Military building IED-proof vehicles(2 minute video)

[blitzpackage]

I did a search but couldn't find this.

New IED-proof vehicles:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2951205

Hopefully they won't lose too much maneuverability. But I can't help but wonder how long it'll be before I see some spoiled 16 year old driving the civilian version with spinners on I-40.

[Dan T.]

Let's get those Cougars and Buffalos built quick and shipped to Iraq. The troops deserve nothing less.

[JMS]

I did a search but couldn't find this.

New IED-proof vehicles:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2951205

Hopefully they won't lose too much maneuverability. But I can't help but wonder how long it'll be before I see some spoiled 16 year old driving the civilian version with spinners on I-40.

You know to defeat an insurgency some experts think what is needed is more interaction with the occupied people. IED-proof vehicles are self defeating because they are more issolating. The keep the troops apart from the people.

You can't win hearts and minds as your speeding by in a tank.

If we're just doing everything we can to loose, we should just bring everybody home. If we want to win we need more troops, not more armored vehicles for the insufficient troops deployed.

[Sarge]

You know to defeat an insurgency some experts think what is needed is more interaction with the occupied people. IED-proof vehicles are self defeating because they are more issolating. The keep the troops apart from the people.

You can't win hearts and minds as your speeding by in a tank.

If we're just doing everything we can to loose, we should just bring everybody home. If we want to win we need more troops, not more armored vehicles for the insufficient troops deployed.

You know, those vehicles have doors the troops can use to get in and out

[Thirtyfive2seven]

You know, those vehicles have doors the troops can use to get in and out

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Seriously, I don't get the posters point Sarge. Sigh.

This is a GOOD thing. The troops driving around won't have to worry about IED's anymore and concentrate on the job at hand. Excellent link thanks for posting

[McMetal]

"This car's 100% death proof..."

Damn, I can't wait for that flick to come out!

[Kilmer17]

We already have them. They're called B1 bombers.

[Redskins Diehard]

You know to defeat an insurgency some experts think what is needed is more interaction with the occupied people. IED-proof vehicles are self defeating because they are more issolating. The keep the troops apart from the people.

You can't win hearts and minds as your speeding by in a tank.

If we're just doing everything we can to loose, we should just bring everybody home. If we want to win we need more troops, not more armored vehicles for the insufficient troops deployed.

You are right. So we IED proof our troops. What next? Will the enemy stop trying to kill them? We can't win this thing by killing every bomb maker, and we can't win it by making the bomb makers ineffective. We have to make it so people that aren't making bombs now don't want to make bombs in the future.

The IED proof vehicle is treating a symptom in my opinion, not curing the illness.

[Redskins Diehard]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Seriously, I don't get the posters point Sarge. Sigh.

This is a GOOD thing. The troops driving around won't have to worry about IED's anymore and concentrate on the job at hand. Excellent link thanks for posting

What do you think the "job at hand" is?

[Dan T.]

You are right. So we IED proof our troops. What next? Will the enemy stop trying to kill them? We can't win this thing by killing every bomb maker, and we can't win it by making the bomb makers ineffective. We have to make it so people that aren't making bombs now don't want to make bombs in the future.

The IED proof vehicle is treating a symptom in my opinion, not curing the illness.

Great, you tell that to the service men and women getting blown up in Humvees. How about, while we work to "cure the illness", we protect the soldiers in the meantime.

[Redskins Diehard]

Great, you tell that to the service men and women getting blown up in Humvees. How about, while we work to "cure the illness", we protect the soldiers in the meantime.

Just so you know I rode around in a thin skinned HMMWV that did not even have doors on it.

Maybe if we don't want to expose them we should bring them home...otherwise, it is a dangerous job sometimes, and sometimes soldiers are exposed in order to accomplish the mission.

Sure maybe supply convoys that are just passing through would benefit from the added protection. But as a rule I do not think we get any closer to our goal by surrounding our troops in layer upon layer of armor

[blitzpackage]

Considering over 1000 Americans have lost their life due to IED's(over 1/3 of all deaths in Iraq), I can't see how this can be anything but good if they have to(and will) continue their patrols. Please forgive my apparant ignorance.

Here is more info on IED's

http://www.answers.com/topic/improvised-explosive-device

[Air Force Cane]

it will be a while Blitz-

first up come the Marines and Army- that is about 3,550 vehicles needed and we can only produce a few hundred a month.

check out the Israeli "Golan" vehicle- the Marines just purchased 60 of them. I have to believe that this is a first purchase to work out the kinks and then more and more South African/Israeli/German armoured vehicles will be coming on line.

this is a strategic shift in the battlefield- if we can take away the combat effectiveness of the ONE tactic that the enemy uses against us..

[Baculus]

I have posted about Buffalos (and Cougars) in the past, and just recently, and some folks act as if such armor, improved vehicles are somehow a bad idea. I don't understand such responses: Yes, infantry will have to continue their tasks, but improved armored transports and vehicles have to be an improvement. After all, it is an evolution in armor design, which is often learned and improved in each subsequent conflict.

My nephew is probably going to Iraq, and I would MUCH rather he ride around in a Cougar then a HMMWV. Every little additional bit of protection helps, is my thinking.

[Raub]

Just so you know I rode around in a thin skinned HMMWV that did not even have doors on it.

How many IEDs was your unit hit with?

A unit gets hit with an IED, takes some casualties, people lose limbs...and you're going to try to tell those young PVTs and SPCs to go back out the next day in an unarmored vehicle?

Yes, we need interaction, but our troops are more important than the Iraqis feelings.... :2cents:

[Sarge]

it will be a while Blitz-

first up come the Marines and Army- that is about 3,550 vehicles needed and we can only produce a few hundred a month.

check out the Israeli "Golan" vehicle- the Marines just purchased 60 of them. I have to believe that this is a first purchase to work out the kinks and then more and more South African/Israeli/German armoured vehicles will be coming on line.

this is a strategic shift in the battlefield- if we can take away the combat effectiveness of the ONE tactic that the enemy uses against us..

Question is, why can't WE produce enough? WTF is wrong with this country? Get GM to do it, they're losing their asses to the Japanese. I'm sure they'd want the business

[Air Force Cane]

Don't understand the rationale behind NOT wanting to improve the safety/mobility of our troops.

we are always going to have to be moving supplies, fuel, ammo, troops around a country the size of california. even when deploying to FOBs and to Joint Security Centers we still need armored vehicles with heavy machine guns and the ability to deploy quickly.

More than 2/3 of all KIA in the last two years are from IED- if we take that down by hundreds that is a huge victory.

Much less than if YOU are in a Humvee instead of a Cougar. Every troop we can save is well worth it.

Here is the Israeli Golan coming online for the USMC

[Redskins Diehard]

How many IEDs was your unit hit with?

A unit gets hit with an IED, takes some casualties, people lose limbs...and you're going to try to tell those young PVTs and SPCs to go back out the next day in an unarmored vehicle?

Yes, we need interaction, but our troops are more important than the Iraqis feelings.... :2cents:

Our Battalion had no less than 50 IED strikes...I don't even know the total. One .50 gunner was wounded in two separate IED strikes.

I don't know what kind of unit you serve in but we don't "try to tell young PVTs and SPCs" to go back out. We do a risk assessment and they do what they are told.

This isn't about Iraqi feelings..it is about accomplishing OUR mission

edit: Just to be clear. I do not think we should be cavalier about exposing our soldiers to risk. However a certain degree of risk is required to accomplish the mission we have set out to accomplish. If we do not want our soldiers exposed to hazards then there are many solutions, none of which will accomplish what we set out to do.

[Raub]

Our Battalion had no less than 50 IED strikes...I don't even know the total. One .50 gunner was wounded in two separate IED strikes.

I don't know what kind of unit you serve in but we don't "try to tell young PVTs and SPCs" to go back out. We do a risk assessment and they do what they are told.

This isn't about Iraqi feelings..it is about accomplishing OUR mission

I think I came across the wrong way there. Don't get me wrong, our guys do what they're told. But I know damn well they'd feel more confident going out in a M1114 than a M998. And if they're more confident, they're going to do a better job. Armor isn't going to stop them from getting out and accomplishing their mission. :2cents:

[Air Force Cane]

I agree with the underlying strategy of getting out into the neighborhoods. That is after all the "Clear, Hold, Build" policy.

But even while doing that- if we can provide our troops with IED negating vehicles that is a huge doctrinal shift.

First for psychological reasons. Second, for less KIA. Third, it would put pause to other enemies being able to rely on the IED to defeat us in every type of warfare. Fourth, it would allow us to give our older HMMVs to the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police as our new generation vehicles come online- this would strengthen the combat effectiveness of the IA.

[Redskins Diehard]

I agree with the underlying strategy of getting out into the neighborhoods. That is after all the "Clear, Hold, Build" policy.

But even while doing that- if we can provide our troops with IED negating vehicles that is a huge doctrinal shift.

First for psychological reasons. Second, for less KIA. Third, it would put pause to other enemies being able to rely on the IED to defeat us in every type of warfare. Fourth, it would allow us to give our older HMMVs to the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police as our new generation vehicles come online- this would strengthen the combat effectiveness of the IA.

The enemy has already developed IED's that have penetrated the hull of an M1 and M2. Maintaining the status quo but making IED's less effective will simply cause the enemy to adapt, just as we have by putting armor kits on HMMWVs.

Are you really comfortable with the psychological impact of putting troops in giant armored vehicles? Would they be less likely/comfortable to get out in the market and mingle with the people? To sit in a school or hospital with no body armor or helmet on?

[JMS]

You are right. So we IED proof our troops. What next? Will the enemy stop trying to kill them? We can't win this thing by killing every bomb maker, and we can't win it by making the bomb makers ineffective. We have to make it so people that aren't making bombs now don't want to make bombs in the future.

The IED proof vehicle is treating a symptom in my opinion, not curing the illness.

Yep I agree. Unfortunately we can't IED proof our troops. Every time we up the armor they up the explosives. Currently they are using devices that can take out a multi million dollar Abrams tank. No amount of IED proofing is sufficient. It will always be easier for them to revise explosives than for us to revise transports.

More armor isn't the solution. The solution is more troops and better efforts to connect with the IRaqi people in order to win hearts and minds.

Armored fortresses just separate us from the people..

[JMS]

Considering over 1000 Americans have lost their life due to IED's(over 1/3 of all deaths in Iraq), I can't see how this can be anything but good if they have to(and will) continue their patrols. Please forgive my apparant ignorance.

Here is more info on IED's

http://www.answers.com/topic/improvised-explosive-device

I remember when we first started getting into Vietnam we started by sending ad visors. The south Vietnamese troops refused to patrol at night because the VC laid traps for them and they suffered casualties when they went out at night. Thus the VC basically were given free run outside the fire bases after dark. Everybody in the villages who lived outside the fire bases were effectively left to their own devices by the south Vietnamese since they didn't have the 50 cal machine guns and constantine wire to hide behind in the dark.

That's what we have here. Our soldiers are in Iraq currently to provide security to the population and confront the suni ****te and insurgent death squads. How can they do that in a tank?

Sure sarge the tank has doors, but who is going to leave the tank door open? That defeats the purpose of the tank. If we can't provide security for the Iraqi people then we've lost this war. We can't provide that security from behind the armor of a speeding vehicle.

We need more troops, more patrols, and more interaction with the Iraqi's on the ground. Bigger and better armor isn't the answer to asymmetric warfare.

[JMS]

Don't understand the rationale behind NOT wanting to improve the safety/mobility of our troops.

we are always going to have to be moving supplies, fuel, ammo, troops around a country the size of california. even when deploying to FOBs and to Joint Security Centers we still need armored vehicles with heavy machine guns and the ability to deploy quickly.

More than 2/3 of all KIA in the last two years are from IED- if we take that down by hundreds that is a huge victory.

Much less than if YOU are in a Humvee instead of a Cougar. Every troop we can save is well worth it.

Here is the Israeli Golan coming online for the USMC

This isn't a solution. It's a step along the path of escalation. An escalation chain we can't win. Every time we up the armor, they up the explosive sophistication of the IED. Currently they have IED's which can take out an Abrams Tank. It's much cheaper for the bad guys to improve their IED's than it is for us to improve our transports. Also the more armored transports keep us from our goal. Which is providing security to the Iraqi's.

This new toy isn't the answer. The answer is to send enough troops to do the job, or to stay home.

[Air Force Cane]

I think you guys are just not familiar with these types of vehicles.

It is NOT more highly armored. It is a new technology in the construction where the blast waves are forced to the sides rather than through the crew compartment. Similar to the Buffalo ship type hull..

Your arguments are like saying we should never have issued body armor starting in the 1960s- because the enemy will always use new tactics against them. Well, that may be true but meanwhile it has saved tens of thousands of US lives..

EVERY new tactic or strategy is met by a response from the enemy- that has been the case for about 4,000 years now. So what?

The EPF that has damaged the heavy armor have been brought in from Iran, so take out that ability and the threat decreases. Should we not build the Joint Strike Fighter because our enemies will likewise change their tactics to fight it?

Every possible upgrade makes the enemy's job correspondingly harder when they are being hammered daily..