The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - March 18, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: (no subject)
rangers911    6/25/2004 11:56:11 PM
link


ok i'm a little new to the board here and i was reading this page, it personally doesn't make the best of sense and wanted to get some other input on it. i would think it would come more from bad driving than from it being to top heavy. prior military army i've driven many up armored humvee and no problems with it at all as far as rolling tendancy.


In Iraq, a Humvee ? the modern military's jeep ? is involved in an enemy action or a serious fender bender or rollover almost daily. Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz's command has experienced 13 Humvee rollovers, resulting in 17 of his soldiers dying. "Nine of the deaths occurred in the last 90 days," he says.

Gen. Metz says that most rollovers occur when "the driver has lost control of the vehicle." In a letter to his unit, he summed up other causes, such as "aggressive driving, lack of situational awareness, rough terrain, poor/limited visibility, adverse traffic conditions, improvised configurations and failure to wear seat belts."

Amen on the aggressive driving. If bad guys are firing rockets and automatic weapons and blowing off mines left, right and center, no one in his or her right mind would drive on the most dangerous roads in the world the way we oh-so-carefully drive by a parked police car on the freeway. As longtime guerrilla-war veteran Lt. Col. Ben Willis (retired) puts it, "The MO would be to put the pedal to the metal."

The problem is that the soft-skinned Humvee was conceived as a light utility truck ? not a close combat vehicle. "The Humvee is horribly thin-skinned and underpowered," says Army veteran Scott Schreiber, who drove one for six years. "It should be used in roles that don?t call for armor. If the role calls for armor, it?s simple: use armor."

At the end of World War II, I was in a recon company in Italy. We started with armored cars ? M-8s ? but as Terrible Tito?s terrorists started using roadside mines and staging ambushes similar to the mean stuff going down in Iraq, our leaders quickly got rid of those thin-skinned suckers and put us in light tanks ? M-24s. Within a year, as the guerrilla war with Yugoslavia heated up, we were given Sherman tanks ? M-4s ? with their even-thicker armor protection. And when a blown mine or ambush slapped shrapnel or slugs against the sides of our 36-ton tanks, we sat safely inside those steel walls, with our weapons turned full-bore on the enemy. Our armor protection gave us the critical edge our troopers should have today.

But here we are in Iraq after 15 bloody months still welding steel plate onto Humvees. Sure, our soldiers gain a tad more protection, but it also turns the vehicles into rollover queens because it shifts their center of gravity.

Meanwhile, we have the Pentagon spending billions of dollars on irrelevant gold-plated fighter aircraft and on the lightly armored Stryker ? a vehicle that is not battle-tried and that the Army has placed in relatively safe northern Iraq. Not to mention the thousands of potentially lifesaving armored personnel carriers ? M-113s ? left over from the Cold War gathering dust in depots.

What's further wrong with this picture is that Iraq has excellent steelworkers and first-class machine shops that could be put to good use upgrading captured Iraqi equipment into armored vehicles capable of protecting our warriors while also securing our long, exposed supply lines.




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.

Maybe then they'll develop a greater sense of urgency about what's really needed on those killer roads the same way the 88th Division commanding general, Maj. Gen. Bryant E. Moore, did with us back in Italy and then again in Korea ? where he was eventually killed as a corps commander leading from the front.

And maybe our lawmakers should stop by Walter Reed hospital and get some firsthand skinny from the terribly wounded being treated there about what a death wagon the Humvee has become from the way it's presently being used.

"How many soldiers and Marines need to be maimed or killed by roadside bombs before Congress will get off their tails?" Mary Martino rightfully asks. "My son is serving his country with honor and pride in Iraq ... and has the right to expect that his country will do whatever it takes to protect him in his duties."
 
Quote    Reply

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

Pages: 1 2
french stratege    RE:(no subject)   6/28/2004 4:33:37 PM
They should use a stuff like French VAB.Mobile and inexpensive (500 000$).Protected against 7.62 and 12.7 in front.South African have equivalent. There is no way to prevent an armoured carrier to be protected from modern RPG at reasonable price. Arena system are to expensive except for tank and heavy IFV. Better to limit dammage and shrapnel in the vehicule: if the RPG wound or kill only one soldier it is acceptable.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:(no subject)   6/28/2004 4:38:15 PM
I would add that VAB allow infantery to use its rifle aboard.
 
Quote    Reply

bombard    RE:(no subject)   6/30/2004 4:05:34 AM
I dunno if having rifle ports is a good thing: Sure you can fire out, and psycologically, thats good for the occupants. But accuracy must be bad if hte APC is moving, and if its not, then its got a big fat target painted on it. So best get out! Rifle ports are good though, so the occupants can see whats happening, and dont run around the APC into MG fire
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:(no subject)   6/30/2004 5:11:39 AM
the first Bradleys had the firing ports in the side, but now they only have a pair of them in the tail ramp. At least the ones I worked on a short time ago did..
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:(no subject)   6/30/2004 7:47:27 AM
Yep. When Brads went to the up-armor format (-A2s and more recent), the side firing ports on the infantry carriers were plated over. (The cavalry versions were plated over from the start.) As for their utility -- the idea supposedly started not as a firepower multiplier for AFVs but because the Soviets planned on fighting on a radiologically and chemically contaminated battlefield, so having your infantry remain mounted had a certain utility. The Bradley emulated the BMP because it must be a good idea . . . only it was more trouble than it was worth and screwed up internal stowage of gear and troops immensely and so went away. In practice, the ports aren't good for much except making noise -- and if the badguys are close enough to be effectively engaged with weapons from FPWs, then 99% of the time your guys should be out on the ground killing them and protecting the vehicle.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:(no subject)   6/30/2004 5:35:51 PM
good point. After all, the Bradley's are suppoosed to be IFVs (Infantry fighting vehicles)..
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:(no subject)   6/30/2004 6:26:12 PM
hmm if bullets can go out then there is a hole bullets can come in.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:(no subject)   7/1/2004 10:45:34 AM
>>hmm if bullets can go out then there is a hole bullets can come in. << Not really, on the Bradley, though you could make the argument that the ports involve thinness in the armor. Other ports may vary in design, but on the Bradley, the M231s screwed into armored mounts, with the firer looking through a vision block above the port. This precluded any sort of aiming, of course, but the M231 was designed to fire straight tracer ammunition from an open bolt (1200 rpm), so the technique (in theory) was to walk your tracers onto the target. As I said in a previous post -- it's mostly a noisemaker, a suppressive weapon at best.
 
Quote    Reply

bombard    RE:(no subject)   7/1/2004 11:16:34 AM
Otherwise known as a waste of space.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy