[alphasubzero949]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ops/index.html

Discuss.

[koogz]

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ops/index.html

Discuss.

[SimpleLife]

I am no expert in that stuff, but I guess I'd share the concerns of these soldiers.

It is as if the attack was believed to be no problem at all, that once the army would get in Iraq, opposition would be minimal.

[MacGorilla]

hey, if the secretary of defense came to visit me when I was in the Navy, he would have gotten an earful from us (Hello? how come postage costs more aboard an Aircraft carrier,even when its docked, than at a post office on shore?)

[spacefreak]

I find fault with this liberal misportrayal that this was a pep rally gone awry. This was billed as a "town hall" style meeting, and Rummy was fully aware that he was going to be asked tough questions. He even opened up the session with a remark like "OK.. I understand you have some tough questions for me."

Rumsfeld provided these soldiers with an excellent opportunity to voice their concerns to their boss directly. The liberal press, however, remains so bitter about Bush's election win, and they are hell-bent on making this seem like some sort of internal military revolt..

[koogz]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I find fault with this liberal misportrayal that this was a pep rally gone awry. This was billed as a "town hall" style meeting, and Rummy was fully aware that he was going to be asked tough questions. He even opened up the session with a remark like "OK.. I understand you have some tough questions for me."

Rumsfeld provided these soldiers with an excellent opportunity to voice their concerns to their boss directly. The liberal press, however, remains so bitter about Bush's election win, and they are hell-bent on making this seem like some sort of internal military revolt..

You are right for the most part, but I'd like to add one bit.

The soldiers who complained about anything were reeservists, and the one's who did not complain at all, were regular Army. My point is this. The reservists sign up for a bonus and to get their college paid for. Well, many of them do, and when called upon to actually do what they are supposed to, they get all whiney... Make DUE! There is all sorts of steel and plate in-country that can be had and put on these vehicles!

Prior to this administration, the vehicles where much worse off. Over 87 percent of all those humvees out there have been retrofitted with armor. If it were left up to any other administration, this would not be the case, it would be much lower. Clinton CUT and CUT and CUT the military. He allowed this situation with Al Qaeda to get to where it is today. Ok, a bit of a sidetrack there, but...

I think the Administration is doing a fine job in Iraq, Rumsfeld went there and like you said, knew he was going to get hit with some tough questions. They'll get their armor, and whatever they need.

[Randman]

Yep, the fact that it was not regular Army folk by weekend warriors griping should have been better balanced out.

[tie]

Originally posted by koogz:
You are right for the most part, but I'd like to add one bit.

The soldiers who complained about anything were reeservists, and the one's who did not complain at all, were regular Army. My point is this. The reservists sign up for a bonus and to get their college paid for. Well, many of them do, and when called upon to actually do what they are supposed to, they get all whiney... Make DUE! There is all sorts of steel and plate in-country that can be had and put on these vehicles!

Prior to this administration, the vehicles where much worse off. Over 87 percent of all those humvees out there have been retrofitted with armor. If it were left up to any other administration, this would not be the case, it would be much lower. Clinton CUT and CUT and CUT the military. He allowed this situation with Al Qaeda to get to where it is today. Ok, a bit of a sidetrack there, but...

I think the Administration is doing a fine job in Iraq, Rumsfeld went there and like you said, knew he was going to get hit with some tough questions. They'll get their armor, and whatever they need.

Exactly. Thanks to God and George W. Bush, the Iraqis are dancing in the streets. And lazy reservists are complaining about not having armored vehicles?! Make do!! (Or make due, I guess, if they dropped out of high school.) I've seen pics on the web of Macs stopping a bullet, maybe they should just stack a few of those under the windows, huh? Clinton and his fascist, pro-terrorist, commie-loving North Korean/French buddies CUT the military over and over again. He let this situation with Wal-Mart and the obesity epidemic get to where it is today. OK, a bit of a sidetrack there, but I'm sure we all see the connection.

They'll get their armor, and whatever they need. Unlike the atheistic liberals in this forum, I have Faith. God will provide the armor that Rumsfeld has not provided. Go USA! And damn all liberals to eternal torment in Guantanamo!

[alphasubzero949]

Yes, Jeebus will save the soldiers.

[Troll]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Rummy was fully aware that he was going to be asked tough questions.

Which explains why he did his best to ignore the tough questions such as the one about why soldiers had to scour the scrapyard to find scrap metal and compromised glass to use as armour and why the best he could come up with was to say that the world is not ideal.

The moral of the story is that the US Army is stretched and the morale is flagging. Who can blame them. They're dying like flies in pursuit of an ethereal national interest that no one in the Administration can explain in 500 words or less, they realise that they are fighting a battle that they can't win and while people in Iraq including the US Army, the CIA, the press (who can't even report out of Iraq anymore) and Administration staff are proclaiming impending doom, the Administration paints happiness all over the Iraqi picture, ignores the body bags and wheelchairs coming back from Iraq and claims that freedom is on the march.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Which explains why he did his best to ignore the tough questions such as the one about why soldiers had to scour the scrapyard to find scrap metal and compromised glass to use as armour and why the best he could come up with was to say that the world is not ideal.

The moral of the story is that the US Army is stretched and the morale is flagging. Who can blame them. They're dying like flies in pursuit of an ethereal national interest that no one in the Administration can explain in 500 words or less, they realise that they are fighting a battle that they can't win and while people in Iraq including the US Army, the CIA, the press (who can't even report out of Iraq anymore) and Administration staff are proclaiming impending doom, the Administration paints happiness all over the Iraqi picture, ignores the body bags and wheelchairs coming back from Iraq and claims that freedom is on the march.

Hyperbole much?

[typoon]

Originally posted by Troll:
Which explains why he did his best to ignore the tough questions such as the one about why soldiers had to scour the scrapyard to find scrap metal and compromised glass to use as armour and why the best he could come up with was to say that the world is not ideal.

The moral of the story is that the US Army is stretched and the morale is flagging. Who can blame them. They're dying like flies in pursuit of an ethereal national interest that no one in the Administration can explain in 500 words or less, they realise that they are fighting a battle that they can't win and while people in Iraq including the US Army, the CIA, the press (who can't even report out of Iraq anymore) and Administration staff are proclaiming impending doom, the Administration paints happiness all over the Iraqi picture, ignores the body bags and wheelchairs coming back from Iraq and claims that freedom is on the march.

I don't know if he ignored the question but his Answer was maddening at best. I was pissed when I read his answer. WHERE THE F#CK is the moeny we are spending on this war going? OUR TROOPS SHOULD BE GETTING THE BEST STUFF!!! They just passed this 9/11 bill that is so loaded with Pork that It makes a pig look thin. They should take that pork and put it where it should be going; To the military in a time of war. People can wait for a damn bridge or whatever.

I hope something is done because something needs to be done. The lawmakers in Washington (not all) but the majority of them on both sides need to re-examine this 9/11 bill and where the fundgin for this war is going.

The Military is stretched thin for 2 reasons I think. 1. is because Clinton during his 8 years cut both the Intel and the military to points where it is tough to fight a war like this and 2. is because We need to STOP sending our troops on useless missions and put them where they are needed. I also believe we should be moving the majority of our forces out of Europe. We don't need the number we have there right now. We should have 1 battalion there and that's it. What are we defending in Germany anyway?

This is a battle/war that CAN be won it just needs to be fought like a war.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by typoon:
I don't know if he ignored the question but his Answer was maddening at best. I was pissed when I read his answer. WHERE THE F#CK is the moeny we are spending on this war going? OUR TROOPS SHOULD BE GETTING THE BEST STUFF!!! They just passed this 9/11 bill that is so loaded with Pork that It makes a pig look thin. They should take that pork and put it where it should be going; To the military in a time of war. People can wait for a damn bridge or whatever.

I don't think it has ever been the case in any war that every soldier has been equipped with the latest and best equipment. It's in the nature of military procurement that it takes a long time, and newer and better equipment is constantly being developed. When it is developed, the Army fields that equipment in a priority list. Some units inevitably will be first, and others last. Maintenance and other combat service support (especially in the National Guard and reserves) are typically last.

But the rule has always been you go to war with what you have. To take an example. About a year after the invasion of Panama, I joined the company that during the invasion stormed Noriega's HQ. This was in December, 1989, but that unit went into combat in Vietnam vintage M113-A2 tracks, carrying Vietnam vintage M16-A1 rifles, and wearing Vietnam era flak jackets. By 1989 all of these things were obsolete, but that is what that batallion of infantrymen from the 5th Infantry Division went to war with. The reason is simple: that is what they had.

The same is true in every war. You just can't reequip an entire army overnight.

[Secret__Police]

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ops/index.html

Discuss.

A few people will probably be patrolling the Artic by the end of the month...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Instapundit has an excellent round up on this story, including links to blog entries from soldiers who were at Rumsfeld's meeting.

Unsurprisingly, there is more to it than the media reported.

Edit: Oho!

[tie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Instapundit has an excellent round up on this story, including links to blog entries from soldiers who were at Rumsfeld's meeting.

Unsurprisingly, there is more to it than the media reported.

What exactly are you referring to on this page? I don't see anything new there.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by tie:
What exactly are you referring to on this page? I don't see anything new there.

This is interesting as well...

RUMSFELD SET UP; REPORTER PLANTED QUESTIONS WITH SOLIDER
Thu Dec 09 2004 11:49:38 ET

Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter Edward Lee Pitts is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team, now in Kuwait preparing to enter Iraq, and is filing articles for his newspaper. Pitts claims in a purported email that he coached soldiers to ask Defense Secretary Rumsfeld questions!

When reached Thursday morning, various Chattanooga Times Free Press staffers offered 'no comment' on the development.

From: EDWARD LEE PITTS, MILITARY AFFAIRS
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:44 PM
To: Staffers

Subject: RE: Way to go

I just had one of my best days as a journalist today. As luck would have it, our journey North was delayed just long enough see I could attend a visit today here by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts. Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have. While waiting for the VIP, I went and found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd.

So during the Q&A session, one of my guys was the second person called on. When he asked Rumsfeld why after two years here soldiers are still having to dig through trash bins to find rusted scrap metal and cracked ballistic windows for their Humvees, the place erupted in cheers so loud that Rumsfeld had to ask the guy to repeat his question. Then Rumsfeld answered something about it being "not a lack of desire or money but a logistics/physics problem." He said he recently saw about 8 of the special up-armored Humvees guarding Washington, DC, and he promised that they would no longer be used for that and that he would send them over here. Then he asked a three star general standing behind him, the commander of all ground forces here, to also answer the question. The general said it was a problem he is working on.

The great part was that after the event was over the throng of national media following Rumsfeld- The New York Times, AP, all the major networks -- swarmed to the two soldiers I brought from the unit I am embedded with. Out of the 1,000 or so troops at the event there were only a handful of guys from my unit b/c the rest were too busy prepping for our trip north. The national media asked if they were the guys with the armor problem and then stuck cameras in their faces. The NY Times reporter asked me to email him the stories I had already done on it, but I said he could search for them himself on the Internet and he better not steal any of my lines. I have been trying to get this story out for weeks- as soon as I foud out I would be on an unarmored truck- and my paper published two stories on it. But it felt good to hand it off to the national press. I believe lives are at stake with so many soldiers going across the border riding with scrap metal as protection. It may be to late for the unit I am with, but hopefully not for those who come after.

The press officer in charge of my regiment, the 278th, came up to me afterwords and asked if my story would be positive. I replied that I would write the truth. Then I pointed at the horde of national media pointing cameras and mics at the 278th guys and said he had bigger problems on his hands than the Chattanooga Times Free Press. This is what this job is all about - people need to know. The solider who asked the question said he felt good b/c he took his complaints to the top. When he got back to his unit most of the guys patted him on the back but a few of the officers were upset b/c they thought it would make them look bad. From what I understand this is all over the news back home.

Thanks,

Lee

EDWARD LEE PITTS FILED STORY ABOUT THE TROOPS BEFORE THE POW-WOW WITH RUMSFELD

[Orion27]

The question was a set up by an imbeded reporter. Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter Edward Lee Pitts planted the question with a soldier.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1297858/posts. To me this is an legitimate issue. I think it's time for the libs to start voting for increases in the defense budget.

[DBursey]

I think it's time for the libs to start voting for increases in the defense budget.

Forgive this Canadian if your joke sailed over my crossbar like a high shot from a new composite. 'Libs' can vote all they want - conservatives control the executive and both houses of Congress!

[chris v]

Well? It was apparently a question worth asking.

[Troll]

Well the conspiracy theory took over really quickly on this thread didn't it. And Aberdeen didn't even have to stick his head in!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Well the conspiracy theory took over really quickly on this thread didn't it. And Aberdeen didn't even have to stick his head in!

Kind of like the conspiracy theory that the Bush National Guard documents were forged.

The question was asked, and it was answered. To that extent, it doesn't matter if the question was planted. Lots of questions are planted. A friend of mine's wife knows the person who asked Bill Clinton if he wore boxers or briefs. Apparently that question was planted too (by MTV). But the answer (cringeworthy that it was) was spontaneous. Whether it was truthful or not, only Bill, Hilary, and Monica Lewinsky know. So no harm done by planting that question.

However, it is a bit dishonest of the media to not be upfront about planting the question if that was the case in this example. People have jumped on this as a gotcha, as if this was an example of a soldier calling the SECDEF to account. In fact, the SECDEF set this up as an opportunity for soldiers to ask such questions. But "soldiers" doesn't include journalists. By putting their question into his mouth, they turn a routine journalists' question into something more. That's improperly making the journalists' agenda the story. It's yet another example of a journalist trying to make news, not report it.

If it turns out that is what happened, then tut tut.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The question was asked, and it was answered.

Correction. The question was asked, the troops in the room burst into a deafening cheer, a cheer so loud that the SECDEF had to ask for the question to be repeated and then he dodged the question in typical politician style.

Even if the question was planeted, judging by the cheering, it is apparently something weighing on their minds.

[BRussell]

Another Rummy-ism from that town meeting.

Q: Specialist Skarwin (Sp?) HHD 42nd Engineer Brigade. Mr. Secretary [Cheers] my question is with the current mission of the National Guard and Reserves being the same as our active duty counterparts, when are more of our benefits going to line up to the same as theirs, for example, retirement? [Cheers] [Applause]

A: I can't imagine anyone your age worrying about retirement. Good grief.

Haha. Worry about retirement? With us taking care of the federal budget? What's wrong with you?

They're going to have to start applying Bush campaign-stop rules to Rummy's meetings from now on.

And BTW, that Drudge report doesn't say the questions were "planted" by the reporter. It says they worked on them together. And there were other pointed questions asked as well, especially about the National Guard.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Correction. The question was asked, the troops in the room burst into a deafening cheer, a cheer so loud that the SECDEF had to ask for the question to be repeated and then he dodged the question in typical politician style.

Even if the question was planeted, judging by the cheering, it is apparently something weighing on their minds.

That's not what people who were there are saying.

One more thing I would like to add is this, not one soldier present asked questions about why we were here, or expressed the sort of anti-war sentiment that Michael Moore led some to believe was prevalent in the military._ Rather, the concern was about ensuring we would be supplied with all necessary equipment to accomplish the mission and return home safely._ Let there be no doubt, this was not a hostile crowd eager to catch the Secretary of Defense off guard by grilling him with questions he has never had to answer._

And

Before I dig in, I want to address one item in particular from the story linked above that I think was not made clear enough._ When it stated:

Spc. Thomas Wilson had asked the defense secretary, "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?" Shouts of approval and applause arose from the estimated 2,300 soldiers who had assembled to see Rumsfeld.


Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

I believe Secretary Rumsfeld hesitated because it was difficult to hear the first part of the question Spc. Wilson asked._ Perhaps because of nerves, he spoke at first very quickly, and the acoustics of the hangar were hardly concert-hall quality._ The Secretary asked others to repeat parts of their questions as well apparently because of difficulty hearing the question in its entirety._

Link

You weren't there, nor was I. But the writer of those words was. He agrees that the question isn't unreasonable (read his blog entry), but CNN's spin definitely seems to be incorrect.

One thing that comes across pretty clearly if you read blogs by military personnel in Iraq, or the Stars and Stripes letters page, is how much they distrust the way the media distort and misrepresent the facts that they see with their own eyes. I'm inclined to believe them rather than CNN.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The same is true in every war. You just can't reequip an entire army overnight.

They've been there for 2 years...

[Sock Puppet Theater]

All you guys arguing over who said what, so little discussion of whether or not the point is valid or not. This partisan back and forth is obnoxious.

I've read/heard/seen that independent contractors hired by the government have all the newest equipment, but that our regular troops do not. This may be a matter of a slow working beauracracy, but it's still a valid point that needs addressing. You shouldn't have to send your loved ones body armor to protect them. Their employer should provide it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Sock Puppet Theater:
All you guys arguing over who said what, so little discussion of whether or not the point is valid or not. This partisan back and forth is obnoxious.

I've read/heard/seen that independent contractors hired by the government have all the newest equipment, but that our regular troops do not. This may be a matter of a slow working beauracracy, but it's still a valid point that needs addressing. You shouldn't have to send your loved ones body armor to protect them. Their employer should provide it.

The body armor is a good example. No soldier is without body armor, it's been standard issue since at least Vietnam. But body armor has gone though several generations. At the time of the Panama invasion, some troops still had the Vietnam issue (as I discussed above, even including troops who went into combat). In 1991 the division I was in was just getting rid of it in favor of the second generation body armor, almost a decade after it was first introduced. It takes a while for contractors to make enough for everyone. So they begin with the highest priority troops, and work their way down.

Fast forward to 2003. There is a new generation of body armor that was just being introduced. Unsurprisingly, it hadn't been issued to every soldier. Front line troops got them first, rear echelon troops get them later. The war lit a fire to increase production, but they still have to prioritize.

This has been transferred to a myth that troops went to combat without body armor. But they all had armor. The only real difference is that the new armor has a kevlar plate to stop direct fire. That's obviously a very good idea. But the older vest was designed to stop fragments and it will do that job. Troops in rear positions probably don't need the kevlar plate because they aren't as likely to receive direct fire as a combat soldier. They are more likely to be threatened by indurect fire that produces lower velocity fragments. Obiously, they all want the latest vest and should get the new stuff in time, but let's not be repeating myths about not having body armor at all. Every soldier has at least a flak vest.

[aberdeenwriter]

http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/m113combat.htm

Yesterday I was researching this issue to discover what could be done to help the troops get better protection. (I have this whimsical notion that I, WE here at MacNN make a difference in shaping policy and straightening things out in the world. lol)

Well, I found the above website devoted to the M-113 (also known as the APC - Armored Personnel Carrier), indeed, the same one Simey referred to in his post.

However, as a read more and more of the M-113's capabilities and strengths as a fighting vehicle, I wonder if it isn't THE answer to not only the issue of armored protection for our troops in Iraq, but also addresses several other problems.

The Army has appx 13,000 of them around the world. At least 1,000 in Iraq. They are lighter in weight than the Bradley, or the Stryker, are more manuverable, offer greater dependability, easier to maintain, there are no wheels that can be punctured/set ablaze by enemy rounds, better fuel economy, greater troop & cargo capacity, they have any number of armanent configurations which can exceed any of the other vehicles already mentioned, have greater protection as-is and can be up-armored when necessary for a lower cost than the Hummvees.

I warn you, if you like stuff like this, the site will keep you occupied for HOURS! I spent 3+ hours reading and intend to go back to finish it today, if there are enough hours left in the day!

A few days ago I devoted a thread to the Stryker. I am beginning to think maybe the Stryker 'ain't all that!'

The M-113 "Gavin" IS all that...and mebbe more. Simey, like you, I thought the M-113 was obsolete but my opinion has changed. (BTW, my lasting impression had been that the APC was no good simply because it was vulnerable to roadside or anti-tank mines. Well, apparently they have 'belly armor' kits that make it very much safer than ever.)

I urge you all to take a look at the site and see if the M-113 isn't the answer.

Then, if so, send the link to your elected representatives.

(The site has pics, audio, short video clips, war stories from Viet-Nam and Gulf Wars I & II - including how Baghdad, a city of 5,000,000, was taken by 1,000 soldiers - SOF insights, technical data, construction details, history, criticism of the Joint Chiefs, the Pentagon and the Administration, stories of how Clinton allowed terrorism to slide and why... all devoted to the M-113! Great site, jam packed with great military stuff!)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/m113combat.htm

Yesterday I was researching this issue to discover what could be done to help the troops get better protection. (I have this whimsical notion that I, WE here at MacNN make a difference in shaping policy and straightening things out in the world. lol)

Well, I found the above website devoted to the M-113 (also known as the APC - Armored Personnel Carrier), indeed, the same one Simey referred to in his post.

However, as a read more and more of the M-113's capabilities and strengths as a fighting vehicle, I wonder if it isn't THE answer to not only the issue of armored protection for our troops in Iraq, but also addresses several other problems.

The Army has appx 13,000 of them around the world. At least 1,000 in Iraq. They are lighter in weight than the Bradley, or the Stryker, are more manuverable, offer greater dependability, easier to maintain, there are no wheels that can be punctured/set ablaze by enemy rounds, better fuel economy, greater troop & cargo capacity, they have any number of armanent configurations which can exceed any of the other vehicles already mentioned, have greater protection as-is and can be up-armored when necessary for a lower cost than the Hummvees.

I warn you, if you like stuff like this, the site will keep you occupied for HOURS! I spent 3+ hours reading and intend to go back to finish it today, if there are enough hours left in the day!

A few days ago I devoted a thread to the Stryker. I am beginning to think maybe the Stryker 'ain't all that!'

The M-113 "Gavin" IS all that...and mebbe more. Simey, like you, I thought the M-113 was obsolete but my opinion has changed. (BTW, my lasting impression had been that the APC was no good simply because it was vulnerable to roadside or anti-tank mines. Well, apparently they have 'belly armor' kits that make it very much safer than ever.)

I urge you all to take a look at the site and see if the M-113 isn't the answer.

Then, if so, send the link to your elected representatives.

(The site has pics, audio, short video clips, war stories from Viet-Nam and Gulf Wars I & II - including how Baghdad, a city of 5,000,000, was taken by 1,000 soldiers - SOF insights, technical data, construction details, history, criticism of the Joint Chiefs, the Pentagon and the Administration, stories of how Clinton allowed terrorism to slide and why... all devoted to the M-113! Great site, jam packed with great military stuff!)

I don't think the M113 is really the answer. They are fairly hard to maintain (at least compared to a HMMWV), and the armor on one isn't all that impressive. An RPG will cut through even an A3s armor with ease. The A2 version won't stop a 50 cal.

Another thing is you don't really want to be driving a tracked vehicle through any kind of a civilian area. The visibility out of one is quite poor if you drive it buttoned up. So the only way to avoid squashing civilians would be for the driver and track commander to drive with their heads sticking out. That would make them more vulnerable than they would be in an armored HMMWV.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't think the M113 is really the answer. They are fairly hard to maintain (at least compared to a HMMWV), and the armor on one isn't all that impressive. An RPG will cut through even an A3s armor with ease. The A2 version won't stop a 50 cal.

Another thing is you don't really want to be driving a tracked vehicle through any kind of a civilian area. The visibility out of one is quite poor if you drive it buttoned up. So the only way to avoid squashing civilians would be for the driver and track commander to drive with their heads sticking out. That would make them more vulnerable than they would be in an armored HMMWV.

I agree with all of your points...or at least I DID until I read from the site. Each of those issues is addressed...in spades!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
I agree with all of your points...or at least I DID until I read from the site. Each of those issues is addressed...in spades!

The site is down. please summarize.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Good for them!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The site is down. please summarize.

Well, here are some things I saved last nite. Let's see if they summarize well enough. Hopefully the site will be back up soon.

Tracked vehicles are non-linear combat vehicles because their tracks enable them to go off roads/trails, cross-country for two-dimensional maneuver. The best non-linear combat vehicle for the walking infantry is a LIGHT tracked AFV like the 11-ton M113 Gavin because it can go anywhere the infantry can, so it has more firepower from the vehicle, staying power supplies of ammunition, food and water than can be carried on a Soldier's back. Instead of fighting enemies at a disadvantage, its our men behind M113 armored gunshields firing Heavy Machine Gun-Disposible Rockets-M16s vs. the enemy on foot with AK47s/RPGs/IEDs. When our infantry dismounts, it has more ammunition because the M113 Gavin is nearby not left far away at a road/trail junction as a wheeled vehicle should be. Enemy fires at its tracks will not mobility kill the M113 as it would shred and set fire to the wheeled vehicle's rubber tires.

Light tracked AFVs due to their compact size and light weight can be flown by fixed-wing aircraft (dropped by cargo parachutes) and helicopters into blocking positions anywhere on the non-linear battlefield to capture/kill Saddams and Bin Ladens before they escape a 2D maneuver force coming at them on the ground. These 3D air-maneuvers are not possible in overweight 19-21 Stryker and the planned 23-ton Future Combat System (FCS) wheeled armored cars because they exceed the C-130's 17-ton and the CH-47D/F's 11-ton payload limits. Larger C-17 jet transports could transport the heavier wheeled vehicles or better yet the more capable medium M2 Bradley and M1 Abrams heavy tracked AFVs by airlanding onto a runway; but if we are going to lose time seizing a runway from the enemy, the enemy will likely escape as Saddam did from Baghdad when the 173rd Airborne Brigade landed in the north.

[...]

Further investigation shows that our men have requested both light tanks and armored personnel carriers that are available in storage yet officials at Army HQs HAVE DENIED THEM what they need to survive and win in DIRECT DISOBEDIENCE of the CIC's orders because they are TRACKED and not wheeled to go along with current Army official's fad for rubber-tired trucks and armored cars that have clearly failed to get the job done in Iraq and are killing/maiming our men from enemy Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG), Improvised Explosive Device (IED) land mine attacks and accidents due to their unwieldy designs when loaded with supplies and make-shift armored "bird cages".More troubling is these officials have also lied to Congress and the American people by falsely portraying that all they can do is up-armor existing wheeled trucks after Congress gives them $239 million more dollars and then 2 years from now our troops could have slightly better protected $250,000 each HMMWV trucks that are still vulnerable to RPGs and land mines. Our men don't need half-solutions, too late. The Army also dangles before Congress already failed-in-Iraq Canadian-made Stryker wheeled armored cars at $3 million dollars each that also cannot protect our troops from RPGs/IEDs, either so our men wisely avoid riding in them if they can ride in anything else. The current Army "vision" of getting by on allegedly cheaper-to-operate wheeled trucks/armored cars exalting the "Third Wave" of human civilization via the mental gymnastics of a computer network has failed miserably in Iraq where the PHYSICAL "Second Wave", "Industrial Age" reality still reigns supreme as enemy RPGs, land mines/roadside bombs kill and maims our Soldiers each day shamefully obvious before the entire world that threatens a collapse of public support for the war and Bush Administration re-election in November. Rather then admit their wheeled computer fantasy has failed, Army officials have repeatedly denied our Soldiers even a handful of the tracked AFVs sitting in storage that will fully protect them and take the fight to the enemy anywhere he is hiding off the roads and trails that are strewn with mines, IEDs and thugs with AK47s and RPGs lying in ambush because the tracks that are in iraq have been highly successful and more over there would be public/congressional relations "curtains" for their wheeled trucks/armored cars.

[...]

8 x M113A3 Gavins can fly in a C-5A/B Galaxy, 5 x M113A3s can be airlanded at a time from a C-17 Globemaster III, 2 x M113A3s plus troops in a C-141B Starlifter, and 1 plus troops from a C-130 Hercules. In war emergency, 2 x M113A3s can fly in a C-130. The M113A3 is simple to operate with a steering wheel and can be operated effectively with little additional training by any U.S. Army infantry squad. The M113A3 swims without preparation, is light on paved roads/highways and doesn't need a transporter to move around; is in use by over 30 allied countries, spare parts are cheap and available, can be lifted by heavy lift CH-47D/F Chinook helicopters by sling-load to any place we want on the battlefield. M113A3 Gavins are cargo 747 air-transportable to provide U.S. Army World-wide Strategic Operational Maneuver (AWSOM) capabilities to deny possible enemy anti-access strategies and achieve decisive MANEUVER that defeats enemies not just hopes for firepower bombardment to make them cry "uncle". "Hope is not a method" according to former Army Chief of Staff, retired General Gordon R. Sullivan.

All their commanders have to do is ASK, the Army has M113s in war stocks. Some of our precious M113s are being thrown into the ocean to make reefs to feed the fish! Next, we will "feed" our men to enemy guns when they end up fighting "light" without AFV fire support.

The solution is within our grasp: all we have to do is assign a dozen M113A3s to a battalion in each of the 3 Ready Brigades of the 82nd Airborne Division which has an institutionalized appreciation for light tracked armored vehicles and their shock action. Third World Countries and private U.S. citizen collectors operate M113s, how hard can this be?

A Spanish military expert sent us three pictures of the Italian intervention in Somalia, called Operation "Ibis". Notice that their Paratroopers had VCC-1 variant M113A3s when they patrolled the mean streets of Somalia! No problems with enemy fire with them!

[...]

[Editor's note: A3 model M113 with band tracks are just as fast as rubber-tired armored cars!]

[...]

Compared all of these M113-unique features to the LAV-III's measley 14mm thick steel (little more than 0.5 of an inch), the M113A3 has rolled 5083/5086 H32 aluminum alloy armor that varies from 1.5 to 1.75 inches (38.1mm to 44.45mm thick), not to mention spall liners inside the hull. We have not even talked about applique' armor yet.

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m113.html

So the M113A3 as-is has armor that is 3 times thicker and is thus much stronger and lighter than the LAV-III's thin steel.

We can work with this and get a far greater level of protection against RPGs, 30mm autocannon and ATGMs using M113A3 Gavins!

If you want to be in a thin-walled, air-filled rubber-tired LAV-III in a a shooting war, then the fitting nickname for the LAV-III would be the "Custer".

The following idea could be done at our own level without need of bureaucratic approval and funding to buy from an outside contractor. YOU can give the vehicle the respect it deserves by calling the M113 family the "Gavin" after General James M. Gavin, legendary U.S. Army combat leader who advocated the light, air-dropable tracked vehicle for troop mobility/firepower in his book, "Airborne warfare" in 1947 which eventually resulted in the M113's development and legendary service. Just imagine what could be accomplished with a little contractor help and effort from the U.S. Army instead of wasting BILLIONS on road bound rubber-tired LAV-III armored cars!

*RPG, autocannon-resistant applique armor
*Remote weapons and or gun turrets
*Quiet Band-tracks
*Infared camouflage
*Stealthy Hybrid-Electric drive (600 mile range)
*FBCB2 C4I digital comms
*Lightweight hatches to facilitate air transport

[aberdeenwriter]

http://www.off-road.com/hummer/general/hmmwv.html
http://www.departures.com/wg/wg_0198_armoredcars.html

Also here's a site that describes, in some detail, the hummvee and the plant where the armor is installed on the hummvees.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by itai195:
They've been there for 2 years...

And waited a year or so before invading...

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
And waited a year or so before invading...

Exactly!

Glad to see you have come to the RIGHT side!

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Exactly!

Glad to see you have come to the RIGHT side!

Huh?

A year of preparation to invade Iraq (i.e. free Iraqi from Saddam Hussein) and the soldiers are still not ready to fight?

And you think I am on your side?

The whole operation has been a farce since the day Iraq was called a part of an "Axis of Evil"!

And the ones not laughing are dying or suffering from misery in Iraq! You think I am on the "right" side? Both soldiers and civilians are dying from an ill-prepared operation that could have been handled much differently (although it is easy to criticize after the fact, I admit).

I have no sympathy for any of the politicians that had to deal with Saddam Hussein, or with those "pacifying" that country or Afghanistan since 2000. The whole process reeks dishonesty, whether we talk of the U.N. or the U.S. of A. and its so called "coalition".

You fool! Count the number of dead civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan and compare it with the number of death from terrorism since 2001. And tell me honestly and without laughing this is Justice...

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Huh?

A year of preparation to invade Iraq (i.e. free Iraqi from Saddam Hussein) and the soldiers are still not ready to fight?

And you think I am on your side?

The whole operation has been a farce since the day Iraq was called a part of an "Axis of Evil"!

And the ones not laughing are dying or suffering from misery in Iraq! You think I am on the "right" side? Both soldiers and civilians are dying from an ill-prepared operation that could have been handled much differently (although it is easy to criticize after the fact, I admit).

I have no sympathy for any of the politicians that had to deal with Saddam Hussein, or with those "pacifying" that country or Afghanistan since 2000. The whole process reeks dishonesty, whether we talk of the U.N. or the U.S. of A. and its so called "coalition".

You fool! Count the number of dead civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan and compare it with the number of death from terrorism since 2001. And tell me honestly and without laughing this is Justice...

Just so we understand EXACTLY where you are coming from, you will never smile, laugh or joke again or until the death and dying stops all over the world, right?

You ignorant Canut!

Everything takes time. 25 million people free in 3 years. Not bad.
You're a half EMPTY kind of gal, arent ya?

It's a cold hard, tough world and the forces we fight are every bit as guilty as we are if you wanted to see it clearly. In fact, if the US is the bad guys here and the terrorists are the side you are rooting for, then you and they must be all simpatico, eh? You are both on the same page. They feel just like you and you sympathize with them, right?

Well, guess what?

They aren't about to shed a single tear over the innocent civilians you speak of. If the US left Iraq tomorrow the terrorists would be beating and stoning women and all the stuff they do, before you could say Diefenbaker!

"Oh, but that would be the people's will."

So, why are the terrorists killing the people???

In fact, why not tell me the difference between terrorists and the US. I bet you can't. I wouldn't be surprised if you found there to be no difference at all. Or, maybe you see the terrorists as brave, valiant and noble, huh?

Wake up, grow up and smarten up.

In WWII the US went to war with friggin Bi-Planes!!! We knew the wat was coming. Friggin England slept almost completely until Hitler had captured half of Europe. Instead of gearing up to build the war machine that would help save them, they kept appeasing Hitler. Then they woke up and it was ALMOST too late.

The same type of thinking which prevented England from smelling the tea and getting serious about things is the same kind of thinking that fuels your putrid haze.

Think about this:

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Art...le.asp?ID=9412

For example, in 1938, Hendrikssen was a member of the Nobel Peace Prize Committe whom the Jewish Gertrude Stein petitioned to award Adolf Hitler (!) the Nobel Peace Prize. Hendrikssen suggests that Jews themselves, especially intellectuals, including those in Israel "have lost their instinct for survival."
[...]
In my book, The New Anti-Semitism, I try to understand why progressive intellectuals and academics (with whom I agree on many other issues) would so distort reality and betray both the Jews and the truth. Western intellectuals, including feminists, have made anti-Semitism "politically correct" and morally justifiable. They have also rendered it invisible. The only victims are Palestinians--who are indeed suffering. However, Palestinian suffering is not primarily Israel's fault. Rather, Palestinians have been held hostage by their own vicious Arab and Palestinian leaders who have used them as human fodder in their almost century-long jihad against the Jewish presence in the Middle East.

As I note in my book, it is tragic that academic (and mainly secular) feminists do not seem to understand that Islam is an even more clear and present danger to women's rights than the "American Empire"_is. It is mystifying that they would oppose a war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and oppose the liberation of Iraq. Feminists do understand that Arabs and Muslims are savagely repressed: economically, psychologically, educationally, and politically, in countries that veil women, stone women to death for alleged adultery and engage in honor killings. Feminists should be the first to oppose gender apartheid under Islam and the last to utter inflammatory falsehoods that describe Israel as an apartheid state.

Then, answer these questions:


1) Is it possible that a POTUS could genuinely know of a danger which he can't, in good conscience, reveal?

2a) Is it possible that a POTUS who gets conflicting messages from intelligence analysts simply doesn't know the truth of a potential pending threat?

2b) If convinced of the possibility of a pending attack what is the prudent course of action?

2c) If the POTUS is so convinced and decided to pre-empt that danger, what case could he present the world to receive the world's assent for military action?

3) Is it possible for a pending danger to the US go undetected?

Before you answer, assume the pending danger is of the type experienced on 9/11 or worse...suitcase nuke, dirty bomb, bio-attack and etc. on a highly concentrated US population center. NYC, D.C., LA or Chicago for example.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Well, here are some things I saved last nite. Let's see if they summarize well enough. Hopefully the site will be back up soon.

I'm not sure how much of that I would endorse. I know the M113A3 fairly well, I used to be assigned one as part of my little fleet of vehicles for the general I worked for. It is pretty quick, and I suppose it is quiet as compared to a Bradley (which has a godawful transmission whine), but it isn't quiet compared to wheeled vehicles. I don't know how quiet the Stryker is, but it looks like a Fuchs, and those things are very quiet. HMMWVs are quite a bit quieter too. And as a matter of fact, so is the M1 tank.

The other disagreements I have are that the armor is a lot less capable than your puff-piece suggests. It's solid aluminum with an inner Kevler liner. It's rated to stop a 50 cal (just) but not an RPG. Spaced aluminum with liner (as the Bradley has) is better. Also, the M113 has slab sides, which are vunerable. Sloped armor is more likely to deflect a blast -- or better yet, the shell.

It does have a couple of advantages over a Bradley. It's roomier inside, and the dismounts can fire from inside. The Bradley's BMP-inspired firing ports never worked well. The M113 has a big hatch in the top that you can stand up in. In the Bradley, that hatch is just for loading missiles. You can't stand up in the top hatch because of the turret. But that turret is much more capable than some troops with M-16s. In the first Gulf War, Bradley crews discovered to their shock that the chain gun could take out a T72. And troops do not want to be on the wrong end of the coax machine gun.

The M113A3 is pretty fun to drive cross country, and it is quite rugged (in Panama, my friends parked them inside buildings by bashing through the walls. You can't do that with a Bradley (it messes up the gun)). But my overall evaluation stands. The M113 is being phased out for a reason. Additionally, you haven't answered my point about needing to ride with your head sticking out. If troops are going to be in armor, they need to be in armor. But you can't drive a track in a crowd buttoned up. You will run people over. As a matter of fact, one did run over a soldier when i was in Germany. By a miracle he survived with nothing worse than cracked ribs and a wicked track-shaped bruise. But that was because Grafenwoehr is a marsh when it rains. The track just pushed him in the ground.

By the way, those tracks take a lot of maintenance. Maybe a bit less than a Bradley, but any tracked vehicle is harder to keep working for long than a wheeled vehicle. They just have a lot of moving bits that wear out fast.

All in all, I think this idea is motivated more by nostalgia than anything else.

Oh, and what's this "Gavin" stuff? I worked with them for years. I have never heard it called that.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm not sure how much of that I would endorse. I know the M113A3 fairly well, I used to be assigned one as part of my little fleet of vehicles for the general I worked for. It is pretty quick, and I suppose it is quiet as compared to a Bradley (which has a godawful transmission whine), but it isn't quiet compared to wheeled vehicles. I don't know how quiet the Stryker is, but it looks like a Fuchs, and those things are very quiet. HMMWVs are quite a bit quieter too. And as a matter of fact, so is the M1 tank.

The other disagreements I have are that the armor is a lot less capable than your puff-piece suggests. It's solid aluminum with an inner Kevler liner. It's rated to stop a 50 cal (just) but not an RPG. Spaced aluminum with liner (as the Bradley has) is better. Also, the M113 has slab sides, which are vunerable. Sloped armor is more likely to deflect a blast -- or better yet, the shell.

It does have a couple of advantages over a Bradley. It's roomier inside, and the dismounts can fire from inside. The Bradley's BMP-inspired firing ports never worked well. The M113 has a big hatch in the top that you can stand up in. In the Bradley, that hatch is just for loading missiles. You can't stand up in the top hatch because of the turret. But that turret is much more capable than some troops with M-16s. In the first Gulf War, Bradley crews discovered to their shock that the chain gun could take out a T72. And troops do not want to be on the wrong end of the coax machine gun.

The M113A3 is pretty fun to drive cross country, and it is quite rugged (in Panama, my friends parked them inside buildings by bashing through the walls. You can't do that with a Bradley (it messes up the gun)). But my overall evaluation stands. The M113 is being phased out for a reason. Additionally, you haven't answered my point about needing to ride with your head sticking out. If troops are going to be in armor, they need to be in armor. But you can't drive a track in a crowd buttoned up. You will run people over. As a matter of fact, one did run over a soldier when i was in Germany. By a miracle he survived with nothing worse than cracked ribs and a wicked track-shaped bruise. But that was because Grafenwoehr is a marsh when it rains. The track just pushed him in the ground.

By the way, those tracks take a lot of maintenance. Maybe a bit less than a Bradley, but any tracked vehicle is harder to keep working for long than a wheeled vehicle. They just have a lot of moving bits that wear out fast.

All in all, I think this idea is motivated more by nostalgia than anything else.

Oh, and what's this "Gavin" stuff? I worked with them for years. I have never heard it called that.

Site is back up.

http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/m113combat.htm


http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/m...28/wirq128.xml


Replace the hopeless Humvee, Pentagon chiefs are urged

By David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 28/04/2004)

Armoured cars being sent to Iraq are not up to the job, according to a senior United States army general, prompting calls for Pentagon chiefs to swallow their pride and reactivate thousands of mothballed Vietnam-era armoured personnel carriers.

With improvised bombs, rifle fire and rocket-propelled grenades taking an ever deadlier toll on coalition forces, the Pentagon is spending �225 million to replace thin-skinned versions of the Humvee, the US military's ubiquitous jeep-like transport, with an "up-armoured" model, as fast as they can be churned off the production line.

Humvees are proving easy prey on the streets of Iraq

Commanders have shuddered as troops attached home-made armour plating and even sandbags to ordinary Humvees, whose thin skin, canvas doors and shoulder height windows have made them highly vulnerable to attack.

The new, armour-plated Humvees have been touted by Pentagon chiefs as the best solution to complaints from the field about the standard version of the vehicle.

But Gen Larry Ellis, the commanding general of US army forces, told his superiors that even the armoured Humvee is proving ineffective.

In a memo leaked to CNN television, he wrote: "Commanders in the field are reporting to me that the up-armoured Humvee is not providing the solution the army hoped to achieve."

Reports from the field say that even with armour plating, the Humvee's rubber tyres can be burnt out by a Molotov cocktail, while at two tons, it is light enough to be turned over by a mob.

Gen Ellis said it was "imperative" that the Pentagon instead accelerate production of the newest armoured personnel carrier, the Stryker, which weighs 19 tons and moves at high speed on eight rubber tyres.

But the Stryker has many influential critics who say it is too big to be flown easily on the military's C-130 transport aircraft, and too cumbersome to manoeuvre in narrow streets. Instead, they want the Pentagon to turn back the clock and re-deploy thousands of Vietnam-era M-113 "Gavin" armoured personnel carriers, which are still used by support and engineering units, and are held in huge numbers by reserve units.

Gary Motsek, the deputy director of support operations for US army materiel command, said: "I have roughly 700 113-series vehicles sitting pre-positioned in Kuwait, though some are in need of repairs. I have them available right now, if they want them."

General David Grange calls for decisive action to reverse situation in Iraq: M113 Gavins to the rescue!
www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/26/ldt.00.html

DOBBS: The U.S. Army is sending hundreds of armored Humvees to Iraq to protect troops from attacks by insurgents. But tonight, there are new fears that the armor on those reinforced Humvees is still inadequate to provide protection for our Soldiers.

Senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre has the report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With U.S. troops still dying in deadly roadside attacks, the Pentagon is spending $400 million racing to replace the Army's basic thin- skinned Humvees with reinforced up-armored versions. But the better armor is still not providing adequate protection, writes a four-star general in a memo obtained by CNN.

"Commanders in the field are reporting to me that the up-armored Humvee is not providing the solution the Army hoped to achieve," writes General Larry Ellis, commanding general of the U.S. Army Forces Command, in a March 30 memo to the Army chief of staff.

Critics say, even with better armor, the Humvee's shoulder-level doors make it too easy to lob a grenade inside. Its four rubber tires burn too readily. At two tons, it is light enough to be overturned by a mob.

General Ellis wants to shift Army funds to build twice as many of the Army's newest combat vehicle, the Stryker, which has eight wheels, weighs 19 tons and when equipped with a special cage can withstand an RPG attack. "It is imperative that the Army accelerate the production of Stryker vehicles to support current operations," Ellis says.

But critics say the Army is overlooking an even cheaper, faster solution than the $3.3 million Stryker, the thousands of Vietnam era M-113 Gavin personnel carriers the Army has in storage which can be upgraded with new armor for less than $100,000 apiece. Neither the Stryker nor the Gavin offer 100 percent protection. Some U.S. troops have been killed in the top-of-the-line M1-A1 Abrams tank. But the more armor, the better chance of survival.

[Face Ache]

You might find this interesting.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2476

[koogz]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
You might find this interesting.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2476

Awesome pictures! Thanks.

[itai195]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Exactly!

Glad to see you have come to the RIGHT side!

Think you missed his point.

[aberdeenwriter]

The airdroppable light tracked armored fighting vehicle is the creation of legendary Airborne General James M. Gavin, who proposed it in his visionary book, Airborne Warfare in 1947. He wrote:

"Using a 150-foot canopy singly, or in combination with a 90-foot canopy, it is practicable to drop an artillery piece and its prime mover. Some visionary individuals have even suggested that personnel carriers be dropped in this manner. The idea has merit... "

[...]

If the battlefield is a fraction of how lethal the precision-strike, RMA firepower hubrists think it is to justify their mouse-clicking firepower constructs, then the battlefield is going to be full of civilian refugess, wrecked and burning cars, broken glass, fallen power and telephone lines, burning and demolished homes and factories, exploding bombs and missiles everywhere---in short an almost nuclear "hell" created by "precision" and non-precision "low-tech" weapons---then the U.S. Army must roll on off-road capable, obstacle-crossing light tracks not air-filled rubber tires. And the light tracked armored fighting vehicles have to be small and light enough to get there by aircraft and prepositioned sealift without needing airfields and ports to get there IN TIME or we will lose the war by default-failing to show up--the enemy wins. He who lands the first blows in SSC warfare has the advantage and there may be no recovery to the defender unless he has a SUPERIOR Surveillance Strike Maneuver Capability (SSMC).

[...]

Congress should direct the Army to upgrade its M113 Gavins with the computers they crave, but with actual physical superiority features like RPG-resistant armor, band-tracks, hybrid-electric drive for 600 mile range and stealth operation, so that THE ENTIRE ARMY IS TRANSFORMED IMMEDIATELY as the WWII generation would, we are talking days and weeks here not months and years.

[...]

Up-armoring sides, underbelly and providing gunshields on the Army's M113 Gavins light tracked AFVs would cost a mere $78K each and for less than $500K would make them hybrid-electric silent and stealthy to sneak up on hiding enemies TODAY instead of waiting 10 years from now for a mythical $10 million each, Future Combat System (FCS). Hybrid-Electric M113 Gavins would have all the electrical power Soldiers could ever need to run all the computers and electronic gadgets the Army is so infatuated with. Going to band tracks while slightly reducing land mine blast resistance is countered by the fact that with Hybrid Electric drive we can put the driver/TC farther back in the hull away from over the current driver position over the left track offset from the right front engine arrangement. The reason is that HE drive can be run by wire controls so the driver can actually be ANYWHERE on or off the vehicle. Another benefit of HE drive is you can then build a "V" channel wall on the left and right of the centerline driver/TC for a secondary bulkhead against land mines.

All do-able NOW with M113 Gavins. The HE TTD already has centerline driver/TC and cut-down more sloping front. In a matter of month's the Army's 4 light divisions without ANY armored vehicles that are getting clobbered all over the world in HMMWV trucks could be have ALL of their men moved around the battlefield under armor but alert and ready to return fire behind gunshields without getting bogged down in vehicle care; each infantry battalion's Delta Weapons Companies who now own/operate dangerously vulnerable HMMWV trucks would instead use up-armored M113 Gavins to give their Alpha, Bravo and Charlie rifle company brethren transportation as needed. Army light units "transformed" with light tracked AFV capabilities could range out by aircraft and their own superior x-country mobility, armored protection and on-hand firepower anywhere in the world with weeks of supplies to flush out enemy terrorists hiding in remote areas. We could throw a cordon around wherever the Bin Ladens are hiding and stay there "tightening the noose" until he appears dead-or-alive.

[...]

RAFAEL has modified Israeli Defense Force (IDF) M113 "Zelda 2" Gavins to the "classical" configuation. Arrowhead Explosion Reactive tiles (ERA) protect against RPGs, ATGMs and heavy machine guns, the exhaust pipe is routed down to minimize heat signature, automatic smoke screen systems, and Commander has gunshields with bullet-proof windows to be able to view out and still be shielded when firing.

Passive Armor: http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/p...d-armour-p.htm

Active Armor: http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/p...d-armour-r.htm

Israeli Defense Force (IDF) "Zelda" M113A3 with reactive armor, ACAV TC gunshield with vision windows, external fuel tanks..and some other unidentified features to take the war to Hezbollah terrorists in Southern Lebanon, used by elite' red-beret Paratroopers and Brown beret-wearing "Golani Brigade" Mechanized Infantry units.

[...]

When mounted, troops in the back have their weapons and heads out ready to return fire behind gunshield with armored vision windows....no Bradley malaise here...they are killing global terrorists and not letting them escape...

WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE IDF's M113 GUNSHIELDS?

21st Century ACAV gunshields

CENTER-SEATING ALLOWS IDF SOLDIERS TO STAND AND FACE OUTWARD TO FIRE THEIR WEAPONS

Soldiers offset from vehicle sides if they should be penetrated

[...]

About maintenance... change the oil, check the track tension, and drive it 'till the tracks fall off. I had that happen on a convoy from Dong Tam (9th ID HQ, to Tan An 1st BDE HQ) we were going about 35, the track rolled off behind like a caterpillar, and the driver took his hands off the sticks and goosed it a bit to keep it straight. He was doing good until the road took a turn against the side with the gone track. Well, they ended up in the ditch, we recovered the vehicle, left the track by the side of the road and rewrapped it, and went on operations the next day. If it had been a wheelie and had rolled over, it would have been "hors de combat" for a few days.

[...]

Any backyard mechanic can work on a M113, not so on a M1 or a Brad. I would think also not so on the LAV with it's compound~complex drive system.

[...]

COMBAT REPORTS EXCERPTS:

One APC from Tm RENNER hit an AT mine 200 meters east of Psn ROSE. No casualties were sustained; however, the vehicle had to be evacuated due to the extent of damage.

A med evac track of Tm RENNER hit an AT mine on Psn ROSE at 1120 that blew one track off and damaged the road wheel. No casualties were sustained and the vehicle was evacuated.

Two APC's from Tm Renner hit AT mines at 1230 while searching Psn ROSE, causing moderate damage to the APC's and three minor WIA's, who were treated and remained with the unit.

At 1520, the TF VTR hit an AT mine vic XT 640223, causing moderate damage to the track; however, no casualties were sustained.

As far as driver visibility, at the website below, in the specs sheets they list "enhanced" driver visibility but don't really elaborate. I would suggest they employ a LOUD-ASSED HORN so everyone around will be warned to get the Fxxx out of the way.

http://www.uniteddefense.com/www.m11..._vehicles.html

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by itai195:
Think you missed his point.

I don't know why but I believe Simple Life is a female. And SL was kinda vague so I tried eliciting more of a qualifying response. It worked. Although I WAS taken aback by SL's harshness toward me. Sweet hearted guy that I am.

Good thing we're not in a Muslim court of law. I hear that having a 'sharp tongue' got a 16 year old girl hanged!

[aberdeenwriter]

*RPG, autocannon-resistant applique armor
*Remote weapons and or gun turrets
*Quiet Band-tracks
*Infared camouflage
*Stealthy Hybrid-Electric drive (600 mile range)
*FBCB2 C4I digital comms
*Lightweight hatches to facilitate air transport

M113A3 GAVIN EXTERNAL STOWAGE BIN MODIFICATION

Here is a do-it-yourself upgrade for the M113A3!

External storage volume needed: acts as spaced armor against RPGs

The M113A3 is a superb light tracked Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV) with more internal space than other AFVs for troop gear by its external fuel tanks. However, it does not have external side storage provisions and even the M113A3's volume is soon used up by a Combat Engineer or Infantry unit. This has led to the MTVL stretched variant with more internal volume for both Soldiers and gear. However there are some items of Soldier equipment that clearly are too big and shouldn't be kept inside for safety reasons. Mines, demolitions and long bangalore torpedo sections would be better carried OUTSIDE the M113A3, if detonated they would exploded out and away from the vehicle hull whereas if set off INSIDE the vehicle it would be disastrous for the men.

Outside storage bins
The M113A3 has bolt-on armor points that are currently not being utilized.

U.S. Army Sergeant First Class Gregory T. Dean (now Retired) in Bosnia used these bolts to attach unused ammo cans he wrote in the March/April issue of U.S. Army ARMOR magazine:

The ACAV Lives...in Bosnia

These bolts could be used to attach a metal framework with thick metal mesh to create storage area all along the length of the vehicle. These storage bins could be created by local units as per TM specifications for very low cost. The long nature of the bins would allow long bangalore torpedo sections to be carried securely outside the vehicle, stretchers, spine boards for Medical M113A3s, as well as a huge supply of land mines, ammunition, demolitions and/or even Soldier rucksacks.

Applique' armor is what applique armor does

We realize the powers-that-be hate the M113A3 and have consistantly blocked attempts to buy the applique' armor that was always intended for it to have to protect it from landmines, RPGs and weaponry up to 30mm autocannon. Do not list this side benefit of external storage bins if these biased individuals will veto the local modification. Perhaps later on Soldiers will figure the following out or we could "discover" the application and advocate it after the storage bin becomes officially accepted. Ammo cans and storage bins could be filled with dirt, sand or even concrete to bolster armor protection as the situation demands.

But in Vietnam, Soldiers erected chain-link fencing around their M113A1s and M48 tanks to pre-detonate Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs). In Chechnya, Russians today have placed wire screens around ther vehicles to defeat RPGs. The metal mesh M113A3 storage bins would act as RPG screens. This is just the beginning.

BURNED-UP STRYKER IN IRAQ: NOTE THE GAPS BETWEEN THE TILES (click on picture for larger version)

The reason the ceramic tiles on Stryker do not work well is that they are made of inexpensive aluminum oxide ceramics. GD put out a price bogey for the ceramics and a company from Germany, IBD, claimed that their armor could do more than it can. This is why the Stryker ceramic tiles failed to stop 14.5mm heavy machine gun bullets in testing last year and had to be reinforced with steel. This ceramic is much lower quality and capability than the silicon carbide ceramics being tested for FCS. The other problem as you can see from the above photo is that the Stryker ceramic tiles have big spaces between them.

In contrast, the M113 Gavin light tracked AFV is composed of 1.5" to 1.75" thick armor and is only 10.5 tons empty. This weight savings results in the ability to add up to 7,000 pounds of extra armor. M113 Gavins in IDF and other armies often have:

1.) external storage racks to hold troop gear that can pre-detonate RPGs,
2.) a layer of spaced or reactive armor
3.) peel 'n stick ceramic tiles and kevlar-type ballistic panels (that work) tightly placed together on the hull outsides
4.) the vehicle's 1.5" to 1.75" hull and
5.) internal kevlar spall liners and
6.) lots of sandbags.
7.) gunshields

That's 7 layers of protection rolling on steel tracks with rubber pads and solid metal road wheels, STILL LIGHTER than the 19-21 Stryker armored car which struggles to carry a mere 5,000 pound "bird cage". Since the Army bureaucracy does not supply this extra armor to make the mighty M113 Gavin more "vincible" units and Soldiers need to do-it-yourself: get your welders to create external storage racks and bolt them to the outside after buying and applying peel 'n stick armor panels:

Peel n stick armor panels defeat .50 cal @3000 FPS, AP proven in U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground Tests

Armor Systems International
110 Columbia Street
Vancouver, WA 98660
phone: (360) 993-5181
toll free: (866) 993-5181
fax: (360) 737-0743
[email protected]
www.armorsystemsint.com

Its also possible to add a layer of sandbags or MRE cases filled with dirt into the M113A3 side storage bins to add additional armor protection---applique' armor by field expedient. A layer of sandbags stops all 7.62mm/.30 cal MG bullets cold. Combined with the M113A3's 1.5 inch thick hull armor and spall liners, you would have 7 layers of protection. The outside storage bin screen: pre-detonates RPGs, breaks up bullets, the sandbags absorb shaped charge effect of RPGs/ATGMs, decelerate bullets, put some on the driver's floor. area. The M113A3 Gavin has a crushible driver's seat with foot rests. The hull armor hard plate stops fragments/bullets already slowed that are not stopped by previous layers. The M113A3 spall liner stops the fragments (if any) that penetrate beyond this. The cumulative effect of the storage bins would be greater mission effectiveness by greater amounts of weaponry, equipment being carried and greater Soldier protection via the side benefits of adding outside layers to the vehicle itself. Adding steel or titanium applique' armor to stop 30mm autocannon fire would bolster this even more though Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) to defeat hollow-charge RPGs and ATGMs is another option. This kind of protection is not possible with an overweight Stryker or HMMWV wheeled vehicle.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's not what people who were there are saying.

Nothing that you posted refutes the reports from every one of the major news channels that the troops broke out into loud and spontaneous applause and cheering when the question was asked.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally posted by Troll:
Nothing that you posted refutes the reports from every one of the major news channels that the troops broke out into loud and spontaneous applause and cheering when the question was asked.

Perhaps that was all planned too.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Troll:
Nothing that you posted refutes the reports from every one of the major news channels that the troops broke out into loud and spontaneous applause and cheering when the question was asked.

You gotta love America!

The Secretary of Defense goes to the troops and asks for their questions and comments expecting they will be tough. He ENCOURAGES their tough questions. And the news media is encouraged to cover the event! And it's broadcast around the world for friends and foe to watch!

Where else? Who else? When?

God Bless America!

BTW: The troops won't be punished or tortured or killed because of the questions, either!