It has come to be my opinion, that the ubiquitous Humvee is not up to the task of protecting our troops http://www.combatreform.com/stupidlightitisdielookincool.jpg Where are the sandbags, the armour plating? This is a modern army? Camo is obviously not important to our troops either... is anything in Iraq green other than the HMMWV? Hardly a day goes by that one of our own is downed by ied's or RPG's (improvised explosive devices, rocket propelled grenades- respectively) M1114 HMMWV below A CANNOT GO OFF INTO ITS SNOWY LEFT OR RIGHT WITHOUT GETTING STUCK B Easy to predict its path to lay bomb and small-arms/RPG ambushes C WINDSHIELD, 4 WINDOWS, 4 DOORS, open gunner's top at shoulder level highly vulnerable to enemy overmatching fires and grenades/bombs being thrown inside D Rolls on 4 air-filled rubber tires easily punctured, shredded and set on fire E Entire body vulnerable to RPG penetration with molten metal spall http://www.geocities.com/paratroop2000/armoredhmmwvvulnerable.jpg 2004-03-02 Spc Michael R Woodliff 22 Port Charlotte FL Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 37th Armor Army. Woodliff died March 2 in Baghdad, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device struck his convoy. Michael, a specialist 4 was killed Tuesday in Baghdad when guerrillas threw a bomb into his Humvee. A second occupant of the vehicle was seriously wounded, according to Reuters reports. The "ARMORED HMMWV" is no solution for troop protection in Iraq. http://www.combatreform.com/armoredhmmwvburnedhulk.jpg This is more obvious proof that HMMWV trucks are NOT combat vehicles and if attacked by crowds can be set ablaze, or flipped over by hand... combat vehicles defeated without firing a shot? ALL troops in Iraq should ride in higher, window and doorless, roll on steel tracks with rubber pads, better-protected light tracks as the M113 Gavin MINIMUM transportation standard. Vietnam era Gavin- http://www.combatreform.com/m113a4crushcartn.jpg The Army's answer, for the future is the Stryker, which also rolls on rubber tires can also be defeated without any real weapons such as a molotov cocktail http://www.combatreform.com/strykerburnedupcolor.jpg RUBBER BURNS! who knew? Wheels just aren't the answer, they provide a 15% increase in top spead at a cost of 28% weight/space efficiency, which means troops are now "protected" by 1/2" of steel and ceramic tiles. Ceramic tiles, as you might have guessed, being the bright bunch you guys are, are brittle and can be compromised with small arms fire and rendered useless http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/26/ldt.00.html meanwhile, the Army has thousands of M113's sitting in mothballs, ready and able to protect our soldiers, but we send trucks and toys instead. http://www.combatreform.com/lotsm113gavinsinstorage.jpg Time to swallow our pride, take whatever heat you get for killing new weapons/programs, and realize that not everything new is better don't know what kind of interest you this will find but this sort of thing upsets me greatly
I remember watching something on the History Channel about this. Essentially, the jeep was created in the 30's as an all-terrain vehicle that could travel anywhere a foot soldier could. The HumVee replaced the jeep in the 80's as the new all-terrain vehicle. It also talked about track vehicles having many problems as well. Much slower, not nearly as manuverable, much heavier, much more difficult to travel over brush or water, as well as several other things. The fact is they both serve a purpose. HumVee's are basically the 2000's version of a front line. While not perfect, it certainly is better than calvary scouts going up on foot, and they still use scouts regularly. Every component serves its purpose. An All-Track on every vehicle in the Army would have more problems than the HumVee has now.
the Humvee has it's place, and it NOT on the frontline Iraq, however, is a non-linear fight, so the Humvee should not be there As far as track vehicles being heaver, Here is a combat pic of the Australian 4th Armored Regiment patrolling through a river in search of fleeing East Timor terrorists in TRACKED M113s that got there by C-130 aircraft while the air-filled rubber tire WHEELED LAV 8x8 armored cars sat in the HMS Jervis Bay catamaran waiting for a port to offload... http://www.geocities.com/armysappersforward/aussiem113swimmingetimor.jpg Being able to manuver far more important than your turning radius and top speed and if you have a question about the speed of tracked vehicles, try drag racing a M1A2 http://www.combatreform.com/tireseasilygoflatduhhtn.jpg http://www.combatreform.com/thisisnoarmyfuturetn.jpg http://www.combatreform.com/deadstrykeronroad.jpg http://www.combatreform.com/anotherstuckhmmwv.jpg I just can't see this one the other way at all war=fire Fire+rubber=dead soldiers
I'd say that even the "upgunned" Humvees are not sufficient for an urban combat scenario at all. Now the pros and cons between wheeled and tracked vehicles are these: Wheeled vehicles pros: -Simpler maintennance (Every tried to replace a track? Wheels are much easier) -Faster road speed - Much lighter (tracks are heavy) - Greater range (tracked vehicles suck gas like Dante's g/f in Clerks sucked.....) -Much cheaper to buy and operate Wheeled vehicle disadvantages: - Vulnerability (shoot out some tires and you disable the vehicle) - Not able to carry the heaviest armament or armor (tires have their load-bearing limits) -Tend to be taller and less stable than tracked vehicles - Poorer off-road performance Tracked vehicle pros: - Can carry heavier loads of armor/ armament/ troops - Much better off-road performance -Much more difficult to disable (skirts can protect the treads much easier than you could protect wheels) - Better manuverability (I know people are going to think Bama is way-off base, but all a tracked vehicle has to do to steer is reverse some treads) Tracked vehicle cons: - Very heavy -Sucks gas like Lewinsky sucks........ - Much more expensive and man-power intensive to maintain That said, I'd much rather be tooling around Iraq in the old M113 armored personal carrier than a USMC or the new US Army LAV wheeled vehicles or even the damned Humvee. The M113, while old as the hills, protects its troops much better than a Humvee or a LAV.
This looks like a major screwup that's biting us now, that's for sure. That the humvee is inadequate for how it's being used in Iraq, in the main, cannot be doubted, either the "new" armored version, or the one most in use in theatre. The Stryker doesn't look like a significant improvement, either. It looks more like a bonanza for the companies who make it. (nice topic, lpbman) Here's another article about the Gavin and the Stryker. Army's new wheeled armored vehicle criticized Heaviness of more mobile troop carrier is a factor compared to existing tracked model Wednesday, March 20, 2002 By Jack Kelly, Post-Gazette National Security Writer The U.S. Army's choice for an Interim Armored Vehicle, the LAV III, was unveiled a week ago in a rollout ceremony in London, Ontario. The Army plans to spend $4 billion to acquire 2,131 of the vehicles, called the Stryker, to provide a lightweight armored vehicle until it begins procuring a new generation of high-tech tanks and armored personnel carriers around 2008. Supporters say the Stryker is the first step toward a lighter, more mobile Army that can respond more quickly to international crises. Critics say it is a waste of money that could endanger soldiers' lives. The Stryker is an eight-wheeled armored car that will be manufactured principally by General Motors of Canada. It is a heavier, more modern version of the armored car that has been used for more than 20 years by Canadian Forces and the U.S. Marines. The Army plans to have the first Stryker brigade operational by January, but not all configurations of the vehicle will be available until 2005. The Stryker will come in two variants: an armored personnel carrier with nine different configurations, and a mobile gun system equipped with a 105 mm cannon capable of destroying bunkers and some light tanks. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki wants the Stryker to provide greater tactical mobility, firepower and a measure of armor protection for the Army's light divisions. It is part of his plan to "lighten" the Army so more power can be moved more rapidly to areas in crisis. Critics point out that the Stryker would add weight to the Army's light divisions. Six of the Army's 10 divisions are "heavy" -- with armor or mechanized infantry -- equipped with the Abrams tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Heavy divisions are all but invincible on a conventional battlefield. But because the Abrams weighs nearly 70 tons, and the Bradley 25 tons, it is very difficult to move more than a small part of a heavy division rapidly. Of the six brigades Shinseki wants to equip with Strykers, all but one are "light" formations. One of the brigades slated to receive the Stryker is the 56th Brigade of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard, headquartered in Philadelphia. "This puts us at the forefront of Army transformation," said the brigade commander, Col. Philip Carlin, who owns an insurance company in Altoona. Few doubt the need for the Army to have light armored vehicles. But, critics say, the Army already has a better one. That is the M-113 armored personnel carrier, nicknamed the Gavin, the mainstay of the mechanized infantry before the Bradley. The Army has about 17,000 Gavins, which run on tracks, but most of them are in storage. The Senate Armed Services Committee wrote into the defense authorization bill for 2001 a requirement that a side-by-side comparison test be made of the Stryker and the Gavin before an interim light armored vehicle is chosen. Congress gave the defense secretary permission to waive the test if he didn't think it was necessary. Army Secretary Thomas White will ask Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to waive the test, a spokeswoman said. Col. David Ogg, a project manager, told Defense News a comparative evaluation would provide "little or no new information." An analyst for a think tank funded chiefly by defense industries agrees. "The Army conducted a broad series of tests on options for the interim force between March and November of 2000," said Daniel Goure of the Lexington Institute. "To do it again would be a waste of time, money and effort. "Lightweight wheeled vehicles have been ideal for most of the situations we've been confronting in the war on terror," Goure said. But a serving Army officer, a veteran of the biggest tank battle of the Persian Gulf War, said the real reason the Army brass doesn't want to have a side-by-side test is that they are afraid the Stryker would come up short. Another doubter is retired Army Col. John Barnes, who, as a staff member for the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote the language requiring the side-by-side tests. The Army is proposing to spend a great deal of money to acquire a light armored vehicle that is no better and perhaps worse than one it already has, Barnes said. The Gavin would be easier to support logistically, he said. "People don't realize that in the heavy divisions even today, there are more M-113s than there are Abrams or Bradleys," he said. "There are parts in the system to fix the M-113, and mechanics who know how to maintain it. The Stryker will require a whole new logistics stream." The most vocal critic of the Stryker has been Mike Sparks, a former Marine and paratrooper. Sparks wrote with retired Gen. David Grange a book on how to use light armor to support airborne operations. The Stryker and Gavin are essentially equal in armor protection, and in the types of weapons they can carry, Sparks said. But the Gavin is vastly superior in strategic and tactical mobility, he said. A requirement for the Interim Armored Vehicle is that it be able to be carried by the Air Force's tactical airlifters, the C-17 (of which the Air Force has 64) and the C-130, (of which the Air Force has 510). Both vehicles fit comfortably on a C-17, although it can carry five Gavins at a time and no more than three Strykers. The smaller, lighter Gavin has been carried and airdropped by C-130s for years. But at 37,000 pounds in its lightest variant, the Stryker is at the outer limit of the C-130's cargo capacity, and its greater height makes it a tight fit in the C-130's cargo compartment. A spokeswoman for the Canadian Forces said a Stryker can be squeezed onto a C-130 if the air is let out of the tires. In an internal document, the Army acknowledged that eight of the 10 proposed variants of the Stryker are currently too heavy to be lifted by a C-130. A public affairs officer for the Army's Tank Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) in Warren, Mich., said all the Stryker variants would meet the C-130 lift weight limit, but wouldn't say how. "We've got a plan," said Peter Keating of General Dynamics Land Systems, the principal American contractor for the Stryker. "Some of it involves hardware changes [as, for instance, using aluminum rather than steel for the Stryker's wheels]. Some of it involves what the Army wants to have fly [on the C-130] with the vehicle." The Lexington Institute's Goure said that because wheeled vehicles are easier and cheaper to maintain, and are gentler on roads, they are better suited than tracked vehicles for peacekeeping missions. But the value of the Stryker will be diminished if the weight of its principal variants can't be reduced enough to transport it on a C-130, he said. Once on the battlefield, the Gavin will have a much easier time getting around, Sparks said. "Since the beginning of mechanized warfare, engineers have recognized that tracked vehicles have substantial advantages over wheeled vehicles of comparable weight in cross-country mobility," Sparks said. "This is why virtually every tank in every army from World War I on has been on tracks, not wheels." It would cost between $100,000 and $500,000 to provide each Gavin with a digitized communications system like those the Abrams and Bradley have. New tracks would lighten the vehicle and allow the Gavin to travel at up to 50 mph on roads, Sparks said. The Stryker will cost more than $2 million, he said. http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20020320mobilenat4p4.asp We should be shipping APC's over to Iraq like mad elves mking toys for Santa, while re-armoring the Gavin's as fast as possible. Since pulling out of Iraq, now that we've made the error of going there (I know, that's already been talked to death), is not a reasonable option, everything we can do to give our people must be done ASAP. This, in particular, jumped out at me: It would cost between $100,000 and $500,000 to provide each Gavin with a digitized communications system like those the Abrams and Bradley have. New tracks would lighten the vehicle and allow the Gavin to travel at up to 50 mph on roads, Sparks said. The Stryker will cost more than $2 million, he said. That, and this: The smaller, lighter Gavin has been carried and airdropped by C-130s for years. But at 37,000 pounds in its lightest variant, the Stryker is at the outer limit of the C-130's cargo capacity, and its greater height makes it a tight fit in the C-130's cargo compartment. A spokeswoman for the Canadian Forces said a Stryker can be squeezed onto a C-130 if the air is let out of the tires. In an internal document, the Army acknowledged that eight of the 10 proposed variants of the Stryker are currently too heavy to be lifted by a C-130. My question is, what in the heck are they waiting for??
Why does everything devolved into finger pointing in this forum the Humvee and Striker need to go... now- Soldiers are being maimed and killed for no good reason Call your congressman, D or R and tell them to snuff the Stryker, park the Humvee and send in the ol Gavins or as many refer to it, the "Army's B-52"
I have no problem with them doing a side by side comparison with the two. Heck, the Gavin may be more suitable for desert conditions. But I bet a Stryker might work better in marsh situations. Point is: if they have 100,000 Gavins, they better damn well be using them in some capacity.
Actually, the Gavin would be better in a marsh situation--M113's were used extensively in Vietnam(as any armored vehicle COULD be" and are quite good swimers... In either case, light armored vehicles like the M113 and Stryker are big, fat, juicy tragets in a clogged/blind sided Urban warfare environment. Unless both are fitted with "Reactive Armor", they are multi-ton ton target practice for any $hit-kickin' militia member with a shaped war head rocket launcher, an RPG fitted with the "beefed-up" anti-tank round, or any of the NUMEROUS and cheap Soviet or Chinese knock-off's... Check my facts, I haven't read a Janes article in a while, but I'm pretty sure that the shaped charges like the TOW or Soviet-bloc equivalent can EASILY punch through 2-3 inches of hardened steel armor--MORE than enough to knock out an M113 or Stryker without Reactive Armor.
That may be true, but light-armored vehicles will always be needed in combat, just like cavalry scouts.
The problem with reactive armor is that it can only be "used" once! Once the explosive charge is expended in the reactive armor, it is finished and an expensive depot period will be necessary to replace it. I'd use some of the chobham multi-layer armor like our M1A2's have on them before I'd use the reactive stuff.
there is no 100% effective armor, and no known armor will take the full brunt of a tow missile 99% of RPGs are metal spall rounds and aren't likely to penetrate the Gavin, but it has happened the Stryker, otoh, can be defeated with a 9mm or a bottle of rum, if you target the tires reactive armor at least lets you know when it has been compromised, unlike the ceramic plates on the Stryker, unless you want to borrow the space shuttle crew to inspect them after every firefight The Stryker doesn't do what the military wanted, but pushes for it anyway (who wants your new toys taken away?) it's more expensive to operate, less mobile, both tactically and strategically. All while being far more vulnerable "The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives." -- Sir Winston Churchill that said, it's a vast improvement over Humvees, which simply do not belong in Iraq
Great stuff indeed--the layered ceramics on the M1A2 can resist just about any mordern projectile or shaped charge out there. Putting it on Gavins would slow an M113 down considerbly and the costs would be astronomical to retro-fit 17,000 APC's. I think there is beefed up, layered Kevlar armor that the Army bolted on during Gulf War One to the venrable M113--however, they are slow enough as is--can't keep up with with M1A2. But, in an Urban warfare environment, speed wouldn't much matter in crowded streets.
You must have missed this quote I posted... It would cost between $100,000 and $500,000 to provide each Gavin with a digitized communications system like those the Abrams and Bradley have. New tracks would lighten the vehicle and allow the Gavin to travel at up to 50 mph on roads, Sparks said. (see above for link) Now, this isn't with the Chobham armor the British developed that Bama mentioned. I don't know what it weighs, and imagine it's much more expensive. (be nice if they could make a "miniature" M1A2 that could carry a squad, wouldn't it?? ), but in the article I posted, it would significantly modernize the M113, at a fraction of the cost of a Stryker, and the result would be quicker to obtain, in much largr numbers, and certainly fast enough for what we would need it for in Iraq. Not a longterm cure, but neither is the Stryker. And we need something like that yesterday.
All right, someboy please enlighten me up: Donald Rumsfield says armour plates/protective gears is not being made fast enough, the manufactuers are producing at best rate; then the manufactures say army is not ordering them; in fact, they are only running at 1/3 capacity. Whom should I belive ?
olliez, don't be daft. The only way to properly support the troops is to believe the ones in charge that are screwing them. Everybody knows that. We just had a whole election about it. Where were you? USA! USA! Join me, man... USA! USA! Okay, screw it.
