[pawdoggie]

This technology was around a LONG LONG time before we got involved in the Mideast. Sad that the Army is only now getting "thrilled with the results." The reason that the US military didn't go all out for reactive armor is that we had already devised a method for defeating it: the "tandem" warhead, in which not one, but two, shaped charges are fired at the same spot in the armor. The first charge sets off the reactive armor, the second charge penetrates the vehicle's hull. Many, if not most, modern anti-tank missiles employ tandem warheads (if memory serves, there is even a tandem version of the RPG-7V warhead). Fortunately, the Iraqi terrorists don't have the product-improved tandem warheads, which is why (once the insurgent threat was recognized) we made the big buy of Israeli reactive armor.

[Enterprise]

"Fortunately, the Iraqi terrorists don't have the product-improved tandem warheads, which is why (once the insurgent threat was recognized) we made the big buy of Israeli reactive armor."

Curious then as to why Saddam didn't have these weapons, or why they didn't fall into the hands of the insurgents if he did.

[dervish]

This suggests that some rethinking of equipment is in order. Assymetrical warfare presents different needs and requires different technology. Such warfare is likely to be with us for awhile.

IMO the biggest mistake of this war was not anticipating the terrorism after. It is the Islamist trademark.