http://www.thememriblog.org/image/416.jpg
http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/767.htm
Quote:
U.S. Marines in Iraq with specially equipped armored “Golan” vehicles which are specifically suited for urban warfare and can sustain attacks by RPGs and road mines.
Source: Al Sharq Al-Awsat, London, February 28, 2007
Looks like it can handle the job and a nice interior to boot !
http://www.defense-update.com/products/g/golan.htm
Quote:
The vehicle uses an armored monocoque structure. The integrity of this structure provides the strength to absorb the deformations generated by mines and IED blasts. The V shaped hull has a "floating floor" panel to mitigate the blast effects of mines. It thereby provides an optimal solution to protect the crew and vehicle against the identified threats. The vehicle has an effective armor suite to defeat small arms and RPG threats, medium size IED's, 7 kg mines under belly and 14 kg under wheels. The spall liner was eliminated, assuming the efficiency of external armor to prevent hull penetration by most threats.
I just hope they take the Star of David off the side before they give it to the marines! Could be a rolling TRP!
On a serious note, hopefully these vehicles have the mine protection to provide better security to our soldiers. I think we have a vast pool of knowledge gained by our Israeli allies and their constant fight with insurgents in desert terrain. We need to tap not only into their specialized equipment, but their TTPs, and lessons learned from recent fighting in Lebanon.
All part of a much larger order for MRAPs that the Corps is putting through with a possible eye towards replacing hummvees in Iraq.
While I agree that the IDF has developed much in equipment, much of it has been done on a US dime. After 4 years in war--longer than WWII--it boggles the mind that we are just now developing vehicles that reflect current operational needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by sullygoarmy
As for learing from Israeli allies on how to fight insurgents, that implies our interests are in parallel and that they actually conduct COIN operations. Neither is the case.
best
Tom
Tom said: " ... it boggles the mind that we are just now developing vehicles that reflect current operational needs."
Boy do I agree with that sentiment. :mad:
The inertia at the DoD is maddening, and there is absolutely no excuse - none - for still having to "up-armor" HMMWVs this far into OIF2. On the other hand, there is a reluctance to properly fund the armed forces, both in the administration and congress. And ... there is the general ignorance among the American public as to what it really takes to go to war.
Ask yourself why it has taken this long for the Marines to deploy the MTV, and why the Interceptor is STILL being deployed to the army, without the side SAPI protection that the MTV has? At some point this points to recalcitrance of the country as to its moral obligation to equipment its men in uniform.
Tom - Agreed on the conducting COIN operations comment.
Danny - I agree on the inertia in DoD, but there is a part of me that responds with "protective equipment never won a war."
We cannot up-armor our way to victory. There is a purpose for bodyarmor and armored patrol vehicles (even armored resupply vehicles, but try to tell the DoD that) but soldiers conducting offensive operations in body armor are at a disadvantage from the moment they LD. But it takes commanders willing to take risks and creativity to minimize those risks to do that, and those two attributes appear to be in short supply in this fight.
It seems to me that there are specific lobbies involved in producing certain pieces of equipment, namely the Army's FCS and for the Marines, the EFV. Both programs are for building ground combat vehicles designed to fight a specific kind of enemy: Nation-State army that plays by the rules of 3GW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny
I had a conversation with a Marine colonel some time ago: He expressed to me how distrought he was due to the fact that we're fighting a war now that doesn't fit into the "Expeditionary operations mindset." How sad that the current war isn't good enough.
Are we developing doctrine and building the equipment to support the doctrine? Or are we developing equipment and building the doctrine to support the equipment?
*ends screed against acquisitions industry*
Or to quote a Looney Toons favorite:
Mr. Chairman: My God, man what am I going to do with you? You've done nothing but screw up . You've walked off of mesas, been smashed by boulders, and run over by diesel trucks. And don't blame the equipment. The equipment is good. It's Acme equipment. You're a coyote. Be wily.
It's not the equipment that makes a better warfighter, it's being wily. It's knowing your enemy and countering effectively. When we look at who our enemy is, how are they armed? Do they have body armour or armoured vehicles specially designed to mediate a threat? No, not really. All of their gear is off-the-shelf equipment that serves as the foundation of what we all fight with. It's Acme equipment!
Sorry, but this issue is a burr in my hide. Mostly because it lets academics and politicians influence the battlefield and keeps warfighters distracted from doing what they do best... break things and kill people. I completely agree with the "intertia at DoD" comment, as it illustrates the exact reason why we're having difficulty reaching our objectives downrange. Our bureacracy will be the end of us.
I don't wear the interceptor but I did get issued the side protection plates for the body armor that I do wear along with the most ridiculous shoulder pads I could have imagined. Quite frankly I have no intention of tearing my kit apart to add more weight and width to it for a little bit of protection. For the first twelve years of my career you only wore body armor if you were doing a live fire with explosives and then it was RBA and no one complained. Now we must look like medieval knights before we leave the wire. Don't get me wrong, I am not against body armor but we keep adding to it under the auspices that protection is more important than mobility. At some point it becomes counterproductive. The big joke in my unit now is that the next step is to have every soldier wrapped in re-bar and dipped in concrete.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny
SFC W
I have heard comments from doctrine elements that say much the same--that once MNF-I or MNC-I goes away troublesome ideas like measuring effects will go away and we can get on with life....Quote:
I had a conversation with a Marine colonel some time ago: He expressed to me how distrought he was due to the fact that we're fighting a war now that doesn't fit into the "Expeditionary operations mindset." How sad that the current war isn't good enough.
Are we developing doctrine and building the equipment to support the doctrine? Or are we developing equipment and building the doctrine to support the equipment?
Tom
[QUOTE=Uboat509;11111] the next step is to have every soldier wrapped in re-bar and dipped in concrete.
I'll have my consulting firm put together some preliminary sketches and pricing estimates, just sign this blank check here, we are calling this 'concrete soldier 2000' the lastest in wiz-bang protective gear for gorund fighters. Our slogan: Every rifleman a bunker! of course we recommend you change your infantryman's mission from close with and destroy through fire and movement to sit still wait and try not to get hurt.:mad:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
Sort of off topic but it pertains to the creativity and innovation of IDF. They will now be catering food to about 30 IDF bases and plan to cater to all IDF bases. "No more greasy chow" it said in the article. I suppose time will tell if the new chow is significantly better, thus providing better 'inner protection' than before. In staying with the theme of the Post, If the Corps is going with this Israeli vehicle, it must be good.
Huh? The IDF announces they will start using a contractor who already supplies U.S. forces and this is an indication of their innovation?
It's not like the IDF is really operating in seriously difficult logistical conditions. Their supply lines are secure and they have no IED threat. Only the U.S. logistical system could have built the massive FOBs of the type we see in Iraq. Whatever their effect on operations, one has to admire the enormous logistical capabilities (not to mention the vast sums spent) behind our Army's ability to recreate mid-sized American cities in foreign countries out of essentially nothing.
I understand about the over-reliance on equipment, and I know that equipment never won a war. I have had discussions with others on the need for tactical solutions to snipers and other threats, one such solution being the sensible and even brilliant one of satellite patrols. But tactics are not a complete answer either. And just because body armor cannot solve everything, tactics can't, and [fill in the blank here for other things that will not be a complete solution]. But this truth is not a reason for not trying to field the best equipment. If a SAPI plate saves a single life (and they have saved many), then it makes sense to wear them. And if the Dragon Skin body armor is better than the MTV, then we should be pushing it. Similarly, while this new vehicle is still probably susceptible to being picked up and thrown around by a large IED (just like the Abrams are), if it can withstand some of the IEDs that HMMWVs cannot, then we should be pushing it. I don't think we can see things in absolute terms here. It is a matter of degrees and doing the best we can. No?
Between the convoluted acquisition system and the strange behavior of the Dragon Skin people, I don't think we will ever know if Dragon Skin is better than the plates. Or at least 1000% better, as it is 1000 times as expensive.
I hope the Corps can go through with the acquisitions of the Golan but I won't be shocked if it doesn't happen. Fat-cats on the prowl still have alot of clout and pull when it comes to profit margins from war. I bet the fat-cat margin is 40% on this war and that's probably conservative. Call it the high price of patriotism, sarcasm intended. My previous post in this thread about IDF breaking away from a 57 year old logistical tradition of their home-grown providers serving up "greasy food" to their troops is not only innovative on their part, it is a radical departure from the normative. Given the food ethos of Jewish culture, I would wager heavily there is more of an uproar over the quality of food IDF troops have than there is uproar here at home amongst civilians over the quality of medical care returning troops from Iraq have. In that respect, I will wager heavily that the new IDF rations will be sustained and I will wager heavily that the the Corps won't be acquiring many of the Golans. Fat-catting aside, it would hardly be PC for troops in Iraq to be using anything made by Jews, now would it? We wouldn't want to incite the Iranians or the insurgents, would we?