A good case in point would be the early days of Stryker fielding. We were conducting company level training out on 13TH Div and Pacemaker DZ. When the attacking platoon came out of the woodline 4 kms away I was calling for fire. My company commander told me there was no way I could possibly see the enemy that far way. Once they were inside 3.5 kms, I was telling him who I was looking at specifically. He finally climbed in the back door of my Stryker for the next iteration and was amazed that we could see that far.
It was old hat for my platoon, we were used to that kind of thermal range. For the unit, most of which came from the light side, that capability was amazing.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
Well .... there is a point Sam where this will devolve into something better discussed at our "non-virtual" events. BTW - it looks like there is enuogh folks at Hood to stand up a chpater (lot sof lurkers there too).
Best, Rob
How many folks from Hood are lurking on the board? I am realtivey new to this forum. I cannot believe I have not found this in the past. Quite a bit of intelligent discussion going. That is a refreshing change from the daily grind! Now, let's see how long I can last with people still thinking I know what I am talking about.
There are a couple of ways to get a feel for the SWC membership - you can check out the "Tell us about You" thread here, which will give folks a feel for who you are and for you to get a feel for the greater audience - this may prove very useful in about month - when you are elsewhere and find yourself in need of reachback, or are in a position to inform others about reality on the ground (this is also an important function here - and gets to our use of the "Information" terrain to contribute, inform the community writ large and defeat our adversaries. I found this forum while deployed and was able to leverage lots of experience in areas I would not otherwise have had access to - it was a critical enabler!
You acn also get an idea through some of theo other tools - and can clik on a member to find out if they have listed any other info - or just to PM thme - like you did me. There are also allot of folks who "lurk" - meaning they either don't post, don't sign on, or both - I've run into several folks who have met me "virtually", but I have not met them.
Recruit and refer good people where you can - as you said, "you can't beleive it took you so long". There are several good folks at Hood, or enroute to Hood who are here, and might be open to strengthening this network of folks who come here to inter-act, participate, self-educate, share and contribute.
Best, Rob
I posted a quick, non-cheesy bio on the Intro thread. I am in the drinking from the firehose mode at the minute. There is a lot of good info here. I am still taking everything it, but I can see the reach back capabilities already for when I am vacationing on the banks of the scenic Tigris and Euphrates.
And how, precisely, would you fix the M113's weakness against under-road IEDs and anti-tank mines?
The belly plate, as flat as it is, combined with the tracks, make it a deathtrap. You'd need to find someway to vent the explosion out the sides, probably a "V-shaped" hull or somesuch. That would probably mean redesigning the hull completely, and then you'd have some other vehicle, by the time you're done.
It's interesting to note that the Joseph Stalin series of heavy tank had pronounced "V-hulls", precisely in order to make them more resistent to mines.
Sorry, I didn't see page 3, when I was responding to William Owen's post vis-a-vis fixing the weaknesses of the M113.
Last edited by 120mm; 02-11-2008 at 02:40 PM.
"V hull" doesn't do anything to protect against mines.
There are three things that can be done: increase standoff, reduce presented area, and increase armor at the bottom hull (belly armor).
The basic, so-called, "v hull" shape of the MRAPs actually looks like:
Hull.jpg
They work because of increased standoff and reduced presented area. The "V" shape is just incidental - it doesn't lead to any "blast deflection."
BTW, these worked well when originally designed by the South Africans because they were fighting LIC in the veldt. Who cares what the silhouette is if you can still be seen coming from 20 klicks out no matter what you're driving? They work well for us today, because we're travelling relatively predictable routes, so who cares if we can be easily seen? In a different type of conflict/mission, different terrain, different threat weapon system mix, etc., they could turn out to be unfixable death traps.
The relevant dimensions for design trades are: presented area vs. vehicle height; standoff vs. vehicle height, ride stability, mobility/agilty; belly armor vs. just about everything.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
The Blog "DefenseTech" has a followup on the MGS Debate.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003995.html
Quote:
Some of you might remember my entry from Iraq a couple weeks ago criticizing the new Stryker vehicle version called the “mobile gun system,” or MGS. I spoke with three MGS crew, including an MGS platoon sergeant, who said the system was crap.
Well, in the interest of giving each side their due, I’m going post some comments sent to me this weekend from another MGS platoon sergeant who was quoted in the Bloomberg story I cited in my story.
At this time in my opinion am one of the most combat experienced MGS vehicle commanders in the army today. I have fired 58 rounds in a combat situation...none of them were just for fun rounds. I have used the MGS in every manner possible and used it for things it was not tatically supposed to be used for. It pisses me of that only 1 or 2 guys were asked about this vehicle in 4-9 INF, 4/2bde.
And later he wrote me...
I just want the vehicle to get a fair chance and for people who think it a waste of tax dollars to realize that we now control the battlefield both cross country and urban.
John,
From METAR 3D Mine Resistan Ambush Protected (MRAP Entities)
See also The protection of vehicles and plant equipment against mines and UXOMRAP systems are designed with a V-shaped hull that assists deflection of a mine or IED blast away from the vehicle’s interior. With their appropriate markings, accurate geometry, and damage states, MetaVR's 3D MRAP models can be used in counter-IED training scenarios. These models, which are in MetaVR’s model format, are included in the 3D content libraries that are delivered with the purchase of MetaVR products. Updates are available to current customers on Virtual Reality Scene Generator (VRSG) maintenance.
For example:
The V shape does play a role and so does standoff as well as presented area. To get the V-shape in a vehicle that could move cross country, increased stand-off, using a v-shaped hull to present less area, equated to increased height.Principles for the protection against blast effect
The following principles can be incorporated into the design of vehicles and equipment
to render protection against the blast effect of mines:
absorption of energy,
deflection of blast effect away from the hull, and
distance from detonation point.
The heigth of the vehicles actually proved advantage in the areas where they were used. Namibia and Angola are desert like in many areas but with a heavy brush cover. The SADF vehicles were high enough that they were able to see over much of that brush, where a vehicle 50 to 100 yards is often invisible at ground level.
As for open ground making the height of a vehicle irrelevant, armored combat in Sinai, Iraq, and North Africa says otherwise (along of course with hundreds of rotations at the NTC). No ground aside perhaps from certain places like Bonneville, is that flat and even there the curvature of the earth means that taller vehicles are seen before shorter vehicles. The reason the South Africans did not care was the threat against those vehicles was not from direct fire anti-armor systems. When they had to deal with the Cubans, it was a new ball game.
I agree fully that while MRAP is a good thing in a COIN fight, it would be meat on the table in more conventional setting.
Best
Tom
Last edited by Tom Odom; 02-11-2008 at 08:58 PM. Reason: More information
I didn't express myself very well in my post.
The point I was trying to make is that it isn't the "V." There are some problems now with people demanding designers try using a "shallow V."
What does buy something is standoff (i.e. ground clearance), reduced presented area, and stiffening the hull to involve as much of the structure in vehicle response as possible (the only way to accomplish absorption of energy). All that has to be balanced against impulsive load imparted to the crew, and what kind of "stroke" can be built into the seats to reduce impulsive injuries (such as ruptured disks). And that doesn't get into reliability issues of a dynamic suspension (to give a variable standoff), or vehicle mobility/agility issues associated with a higher center of gravity.
As to the tactical considerations, I think we're in agreement. I was trying to point out that in some tactical circumstances, a large silhouette is irrelevant.
When the SADF went into Angola against the Cubans, the vehicles had vulnerabilities that didn't appear in SW Africa or the COIN ops in South Africa itself. Vehicle silhouette is one of the first things designers try to reduce - smaller means lower probability of hit, which equates to better survivability. It's a lot harder to see and hit a HMMV than an MRAP at any sort of distance.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
are important for under vehicle explosions, no question -- but the V shape is also important as it allows the explosive force easy exit as opposed to being trapped by a flat hull -- particularly a flat hull bottom with tracks or closely spaced wheels serving as side walls which traps the force and exacerbates the intensity by reverbration as opposed to simply deflecting (or absorbing) only the initial force.
If that under vehicle explosion rises against a flat bottom, is is simply reflected right back the way it came (even if it does rip through all or part of the bottom, there's still excess force to be reflected). Vehicles can be flipped by the force as well as having bottoms penetrated. that is common with flat bottom hulls and very rare with V-bottoms.
The best V-hull designs have a minimum number of wheels and those are at extreme ands and designed to be sacrificed to aid in hull and thus crew survival.
While the V-hull and high ground clearance are beneficial in lessening the effect of buried mines or IEDs, Neither offers any protection from side or angle mounted IEDs.
It's hard to dispute that anything that keeps the troops alive is not beneficial but my sensing is that once again we have tried for a technological solution to a training and operating problem. Some were necessary and beneficial but the sheer number we're buying is probably excessive and was driven by Congressional reaction to incompetent media noise. I suspect that most will be transferred to the Iraqis. Some day...
..and that's one think you can't fix, so you don't. You apply the means and technology within a field of doctrine and teaching.
As a by-stander the level of Stryker v M-113 debate had been just embarrassing. Wheels versus tracks is a false argument, unless couched in precisely defined operational context. A combined MRAP & Modernised M-113 Brigade of even Combat Team would be a step up in capability
The M-113 design of 2008 bears no resemblance to anything currently in US Army service. The UK fluffed the FV-432 upgraded for Iraq to save money, but what we got was 100% increase in capability.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
In addition to the above-stated benefits of "V" hulls, is the increased armor thickness afforded by any angled surface. For example, a 1" plate of steel, canted at 45 degrees, provides the equivalent of approximately 1.5" of steel armor, as the projectile (if any) has to travel 1.5 times as far due to the angle involved.
I am a MGS Platoon Sergeant in 1-38 INF 4/2 BDE. I have fielded the MGS in combat in both Baghdad and Baqubah Iraq. The vehicle is designed to breach walls, clear obstacles, engage threats with any of the 3 weapons systems (105mm main gun, 7.62 machinegun, or .50 cal machinegun).
It has been used in all types of operations since in theater. I am a fan of the vehicle because it’s fast, quiet, highly mobile in tight environments, and provides a sense of fear in insurgents that may prevent them from conducting attacks on my unit.
I have bashed, beaten, and abused this vehicle and she's still going strong. Some vehicles have those gremlins that keep causing problems for some MGS's and there are a few mods that need to be made such as the design of the 7.62 coax mount. Some MGS's such as mine have no stoppages and some have a lot. These kinks will be worked out.
The vehicle will not replace the M1 series. (But) I think that we now have the ability to control the battlefield both open terrain and urban with the addition of this vehicle.
I have combat proven this vehicle on everything from RPG teams to HBIED’s (house borne improvised explosive devices). I have breached walls and houses, engaged multiple snipers with machinegun, destroyed VBIEDs, destroyed IEDs, you name it we have done it. It is a great platform for Iraq urban environment. It will not replace tanks but has tank defeating capability. Some vehicles have issues and some don't …..nothing new to the army. I find my platoon’s vehicle reliable. It has 4 sights, day and thermal capability with 360 degree viewing.
The articles on military.com (anti-MGS) came from a young soldier in another battalion of 4/2 bde who has not given the public the whole story. I have contacted him and what he says is not really vehicle related but chain of command related. I can answer any questions you may have. Want to see it in action!!! www.youtube.com/tankcommander33
SFC Collum
smash1
SFC Collum,
Thanks for the on the ground perspective. Part of what makes this site great. If you haven't already, put a comment in the introduction thread with your background.
Thanks again for contributing, and keep your head down!
has anyone looked into OTHER vehicles that have most of the strykers advantages but cost less, are easier to maintain, easier to transport and did I mention cost less? (May even be smaller then a large city bus too)? Dingo-2, Bushmaster, the New Wildcat (Built for RPGs baby!), etc.? The you could mix and match with a light armoured track such as the BVS-10 and never have to listen to "Gavin" vs Stryker arguments ever again. Otherwise, If it HAS to be a huge honking 8x8, I want at least a 20mm cannon and powerful IR capabilities.
Reed
Strange. Either I read too fast through this thread or we didn't mention the terrible reports about autoloader reliability yet.
Is the autoloader reliable now?
I personally don't understand why they used the Stryker vehicle for the MGS.
Its capability isn't much better than a modernized AMX-13 105mm/modernized Kürassier. They Russians have showed us that low velocity 100-120mm guns can be used for direct fire support. 105mm is not really a viable calibre against MBTs nowadays; you cannot knock out anything better than T-72 monkey models frontally using this calibre (although the best 105mm APFSDS is better than the very first 120mm APFSDS).
The Stryker MGS hasn't the same air deployability as the other Stryker variants.
It doesn't fit together imho. A BMD with 100/30mm guns turret is a better support vehicle in many terrains.
I would have chosen a path like the Japanese did with their newest MBT - a vehicle of about 40 tons, 120mm gun, tracks. That will easily cross most bridges and could be used for a bridgelayer, recovery and flail mineclearing versions as well.
Bookmarks