User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 10:56:26 AM EDT
[#1]
Whatever we do lets not fuck with someones project.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 10:57:52 AM EDT
[#2]
Ahh, the M113. My alma mater.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 11:02:29 AM EDT
[#3]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 11:04:23 AM EDT
[#4]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 11:15:13 AM EDT
[#5]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 11:15:26 AM EDT
[#6]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 11:26:44 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: 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. And because of that the M113s are going to magically prove LESS bomb resistant than a HMMWV? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 11:35:03 AM EDT
[#8]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 11:39:19 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: 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. The M113s are in wherehouses, the Strykers mostly have not been built yet. One exists, another doesnt. That is a important difference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 11:44:39 AM EDT
[#10]
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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 11:54:48 AM EDT
[#11]
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] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 11:55:11 AM EDT
[#12]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 11:59:48 AM EDT
[#13]
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] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 12:02:25 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 12:13:35 PM EDT
[#15]
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] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 12:21:47 PM EDT
[#16]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 12:29:23 PM EDT
[#17]
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?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 12:36:19 PM EDT
[#18]
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?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 12:37:59 PM EDT
[#19]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 12:38:40 PM EDT
[#20]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 12:42:32 PM EDT
[#21]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 12:44:38 PM EDT
[#22]
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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 12:45:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: 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? 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 1:14:44 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: They just deployed an entire Brigade of them to Iraq 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 1:18:56 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: They just deployed an entire Brigade of them to Iraq 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 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 1:33:37 PM EDT
[#26]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 1:38:37 PM EDT
[#27]
[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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 1:49:17 PM EDT
[#28]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 1:58:24 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: [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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 2:06:12 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 2:25:11 PM EDT
[#31]
Yep, the MON, center, showing its rail and bar RPG armor, Vietnam 1969.
[img]http://hawley.hispeed.com/vietnam/photos2/SweetPeas.jpg[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 2:31:46 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: 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. 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 3:28:25 PM EDT
[#33]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 3:32:50 PM EDT
[#34]
The Stryker pics I promised are here:
[url]www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=218491[/url] -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 3:36:20 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: 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 I agree, but first get the damn press out of there. All they do is cause problems back here at home. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 4:24:02 PM EDT
[#36]
What does that armor do? Set the RPG off before the brunt of the energy hits the hull?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 4:30:16 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: What does that armor do? Set the RPG off before the brunt of the energy hits the hull? 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 4:30:49 PM EDT
[#38]
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
Quoted: What does that armor do? Set the RPG off before the brunt of the energy hits the hull? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 8:23:06 PM EDT
[#39]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 8:39:56 PM EDT
[#40]
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]. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 8:41:25 PM EDT
[#41]
O-R-D-N-A-N-C-E
THERE IS NO %&&*%^$&%&%% "I" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 9:10:04 PM EDT
[#42]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 9:18:40 PM EDT
[#43]
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] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 9:36:56 PM EDT
[#44]
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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2003 11:53:03 PM EDT
[#45]
Bring back the M113 ACAV! That is basicly what the IDF use for this same sort of thing...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2003 12:28:40 AM EDT
[#46]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2003 2:59:35 AM EDT
[#47]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2003 3:28:44 AM EDT
[#48]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2003 3:42:13 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: gotta love the 2ID unit patch, though [:D]. Who would've ever thought we'd see [b]those[/b] as combat patches again? **Proud** to have been! Chris |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2003 5:18:33 AM EDT
[#50]
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 |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
