Army Seeks Short-Term Payoff From Future Combat Systems

National Defense Magazine ^ | December 2003 | Sandra I. Erwin

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Freepmail archy if you want on the Free Republic Infantry Ping List

[lepton]

I read that the brits have worked on a "electric" armor for defeating RPG-7's consisting of two plates with an insulating material between that has current applied.When a RPG hits the copper cone in the warhead that forms the self forgeing penetrating fragment peirces the first plate & the insulating material till it contacts the second plate completing an electric circut which vaporizes the copper similar in manner as trying to rig up the starter to a deuce and a half with two single strands of speaker wire . We need to talk to the Brits about this item, they have done some preliminary testing that was successful.

Interesting. I wonder where this idea came from. It's been in science fiction games for years, but yet another sci-fi to reality technology?

[Voice in your head]

I think that Bradleys are better for patrols. They can hold more soldiers. This is important when dismounting, because there are crowds of people and an infinite number of hiding places for enemy forces, so manpower is important. I also think that the Bradleys are superior in terms of mobility, security, and maintenance.

Mobility: Bradleys can drive over a large median or a guard rail with ease. It can plow through walls. If a car blocks its way, it can plow through it. If it hits a mine, the occupants of the vehicle will be relatively unharmed; at worst, the driver will be injured. Contrast this with the HMMWV, which can drive over 18" medians, if done carefully; on more than one occasion, I saw a HMMWV get held up straddling a tall median. It cannot scale guard rails. It cannot plow through walls without being severely damaged. When a HMMWV hits a mine, all occupants are in danger.

Security: It is much easier for soldiers to maintain 360 security in a Bradley, because the gunner and BC are scanning to the front and have a great vantage to see over traffic, while the driver focuses on driving. The soldiers in the back can pull security from the 2 to 10 o'clock positions. While pulling security, the soldiers expose far less of their body than a turret gunner in a HMMWV.

Maintenance: In Baghdad, we were cannibalizing vehicles just for their tires. On the other hand, the only time that anyone ever broke track was when doing a powerslide into a sidewalk - and that was inexcusable. HMMWVs were always breaking down. Bradleys were reliable.

M113s afforded many of the same advantages as the Bradleys, but the Bradleys were a smoother ride and provided more protection and could carry more soldiers.

As for being hell on roads, the only damage that I witnessed was the occasional damage to a sidewalk or guard rail. Most of the time, this was intentional, as the Bradley negotiated the obstacle to chase down a criminal or enemy.

As for being expensive, I don't really care. I'll trade money for lives anyday and right now I don't see another option, until we've got a hell of a lot of armored vehicles to replace the Bradleys.

[Voice in your head]

"The humvee can go a heck of a lot of places that such a large vehicle can't go simply from size. Based on what I've seen of a humvee on teraain, I'd suspect that it can negotiate a lot of terrain and back-roads that thing can't."

But think about the terrain in Iraq. In Baghdad and Fallujah, where patrolling is most hazardous, patrols are done on urban terrain. There are guard rails, tall medians, and heavy traffic. None of that slows down the Bradley. It can drive over the medians and guard rails. It actually manuevers easier in traffic, because it does pivot turns and the local drivers show a lot more caution around the Bradleys than the HMMWVs. Also, many homes have walls around the property. If you are conducting a raid, the best way to do it is to use a Bradley to smash through the wall, so that the dismounts can make a quick entry into the building. The only places that a HMMWV can go that a Bradley can't are tight alleyways. But why would anyone drive down a tight alleyway?

"It makes a lot of sense from a tactical point of view: Greatly increased vision, greatly decreased visibility, and fewer turtles."

Actually, less vision, because you are down at the level of the other traffic. The Bradley allows the gunner and BC to see from a vantage point over ten feet in the air. Decreased visibility is not really an issue, since one of the purposes of nearly every patrol is to put forth a heavy presense, to reassure the population and disrupt enemy activity.

[MindBender26]

Can you lower the sindshield on an Hum-V?

[lepton]

M113s afforded many of the same advantages as the Bradleys, but the Bradleys were a smoother ride and provided more protection and could carry more soldiers.

One of the complaints about the Bradley is that they carry fewer soldiers. The M113, for example, had a mobile command center variant. The Bradleys must abut two special Bradleys back to back to carry out this function.

As far as expense, the M-2 Bradley and the original M1 are pretty close to the same cost.

[Voice in your head]

No. But the windshield on a 5-ton folds up. Those were used, as well.

[archy]

I really think that lack of flank RPG grenadier watch / suppression is going to be ugly. I hope I'm wrong.

Theyre using RPG7s because they're available, and they work. If we come up with countermeasures that defeat the PG-7 warhead, they'll switch to something else that works. All we do with RPG-7 specific countermeasures and procedures is buy a little time.

Did you get the FReepmail I sent you?

I had a couple, and replied. Check yours.

[sauropod]

Welcome to modern combat vehicles.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

FM 55-30 Appendix O VEHICLE HARDENING

[Cannoneer No. 4]

UPDATE 2003: SURVIVABILITY FIXES FOR HUMMER 4x4 and FMTV 6x6 Trucks

[Darksheare]

I'm in, finally.
Scratching my head, the military knew they needed the upgraded engines, and upgraded electronics, began development of it.
And in true congressional 'ho fashion, cut it all back or killed it.
Now we need it, and they're scrambling to try and undo the mistakes of the past.
*snort*
Yet another Clinton legacy in part.

[blanknoone]

Bradleys are OK..the Mech infantry guys don't need anything different. But are you recommending we equip all the non-mech inf people with Bradleys? Units of all sorts are conducting operations in unarmored humvees. They need and should get something armored.
The maintenance and reliability is a good point....and no military vehicle approaches the reliability of commercial trucks.

The vehicle I would propose is not a replacement for the Bradley, it is not even a replacement of the LAV/stryker. It is an armored utility vehicle to replace the unarmored humvee in OOTW environments. My point is that trying to turn the humvee into an armored vehicle is a bad idea from the start: if we need an armored utility vehicle, we should design and build one, not try to modify something that does not properly fit the need.

[cavtrooper21]

Hope more folks pay attention to this...
The H2 does not have the off-road capacity that the HI/military Hummer has..
Not even close, although the advertisments would say otherwise.
Have a "buddy" who traded up to a H2 from a H1, had it for 2 days and traded back.
He let me try the H2, I see why he went back, even though it cost him some $$....

[Fred Mertz]

Self-marking bump.

[jonascord]

Many countries refer to the M-113 as Zippos or Ronsons, since they light up, first time... I know that there have been discussions for years about the hydraulic fluid used. The red oil had a lower vapor ignition temperature, but gave longer life to the trannies.

In Country, the M-113 was a death trap, with most riding on the outside so you wouldn't be trapped when it hit a mine. Maybe conditions are different in Bagdhad...

[Voice in your head]

"Bradleys are OK..the Mech infantry guys don't need anything different. But are you recommending we equip all the non-mech inf people with Bradleys?"

I think that any infantry unit (101st, 82nd, etc) in theatre should have Bradleys, even if they are not mechanized units. It doesn't take long to teach a soldier how to drive a Bradley. Right now, the 101st and 82nd are using soft-skinned HMMWVs. There are Bradleys in theatre. 3rd ID turned in their Bradleys in early June. If they are not available now, then something is wrong.

The MP and CA units there all have M1114s, if I remember correctly. 1st AD has its tanks and Bradleys.

"My point is that trying to turn the humvee into an armored vehicle is a bad idea from the start: if we need an armored utility vehicle, we should design and build one, not try to modify something that does not properly fit the need."

Good point.

[archy]

A very high proportion of our ground casualties are coming from IEM, RPG and small arms fire placed on trailing vehicles in convoy. Most casualties seem to be occurring in unarmored humvees.

Production rates remain suboptimal and even with current plant expansion planned, will not reach more than 200 per month by year-end. This is a ridiculous situation and I'm asking any freepers that have some ideas on this to help forward them to me as I am very active with congress on this matter. At the same time realize that 50,000 commercial grade hummers will be produced by GM along next year and those are subsidized with a small business tax deduction by $100K. Thus your local dentist gets a yellow hummer but your boy in Iraq rides around in essentially an open bed pickup taking RPG, machinegun and IED hits.

Anyone that has ideas or a means of resolving this issue, please contact me.

The armored door package seems like a good start. It looks like they ought to be made standard on all Humvees in the fleet, certainly on all in Iraq.

[blanknoone]

any infantry unit (101st, 82nd, etc) in theatre should have Bradleys, even if they are not mechanized units

The problem with that is the support infrastructure...even if they also have the support vehicles (fuel HEMTTs etc) they don't have the people, the mechanics, 77F's etc etc that a mech force needs. It isn't as easy as handing them Bradleys, but you have a point...they ought to get what they need people wise to get the equipment they need. Which gets to another point...even in a mech force, think about how big your tail is. I know in an armored battalion the non-tankers easily outnumber the tankers. That probably is not true in an infantry unit at the battalion level, but once you go to the brigade and division level it certainly is, plus there is all the COSCOM people. Think about how many non-trigger pullers are in theater...and they are largely where the casualties are because the terrorists try pretty hard to avoid attacking people trained, equipped and motivated to counter-attack. Those non-trigger pullers need something with some small arms/schrapnel protection.

[SLB]

European Stars and Stripes
November 23, 2003

Specially Armored Humvees Bound For Iraq

By David Josar and Ivana Avramovic, Stars and Stripes

STUTTGART, Germany — The U.S. European Command has shifted roughly 600 specially armored Humvees to Iraq, where they will be used to fill a shortage of the urgently needed vehicles, according to a Pentagon spokesman.
Most of those vehicles, which began being moved in July, have come from the Balkans, said Army Maj. Gary Tallman, a Pentagon spokesman.

The shift is part of a plan to get nearly 3,000 of the specially outfitted Humvees to Iraq, where they can protect U.S. troops from insurgents using conventional firearms, improvised bombs and grenades that can cripple a regular Humvee.

Of the roughly 120 U.S. combat-related deaths in Iraq since May 1, about 30 were the result of attacks on vehicles either by a bomb or small-arms fire.

Earlier this month, there were about 1,500 so-called “up-armored” Humvees in Iraq, Tallman said, or one for every 85 troops.

Tallman said that an armored Humvee, which costs about $150,000, is a “specialty” vehicle that historically has not been relied upon as much as it is needed now in Iraq.

The race to get more armored Humvees into Iraq has been accelerated by a $177 million appropriation to purchase vehicles. The appropriation is part of the $87 billion supplemental funding bill for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the vehicles will go to Iraq.

The $177 million will buy about 1,200 armored Humvees. But the Ohio-based company that builds and adds armor to the Humvees can produce only so many of the vehicles at once, Tallman said.

“This takes time,” he said. “The factory has to gear up.”

An armored Humvee has a 2-inch-thick windshield and windows and a metal-composite skin that can stop bullets. The underside, front and rear are also reinforced for protection against mines and grenades.

According to the company that produces the armored Humvee, American Motors General, the idea is that, although the vehicle may be destroyed, the occupants would survive the attack.

American Motors General makes the Humvee, and one of its subsidiaries installs the armor package. It takes about four days to add armor to a Humvee.

O’Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt, which installs the armor, usually produces about 30 a month. Company officials said they hope to more than double production to 80 a month beginning this month, and to produce as many as 220 a month by the spring.

Still, even at the increased production pace, U.S. Central Command, which directs operations in Iraq, may not have all the armored Humvees it wants until next fall.

The command began pleading for more of the vehicles this summer.

In May, according to Tallman, there were 235 armored Humvees in Iraq. By August, CENTCOM wanted 1,233 of the Humvees in Iraq, and by September that request had shot up to 3,000, he said.

According to the Defense Department, when CENTCOM made its initial request, there were about 3,100 of the armored Humvees in its entire inventory.

Tallman said he does not know which units will be getting the armored Humvees.

In the meantime, troops on the ground are improving their existing Humvees with sandbags and plywood boxes to give themselves extra protection.

Sandbags are placed on the floor to absorb part of a blast coming up from the road, and plywood walls are erected across the open back of a Humvee to offer some shelter from bullets and other flying objects.

“We needed those vehicles yesterday,” said Staff. Sgt. Michael Perez, military policeman who in August was stationed at Camp Bukka, a prisoner of war camp, in southern Iraq near the Kuwaiti border.

Perez said troops are “constantly” on edge because they know the Humvees they have will not stop a round from an AK-47 assault rifle and are especially vulnerable to mines and grenades.

“If we had them, we could do our jobs better. We would still worry about our security, but a slip-up may not be as deadly,” he said.

The movement of armored Humvees out of the Balkans has been an easy transition, according to officials there.

“The Army is looking at administration and staff sections [in Bosnia and Herzegovina] that really don’t have a need for these [armored] Humvees,” said Army Capt. Chuck Traxler, a spokesman for U.S. troops in Bosnia.

“The environment in Bosnia is fairly stable compared to other areas,” he said, and noted that the public affairs office has three armored Humvees that have not been used in 18 months. Those vehicles are earmarked for Iraq.

“They may as well be sent to where they’ll get used, where they’re needed,” Traxler said.

He said some armored Humvees would remain and would be used for patrols. Those that are being sent to Iraq would be replaced with conventional ones, he said.