US army in iraq baffles me (gear and hardware related)
Rotty261
Active member
To get this thing back on topic I would like to point out some of my first hand observations. Where I am at almost everything has some form of armor, whether it is a factory up armored HUMVEE or some plate steel that has been retrofitted to the vehicles there is protection. The best armor in the world can't stop everything that you might face in combat. As far as keeping soldiers out of harms way, it is hard to engage a target if you are not partially exposed so that you may fire your weapon. The military does as much as it possibly can with weapons that can be controlled from the safety of an armored vehicle, but sometimes shooters have to be shooters and that is dangerous.
well the armor doesnt have to stop nukes 
just bullets, RPG's and explosives up to 10kg... not much to ask for...
sure the vehicles wont be as fast or manueverable... but if this would have been done 1 year ago, i bet there would be 800 less deaths.
i read a quote somewhere, i dont remember it, but it went sort of like, a successful army is one that thinks premptively and is constantly changing for the present battlefield. changing strategy during the conflict rather than before spells disaster.
just bullets, RPG's and explosives up to 10kg... not much to ask for...
sure the vehicles wont be as fast or manueverable... but if this would have been done 1 year ago, i bet there would be 800 less deaths.
i read a quote somewhere, i dont remember it, but it went sort of like, a successful army is one that thinks premptively and is constantly changing for the present battlefield. changing strategy during the conflict rather than before spells disaster.
Rotty261
Active member
I do not think that you are understanding, that sometimes we have to take the fight to the enemy. You can not fight a whole war from inside of an armored vehicle. Even if the majority of the fighters have armor and big bullet proof vehicles there are still boots that have to hit the ground, scouts, recon, medics....etc. We are also fighting a sensitive war where we are trying to build a nation and not demolish everything between us and the enemy, and this cannot be done with huge artillery rounds from a distance. You have to have shooters that can take one shot to kill one target, this is also hard to do from inside a vehicle.
rocco said:
manueverability is just as important as armor in any sense. being able to avoid the situation is also a form of surivival. so a fast vehicle that can move around in tight quarters is a pretty good form of defense. add 2,000 pounds of armor to a truck that already weighs 2 tons and you have a slow heavy tank that doesn't function all that well in urban combat. let's not forget that by adding weigh you have to worry about the suspension, brakes, and engine also. it's not just slap on a few plates of steel. that only adds to the expense and the maintenance. we're trying to compromise between giving the soldiers protection and allowing them to fight in urban combat.
offcourse you dont just add armor without testing the ability of the vehicles, offcourse the vehicle cant be redundant, they still need to work, they are just better protected... the up armored vehicles are still competitive on the field...
and offcourse you dont fight from inside a vehicle, but u need to get from point A to point B safely and exit and enter from a vehicle safely...
from 100 meteres i doubt that manueverability will help you against an RPG, its not hard to fire one... also its not that expensive, u can go the russian cheap way and just add chain wall of metal...
and offcourse you dont fight from inside a vehicle, but u need to get from point A to point B safely and exit and enter from a vehicle safely...
from 100 meteres i doubt that manueverability will help you against an RPG, its not hard to fire one... also its not that expensive, u can go the russian cheap way and just add chain wall of metal...
You people have to realize that 1,000 lives really isn't that many when you boil everything down. Afganistan is different because it wasn't that long ago that they were very westernized. We gave them the ability to go back to that and they are liking it. Iraq on the other hand is very different. I don't care if they were driving around in depleated uranium boxes, they would still die. We have to operate check points and such and that is where most of the deaths are taking place. Urban combat is a 6:1 ratio. You expect to lose 6 per thier 1. Its an ugly situation that cannot be solved with answers like we need more armor or the such. If we uparmored the hummers they would simply use more explosizes to destroy them. A RPG can stop even the best tanks, to expect a hummer to stand up to on is silly. Also even if you did uparmor them and the people inside lived after hitting a land mine or being RPGed the vehicle is probably gonna be disabled, what do you do now? You dismount and begin trying to make it to point B on foot. If we really wanted to save American lives we could of carpet bombed the entire country for 2 years and lost minimal lives but at what cost globaly?
well u can keep the 6:1 ratio... i personally prefer to save as many lives as possible at whatever cost.
and if a uparmored humvee is hit, better for them to dismount when a coward rpg dude has ran away, least they can still have a better chance to live, maybe they can get into another vehicle in the patrol...
im guessing you dont know of anyone who has burned alive in a military vehicle?
and if a uparmored humvee is hit, better for them to dismount when a coward rpg dude has ran away, least they can still have a better chance to live, maybe they can get into another vehicle in the patrol...
im guessing you dont know of anyone who has burned alive in a military vehicle?
I don't know about this carpet bombing strategy, that won't exactly help the political termoil. But even if you were to dismount a disabled vehicle do you really expect them to run and not check on you? I can guarantee there are situations where they follow up with another RPG. We combine our ground forces with pretty good air coverage so that does reduce the lives lost. Of course the situation could be worst.
But I think we're missing the fact that we might have 1000 KIA, but there is also another 8000 wounded. That's a pretty big number. They might be alive, but a few of them didn't come out all in one piece.
Afgahnistan is a whole 'nother story. That war is FAR from over. The Pentagon is saying it'll take longer to "fix" Afgahnistan then Iraq. Which makes sense. They have a democratic government that is only in control of Kabul, and the rest of the country is full of warlords. That place is another black hole.
But I think we're missing the fact that we might have 1000 KIA, but there is also another 8000 wounded. That's a pretty big number. They might be alive, but a few of them didn't come out all in one piece.
Afgahnistan is a whole 'nother story. That war is FAR from over. The Pentagon is saying it'll take longer to "fix" Afgahnistan then Iraq. Which makes sense. They have a democratic government that is only in control of Kabul, and the rest of the country is full of warlords. That place is another black hole.
FO Seaman
Active member
What people don't understand (granted some of you) is that our Military is not made our equipt to fight in urban combat. My dad is an Army tank commander, I listen to what he says, up until 1999 or miliatry was still training to fight on huge open battlefields. Urban warfare had not even been a thought on September 10, 2001. The only soliders that did urban training where SEAL's. The M1A1 and A2 are not designed for urban or close combat, or BFVs. Hummers also. IBA helps but... And the M1A1 and A2 have just been equipt with an RPG net for their engines but it takes two hours to put it on and it slows to vehical to 30MPH. The Abrams weights 67.9 tons, thats enough to flatten a Honda Accord, trust me I've seen it. Think about putting more armor on a that monster. It wouldn't been able to move. Also if you hit a Hummer from a the roof of a building with an RPG its going to peirce the armor. An RPG warhead is 85mm's. Also if you jam a log into a tanks treads, it a usless road block. What we need is small units armed with unarmored soft back Hummers with mounted 240's and 249's, that way their light able to move and no tanks or APC's for the Fydayeen to shoot at and block the road with, and if you mount a .50 on a hummer its like trying to swat flys with a sledge hammer.
With that being said, one of us should voice our concern to the DOD or DOA. They do have a comment and suggestion thing, I think its Civil Affiars that deal with it, but I'm not sure.
With that being said, one of us should voice our concern to the DOD or DOA. They do have a comment and suggestion thing, I think its Civil Affiars that deal with it, but I'm not sure.
AussieNick
Forum Digger
Exactly, extra armour isn't going to stop a tank in its tracks, they have 1500hp engines for crying out loud. Also if they are a bit slower, what does it matter in urban combat, only in the open can a tank really open it up.
One pic that I did see looked like a good idea for urban patrols. It was a photo of Aussie SAS, the lead vehicle was an Australian Land Rover with mounted MAG58, and the rest of the patrol was following.... On Yamaha big bore trail bikes with rifles slung. Brilliant idea. Fast, manouverable, and able to go all terrain. Plus it's easier for them to split up and move off to pincer the enemy.
Look at the fact that we've had Australians patrolling Baghdad day in day out from the day it was taken and we've had ZERO deaths. We've had casualties, don't get me wrong. It's because we are using more progressive patrol methods and vehicles/gear/tactics designed for the environment. We had out first real go at urban tactics in '99 in Timor.
Before anyone comes on here and says that Australians aren't doing much in Iraq so that's why they don't get hit, let me tell you that is wrong. We've been working our butt's off over there, and we don't have the "green zone" to go back to either. We encounter just as many IED's and road side bombs, just as many RPG and mortar attacks and we are just as big a target, many Iraqis don't know the difference between an Australian and an American, so why is it that we have ZERO dead? Training and Tactics.
One pic that I did see looked like a good idea for urban patrols. It was a photo of Aussie SAS, the lead vehicle was an Australian Land Rover with mounted MAG58, and the rest of the patrol was following.... On Yamaha big bore trail bikes with rifles slung. Brilliant idea. Fast, manouverable, and able to go all terrain. Plus it's easier for them to split up and move off to pincer the enemy.
Look at the fact that we've had Australians patrolling Baghdad day in day out from the day it was taken and we've had ZERO deaths. We've had casualties, don't get me wrong. It's because we are using more progressive patrol methods and vehicles/gear/tactics designed for the environment. We had out first real go at urban tactics in '99 in Timor.
Before anyone comes on here and says that Australians aren't doing much in Iraq so that's why they don't get hit, let me tell you that is wrong. We've been working our butt's off over there, and we don't have the "green zone" to go back to either. We encounter just as many IED's and road side bombs, just as many RPG and mortar attacks and we are just as big a target, many Iraqis don't know the difference between an Australian and an American, so why is it that we have ZERO dead? Training and Tactics.
im an aussie too aussienick... but i disagree with you a bit... im not really knowlegable on the aussie army but i dont think its anything special except our special forces...
keep in mind the only aussie weapons ive seen was on an FHM magazine, so dont grill me too hard if im wrong plz
the only reason aussies arnt dieing is because of the role they are taking... they arnt part of a huge force rushing into a city littered with booby traps and armed terrorists... but instead they are probably doing CT missions (i would assume) which would be much better planned.
although timor was a urban war... most of the guys we fought had militia guns... not RPG's and MG's... RPG's would turn our bushmasters and strykers into mince meat.
on another note... speed is irrelevant in urban warfare. whether a tank goes at 40 MPH or 60 MPG it wont avoid an RPG or a remote detonated bomb. if these things are used to hit hummers then a tank is just as easy to hit. RPG's are over 30 years old. and at this point you can defend against them, it shouldnt even be an issue unless ure ill prepared... also tanks should be able to take bombs... i mean sure 100KG of explosives can take out any tank, but atleast this should be the target of any force going into urban warfare, protection shouldnt be any weaker...
p.s.s. i wanna repeat im not attacking the allies... even though it feels like it... i have the deepest respect for our forces... the only guys to have the fortitude to stand to their words and not appease these terrorists or turn a blind eye.
keep in mind the only aussie weapons ive seen was on an FHM magazine, so dont grill me too hard if im wrong plz
the only reason aussies arnt dieing is because of the role they are taking... they arnt part of a huge force rushing into a city littered with booby traps and armed terrorists... but instead they are probably doing CT missions (i would assume) which would be much better planned.
although timor was a urban war... most of the guys we fought had militia guns... not RPG's and MG's... RPG's would turn our bushmasters and strykers into mince meat.
on another note... speed is irrelevant in urban warfare. whether a tank goes at 40 MPH or 60 MPG it wont avoid an RPG or a remote detonated bomb. if these things are used to hit hummers then a tank is just as easy to hit. RPG's are over 30 years old. and at this point you can defend against them, it shouldnt even be an issue unless ure ill prepared... also tanks should be able to take bombs... i mean sure 100KG of explosives can take out any tank, but atleast this should be the target of any force going into urban warfare, protection shouldnt be any weaker...
p.s.s. i wanna repeat im not attacking the allies... even though it feels like it... i have the deepest respect for our forces... the only guys to have the fortitude to stand to their words and not appease these terrorists or turn a blind eye.
Missileer
Active member
rocco said:
Don't forget that most short range anti-tank weaponry such as the TOW 3 has dual warheads. The first blast blows the armor and the second is a shaped charge for penetration. Such weapons are usually fired at the top of the turret where all armor is thinner. These have been tested successfully but I don't know if they have seen battle yet. Anyone know?
DTop
Active member
Missileer, even the TOW 2A's (circa late 1980's) were designed to defeat reactive armor.
The TOW 2A missile was developed by Raytheon Missile Systems for the U.S. Army to defeat advances in the armor threat created by the advent of first and second generation Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA).
TOW 2A incorporates a tandem warhead armament system to achieve increased lethality against tanks configured with Explosive Reactive Armor.
The precursor warhead in the missile probe is designed to set off the explosive in a tank's ERA, clearing the way for the primary warhead to penetrate/defeat the tank.
These days there is the TOW2B. The 2B Aero (longer range), and the 2B RF wireless (a bunker buster) are coming soon if they are not already in the inventory. No sign of a TOW3 yet though.
The TOW 2A missile was developed by Raytheon Missile Systems for the U.S. Army to defeat advances in the armor threat created by the advent of first and second generation Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA).
TOW 2A incorporates a tandem warhead armament system to achieve increased lethality against tanks configured with Explosive Reactive Armor.
The precursor warhead in the missile probe is designed to set off the explosive in a tank's ERA, clearing the way for the primary warhead to penetrate/defeat the tank.
These days there is the TOW2B. The 2B Aero (longer range), and the 2B RF wireless (a bunker buster) are coming soon if they are not already in the inventory. No sign of a TOW3 yet though.
Missileer
Active member
DTop said:
Hey, you just figured out which defense company I work for. You aren't a Raytheon employee too are you?
As I have written in other posts, I have to go to our web site every now and then to remind myself what all we are building. I worked for Texas Instruments Defense Systems for a while but we were bought along with Hughs Defense back in 1997. I'm surprised I haven't found a Raytheon person on this forum. It's a good info site.
I worked on the Sidewinder system in 1965, Maverick in 1988, and Paveway 1 thru 2 in 1995.
We are currently producing a system which uses all models but the 2B most effectively. It is TOW Improved Target Aquisition System (ITAS)which has improved the hit probability by 2X. The next generation missile to be used is "in the works" but the complete system is supposed to be almost flawless in target recognition and tracking. Stand by for further developments.
misslear, a tow can pass through reactive armor, but it is not accessible to militants and terrorists that are attacking US
defence is required for 3 things only
1) small arms - should be easy
2) RPG most widely used weapon in mid east (me thinks)
3) explosives/grenades/mines should be able to defend against this to a respectable degree...
whats the point in putting your troops in tanks if they can be destroyed by these common weapons? might aswell have the troops riding in convertible volkswagons...
p.s. are TOW fire and forget missles? or just the newer versions?
defence is required for 3 things only
1) small arms - should be easy
2) RPG most widely used weapon in mid east (me thinks)
3) explosives/grenades/mines should be able to defend against this to a respectable degree...
whats the point in putting your troops in tanks if they can be destroyed by these common weapons? might aswell have the troops riding in convertible volkswagons...
p.s. are TOW fire and forget missles? or just the newer versions?