US army in iraq baffles me (gear and hardware related) - Page 3




 
--
 
October 30th, 2004  
rocco
 
no id say it taks alot of balls to knowingly drop a bomb on civilians, men women and children... wouldnt you think?
it would take much more courage to shoot a soilder in the head, that it would be to nuke hiroshima... would you say?
October 30th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
This is offtoppic.
October 30th, 2004  
rocco
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHERMAN
This is offtoppic.
yeah,
k i wont say anything if no one else says anything
--
October 30th, 2004  
Rotty261
 
 
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.
October 31st, 2004  
rocco
 
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.
October 31st, 2004  
Rotty261
 
 
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.
November 1st, 2004  
egoz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocco
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.
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.
November 2nd, 2004  
rocco
 
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...
November 2nd, 2004  
rileyrat
 
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?
November 5th, 2004  
rocco
 
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?