxed the production capability fo these out and are buying them as fast as they can be made. And we have pushed them into service before we could add all the parts to the logistics system, and are making it work anyway.

The Cougar? Being fielded now. It is made by FPI, same folks that make the Buffalo. The Buffalo works great, and we are buying them as fast as they can make them..... faster than they can make them right, as we have them making them so fast we often end up with several different engine configurations because we don't want to wait for them to get all the same one in stock.

The RG-31 (the South African vehicle you speak of) is being produced at a rate almost 10x faster than the manufacturer has ever done before or was prepared to do, and with it we see many issues due to the rapid fielding and production that we must fix here. Any faster and we would be getting pure crap from the factory.

And all this started more than the 1.5 years ago you speak of. Saying "We are wasting money on up-armoring when things like the cougar are available" shows your complete lack of understanding of the situation. The Cougar was available as a concept by a manufacturer who is at best set up to turn out less than 30 a month, and I doubt can even make half that. In a month, however, we can armor 1000 or more HMMWV's. So we armor all our current vehicles as fast as we can, and buy the good stuff as fast as they can make it as well. But your statement makes it seem like they had 5000 Cougars just waiting to be purchased and fielded to everyone.

When it comes to the newest armored vehicles such as these being fielded, that is my main job. I know more about them and the logistics of the fielding and use than damm near anyone alive when it comes to all of them. My unit and I are writing Army doctrine as we go on the use and employment of these vehicles. Unfortunatley I spend waaaaay too much of my time anymore in front of computers trying to get issues resovled and parts shipped and not as much as I would like out in them. They work great, and I love them, but anyone who thinks the rate at which the DOD has purchased thes and pushed them forward, and the rate at which the manufacturers have produced them, is anything less than amazing is a moron.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 10:36:54 AM EDT
It's so the media can drum up anti-war sentiment from the right, by posing it as concern for troop welfare.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 10:55:49 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 11:29:11 AM EDT
Garand_Shooter,

Do you have any info on the new plate that is being issued? Is it the LAPMI plate?
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 11:45:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mcantu:
Garand_Shooter,

Do you have any info on the new plate that is being issued? Is it the LAPMI plate?



For body armor?

No clue.

I have my hands full keeping up with vehicles.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 11:52:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
<Liberal MODE on>They need to issue everyone with their own personal M1A2<Liberal MODE off>



I for one see NO problem with that.

-Storm
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 11:54:23 AM EDT
Because in past wars we had LINES.

Now all territory is enemy occupied.


Just because we have protection better than we did in the past is meaningless.

Totally Meaningless.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 12:15:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By OODA_Loop:
I have the photo attachements that went with my post but can't crack them out of the MS word document for some reason.

My friend in question I met while working in Bosnia in 1998. He preceded me to Kosovo and was pulled out of a TDY billet in Germany and sent to Baghdad specifically to work on the issue. Came back and spent the last 1.5 years writing letters, harassing congressmen and so forth. Looks like it has been picked up by the mainstream media as well as the dems and the left (just googled it and found it on Michael Moore's page!)

For the record, this is not, or should not, be a political issue. My subject matter expert buddy is a mature, Harley-riding, southern, gun-owning, conservative gentleman and I trust him with my life. This is about getting the right equipment to the troops rather than procuring more of the same (jobs for people in congressional districts).

The vast majority of wounds and deaths of Americans in Iraq are from IEDs. 12,000 IED attacks in 2004 (est.) Would you send troops to fight from humvees against 155s? Hell no. But this is what we are doing. A lot of IEDs are 155mm artillery shells. We are wasting money on up-armoring when things like the cougar are available.

Those Marines who were killed by 3 stacked AT mines? Some of the SA designed vehicles were designed SPECIFICALLY against this threat - 12 to 20kg (!) of HE. Replace the axle and wheels and get back to it!~

Really, really frustrating to see this degenerate on the board. We CAN protect against the threats in question, Do the research; here's a start - http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/06/ny-times-on-procurement-issues-for-armored-vehicles-to-iraq-updated/index.php

and consider writing a letter to your congresscritter.



Your friend must have been able to tell the future...nobody had a clue what enemy tactic would arise and what we should buy.

That said, your friend "in the know" must not know much about what is going on. The US government is designing, buying, and fielding new vehicles and add on armor kits for existing vehicles at a rate never before done in history.... not even in WWII did we go from concept to field so fast. The same for countermeasures.

The South African vehicle you speak of? We have them, and we are buying them as fast as the manufacturer can make them. I know, I am responsible for maintenace and logistics on the largest fleet of them in Afghanistan. We have maxed the production capability fo these out and are buying them as fast as they can be made. And we have pushed them into service before we could add all the parts to the logistics system, and are making it work anyway.

The Cougar? Being fielded now. It is made by FPI, same folks that make the Buffalo. The Buffalo works great, and we are buying them as fast as they can make them..... faster than they can make them right, as we have them making them so fast we often end up with several different engine configurations because we don't want to wait for them to get all the same one in stock.

The RG-31 (the South African vehicle you speak of) is being produced at a rate almost 10x faster than the manufacturer has ever done before or was prepared to do, and with it we see many issues due to the rapid fielding and production that we must fix here. Any faster and we would be getting pure crap from the factory.

And all this started more than the 1.5 years ago you speak of. Saying "We are wasting money on up-armoring when things like the cougar are available" shows your complete lack of understanding of the situation. The Cougar was available as a concept by a manufacturer who is at best set up to turn out less than 30 a month, and I doubt can even make half that. In a month, however, we can armor 1000 or more HMMWV's. So we armor all our current vehicles as fast as we can, and buy the good stuff as fast as they can make it as well. But your statement makes it seem like they had 5000 Cougars just waiting to be purchased and fielded to everyone.

When it comes to the newest armored vehicles such as these being fielded, that is my main job. I know more about them and the logistics of the fielding and use than damm near anyone alive when it comes to all of them. My unit and I are writing Army doctrine as we go on the use and employment of these vehicles. Unfortunatley I spend waaaaay too much of my time anymore in front of computers trying to get issues resovled and parts shipped and not as much as I would like out in them. They work great, and I love them, but anyone who thinks the rate at which the DOD has purchased thes and pushed them forward, and the rate at which the manufacturers have produced them, is anything less than amazing is a moron.




Garand_Shooter,

Thanks for the authoratative response.

One quick question though, is the quality control on these vehicles really that bad?

Justin
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 12:16:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garr:
Due to the danger of IEDs We also should be using www.hunt101.com/img/314130.jpg
instead of www.hunt101.com/img/314136.jpg But that is just one opinion.


Considering that they are making the IEDs powerful enough to take out Strykers and Bradleys, I don't see where the 113 is going to matter much except against small arms fire.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 12:22:11 PM EDT
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the HMMWV meant as just that, a replacelement of the jeep? A vehicle to drive from one part of the post or another or drive around occupied territory? It was NEVER meant to be in the role it is now.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 12:22:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 12:23:29 PM EDT by Garand_Shooter]

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Garand_Shooter,

Thanks for the authoratative response.

One quick question though, is the quality control on these vehicles really that bad?

Justin



Yes, on the last batch I got I was very dissapointed.

But, it was all stuff we could easily fix. Not stuff that required componet replacement or anything like that. But stuff we can easily fix is stuff they can easily get right. That is what happens when you buy on a highly accelerated timeline and have a company increase its production by over 500% almost overnight.

That said, I would rather have them fast with the issues than slower without.... we can fix them while in use.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 12:41:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Garand_Shooter,

Thanks for the authoratative response.

One quick question though, is the quality control on these vehicles really that bad?

Justin



Yes, on the last batch I got I was very dissapointed.

But, it was all stuff we could easily fix. Not stuff that required componet replacement or anything like that. But stuff we can easily fix is stuff they can easily get right. That is what happens when you buy on a highly accelerated timeline and have a company increase its production by over 500% almost overnight.

That said, I would rather have them fast with the issues than slower without.... we can fix them while in use.




What kind of issues are we talking about?

I understand these vehicles were designed by a South African defehse company, but are they manufactured in South Africa as well?

And what goes to say that the manufacturer isn't screwing up on the internal parts as well, things that can't easily be seen?

Regards,

Justin
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 12:42:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By garr:
Due to the danger of IEDs We also should be using www.hunt101.com/img/314130.jpg
instead of www.hunt101.com/img/314136.jpg But that is just one opinion.


Considering that they are making the IEDs powerful enough to take out Strykers and Bradleys, I don't see where the 113 is going to matter much except against small arms fire.

+1, you'd just end up with a more expensive smoking hole in the ground.

Kharn
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 12:55:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 12:57:25 PM EDT by garr]

Originally Posted By Kharn:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By garr:
Due to the danger of IEDs We also should be using www.hunt101.com/img/314130.jpg
instead of www.hunt101.com/img/314136.jpg But that is just one opinion.


Considering that they are making the IEDs powerful enough to take out Strykers and Bradleys, I don't see where the 113 is going to matter much except against small arms fire.

+1, you'd just end up with a more expensive smoking hole in the ground.

Kharn



Most of the IEDs are aimed at Humvees, It takes alot less C4 to blow up a Humvee than a bradley or stryker. The bad guys want to do the most damage for the buck.

I am not 100% sure on this so if I am wrong please correct me, but I thought the bradley & Stryker use Aluminum armor designed more for rapid transport (Weight saving) than anything else. The 113 is alot more stout than either + Don't we have a bunch of 113s stored in mothballs?
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 12:58:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 1:02:20 PM EDT by Garand_Shooter]

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Garand_Shooter,

Thanks for the authoratative response.

One quick question though, is the quality control on these vehicles really that bad?

Justin



Yes, on the last batch I got I was very dissapointed.

But, it was all stuff we could easily fix. Not stuff that required componet replacement or anything like that. But stuff we can easily fix is stuff they can easily get right. That is what happens when you buy on a highly accelerated timeline and have a company increase its production by over 500% almost overnight.

That said, I would rather have them fast with the issues than slower without.... we can fix them while in use.




What kind of issues are we talking about?

I understand these vehicles were designed by a South African defehse company, but are they manufactured in South Africa as well?

And what goes to say that the manufacturer isn't screwing up on the internal parts as well, things that can't easily be seen?

Regards,

Justin



They dont make the internals, they buy the engines etc and just drop them in.

It is stuff like bolts not torqued, lockwashers and loctite not used where they should be, wires soldered backwards. Piddly stuff thats a PITA for us as it distracts time from real maintenace issues. We catch most of it on our initial inspection, but some does not come to light untill we get some miles on them.

That said, they do have field service reps here reporting back to the factory, so they are trying to get it right.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 12:59:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garr:

Originally Posted By Kharn:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By garr:
Due to the danger of IEDs We also should be using www.hunt101.com/img/314130.jpg
instead of www.hunt101.com/img/314136.jpg But that is just one opinion.


Considering that they are making the IEDs powerful enough to take out Strykers and Bradleys, I don't see where the 113 is going to matter much except against small arms fire.

+1, you'd just end up with a more expensive smoking hole in the ground.

Kharn



Most of the IEDs are aimed at Humvees, It takes alot less C4 to blow up a Humvee than a bradley or stryker. The bad guys want to do the most damage for the buck.

I am not 100% sure on this so if I am wrong please correct me, but I thought the bradley & Stryker use Aluminum armor designed more for rapid transport (Weight saving) than anything else. The 113 is alot more stout than either + Don't we have a bunch of 113s stored in mothballs?



Umm, the 113 is aluminum and not as stout as the Bradley by a long shot.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 1:11:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 1:14:31 PM EDT by tc556guy]

Originally Posted By garr:
Most of the IEDs are aimed at Humvees, It takes alot less C4 to blow up a Humvee than a bradley or stryker. The bad guys want to do the most damage for the buck.

I am not 100% sure on this so if I am wrong please correct me, but I thought the bradley & Stryker use Aluminum armor designed more for rapid transport (Weight saving) than anything else. The 113 is alot more stout than either + Don't we have a bunch of 113s stored in mothballs?


They aren't using straight C4. They are generally using arty shells, often blown in tandem that are powerful enough to take out the armored stuff like Bradleys, even M1's.And yes, the 113 is aluminum and will burn right down to nothing under the right circumstances.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 1:39:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C-4:
Because the Left is desperate to use any and all negative aspects of the war to further their agenda of putting Hitlery in office in 2008, even if it means outright lying about some perceived deficiency in our armor.

Exactly. On a side note, the Leftists figure that by loading down our troops with more weight, it will allow the terrorists to persists a bit longer.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 3:53:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Garand_Shooter,

Thanks for the authoratative response.

One quick question though, is the quality control on these vehicles really that bad?

Justin



Yes, on the last batch I got I was very dissapointed.

But, it was all stuff we could easily fix. Not stuff that required componet replacement or anything like that. But stuff we can easily fix is stuff they can easily get right. That is what happens when you buy on a highly accelerated timeline and have a company increase its production by over 500% almost overnight.

That said, I would rather have them fast with the issues than slower without.... we can fix them while in use.




What kind of issues are we talking about?

I understand these vehicles were designed by a South African defehse company, but are they manufactured in South Africa as well?

And what goes to say that the manufacturer isn't screwing up on the internal parts as well, things that can't easily be seen?

Regards,

Justin



They dont make the internals, they buy the engines etc and just drop them in.

It is stuff like bolts not torqued, lockwashers and loctite not used where they should be, wires soldered backwards. Piddly stuff thats a PITA for us as it distracts time from real maintenace issues. We catch most of it on our initial inspection, but some does not come to light untill we get some miles on them.

That said, they do have field service reps here reporting back to the factory, so they are trying to get it right.



Thanks.

Justin
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 4:11:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2005 4:12:31 PM EDT by OODA_Loop]

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Yo
ur friend must have been able to tell the future...nobody had a clue what
enemy tactic would arise and what we should buy.

**negative. He was in Iraq trying to get them to deploy some of the RG-31s
sitting around that had belonged to the UN - Erinys had some of them. He got
shut down.

That said, your friend "in the know" must not know much about what is going
on.
**As far as I know he has been one of those consistently. pushing for the
adoption and acquisition of MPVs. What is going on is that members of
Congress continue to fund inadequate armor for humvees, rather than fund
MPVs and M1117 - this is beginning to turn. But you're incorrect.

Saying "We are wasting money on up-armoring when things like the cougar are
available" shows your complete lack of understanding of the situation.
**Although that is cut and pasted from a letter from a wounded soldier to a
member of Congress (eg I didn't write it), your comment is off base. If you read
the sentence - he says "things LIKE the cougar" - he's pushing for MPVs over
uparmored humvees.

My unit and I are writing Army doctrine as we go on the use and employment of
these vehicles but anyone who thinks the rate at which the DOD has purchased
thes and pushed them forward, and the rate at which the manufacturers have
produced them, is anything less than amazing is a moron.


Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

**Please e-mail me and I will provide his offline address. Please also delete your last comment (use of the word "moron" - unfair and incorrect); he's quite serious about the issue and spent a fair amount of time visiting his troops in the hospitals; when he began to ask them about how they were wounded, and noted wound locations… If you're writing doctrine, you need to get in touch with this guy. I'll provide a couple of details offline. This isn't about egos, this is about preventing lost lives and limbs. Of the troops, for the troops - remember?
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 6:26:11 PM EDT
You can email through the site, but my moron comment stands. They are buying these items as fast as the manfacturers can roducethem, and have fielded the damm things so faat they dont even have a NSN.... they simply cannot do either any faster.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 9:03:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
You can email through the site, but my moron comment stands. They are buying these items as fast as the manfacturers can roducethem, and have fielded the damm things so faat they dont even have a NSN.... they simply cannot do either any faster.



I am seeing emails from OSD that contradict your comments about procurement. But the moron comment saddens and disappoints me; I had hoped for better of you.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 2:39:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garr:
Most of the IEDs are aimed at Humvees, It takes alot less C4 to blow up a Humvee than a bradley or stryker. The bad guys want to do the most damage for the buck.

I am not 100% sure on this so if I am wrong please correct me, but I thought the bradley & Stryker use Aluminum armor designed more for rapid transport (Weight saving) than anything else. The 113 is alot more stout than either + Don't we have a bunch of 113s stored in mothballs?

A 155 will do in a HMMWV just as well as it does in an M113. M113's aluminum armor will barely stop .30cal, the same thing the up-armored HMWMVs will stop. The Bradley uses a little aluminum armor, there's a lot of steel armor on the beast, the M113 uses 100% aluminum armor. I forget what the Bradley's resistant to (its most certainly more stout than the Stryker's), but (publically available news sources report) Stryker armor is able to withstand 14.5mm, the Soviet ass-kicker which is about double the power of a .50cal.

The problem's not aluminum itself, its the type of aluminum and the spall liner, neither of which are very good on the M113, there's been a lot of advances in the armor field since the M113 came about.

Kharn
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 2:57:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By garr:
Due to the danger of IEDs We also should be using www.hunt101.com/img/314130.jpg
instead of www.hunt101.com/img/314136.jpg But that is just one opinion.


Considering that they are making the IEDs powerful enough to take out Strykers and Bradleys, I don't see where the 113 is going to matter much except against small arms fire.



Haven't some IED's taken out a couple M1A2's? I know they havent outright destroyed the tank, just knocked it out of service and then the we drop a 2000lb bomb on it so the enemy doesn't get the tech right?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top