Howdy All,

I'm quite sure the underlying root of this conversation has been discussed previously in some fragmented method on other threads. But, after having spent some time reading through several DG's (on other sites 'non' modeling related) regarding the personal loss of their son's and daughters because of the lack of protection, improper choice of vehicle, or just plain absence of procedural defense against IED's and the like, I felt the desire to pose the question to all of you, members of Armorama, whose opinions on matters such as these I respect highly.

The question up for disection is;
What type of vehicle is the best choice for our troops in Iraq?
And, as follow-up fodder, would the M113 be a better choice? Is the Stryker fulfilling it's role properly? Are the streets in Iraq too narrow for proper deployment of tracked vehicles? Are procedural techniques being utilized by both patrol and convoy personnel adequate for the local? And finally, since (at least for the next 'almost' four years) we will be stationed there to "get the job done", have we commited enough/too much troops and material to both accomplish the "job" and protect our young men?

I thank any and all of you for taking the time to respond to this thread. I believe that the cross-section of members we have actively participating here at Armorama is a wealth of potentially positive solutions to this situation, and that by offering up ones opinon on the subject matter at hand, one might be able to help our troops abroad.

Tread.

Tracked vehicles are never great in an urban environment. But, the GKN Warrior has performed fantastically and many troops owe their lives to this vehicle. The armour plate, especially combined with the "blades" (anti rocket mesh) is doing a fine job. The Brits are also using "snatches" (armoured landrovers with big V8 engines and ballistic armour) in tight areas. These vehicles have been used extensively in N. Ireland, Bosnia and Kosovo. Perhaps with the increased mine and IED threat, vehicles such as the South African Caspirs should be considered. Personally I favor the snatch as it is less agressive looking, unless there is a need for armour, then the Warriors are the dogs danglies

Howdy Shaun,

Thx for taking the time to respond. I was hoping for a response possibly along those lines...meaning, if there are other vehicles out there that address the same concerns our troops are having inthe streets of Iraq, then they should certainly be (at least) put on the ' table'.

I don't suppose you have access to pics of the Landrover 'snatch'?

Tread.

EDIT: And, come to think of it, didn't the IRA utilize their own forms of "IED"s"?

Tread,

If you look back at history (WWII and Korea) you would notice that the American soldier is resourceful in making do with what we got. We all have seen the M4 Sherman piled high with sandbags, logs, cement etc. etc. to attempt to nullify the effectiveness of the panzerfaust and panzerschreckt. We went into Korea with the same Bazooka we had in WWII (woefully small and inadequate) and the soldiers made do. It takes YEARS to get a piece of hardware from initial drawing/idea to front line combat.
The American public would have screamed bloody murder if the DoD would have started to request the money to up-armor EVERY vehicle we were planning on sending over. We also, and this is just MY speculation, were not planning on this type of insurgent warfare at the level we are experiencing.
I am sure the British have vehicles that are extremely suited to this type of operations due to the experience gained from Ireland etc. and are probably trained for this. I also think they are not as stupid as us to allow mainstream media coverage at the squad and platoon level.
Now do not get me wrong on the right to free speech and the need for the American public to hear the "truth", but take yesterdays attack for instance. Instead of waiting to get the full and correct story, darn near EVERY TV and Radio station started blabbing about rocket/mortar attacks etc. etc. only to find out they were way off, just so they can be "First with the Scoop!"
I am sure the troops in the field have made it painfully aware to the Chain of Command what their needs are. The only problem is we (the military) can't run down to Wal-Mart and buy off the shelf what we think we need and want. We do not have an unlimited budget. The US soldier will persevere in the end I am sure of it. Freedom isn't free.

Chief
22 years on active duty and counting.

I have to go with the M-113....and tracked vehicles are ok for the urban invironment...Besides, with alittle help from carpet bombing high altitude planes, urban areas can be brought down a notch or two to where all tracked vehicles would be useful.

Just MHO as a life long civilian. (:-)

Howdy Chief,

I thank you for your response as well sir. And I "Thank You" even more so for your devotion to 22 years of serving your countrymen. If I had stayed I'd have rung up a couple of years under my belt as well.

Just so everyone is aware, (and in the light of recent 'flame' activity on site ) I am simply playing the role of 'Devil's Advocate' here to generate a basis for discussion so that hopefully the membership here feels comfortable enough to shout out their opinions in a humble 'clearinghouse' for the positve disection of all donated and free-thought responses.......that is all.

To your posted thoughts Chief:
I won't comment on your opinions about the Press....suffice it to say, a truly 'balanced' story of unfolding events in socio/political interactions around the world is suspect at best. Being a product of the 'sixties' and an active participant in that generations version of "social awareness", I have an unwavering allegiance to at least trying to get it 'right'.
That said, having experienced first-hand an earlier version of sending our troops out to a foreign land to " win the hearts and minds" of people who don't give a rats patuty about the U.S.'s perseption of how we all should live and commerce with one another is unfortunately poorman's currency.
I fear the same local metality is being played out in the streets of Mozul and other Iraqi towns and village's.....

Anyway, the point of this interchange is to make an attempt at ferreting out some possible positive suggestions to the growing concerns of vehicular transport/troop protection in a very real environment there in Iraq. I truly feel very deeply for our young troops over there. I'm hoping that maybe a discussion along these lines might unearth some 'gem' that might be usful to those who are serving.......

Tread.

Two points here - Firstly the procurement of U.S. Vehicles and equipment is planned years before. It is very easy therefore to criticize with hindsight...

2) Bearing in mind the first point, most U.S. vehicles are designed for 'conventional' warfare i.e. fast mobility, not COIN. I could bore you for hours with the original Op-concept of CentCom, but that can wait for another day. Suffice to say the original doctrine has long since been forgotten

3) The British ARE better prepared and equipped. Simply because they have been fighting the 'Small- War' concept since Afghanistan (19th Century) and have developed their counter-insurgency strategy in Malaya, N.Ireland, Palestine and have used Oman and Belize as 'Operational' training grounds - all with varying degrees of success..

4) Mission -Creep. I will say no more about this I think many will understand perfectly...Jim

A hearty "Thanks" go to you as well Jim for taking the time to post your input. Your opinon is an intelligent one, and one I welcome.

Your first two points are understood, even though your expansion on the " Op-concept of CentCom " is one I would truly like to hear (maybe through PM ) Although it quite honestly tells me a story of 'mired' military concepts......a story that (without going into 'ancient' military history) is becoming increasingly disturbing, especially when one considers the fine men we send in harms way based on these concepts......

Your 3rd point is (I feel) accurate, and I appaud your courage in saying so. Once again, one of the consequences of being part of the bigger 'machine' maybe?

Your 4th point....." Mission -Creep. Believe me, I know precisely of what you speak.
But.....you and I are allowed the luxury of talking about the concept And even debating in a comfortable forum. Our troops have to live it.

Hence, my thread. Maybe we can be of some help?

Tread.

At one time, in the way way back machine when I first started hanging out here there was a Currents Events forum on this site. After a while the current events forum spiraled down into a constant flame war. That is why there isn’t one anymore. We, and I do mean we, as in all of us, recently had a flame war in the History forum that would have made the trolls on Fark proud. Remember that this is a modeling site and try not to type anything you will rue later.

That said, I love all you guys and hope everyone plays nice.

Merry Christmas,

Shaun

And, although I don’t think I need to add this, this post is not aimed at anyone specifically. I just don’t want to see anyone else get their feelings hurt.

Thanks keenan......maybe I'm getting a bit too 'opinionated' myself. My apologies if in fact I am. I was just trying to play DA in a discussion that seems important to me.
Possibly that's my failing. If that's the case, I bow.

But let's not allow the potential for some intelligent input to be curtailed.......

Tread.

(thx again Shaun )

Before I enter my rant, I would like to say that so far no one has stepped on any toes and I applaud everyone for being not only honest and forthright but also courteous as well. Hopefully it stays that way as I too am interested in this topic. That said...

I believe that a few lessons could be learned from the Israelis and their conflict with Palestine. First of all, that conflict proves that tracked vehicles of all kinds can be used in an urban environment and still be effective, even though most of those tracked vehicles have been redesigned specifically for urban combat. For example, the Kasman is an M113 with an added superstructure that incorporates bullet proof glass blocks and firing ports on all sides (6 total).

The Merkava on the other hand was designed, according to fas.org, for "crew survivability," including armored "umbrella" for commander's cupola, spaced armor, armored ammunition and fuel compartments, and, the most innovative feature in my opinion, the rear entry/exit hatch.

While none of this helps the troops immediately (unless, of course, we start buying Israeli tanks), I think it shows that the companies that design these types of vehicles should be focusing more on crew survivability rather than firepower and technology. Unlike during the Cold War, a vehicle with enough punch to take out a city block won't cut it in an environment where keeping the city block unharmed is the main objective.

As for what to do now, I don't know. I want to believe that there is a quick, let's-do-this-and-it-will-all-get-better option but I don't see anything in the way of tactics, training, or technology that could immediately keep the troops safe, lessen the insurgency, and allow the Iraqi people to believe that they are safe.
Kyle

Hey Tread, this is just my 2 cents. I was thinking what happened to the Reactive Armor that was used on the M60's tanks during the first gulf war. If were using M113's why not fit them with the Reactive Armor. I know it would be useless aganst IED, but would'nt it help towards rocket attacks and maybe "this is a big maybe" from suicide bomber that drive up to the convoys. This is just another off the wall thought, In the cabs of each vehicle why not have some kind of fire appartus system, in which a soldier could pull a handle to reduce the fire in the cab. I know your thinking "god they got hit with a bomb" but maybe there's that chance that they can be saved and yet not burned to death trying to get them out. I never seen a war so maybe this is over my head..I don't know.

This is just my opinion but maybe the M-163 was retired too early.The Isreali's made damn good use of it in Lebanon.Now again this is my opinion but American soldiers are renowned for ingenuity and a can do attitude to get the job done.So why are some being court martialed for using that same ingenuity?Again it's my opinion i am not trying to offend anyone and if i have i apologise. (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-)

While doing my usual trolling around I found this at http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehmamb.htm



“Canadian Forces Light Armour - Route-Proving Vehicle

The Mamba - Sacrificial Lamb in a Tortise's Clothing?
South Africa’s Reumech designed the mamba with landmine survivablity in mind. The vehicle itself is regarded as expendable — it is the crew's safety which is paramount. Survivability is achieved through careful shaping of the Mamba's welded steel monocoque hull. The armour-plated underside of the hull is v-shaped. If a landmine is detonated beneath the Mamba, that v-shape directs the blast away from the cab and its occupants.”




“A Swedish Example
The Mamba is regarded by its makers as an APC but the vehicle is far too small to be considered seriously for that role. It was the Swedish Army who drew CF attention to the Mamba's potential as a route-proving vehicle. Sweden bought 4 Mamba Mk Is for peacekeeping in Western Sahara. Swedish Mk Is were sent to Bosnia where they inspired a Mamba purchase by Canada. CF Mambas in the Balkans and Somalia simply drove in front of patrolling columns of armoured vehicles. If none of the tell-tale signs of mines were seen (or worse, run over) the route was considered 'proven'.”

Funnily, while serving in the SADF, most soldiers considered this vehicle as underpowered (i.e. slow) and ‘the kidney killer’! Seems with the Mk III these problems have been sorted!

Hi all, I just returned from Iraq last May and maybe I can shed a little light on some of the difficulties we've been facing over there. It seems to me the problem isn't with the combat vehicles, i.e. the Bradley, the Striker or the armored Humvees the M.P.s use the problem is with the supply trucks, fuel tankers and the unarmored Humvees the rear echelon troops use. And that's where the problems start. The unarmored Humvees are actually the easist fix of the lot. There are several different "up-armor" kits available to the troops, some consist of a "bathub" for the rear open portion of the hummer with built in overhead cover for the cab, separate armored doors and plates for the floor. These are mounted (ideally) in Kuwait before the vehicle ever hits Iraq. Others are improvised versions of the same type of configuration. For the bigger vehicles the problems are more difficult to solve. For instance you can armor the cab of a fuel tanker, but how do you armor the entire trailer to prevent a secondary explosion of the fuel? And if the fuel goes up what good is an armored cab? A less explosive but equally difficult problem applies to a tractor-trailer combo, how do you armor the trailer when there isn't enough armor for the cabs and all the trailers? These are the practical problems the press doesn't get near. As for just using armored vehicles for movement or only going out of basecamp for tactical missions only, that's just not practcal or even possible. The vast majority of convoys are logistical not tactical and that involves putting troops in harms way for beans and bullets, not just for supporting the infantry, but for day to day neccesities. I have spent time in Camp Dogwood (near Iskandaria} Baghdad International Airport and Mosul, and all of these places required rear echelon units to do daily convoys through some of the most dangerous places in Iraq, the armor problem is not a question of neglect or lack of fore sight, it's a problem of practicality and getting the right stuff to the right people and places at the right time. As are all combat issues.

I'd like to start by saying that I have no military experience so my comments come from a civilian.

Logistics, Support Unit and rear echelon troops have always had the unfortunate vulnerability of attack.

During the Civil War the supply wagon trains were always being raided by cavalry requiring huge amounts of troop to guard them.

Railways have been sabotaged and targeted since the military started using rail transport.

Battle of the Bulge, the lightly armed troops of Battery B were captured by lead German forces and then massacred at Malmedy.

You gotta give these troops the best equipment to do the job they are assigned. The better they can complete a task the sooner they are out of harm's way. Although more vulnerable, it may just be that a Humvee is better suited to transporting a certain type of cargo or perform a certain task than an M113, so there would be no reason to switch to M113s.

Splinty2001seems to say something similar to what I am trying to say. It is the inherent danger and vulnerabilities of certain vehicles performing certain tasks that are in play here.

Well put! And on the money. I should have been that breif! :-) :-)

Hmmmm.... carpet bombing, not exactly hearts and minds is it? From personal experience in NI, we found that an unimposing vehicle has a much less menacing effect on people. Any tracked vehicle is a tank at the end of the day. Imagine the LAPD or whoever patrolling your neighbourhood in an M113! It'd make you mad! Especially if it bumped your car, drove over your cat and squashed you prize roses Hearts and minds is all that will end this type of dispute. I grant you it is a very risky undertaking to begin with, but the rewards are immeasurable. That is not to say that a response to force should not be with force. But that force must be measured and not extreme. The Brits use "the rule of minimum force" as their guide lines. That means a controlled and appropriate force, sufficent to stop the enemy action, with the minimum of collateral damage. Did the IRA use IEDs? Oh yes, vehicle borne, remote control, suicide bombs, mortars, spectaculars, mines, booby traps in streets, in prams, on bodies etc. Every dirty trick. But it wasn't just the IRA, it was widespread and thankfully we are now entering more tolerant times. I couldn't find an army "snatch" but here are some armoured RUC landrovers and a painting with a snatch in the foreground.

I wish I could think of vehicles better suited for our soldiers missions than what they currently have, vehicles that we could actually get to them at that. As it is, they have to use what they have. In this case, and I feel it would be the same no matter what vehicles they have, I think the tactical doctrine needs to be looked into.

I don't know if this is done, but, I would like to see the supply convoys escorted by AFV's. I would also like to see the routes free of parked vehicles and to have a stand-off distance enforced regarding all non-coalition vehicles travelling on the route. In other words, no vehicles that are not a part of the coalition should be able to drive to within a set distance from the convoy. This stand-off should also be enforced for the patrols.

The patrols would have a much harder time with parked vehicles though. For the patrols it must be extremely difficult to spot a "suspicious" vehicle parked along the route. The IED users have no regard to collateral damage or their own lives, so or troops cannot judge suspicion by activity around the parked vehicles.Unless our troops use the same route every day for patrols, our troops can not ensure a clear route of travel. If they did use the same route daily, it wouldn't be much use in rooting out the insurgents, so it is not an option. Also, in the confines of a urban area, being so predictable would be very hazardous.

I also think that the troops need to adhere to strict tactical doctrine at all times regarding eating, sleeping and general living conditions. I know it adds hardship to them to not be billeted or have dining facilities available, but as we saw on the news, places of congregation are prime targets. Furthermore I don't think anyone should be allowed into a military base / bivouac area without the proper credentials including but not limited to identification and even challenge and pass. The war may be "over" but it is still a war zone.

I feel so deeply for these soldiers. I want them to use every resource they have to remain safe.

i cant find any pics of a snatch either,

a couple of mates from my company who were on telic 3 have some good pictures if anyone really wants to see one

regards

joe

1.Identify the most potent threat.
I think IED's are.
2.Determine how they are set up
I think at night.
3.Counter with a pinpoint,wepon
Orbit AC-130's w/ night vision.
target anyone moving near the roads.

How sad is it that this question even exists?

I feel for my brothers in arms there, w/out the equipment they need / should have.

Sorry, a topic very close to me...