(no subject)

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

Horsesoldier RE:(no subject) 6/26/2004 2:00:21 AM

>>Our modern generals might give a lot of lip service to protecting the force, but any way you cut it, what?s going on in Iraq is criminal. Clearly there?s a disconnect. The brass need to spend less time in their luxurious lakefront palaces and get down on the ground with the troops.<< You know, I wonder if Hackworth was sitting in a chair just down from the green room at Fox or CNN, waiting to get his makeup fixed before going on camera to pontificate when that particular turn of phrase occurred to him. It's damned easy to be the whiny b*tch who stands by and complains about everything, not so easy to be the guy who stays in the game and actually does something. Hack bailed out a long time ago, and I don't know that we're not better served by his being gone every time I see him spouting off with this sort of drivel.

Quote Reply

rangers911 RE:(no subject) 6/26/2004 2:23:35 AM

the one thing i want to see is how the m-113 is going to be so much better than the humvee for this job dear god. i'm no armor expert but from what my father has told me about that is to be nice it was not a very good design.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust RE:(no subject) 6/26/2004 2:44:16 AM

the issue for the humvee is that it is being used for operations and an environment that was not envisaged for it. it's a big fat replacement for a jeep. it was never meant to be an urban based infantry fighting vehicle. "you run what you brung" and sometimes it isn't going to work as you planned it. In an ideal world, if there was a requirement to have a 4 wheeled support vehicle in place, then maybe they would have had hundreds of ASV's instead. doctrine and damage control unfortunately evolve through mistakes as well as successes.

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:(no subject) 6/26/2004 3:30:42 AM

here's my personal grudge about why there are insufficient or inadequate armored support vehicles (armored cars, better APCs, etc): when was the last time a general, senator, or other congressman lost one of THEIR children fighting in a war due to the lack of adequate equipment, training, and tactics? That should sum it up right there. When those stuffed-shirt desk jockeys out to make a career name (or another star on their collar) start showing less interest in how much campaign funding or corporate buy-offs they rake in and start showing more interest in the sacrifices that the working class make (the people in the military who actually DO the fighting and dying), then we'll see the truly effective equipment we need. Shucks, it's too bad the military can't vote themselves a pay increase! I recognize that there are a handful of upper-ranking individuals in the military who do give a hoot more than just showing up once a month to pass-and-review their troops (and many more would SAY they actually care), but it seems that the futher from the bottom a person gets, the more they forget or overlook just what life is like down at that end. Instead of doing stupid stuff like getting a million black berets for the Army, they should have invested in products and/or training that helps us be more effective soldiers: that beret didn't really make any of us any better a soldier than the old soft cap, and looking good to the public in a pressed uniform all neat and tidy is NOT going to win any wars other than PR. One of the reasons I chose NOT to finish ROTC was because I realized there might come the day when I, as an officer, might be called upon to send men into a threat their equipment and training were inadequate to handle. I'm all for bravery and courage, but there is also a line of foolishness in there. And it's nobler and fairer to lose one's personal glory in saving the lives of men, than it is to gain personal glory at the expense of their lives (can't say that everyone agrees with that, though). In my preliminary classes, it seemed as though the instructors were trying to push the idea that the enlisted ranks were little more than another commodity to achieve the desired goals on the battlefield. And for officers who personally do not have to visit the families of soldiers lost, it gets easy to send men out knowing they may not return. It's all too political anymore..

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:(no subject) 6/26/2004 7:10:45 AM

Hack doesn't seem to mention little factoids like this one: link Or this one, relating to his claim that the Stryker is not seeing action: link Probably because his approach to journalism focuses on never letting research or facts cloud his pre-determined notion that the brass is screwing the little guys.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:(no subject) 6/26/2004 7:34:47 AM

>>here's my personal grudge about why there are insufficient or inadequate armored support vehicles (armored cars, better APCs, etc): when was the last time a general, senator, or other congressman lost one of THEIR children fighting in a war due to the lack of adequate equipment, training, and tactics?<< Generals who lost sons? I'm not certain. Generals whose sons are in uniform and serving? I can think of several I've bumped into along the way. That's actually a pretty common state of affairs. >>One of the reasons I chose NOT to finish ROTC was because I realized there might come the day when I, as an officer, might be called upon to send men into a threat their equipment and training were inadequate to handle. << In my ten years wearing the uniform either full or part time, and more generally in my lifetime, the American military has made huge leaps forward in both its training and its equipment. MILES and Simunitions, the establishment of force-on-force Combat Training Centers like NTC with real-world simulations built into the scenarios (civilians on the battlefield, insurgents and terrorists, etc), Engagement Skills Trainers and vehicle-based SIMNET and its successors. We get a whole lot of bang for our training dollars. As for the equipment -- what are we lacking? Hackworth and the rest of the sideline snipers seem convinced that we can financially sustain a force structure where all logistics are handled by (RPG and IED vulnerable and poorly armed) M113s or up-armord Hum-vees or what have you. We live in a world of finite resources, even in this country, and I'd like to see Hack or anyone else run up some numbers on how much it would cost to replace Hum-vees with M113s. And then run up some numbers on how many lives that would save in a country where the weapon of choice, the RPG, will peel open an M113 like a can opener. It's a counter-insurgency operation. People are going to get killed in a slow and steady stream. There is not enough armor plate in the developed world to get around that basic fact. As for our equipment more generally -- again, it just gets better as time goes on, the ten years I've been in. Interceptor body armor, which has saved innumerable lives over there, is new. Night vision gear has gotten better and gotten more and more widely distributed, and is now augmented by man-portable thermals you can put on a rifle. PAQ-4 and PEQ-2 aiming lasers are new introductions, as are the other optics (ACOG, CCO, MGO, etc) we now issue as standard. I've seen similar improvements in communications, the tremendous improvement of Javelin replacing Dragon for platoon level anti-armor, hell, even the MREs are better. So I have a hard time seeing when we send our troops into action with the wrong equipment or the wrong training. Now, admittedly, all my time is in line units, and there seems to have been a problem with the support side of the house -- but do a cursory search, those parts of the army are sorting themselves out as well. And quickly. >>In my preliminary classes, it seemed as though the instructors were trying to push the idea that the enlisted ranks were little more than another commodity to achieve the desired goals on the battlefield. And for officers who personally do not have to visit the families of soldiers lost, it gets easy to send men out knowing they may not return. It's all too political anymore. << I played ROTC a bit before going enlisted, and that was not my experience. You have to get the mission done, but leadership is also about caring for the welfare of your people and, of course, minimizing their casualties to the greatest extent possible.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:(no subject) 6/26/2004 7:40:34 AM

>>the one thing i want to see is how the m-113 is going to be so much better than the humvee for this job dear god. i'm no armor expert but from what my father has told me about that is to be nice it was not a very good design << M113s -- at least the M113A3s I've crewed on occasion -- are not bad vehicles, but they're not as stellar as various online pundits would have one believe. They're vulnerable to RPGs, IEDs, etc., and no better armed than a hum-vee. given the choice between a convoy of fifty M113s hauling my logistics and a convoy of forty-six hum-vees and trucks guarded by four Bradleys, I'd take the Brads and trucks -- more cargo, and firepower to run off the bad guys.

Quote Reply

towgunner1960 RE:(no subject) 6/26/2004 12:45:13 PM

You can't compare m113 to hummer. You have to compare it to other vehicles in its class, bradley and stryker. Hummer has to compare with jeeps, (unarmored role), or cadillac gauge v150 and the like in the armored role. For convoy escort, etc., the wheeled armored vehicle is more optimal as it can better keep up with wheeled supply trucks and is more quicker. But when it comes to going over everything from muddy fields to rubble from a bombed out city tracks kick ass. The stryker has not been put through its paces by a long shot. It is put in an area that is not exactly a hotbed of activity. Put it in falluja or in the mountains in afghanistan and lets see what it does. It and especially the uparmored hummer are no more mine, ied and rpg proof than the 113. The army puts the stryker in relatively safe places, because it knows what will happen to them if they face serious sh*t. It wouldn't look good on cnn to see these multimillion dollar strykers going up in smoke on a regular basis. Then the public might question the validity of spending multiple billions on a system that is no better armored than the oldest 113. The 113 has been facing rpg, ied and mines since vietnam. The same threats we are facing today. I'm not a huge fan of the 113, I've served in them myself. As is are they optimal? no. But with band track technology, more powerful weapons and engines, they're pretty close. A modified v150 would be a hell of a lot better convoy escort vehicle than uparmored hummer, stryker, bradley or 113. 20-25 mm cannon, amphibious, quick and agile. They should have never got out of the system. Then we wouldn't be having the problems with uparmored hummer that we have today. It was extremely shortsighted on the armys part to not have such a vehicle in place, constantly upgraded and improved as lessons are learned in combat.....

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:(no subject) 6/26/2004 1:06:14 PM

The biggest AFV, with all its extra reactive and applique armor, will always be vulnerable to RPG style weapons. Very very few such AFVs have modules mounted on the hatch covers, or sufficient belly protection (and the only truly effective defense against IEDs is sufficiently early detection). As precision guidance gets more precise, the future generation of anti-armor systems will be able to pinpoint such weak spots. Hit a Bradley in the tail ramp (which is not covered in ERA or much applique, and it will break open just as bad as a 113. Sufficient long range detection equipment ( longer ranged IR and large magnification optics, for example) and enough provision for the mounted troops to defend against against RPG terrorists, will be the key to survivability in future ops. One of the current shortcomings facing US troops is the foolish idea of compacting the AR-15/M-16/M4 family by continuously chopping down the barrels, which is destroying the lethality of the 5.56mm round. I agree wholly with the idea of procuring the 6.8mm, as it has much better terminal performance and range over the 5.56, even when the barrel starts getting chopped. A weapon capable of longer range engagements (not necessarily a sniper weapon for every soldier) with sufficient mag optics can rapidly turn the tide against RPG marauders hunting US vehicles. I'm all for weapons such as OCSW, and the interim solution for that should have been more chain guns (like 30mm ASP) instead of the low-velocity Mk19 40mm. A handful of nations have developed armored vehicles off the Humvee chassis that are more effective that the US's up-armored models, and our convoy trucks (HEMTTs and FMTVs) are sufficiently lacking in adequate protection (the simple installation of ballistics visuals like LexGuard and other lightweight composites, in addition with a better combat rifle (NOW, not ten years down the road), would do wonders for our troops in the hot zone. There are considerable COTS/MOTS technologies available NOW that could vastly improve our current survivability. I'm all for getting the tech going for our future warriors, to keep the edge, but when we are suffering such loss rates as we do now (how many lives would it NOT have cost us if the troops had sufficient AFVs, rifles, body armor, and other equipment?), what is the point of focusing so much on future capabilities if you can't protect your elements enough now? Like I said before, until a general or congressman loses a son or daughter because of inadequate equipment or training (or even friendly fire), then the priority, regardless of any press-favoring arguments from people in DC, will be lower on the list than mega-billion dollar fighter and destroyer projects. We have had several occassions to equip our frontline troops with the "newest and best" equipment, but quite often it is the political figureheads screwing the fighting men and women out of the sufficient gear they could really use. Take all the taxpayer money gone into defense contracts, then add up the "profit margin" of each program, from which the manufacturers offer "campaign contributions" to politicians to "keep jobs in their areas"... over several years, that "buy-off money" becomes a considerable chunk that could have been used more effectively in getting the troops the proper equipment they need..

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:(no subject) 6/26/2004 1:37:10 PM

>>Hit a Bradley in the tail ramp (which is not covered in ERA or much applique, and it will break open just as bad as a 113. Sufficient long range detection equipment ( longer ranged IR and large magnification optics, for example) and enough provision for the mounted troops to defend against against RPG terrorists, will be the key to survivability in future ops. << Like the -A3 Bradleys, replacing the previous up to x12 power ISU optics (plus no seperate commander's channel and starlight for the driver) with x48 power day and thermal channels, laser rangefinders, a thermal viewer for the driver and CITV, etc? >>One of the current shortcomings facing US troops is the foolish idea of compacting the AR-15/M-16/M4 family by continuously chopping down the barrels, which is destroying the lethality of the 5.56mm round. << Continuously? M16A2 has the same length, and heavier, barrel than the A1. M4 has always had the 14.5" barrel -- a longer barrel than the XM177 that previously served in the same role. Now proposed weapons systems do entail shortening the barrel further, but I've yet to see the XM8 or the XM29 enter service. >>A weapon capable of longer range engagements (not necessarily a sniper weapon for every soldier) with sufficient mag optics can rapidly turn the tide against RPG marauders hunting US vehicles. << I would believe that it's called an M16A2 with ACOG sight fitted -- and/or M249 or M240 with MGO fitted. >>I'm all for weapons such as OCSW, and the interim solution for that should have been more chain guns (like 30mm ASP) instead of the low-velocity Mk19 40mm. << BS. Nobody out there who champions the 30mm ASP has ever bothered to try and fit one to a ring mount and take it for a whirl. Mk-19 paired with M2HB does a bang up job on the badguys, while 30mm ASP doesn't do a thing Mk-19 can't do. >>in addition with a better combat rifle (NOW, not ten years down the road), would do wonders for our troops in the hot zone. << Our issue rifle and carbine are first rate, especially coupled with the modern optics. There isn't a thing wrong with the M16A2 or the M4A1 that any replacement would radically improve without compromising some other capability. >>I'm all for getting the tech going for our future warriors, to keep the edge, but when we are suffering such loss rates as we do now (how many lives would it NOT have cost us if the troops had sufficient AFVs, rifles, body armor, and other equipment?), what is the point of focusing so much on future capabilities if you can't protect your elements enough now? << Insufficient rifles? I can only guess you're referencing the hiccup when tankers found themselves patrolling post-occupation? That's been addressed. Body armor? Have you looked at our loss rates? Have you looked, specifically at just how remarkably uncommon it is to die in Iraq or Afghanistan from torso wounds compared to any other conflict you can find numbers for? Insufficient AFVs? Just because a media which dismally misunderstands the military reports some "scandal" or some out-of-power political party attempts to find advantage in generating a storm in a tea cup doesn't mean there's really a problem. Certainly none of the above are. >>We have had several occassions to equip our frontline troops with the "newest and best" equipment, but quite often it is the political figureheads screwing the fighting men and women out of the sufficient gear they could really use.<< Examples? Like the PVS-7A/B/D, PVS-14, TAS-13, PAC-4, PEQ-2 -- our night vision is bleeding edge compared to everyone else on the planet. Our body armor -- yep, also cutting edge. JDAMs? Our latest generation of AFVs? Reconnaissance hum-vees with LRAS3? M203 gunners with 40mm thermobaric rounds? Where's the good kit we've skipped on?

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:(no subject) 6/26/2004 2:44:26 PM

...the arguments I have against the current M-16 generation of rifles it that not enough troops have been trained with the better optics systems (perhaps something more of a commander's prerogative? I don't know just how many of the frontline troops have the sufficient optics over the standard "iron sights" and get enough firing lanes time to learn them. You?) And also, the Spec Ops in Afghanistan found the M-16/M4 's range considerably lacking when adversaries in the hills were shooting with older, longer ranged bolt action rifles and other .30 caliber weapons, and that the 5.56 would sometimes require multiple hits to fully disable any agressors. Perhaps if ALL troops were trained and equipped with the better optical systems, the argument would be ended. The 5.56 lacks sufficient "get the sucker behind cover" penetration: most likely, we still cling to the worry of over-penetration hitting non-combatants. The ASP-30 is a beast indeed, but its flatter trajectory equates to more accurate fire (and faster flight-time). And the ADEN/DEFA class of ammunition (namely the HEDP) has slightly better anti-armor lethality than the 40mm grenades (which are more suited to anti-personnel use) lobbed by AGLs (although I was unaware of a thermobaric round with effective enough performance in that caliber). I've personally seen a "new" target vehicle (a stripped M109 hulk) that was placed on a weapon range (I was range control for a time): day one had MPs mounted on Humvees firing Mk 19s, and the exercise was alright, with considerable misses. A few days later, an Apache team was cleared on the range, and the 30mm ammo removed all doubts it was far better than the Mk19 (What was left of the hull was then fodder for Bradleys over the following weeks). But in ground applications, both weapons requires heavy packages of heavy ammunition: perhaps a better suggestion would be the Bushmaster .50: it has the option of single shot, which the Israelis found out is ideal for anti-sniper work (a mod to the M2s they mount on armor). Perhaps this would be an effective interim, or modding our M2 50s to follow suit. An M16 is not sufficient at long range shooting, and logistics trucks don't carry dedicated sniper teams to suppress any harassing fire they receive that automatic 50 fire might be undesireable for (it could also effectively stop an RPG boy at a distance in one shot). I would rescind my idea of the ASP30 except for areas where many enemy AFVs still prolifereate. And as far as the "newest and best" optics we have available, the argument STILL is that not enough troops are equipped and trained to use them. Just the same as truly effective body armor: I know from experience the last thing desireable is strapping that stuff on in 100 degree heat, but if it means I come home, I'll wear it. But the problem here is, once again, all the troops in harm's way don't have it yet. Now there is supposedly appropriation in effect to allot more of such equipment to those troops, but that still does not compensate the families who had to accept the sacrifice because some of those soldiers didn't have the body armor or frag vest that may have saved them (from bullets and stray frags, not initial IED blasts). And had enough of the up-armored Humvees been in service sooner, several more troops would be alive now, perhaps missing only part of a limb rather than their entire life. It's still the old argument: the body count has to get high enough before our moneyspenders realize we need the right stuff right now. A handful of American lives lost is a tragedy, but in political minds, it does not justify spending millions to protect everyone else. But over 500 American lives lost becomes a statistic, and that brings about the flow of money to create change..

Quote Reply

bombard RE:(no subject) 6/27/2004 9:11:44 AM

I just wonder what wheeled APC's were in US service before the stryker: When every european army, russian army, chinese army, all bar the Armour-heavy Israeli forces, use wheeled APC's on a rugular basis: Saxons, Fuchs Transportpanzar, VAB, Mowag: Why did the USArmy take so long in providing a wheeled APC? No peace keeping force, doing constant patrolling, uses tracked vehicles.

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:(no subject) 6/27/2004 4:00:05 PM

as far as wheeled APCs: the coming Boxer (MRAV) from UK/Germany may well be everything that Stryker won't be (the Boxer wasn't tied down to the "C-130" transportability" requirement, which limits effective enough protection in a vehicle). It will be a heavier (meaning it can and will incorporate better protection) and more mission-modular vehicle. And just as the MOWAG Piranha series before it(which is the granddaddy of Stryker), it is available in 6x6 and 8x8 units. The ultimate protected wheeled AFV would most likely fall to the 28-tonnish South African Rooikat (76mm or 105mm gun), which carries suffient small arms/MG protection, and has a very decent mine-resistant capability (as compared to NATO-class vehicles), just like most SA wheeled vehicles. Italy's 105 Centauro is not as effectively armored. But to not forget, the US Stryker is for the IBCT (Interim Brigade Combat Team), in effect a stopgap until the wheeled and tracked versions of FCS reach the field. Ideally following the modularity concept of the UK CVR(T) Scorpion family, where one basic chassis is used for a wide family of dedicated-role vehicles, FCS (and presumably Boxer) will afford an ability lacking in many inventories. After the WW2 experience with (most likely the M-8/M-20 car series) wheeled carriers, the US favored tracked vehicles as APCs. Now, after learning lessons with the Marine LAV, someone in DC thinks the Stryker will provide the troops deployed now with a vehicle that will provide some kind of capability and level of protection they don't have. Most likely, the Stryker would be lit up by an RPG or IED no differently than a thick-skinned Humvee or M113. Apparently, the proponents might think the wheeled chassis means it can evade RPG rockets..? Such a speed advantage is not really afforded in urban tactics, where manuever space may be limited compared to open battlefield (where most US ground vehicles are designed for). And for all intensive purposes, an RPG guy is more likely to go after a thin-skinned and vulnerable undergunned wheeled vehicle than a big tracked AFV with big teeth. Another argument against the effectiveness of the currently deployed Strykers is their limited armament of a 12.7mm Remote Weapon Station (the 105mm gun system won't be there in numbers anytime soon). Perhaps a more ideal weapon for counter-sniper, anti-light vehicle, and anti-RPG operations would be a longer-ranged stabilised weapon capable of burst fire AND single shot operations (the 25mm Bushmaster type may prove too cumbersome and too high up on the Stryker RWS): perhaps a chain gun in 20mm caliber with range similar to the Rheinmetall Rh202 (as carried on the Weisel light AFV and earlier Marder APCs), coupled to a better-protected longer-ranged optical system. Ideally, the RWS would mount the 25mm OCSW with its programmable ammo, but those won't reach the fielded units anytime soon in suficient numbers either. So until then, the body count will keep rising and our troops and war families will have to deal with. (this is my argument why we don't have enough of the "newest and best" in enough numbers in the hands of our frontline troops: this stuff could be HERE NOW if politics didn't in some form keep sticking its grubby little mits into the more promising contracts. Super fighter planes and mega navy destroyers are all fine and dandy, but these should be no more important than getting the guys on the ground the ideal equipment they need to KEEP it under their control: we want air superiority for the USAF and naval superiority for the USN, so why not effective enough ground superiority for the US Army and USMC?).

Quote Reply

bombard RE:(no subject) 6/28/2004 12:48:31 PM

link Quick overview of Boxer. Great design. About the RPG lighting up Stryker: A RPG will light up a M113, and make a bradley have a bad day, very easily. Its going to happen, and the newer RPG-21 etc, are even better. Mines, once the bugbear of any tracked APC, are less effective against Wheeled APC's: Look at the Cesspair (SA APC) for an example. What a APC has to do is protect its squad from the blast, and allow them to exit safely and in fighting condition. A wheeled APC with additional spaced armour can do this lower total cost than a tracked APC. The C-130 portability is important to the stryker concept, and it was more so than putting on bells and whistles on a essential one shot platform: One RPG and those bells wont be ringing for a while. The removable spaced armour should have been built into the design, rather and a afterthought.

Quote Reply

Clausewitz RE:(no subject) 6/28/2004 12:49:07 PM

APC (Stryker,M 113, Fox,...) are not made for mounted fighting. IFV (Bradley, Marder, BMP, ...)are. In conventional wars you need the battlefield taxis to get the grunts to the place where they have to fight dismounted. So they need armor protection against shrapnels mainly. In guerrilla wars there is no front to fight. That means the front is everywhere. You need the vehciles for convoy duty and to transport your infantry under fire through hostile urban areas. Here you need a PG-proof armor protection even to conduct infantry transport. If you want to conduct mounted fighting you should use Bradleys and tanks. To conduct infantry transport use Strykers (with a PG-cage)or up armored M113. But even up armored humvees are fine vehicles. Driving fast and being small (compared to APC(IFV) they can try to evade RPG while being small arms proof. By the way: The german/dutch Boxer will have 32 tons. It will be proof against old RPG (modern versions can even destroy modern IFV and tanks - RPG 7 VR and RPG 29 and 27; same for the german Panzerfaust 3)without a cage. But the Boxer will be a battlefield taxi for troops to dismount in combat. For mounted fighting Germany develops the Puma (mountain lion) as a classic but modern IFV. The Stryker - if up armourd with ERA of israili design (what is planned)will be a good interim solution. The FCS concept will be the real solution lasting at least a generation. Until then we have to compromise.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - February 9, 2010
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us