Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/12/2003 10:40:13 AM EDT
These people think so, and some members of Congress are listening to them.

The Army's past
Michael L. Sparks, an Army Reserve officer, and many like-minded veterans, are pressing the Army to move on from the new wheeled Stryker armored vehicle and embrace the past — the venerable M-113 personnel carrier.
Mr. Sparks wants the Army to bring thousands of M-113 armored personnel carriers out of storage, modernize them and put them in all combat infantry units; including the light infantry which has no armored vehicles. And he wants this affordable enhancement done quickly to help the troops in Iraq right away.
He contends the tracked M-113 is more reliable, road-safer and provides better protection than any wheeled vehicle can ever offer. He says studies prove compact tracked vehicles are 28 percent more space/weight efficient than placing armored boxes on top of wheeled suspensions/drivetrains.
"Our troops are driving around Iraq in doorless, fabric-sided [Humvees or High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles], fiberglass/thin metal 10-ton FMTV trucks and 21-ton Stryker rubber-tired armored cars and losing men's lives and limbs daily to roadside bombs and accidents," Mr. Sparks said. "Some soldiers are also foolishly driving around Iraq in gasoline-powered captured or government-provided civilian automobiles. Combat psychology studies show if you look and are vulnerable it will embolden the enemy to attack you."
Some senators have been critical of the lack of armor protection for the Humvees, which fall prey to roadside bombs that have killed scores of American soldiers. A program to "up-armor" them will take months, or years. Mr. Sparks, an infantry officer, said: "The Army has thousands of thick-skinned M-113 Gavin light tracked armored fighting vehicles sitting in storage that are 'as is' far better protection than the up-armored rubber-tired Humvees or Strykers will ever be.
"For a fraction of the cost of up-armoring Humvee trucks requiring years of time our men in Iraq do not have, we could fit in a matter of weeks underbelly armor, gun shields for the troops to fire out behind protective cover and rocket propelled grenade-resistant applique armor to M-113 Gavins. This would supply all our men in Iraq protected mobility."


www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm

It seems that the Army is resistant to this idea, because it would make their new- but as yet still largely unavailable- Stryker armored cars redundant.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 10:56:26 AM EDT
Whatever we do lets not fuck with someones project.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 10:57:52 AM EDT
Ahh, the M113. My alma mater.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:02:29 AM EDT
Replace unarmored HMMV's, M1's, M2/M3's. Easier to run, easier to supply, and an MTLV (Streched M113) can be packed with weapons, and applique armoring. Break out the "Cav" versions with multiple MG's and gun shields. Leave some M1/M2/M3 for "heavy" responses, and fixed defense, and some HMMMV's for "fast" response teams, and "light" patrol.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:04:23 AM EDT
Not replace, but suppliment. I think adding them to the existing force could do no harm and might save a few lives. And I second, whatever the fuck we are going ot do, GIT-R-DONE! CH
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:15:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2003 11:25:02 AM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
This is what we use in Iraq- [img]http://www.amgeneralcorp.com/Gallery/images/M1114.jpg[/img] if your lucky, some have to ride regualr M996's [img]http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20031114/i/r2556915053.jpg[/img] And this is what the IDF uses to patrol the same kind of enviroment [img]http://www.geocities.com/armysappersforward/zeldaforce.jpg[/img] [img]http://idf-sp.tripod.com/images/nagmachon.jpg[/img] Now which would you want to be in when someone blows up a roadside bomb?
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:15:26 AM EDT
What ever the merit of it. It is lost on the messanger, Sparks is a moron who was a non-hacker, that slipped by and was commissioned.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:26:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By STLRN: What ever the merit of it. It is lost on the messanger, Sparks is a moron who was a non-hacker, that slipped by and was commissioned.
View Quote
And because of that the M113s are going to magically prove LESS bomb resistant than a HMMWV?
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:35:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2003 11:37:52 AM EDT by STLRN]
Nope, I think the M113 would be a little better than a HUMVEE, but not much more since most attacks are via RPG and IEDs. But than again this may incur more spall related causalities. But his statement that the Stryker is thinner skinned than the stock M113 is totally false. Since the up armor kits to make the M113 up to or past a Stryker exsist but haven't been mde, it would just as long to get them up armored. Also the name Gavin is one of his creations no one at Knox or any where else calls them that.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:39:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By STLRN: Nope, I think the M113 would be a little better than a HUMVEE, but not much more since most attacks are via RPG and IEDs. But than again this may incur more spall related causalities. But his statement that the Stryker is thinner skinned than the stock M113 is totally false. Since the up armor kits to make the M113 up to or past a Stryker exsist but haven't been mde, it would just as long to get them up armored. Also the name Gavin is one of his creations no one at Knox or any where else calls them that.
View Quote
The M113s are in wherehouses, the Strykers mostly have not been built yet. One exists, another doesnt. That is a important difference.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:44:39 AM EDT
They just deployed an entire Brigade of them to Iraq, yes allot are being built. But it takes along to take an item out of depot level storage, it might take 6-12 months to get many of these mothballed systems to the field. Also there aren't as many in storage as he is making sound like, allot have already been turned over to TMO (target management office) and are now in impact areas being shot up
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:54:48 AM EDT
Yep, my firne rides in the M113's on a dalit basis in the IDF. I much raher partol in the M113!! [img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid83/p325ba2e42026638cd491587fa6488d39/fad2cbdd.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid84/p1ab383a505c92ecf5f622cdf175517fd/fad0bc9d.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:55:11 AM EDT
The Izzy's have a bolt on upgrade kit for the 113s that will stop RPGs. As an engineer PL, we rolled in 113A3s and they work great. They give you all a stryker can, cheaper and with less weight. They are very easy mainetnance side. It would take no more than 2-3 weeks to pull them out of mothballs. There are hundreds out there already ready to use in MAITs sites. Of course, I have been saying this for the past year.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:59:48 AM EDT
Funny how we're relearning the lessons of war almost 40 years old: [img]http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Vietnam/7-ff/p042.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 12:02:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2003 12:03:25 PM EDT by STLRN]
Originally Posted By Sylvan: The Izzy's have a bolt on upgrade kit for the 113s that will stop RPGs. As an engineer PL, we rolled in 113A3s and they work great. They give you all a stryker can, cheaper and with less weight. They are very easy mainetnance side. It would take no more than 2-3 weeks to pull them out of mothballs. There are hundreds out there already ready to use in MAITs sites. Of course, I have been saying this for the past year.
View Quote
Most mechanical items in depot level storage would require allot of part replacement, if they still have the parts since they are often cannablized for the operational fleet. When I had to get a replacement 5 tons (when we still had them)for code H 5 tons was it took 3-4 months. Because they had to pull 1 out of the moth ball fleet, all the rubber items were dry rotted so had to be replaced, many of the engine components had to be replaced because of sitting around for years.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 12:13:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2003 12:16:25 PM EDT by newbushmaster]
Read: [url]http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=8151&lang=en[/url] I guess the leasons learned about wheeled vehicles in Samolia have been lost on the Army. Set one wheel on fire and the whole squad could be out of action. $1.4 million [img]http://www.iraqwar.ru/article_image.php?id=8151[/img] $300K [img]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113a3.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 12:21:47 PM EDT
What makes the styker so expensive is not the basic vehicle it is the comm/SA suite that and eventual armor upgrade that is going on it. It's apples to oranges, if you add the same comm suite and armor the cost will be pretty close. Than when you factor in mantenance and long term operational cost wheels always cost less.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 12:29:23 PM EDT
I do not beleve that the cost of the comm system and the robot gun mounts adds up to $1 Million dollars difference. I cannot see the IDF paying $1 Million per copy to rebuild their M113s. And do we really need that comm system now for patrolling Iraqi streets?
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 12:36:19 PM EDT
Interesting, but I've always heard that in Viet Nam the troops prefered to take their chances and ride on top of the APC's since they were so vulnerable to mines. Wouldn't this still be a problem with all the roadside bombs we are hearing about in Iraq?
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 12:37:59 PM EDT
I don’t the US is ready to switch from Hummers to APC's for patrol. Think about it, the media and other idiots would say its a sign we are losing the war.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 12:38:40 PM EDT
Nope but you cannot buy a system today with the idea of only 1 capability. The Strykers comm package is a little more than just comm, its a SA system. Also since you getting a new vehicle its going to cost more than an old vehicle, if we go with old vehicles, you get less long term service life. The old say buy cheap and buy twice, if we go with an older system it means it will be replaced sooner, and than it will cost more in the long run. The Marine Corps found the same thing with the 900 series trucks, intially it would be cheaper to upgrade 900s, but in the long run it was cheaper to spend more now and get something that last longers.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 12:42:32 PM EDT
Electronics is always the most expensive part. The Navy has learned that over the last 40 years. Stryker wasn't concieved in a vacuum. Is it a perfect platform? No. In fact, it was designed to be a compromise, much like the F-16. IF, and that's a big IF, M113s could be brought into service quickly and cheaply to supplement the Strykers, Bradleys, and HMMWVs then I'd say go for it. However, that rarely happens. Usually the logistics bite you in the ass. For instance, I'm asking here becasue I don't know: Wouldn't more drivers have to be trained in the M113? [Aren't most M113's command vehicles?] Wouldn't more mechanics have to be trained to support such large deployment? How about spare parts? Are they currently being produced or just refurbished? How many more spare parts would be needed to support a large deployment to Iraq? Can the current supply system in theater handle the needed spare parts for a different platform?
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 12:44:38 PM EDT
nonononononono. We need to send in the new M1A3 Abrams tanks. What will road-side bombs do to them, NOTHING!. If there is a town that is perticularly bad about attacks, lay siege to that town. Starve the F*ckers out. I'm sure the townsfolk will turn over the gurellas over starvation. If they dont..... MOAB
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 12:45:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CalGat: Interesting, but I've always heard that in Viet Nam the troops prefered to take their chances and ride on top of the APC's since they were so vulnerable to mines. Wouldn't this still be a problem with all the roadside bombs we are hearing about in Iraq?
View Quote
The other M113 varients already over there, the command posts, mortar carriers, 1st SGTs tracks, ect don't seem to be unusually vulnerable. Reinforced floors were added when the fuel tanks were moved to either side of the rear door outside the hull. And the bomb would have to be in the middle of the road so the M113 would have to pass over it. These side of the road bombs seem to be a kind of home made claymore. Most roads in Iraq are paved so its hard to bury a IED in the road itself so the roadside method is a compromise, and we have learned not to drive over a suspicious package laying on the road. And its not like they cant find or build a device big enough to knock out a M113- its just that when they have to build a bigger bomb, it gets harder to hide it.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 1:14:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 1:18:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy:
Originally Posted By STLRN: They just deployed an entire Brigade of them to Iraq
View Quote
One of the manager's sons that I work with is with them. He's been in Iraq just over a week. His Stryker is SN# 00000004. Just before they left, they added cages around them to help thwart RPG attacks. I'll try to get the pics and post them. -Troy
View Quote
I was wondering if they were going to bother bringing the things or just send the men. Cages? You mean like the metal bar and cyclone fencing cages we used to put around M113's in Vietnam?
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 1:33:37 PM EDT
This won't happen anytime soon. After all the BS that comes with fielding equipment, you still need to train the deployed soldiers to operate and maintain it, train or bring in mechanics at unit level, direct support, depot, etc. Then you have to teach new tactics. It was a huge deal for our guys to get one cargo HMMWV per line squad. Now there's drivers who are used to being non-motorized stopping the trucks on contact, trapping everyone in the kill zone so they can jump out and fight like they're trained to. I think they'd be better off using UA HMMWVS for patrols,(for some reason the MP's here at Bragg get them, but the infantry doesn't) getting some UA doors for the rest while phasing in some armor assets the right way.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 1:38:37 PM EDT
[img]http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/121203front2.jpg[/img] Look, they're fixing a blown tire... [img]http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/121203front3.jpg[/img] Hmmm... doesn't take long, even on them nice paved roads... Okay, here is my opinion: I think the Stryker is not the correct system for an otherwise pretty good concept. The armor is too thin, the vehicle is too cramped, the tires are too vulnerable and the turning radius is too large. For an "interim brigade" the M-113's should have been upgraded with the applique armor and C4SI or whatever cute little acronym systems could have been installed. The MGS variant will never work; they should have resurrected the M8. I just don't like this Stryker. I think we need a dedicated MP Division, where we can put all the Strykers and uparmored Humvees... they would move in immediately after the end of major combat operations.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 1:49:17 PM EDT
No. Just the opposite, actually. There needs to be more foot patrols. LESS vehicle patrols. Especially in the cities. 2/25 conducted HUNDREDS of foot patrols in NAS. Several engagements, ZERO casualties. The Italians took over 2/25's compound and mission. They began doing all the patrols in vehicles. The rest is history.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 1:58:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Thekatar: [url]http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/121203front2.jpg[/url] Look, they're fixing a blown tire... [url]http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/121203front3.jpg[/url] Hmmm... doesn't take long, even on them nice paved roads... Okay, here is my opinion: I think the Stryker is not the correct system for an otherwise pretty good concept. The armor is too thin, the vehicle is too cramped, the tires are too vulnerable and the turning radius is too large. For an "interim brigade" the M-113's should have been upgraded with the applique armor and C4SI or whatever cute little acronym systems could have been installed. The MGS variant will never work; they should have resurrected the M8. I just don't like this Stryker. I think we need a dedicated MP Division, where we can put all the Strykers and uparmored Humvees... they would move in immediately after the end of major combat operations.
View Quote
OH MY GOD! Thats the rail armor that the Marines used on their LVTP-5's and LVTA-6's in Vietnam! and the Navy used it on riverene monitors in the Delta too. We spent 1.3 Million EACH for THIS! That is forty year old FIELD EXPEDIANT technology they are using there. The US taxpayer just got raped. I just hope those men don't get killed too while their at it.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 2:06:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: No. Just the opposite, actually. There needs to be more foot patrols. LESS vehicle patrols. Especially in the cities. 2/25 conducted HUNDREDS of foot patrols in NAS. Several engagements, ZERO casualties. The Italians took over 2/25's compound and mission. They began doing all the patrols in vehicles. The rest is history.
View Quote
How bout taking 400 or so Marine rifle squads, giving each their own Navy corpsman and assigning each one to live for a year in a particular city block or neighborhood? [url]http://www.capmarine.com/[/url] Supposedly worked well in Vietnam. One of the little things we borrowed from the British experience in Maylaya. Of course there would still have to be Armored colums handy in case they did get into trouble and someone had to come and get them.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 2:25:11 PM EDT
Yep, the MON, center, showing its rail and bar RPG armor, Vietnam 1969. [img]http://hawley.hispeed.com/vietnam/photos2/SweetPeas.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 2:31:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2003 2:34:01 PM EDT by Ross]
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: No. Just the opposite, actually. There needs to be more foot patrols. LESS vehicle patrols. Especially in the cities. 2/25 conducted HUNDREDS of foot patrols in NAS. Several engagements, ZERO casualties. The Italians took over 2/25's compound and mission. They began doing all the patrols in vehicles. The rest is history.
View Quote
This is the way to go. This is a "hearts and minds" deal here. Yeah plenty won't ever figure it out, but the war we are in NOW is different than it was when we were in free flowing combat. Since it's a different war, you use different tactics. People on the ground [b]WALKING[/b] provides the contact with the populus that you never get in even a Hummvee. When you roll around in a tank, or any track, all the people see is a tank or a track. I.e. an occupying force of thugs. When you walk around you are in direct contact with the people. They will see you as people, and notice you giving candy to kids, and all the nice things GIs do. This is also where most of your real, useful intelligence will come from. They will come to rely on you as the actual authority there. Building up a relationship is what this kind of war is all about. If your troops are trained, then they are probably at less risk than if they are riding. Riding you have far less control over any situation. You have to dismount to develop any situation. You have no way to use any of the cover, or be able to maneuver without dismounting. I know for a fact a good infantryman on foot will be able to spot a possible IED, or ambush easier on foot than he can locked up inside an aluminum box. Sure you have vehciles, aircraft, and all sorts of stuff. A rapid reaction force with armor, aircraft and more infantry,to rapidly respond and develop a situation always on standby 24/7 to reinforce them if needed. I would not be stingy on the use of armor or aircraft, but this is an Infantry war here now. The only guy who can truly win this war is the 19 year old rifleman walking around and making it happen. Ross
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 3:28:25 PM EDT
The 113 ( and really all vehicles) are very easy to drive. They are better for urban conflict because of the ability to pivot steer. If troops are given a choice, they will take a 113 every time. The depot storage is different than the MAITs. MAITs equipment is stored to 10/20 (in theory). Sure they will be problems, but nothing that can't be fixed. Some heavy APCs like the Israelis and Russians have would go a long way as well.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 3:32:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 3:36:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Belfry_Express: nonononononono. We need to send in the new M1A3 Abrams tanks. What will road-side bombs do to them, NOTHING!. If there is a town that is perticularly bad about attacks, lay siege to that town. Starve the F*ckers out. I'm sure the townsfolk will turn over the gurellas over starvation. If they dont..... MOAB
View Quote
I agree, but first get the damn press out of there. All they do is cause problems back here at home.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 4:24:02 PM EDT
What does that armor do? Set the RPG off before the brunt of the energy hits the hull?
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 4:30:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By newbushmaster: What does that armor do? Set the RPG off before the brunt of the energy hits the hull?
View Quote
Yeah, its a kind of spaced armor. Unlike real spaced armor though it gives no added protection against MG fire like the Toga kits on the IDF M113s give. On that page where I got the pic of the Vietnam Monitor, is another with the page owner posing with various rounds of ordinance caught in the rails that failed to explode. The RPG rounds, if they didn't hit the bars proper would sometimes get themselves wedged between the bars, but their nose fuze wouldn't hit anything and they would just hang there live.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 4:30:49 PM EDT
that's my guess, and it is a guess. fairly light weight compared to normal armor and sets the charge off away from the main armor
Originally Posted By newbushmaster: What does that armor do? Set the RPG off before the brunt of the energy hits the hull?
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 8:23:06 PM EDT
My friend who is stationed over there likes the Humvee because it is fast and also fairly quiet. Works well for the sorts of raids they do where they want to get in fast, grab the bad guys, and book. GunLvr
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 8:39:56 PM EDT
M113 armor is a joke. This plan would be logistically unsustainable as well, if it could even get off the ground. I do believe Carlos Hatchcock was in an M113 when he got burned up. Stryker has better crew survivability than the Bradley - let alone the M113. But what do I know - for that matter, what do the people commanding these units and in the Pentagon know. [rolleyes] You can't effectively patrol while hiding inside armor, and unless you are tank, your armor is just an RPG magnet that will kill you. Someone else mentioned their vulnerabiltiy to mines. As for the smartass comment about changing tires - obviously you have never had to replace track. The Stryker has proven to be more reliable maintenance-wise than similar tracked platforms. gotta love the 2ID unit patch, though [:D].
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 8:41:25 PM EDT
O-R-D-N-A-N-C-E THERE IS NO %&&*%^$&%&%% "I"
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 9:10:04 PM EDT
Cincinattus hit it right on the head. Infantry patrols. Bradley, 113, LAV, Stryker... All that shit is just a big ass target thats alot easier to shoot at then shoot from in an urban environment.
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 9:18:40 PM EDT
I love the Stryker, dont get me wrong. But that Bullshit storm drange crap wrapped around it looks real funky. Why not just out some reactive armore on it for the RPG's? Ah well. As long as its saving US lives is most imprtant! [usa]
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 9:36:56 PM EDT
I'm picturing a US Serviceman over in Iraq right now, sitting at a laptop saying: "why the hell did that ARFcom member buy a Ford, he should have bought the Chevy!" Naw...
Link Posted: 12/12/2003 11:53:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 12:28:40 AM EDT
Most man-portable anti-tank weapons work via shaped charges. The warhead charge has a cone-shaped hole in the front. When the round detonates a jet of superheated gasses generated by the geometry of the charge burns through steel. It's a really interesting effect. I've seen foot-thick chunks of steel with a neat, pencil-thin hole burned right through. The advantage of shaped charges is that you can get a warhead that cuts through steel in just a few pounds. That makes it possible to have an anti-tank weapon a man can carry on his back. Without that you'd need either a huge warhead that worked by blast effect or a big gun to shoot a big kinetic energy penetrator. The jet generated by the shaped charge only extends so far. The distance depends on a number of factors, including the diameter of the charge. You can also increase the effectiveness of the charge by using metal liners. See [url]http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:E424l_IUuywJ:www.argospress.com/jbt/Volume4/4-3-1.pdf+shaped+charge+geometry&hl=en&ie=UTF-8[/url] for some of the physics involved. The slat armor works by detonating the shaped charge at a distance greater than that of the jet length. By the time it hits the armor on the vehicle the jet is already breaking up. That's also the reason M1 crews store their gear on racks mounted to the turret. It's added protection against RPGs.
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 2:59:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2003 3:08:52 AM EDT by Agcsy]
This sparks guy was banned from another website i visit tank-net.org about 3 years ago. He is pretty much insane how he is still in the military is beyong me. He has a rabid hatred of all things related to the USMC. His super idea is to put a 106mm RR onto a m113 tack on some armor and it will some how turn itself into a super infantry support vehicle. I think he named it the Gavin or some crap like that. His web page is [url]www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/m113combat.htm[/url] . He is widely considered to be equal to bowhunt of ak47.net fame in the online armor community. Expect to see the phrase "SHOCK ACTION!" alot he was known to use it 350000 times each post.
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 3:28:44 AM EDT
The RPG series uses a fuzing system that passes electical current through the nose cone to the fuze. If the nose cone itself gets crushed onto it's liner, the current shorts out and the fuze duds. This is why simple mesh works as protection against RPGs. If the RPG round gets it's nose between the mesh, or in this case between the slats, the nosecone with crush and short out the fuze. If you look at pics from Vietnam, you'll see similar fencing around various things, like a M113A1 front, or on boats, or around Brit "Sangars" in N. Ireland. They are all a variation on the theme. It may not work 100% of the time, but it is highly effective. If the RPG round hits the actual slat itself, or if the fuze otherwise still goes off, the standoff is too great for it to do much. Ross
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 3:42:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Adam_White: gotta love the 2ID unit patch, though [:D].
View Quote
Who would've ever thought we'd see [b]those[/b] as combat patches again? **Proud** to have been! Chris
Link Posted: 12/13/2003 5:18:33 AM EDT
I am currently in Iraq as a military police officer. We do convoy sercurity for PLS's, 5 tons, Humvees. I am the gunner. Currently we use an unarmored 1025 HUMVEE (GO Guard!) with a MK-19 mounted. We have an option to borrow two squads of combat engineers who have M113s (Go Mississippi Guard!). We usually choose not to. They are not proof against RPGs and IEDs and they are really slow. When we are travelling through Al-Fallujah or Ar-Ramadi which we do all the time, it is really scarey to be moving at 30 mph. The Iraqis will wait and hit the soft targets, and ignore the M113. We've had M1A2 tanks in our convoys before, and they slow us down too. I had an IED blow up right beside our vehicle. Luckily it only took off the rear view mirror and punch a fist sized hole thru the side of the hood. Point is, they just waited for the tank to pass by, and blew the IED on the unarmored HUMVEE that is moving at 30 mph because of the tank. Yes, we did search the area and no, we found no sign of the person who triggered the IED. They are remote controlled and the guy could be anywhere. I've been thru two IED attacks and two ambushes (we had 5 RPGs fired at us once, all of them missed) so I know what I am talking about. Guardian www.guardian855.com
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top