Re: [MV] Improvised armor for MV in Iraq

From: Ryan Gill (rmgill@mindspring.com)
Date: Tue Dec 14 2004 - 14:09:30 PST


At 1:12 PM -0800 12/14/04, Cliff S wrote:
>
>Guys come on, we got this armor thing beat up enough. It needs to
>be laid to rest. AMG is armoring 400 a month from the factory to be
>scattered across the services. Its the best you can do with a
>Hummer. Which is an all around vehicle, NOT AN ARMORED CAR.

Which is where I think of the problem the job the British did in
their IS work post war or in WWII and look at my collection of
armored cars and wonder why we can't build something like that.

> Ask yourself this: If tanks are being defeated, what would you do
>then with its armor?? Think about it, dont just answer the
>question, THINK! (this is under the assumption that a tank is the
>most heavily armored thing out there)

The tanks that are being defeated are being done so very rarely. It
takes a lot to defeat tank armor and when it's in an urban fight that
the beast wasn't designed to handle, it's always a subjective
question. Further, there's the current trend of the isreali's to go
into urban areas buttoned up vs the continuing US habit of heads out.
An RPG that explodes outside of the vehicle and only takes off the
head of the exposed crew isn't a defeat of the vehicle's
armor/design, it's a defeat of the tactics and SOP.

The thing is, the HMMWVs are being used as patrol vehicles in
situations they were never really designed for. Even the M1114's were
a stopgap idea that's come out of the Fulda Gap fight the army has
trained for over the last 50+ years. In some cases, the HMMWV was
meant to replace the Mule, Mutt, Gamma Goat and M37s. It does the
heavier tasks well (Shelter carrier, etc) but it's hardly a
replacement for the Mule.

The Strykers are proving their worth, they're a good lighter element
below the Bradly's, quiet, fast, fuel efficient (for their size). But
there needs to be a lighter Patrol vehicle with conventional armor
and better protected weapons stations that aren't bodged together
contraptions. One fellow from Tank.net is bitching up a storm about
how the REMF's keep hen pecking the combat units about TO&E
violations when they really do need the additional automatic weapons
and armored vehicles.

It's like the problems in Vietnam with the Gun trucks, does a
supply/transport unit need armor in a safe area? Nope. Do they need
them in a combat area? You bet your fuzzy ass they do.

I'm a person (Like many of you) that believes in the right tool for a
particular task. Hammers, screwdrivers, chisels, wrenches. You can
hammer with a hammer or with a wrench, but it's not so ideal when you
use a wrench to hammer on a screw driver as compared to using a
hammer on a chisel for the same task is it?

I'd like to see a HMMWV chassis completely stripped and a new body
built that's armored and the suspension added to it to build a
protected vehicle. Heck, the shortened Deuce's that Art and others
have put together would make a fine basis for an armored vehicle not
unlike the vehicle the British and other commonwealth nations built
for combat operations in far flung areas. A bit of engineering could
produce a very protected body that would accept Deuce drive line
components and provide protection for crew and dismounts quite
nicely. And it would still use in the supply chain parts. Keep it
simple. Don't build it to protect the crew against gases and all the
other complex threats that we worried about with a Fulda Gap Fight.
Right now it's bullets, Bombs, mines and rockets, all simple threats
that take weight of armor to defeat.

-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
-                 Data Center Operations Group                -
-               http://web.turner.com/data_center/             -
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill                   One CNN Center SE0813 E -
- Internet Technologies   --   Data Center Operations Manager  -
- Hours 11am - 7pm Mon - Fri        (8Sdc, 10Sdc IT@3Ndc)      -
- Cellular: 404-545-6205             e-mail: Ryan.Gill@cnn.com -
- Office: 404-588-6191                                         -
----------------------------------------------------------------
-             Emergency Power-off != Door release!             -
----------------------------------------------------------------


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:38:53 PDT