US army in iraq baffles me (gear and hardware related) - Page 4




 
--
 
November 5th, 2004  
egoz
 
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.
November 14th, 2004  
FO Seaman
 
 
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.
November 15th, 2004  
rocco
 
weight isnt an issue. reactive armor doesnt weight alot.
--
November 15th, 2004  
AussieNick
 
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.
November 18th, 2004  
rocco
 
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.
November 21st, 2004  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocco
weight isnt an issue. reactive armor doesnt weight alot.
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?
November 22nd, 2004  
DTop
 
 
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.
November 22nd, 2004  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTop
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.
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.
November 23rd, 2004  
DTop
 
 
No Misileer I don't work for Raytheon. One of my MOSs was anti-armor. I was a TOW Platoon Sergeant for a number of years.
November 23rd, 2004  
rocco
 
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?