Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

$220,000 uparmored Humvee "inadequate" - solutions, workarounds?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    The actual plan called for the Marines to swing in from the East and encircle the city along with the 3rd ID., thus preventing high level Baathists from escaping, as well as putting more forces on location should the government collapse and general order be lost.

    When the Thunder Runs were launched by the on scene commander, they were done so with zero marine forces in place, and with no cordon at all around the city. What's more, there were no security forces present to maintain any semblance of order whatsoever once the gov't fell.

    What the onscene commander did was fire an armored arrow right into the heart of Saddam's regime. That arrow- for better or for worse- struck deep and true, and we ended up with what we ended up with....

    What was it that Rumsfeld called it? Ah, yes, "Catastrophic victory."

    The Thunder Runs as they occurred were, in my estimation, ill timed, ill advised, and generally... not smart.
    But they were certainly bold and "glorious."

    It's a shame no one realized that gun shields would have saved lives in advance though...one of those many lessons that were forgotten (it defies belief to me that someone could forget that exposed gunners get shot at- a lot), and which will probably be forgotten again.
    Last edited by Bill; 25 Feb 11,, 15:10.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Bill View Post
      The actual plan called for the Marines to swing in from the East and encircle the city along with the 3rd ID., thus preventing high level Baathists from escaping, as well as putting more forces on location should the government collapse and general order be lost.
      Bill,

      The MEF was in Baghdad 48 hours later. While saying a cordon would have been created, the reality is that it would have been easy for Baathists to slip through a 3ID/MEF cordon. If you look back at the sources you cite, you will also find that there weren't contingency plans for a complete implosion of government, which would have still happened. There was no ROE for looters. 48-72 hours of additional combat in Baghdad would not have solved either of those problems. The regime was rotten to the core and implosion was the logical result. The ad hoc CPA, led by Bremer, only exacerbated the problems by making ill-fated decisions. COL Perkins was the root cause or even proximate cause of the problems. It was the SecDef and NSA who failed to ensure that their organizations did their job.
      "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Shek View Post
        Bill,

        The MEF was in Baghdad 48 hours later. While saying a cordon would have been created, the reality is that it would have been easy for Baathists to slip through a 3ID/MEF cordon. If you look back at the sources you cite, you will also find that there weren't contingency plans for a complete implosion of government, which would have still happened. There was no ROE for looters. 48-72 hours of additional combat in Baghdad would not have solved either of those problems. The regime was rotten to the core and implosion was the logical result. The ad hoc CPA, led by Bremer, only exacerbated the problems by making ill-fated decisions. COL Perkins was the root cause or even proximate cause of the problems. It was the SecDef and NSA who failed to ensure that their organizations did their job.
        Well we can agree on that point....a whole lot of people failed.

        Big time.

        Still, I contend that had Perkins stayed on plan that things would not have been as bad. It would have still been a royal cluster f*ck, but not to the magnitude that it was. It is very clearly laid out in Cobra II that one of Perkins primary motivations for attacking when he did was to shut up Baghdad Bob.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
          Adding all of the turrets, etc don't work. Why? The turret ring is too small to handle anything close to an effective modern weapons system. The hull is too small for the stroage needed to make it effective
          Huh? You've never seen an M163 mounting a 20mm Vulcan cannon? They've been in service for decades.



          How about a TOW carrier?



          Or a FIST-V?



          I don't know how you can say that a vehicle that can handle a fully equipped 11 man squad lacks internal storage space either.

          I'm having a hard time finding just one conclusion of yours in this thread that i can agree with.
          Last edited by Bill; 26 Feb 11,, 03:29.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Bill View Post
            I don't know how you can say that a vehicle that can handle a fully equipped 11 man squad lacks internal storage space either.
            The M113 cannot handle a fully equipped 11 man squad, it can handle a Vietnam era squad. The average American is physically bigger, and so is the pile of gear he carriers with him. The addition of body armor, bigger anti-tank systems, night vision, more batteries, UAV's, computers, more radios, sensors and other gear means the 113 cannot handle a full 11 man squad without trapping every one inside the track for too long under fire, and making carriage to the fight exhausting in and of itself.

            I don't get why your such a fan of a track that slows everything else down, that is poorly protected, loud, under armed and poorly equipped.

            Comment


            • #81
              Sorry bud, but the M113 is designed to handle an 11 man dismount squad, plus a driver and TC. The ramp makes embarking and disembarking quite easy even when the vehicle is loaded to full capacity.

              The M113 doesn't slow down anything. It's just as fast as an M2 (and probably faster than the late model M2A3), and faster than a "heavy armor" M1.
              It is not poorly protected in it's latest guises by any means, and even in A3 configuration, it matched the original protection level of the Stryker, and exceeds that of the LAV-25.
              The M113 is not any louder than any other diesel powered vehicle.
              The M113 is not under armed, it has the same armament as a Stryker (and many models have far more firepower).

              I'm starting to think a 113 driver splashed you with mud one day when you were eating MRE's atop your Abrams or something. It's the only thing that explains your consistently wrong conclusions. :)

              An "under armed" turkish M113 (using the stock mounting location) with the US WWII 4x.50cal self contained AA mount. (In other words, it would still be capable of carrying dismounts)


              You certainly would not want that shooting at you.

              Now put that turret on this hull....



              ....And the only term that would apply to what emerged is "bad ass."

              This one can't carry any troops, but dayum...



              Italian M113A3 SIDAM with quad 25mm cannons. (In service with the Italian army since 1987)

              You wouldn't want to be in a Bradley or Stryker and be facing that thing.

              And maybe the baddest active service M113 variant of all, the ADATS:

              Last edited by Bill; 26 Feb 11,, 04:00.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Bill View Post
                And maybe the baddest active service M113 variant of all, the ADATS:

                Errr, it has been regulated to the reserves.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Also, Bill, the M113 low flat bottom hull really bugs the hell out of me. The CF has looked at refit but no matter how we look at it, even small AT minestrikes are the show stoppers for the M113 and that was out of the question for a recce brigade.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Bill View Post
                    Sorry bud, but the M113 is designed to handle an 11 man dismount squad, plus a driver and TC. The ramp makes embarking and disembarking quite easy even when the vehicle is loaded to full capacity.
                    It was designed to handle an 11 man squad equipped for the Vietnam era. Since then the physical size of the average US soldier has gone up, the space he occupies is further expanded by the much wider vareity of gear he now carries. Add to this the much larger list of squad equipment and the result is reduced room.

                    The M113 doesn't slow down anything. It's just as fast as an M2 (and probably faster than the late model M2A3),
                    Not even close. The M2 will do 35mph across reasonbly rough terrain and fire on the move. That same terrain will prohibit accurate firing from the M113 and beat the snot out of the squad at a much lower speed.

                    and faster than a "heavy armor" M1.
                    No way in hell.

                    It is not poorly protected in it's latest guises by any means, and even in A3 configuration, it matched the original protection level of the Stryker, and exceeds that of the LAV-25.
                    Neither of which was designed to pall around with tanks. However that beign said, it does not match the protection of the stryker. Even if the base model strykers armor was no thicker the more modern fire supression systems, higher speed, better sensors, more mine resistent design, resistence to mobility kills, and quietness make the stryker a much more survivable platform than the 113.

                    The M113 is not any louder than any other diesel powered vehicle.
                    Have you gone deaf from all that time on the range? The 6v53 is not loud compared to say the continental powered M88, but is much louder than the Stryker even before you add the sounds of tracks.

                    The M113 is not under armed, it has the same armament as a Stryker
                    No it doesn't. The M113 has a non-stablized non-maginified daylight/low light only M2HBMG. The stryker has a fully stablized, magnified and FLIR equipped M2HB. They might fire the same bullets, but the Strykers M2 is a modern weapon while the 113's is a kickback to Vietnam.

                    (and many models have far more firepower).
                    Again, no they don't. If you want to compare firepower of variants... The Stryker MSG has an autofed M68 105mm cannon. No 113 variant has this kinetic energy ability. In terms of chemical energy the Stryker can fire the latest version of the TOW. I think all the 113 variants are cleared for are older generations of the missile.

                    I'm starting to think a 113 driver splashed you with mud one day when you were eating MRE's atop your Abrams or something. It's the only thing that explains your consistently wrong conclusions. :)
                    Nope, just heard plenty of radio calls from tracks screaming for us to slow down becuase they can't keep up.



                    Last edited by gf0012-aust; 26 Feb 11,, 22:41. Reason: Layout fix

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      I'll be buggered, the Turks still use those Mason Mounts...?

                      I've often thought that a modularised remote one mounted on the back of a tray top of a Bushmaster would be a pretty good way of providing some nasty fire-power relatively cheaply.
                      Ego Numquam

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Bill View Post
                        Huh? You've never seen an M163 mounting a 20mm Vulcan cannon? They've been in service for decades.



                        How about a TOW carrier?



                        Or a FIST-V?



                        I don't know how you can say that a vehicle that can handle a fully equipped 11 man squad lacks internal storage space either.

                        I'm having a hard time finding just one conclusion of yours in this thread that i can agree with.
                        Bill,

                        Every one of your examples has been out of service for over 12+ years.

                        The Vulcan disappearred in the early 1990s; the ITV went away in the mid-1990s and the FIST-V by the end of that decade. None could keep up within a mech/armored task force....saw it in the late 1980s when the last two were fairly new.

                        In everyone of those cases, the turret ring was maxed out on the weight and space....and provided mediocre interim solutions. The size of the turret ring precludes anything larger or heavier. Same with the engine compartment....there is no room to expand equipment (I am not talking about the drive train). And because of that you ha dan issue witht he turrt sliprings being to small for the weight they had to manage which made them a maintenance nightmare.

                        In each of these cases there is no way to fit 11 people. An M163 Vulcan could carry 3, 4 at a pinch, M901 ITV 3 w/ 5 in a pinch and the FIST-V 6 tops.

                        Those hulls were maxed out on what they could take.

                        All the additional items you add deducts the troops you can carry based on room and space.

                        The ITV and FIST-V were interim solutions until sufficient M2s could be manufactured. The ITV was done away with when the Bradley came into a Mech Battalion....no need for th AT company if you had 14 TOW launcher vehicles in each rifle company. The FIST-V was a quick way to get stabilized laser designationinto the FIST network. The were stop gap solutions meant for the Cold War plains of Germany. They were the Infantry's version of the M60A3...a way to get emerging technology into the force as interim solution.
                        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                        Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          You wouldn't want to be in a Bradley or Stryker and be facing that thing.

                          I'd do that all day long.

                          The quad 25 has a max range of 2000 meters; the Bradley 25mm has a max range of 3,000 meters.

                          The Bradley has twice the armor and is sloped. The ADA gun is slab sided.

                          Look at how low the back sags on that track....it is maxed out on the weight it can handle.

                          The Army has looked at all of these varied solutions over the past several [B]decades[B].

                          Those M113 variants were not found to provide sufficient ROI for the cost.

                          The MRAPs are a solution to meet an immediate need, just like the ITVs and FIST-Vs. It may be in service for awhile...but in a securty force role not in a main battle role. That is what it was designed for after all.

                          The armored HMMWVs fill the need nicely in light and security units until a better solution which justifies the cost and NEED comes along.
                          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                          Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                            Bill,

                            Every one of your examples has been out of service for over 12+ years.
                            Irrelevant. You said an M113 could not be made to pack more firepower than it's .50cal, i showed you several vehicles that did just that.

                            Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                            The quad 25 has a max range of 2000 meters; the Bradley 25mm has a max range of 3,000 meters.

                            The Bradley has twice the armor and is sloped. The ADA gun is slab sided.
                            And if both tracks are using the same modern NATO ammunition? I don't think a short barreled 25mm Bushmaster is going to match the range of those long barreled 25mm AA guns, unless the ballistic computer in the Italian track is not capable of firing solutions beyond 2000 meters.

                            Even sticking to the 1000 meter max range differential, any smart commander would just keep his tracks in hull down firing positions until the bradleys are in range, or use the terrain to mask his tracks until the bradleys are in range. Once in range, those quad 25mm's and their approx 2500rpm firing rate would blow a Bradley apart with a split second burst.

                            Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                            Look at how low the back sags on that track....it is maxed out on the weight it can handle.
                            It's an older model 113, and gee, i guess it would be maxed out...it's only packing quad 25mm guns! LOL.

                            And, really, no kidding that a Vulcan or ITV or FIST-V wont carry 11 troops? I was talking about the troop carrier version, which carries 11 dismounts. I used the example of those vehicles because you said an M113 cant be upgunned. I proved you wrong. You further said that an M113 doesnt have sufficient internal space for an increased armament fit, which i also proved to be wrong.

                            Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                            The Army has looked at all of these varied solutions over the past several decades.
                            Yes, and the US Army has adopted DOZENS of these various M113s into service, and they have served for those decades successfully.

                            Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                            Those M113 variants were not found to provide sufficient ROI for the cost.
                            You could have fooled me, the M113 is the most successful armored vehicle in the history of the West.

                            Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                            The MRAPs are a solution to meet an immediate need, just like the ITVs and FIST-Vs. It may be in service for awhile...but in a securty force role not in a main battle role. That is what it was designed for after all.
                            Total waste of money. Once we're out of the insurgency fighting business and the Army is back to wanting to fight "real wars", those MRAPs will be viewed as a waste of space and resources. All these uparmored HUMVEEs are going to be scrapped or sold off for pennies on the dollar because they're inefficient and expensive to operate compared to regular Humvee's in peace time. Watch it happen. The day is coming.

                            The army couldn't even be bothered to keep gunshields on it's vehicles after Vietnam even though they are completely proven life savers. You think they're going to keep heavily armored trucks around? No.

                            Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            It was designed to handle an 11 man squad equipped for the Vietnam era. Since then the physical size of the average US soldier has gone up, the space he occupies is further expanded by the much wider vareity of gear he now carries. Add to this the much larger list of squad equipment and the result is reduced room.
                            You are reminding me with comments like this why DAT's are called DAT's to begin with.

                            Human beings have evolved sooooo much in the past 30 years. WTF, over. If anything, today's soldiers carry a less bulky load. M4 vs M14. The little radios that are issued today vs a full size PRC-77. A SAW vs an M60. No individual LAW rockets nowadays...about the only thing that's bulkier is the body armor.

                            Seriously...stick to your tanks. An M113 has an 11 man dismount squad.

                            Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            No it doesn't. The M113 has a non-stablized non-maginified daylight/low light only M2HBMG. The stryker has a fully stablized, magnified and FLIR equipped M2HB. They might fire the same bullets, but the Strykers M2 is a modern weapon while the 113's is a kickback to Vietnam.
                            Wrong, the M2 on an M113 can be fitted with a night vision sight in about one minute.
                            Wrong, the M2 on an M113 can be fitted with a sight with magnification in about one minute.
                            Wrong, the original weapons suite on the Stryker was unstabilized, and requires the gunner to expose himself to reload the system.

                            And honestly, a similar remote control .50 cal mount could easily be adapted to a M113 (in fact i've showed you an M113 variant with a quad powered .50cal mount using the existing turret ring), though honestly, to me, the Stryker IS underarmed too.

                            Anyway, dude....give it up.
                            Last edited by Bill; 26 Feb 11,, 18:01.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              damn bill, at least you're not calling it the gavin....
                              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Bill View Post
                                Human beings have evolved sooooo much in the past 30 years. WTF, over. If anything, today's soldiers carry a less bulky load. M4 vs M14. The little radios that are issued today vs a full size PRC-77. A SAW vs an M60. No individual LAW rockets nowadays...about the only thing that's bulkier is the body armor.
                                Bill, the cube of the assault load of the my rifle platoon couldn't compare to the cube of the assault load that my rifle platoons when I was a commander wore. The best fit is to wear your equipment up higher - when it's hanging from your body armor that have plate inserts, your circumference just about doubles. The Strykers, which were a comfortable fit for 11 men in the back with body armor without plates become jam packed once you put plates in and carried a true combat load. Sorry, but Z is right on this point.

                                Another way to think about is that an infantry still carries 100lbs worth of sh!t, it's just that now it's 100lbs of lightweight sh!t.
                                "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X