SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Small Wars Participants & Stakeholders > Trigger Puller

Trigger Puller Boots on the ground, steel on target -- the pointy end of the spear.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-07-2005   #1
SWJED
Small Wars Journal
 
SWJED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Largo, Florida
Posts: 3,988
Default All matters MRAP JLTV (merged thread)

Moderator's Note

This thread was closed October 2012 to May 2013, as there is a new, main thread 'IEDs: the home-made bombs that changed modern war': http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=16303

After an appeal today it has been re-opened (ends).

7 Nov. Christian Science Monitor - A Junkyard Solution to IEDs. Excerpt follows:

"The latest thing to come out of the motor pool here at Qalat Forward Operating Base isn't pretty, and it isn't all that easy to steer. But it might just save some lives."

"It's a minesweeper that rides out front of a Humvee, designed to detect land mines or roadside bombs by setting them off..."

"The minesweeper, due to make its battlefield debut this month, has a distinctly Frankensteinish look to it - iron welded to iron, a steering column, and a Humvee-length space of nothingness, where an exploding roadside bomb will be unable to do harm. It's the type of battlefield ingenuity that the Pentagon could draw upon as it tasks a high-level general to develop countermeasures to roadside bombs, or improvised explosive devices (IEDs)..."

Last edited by davidbfpo; 05-07-2013 at 03:25 PM. Reason: Open and update Mod's note.
SWJED is offline  
Old 11-07-2005   #2
aktarian
Council Member
 
aktarian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 83
Default

Interesting idea but not a new one. Usually used on tanks though.



In past this was countered by removing detonator from mine/bomb, place it ahead of mine and connect the two. So when tanks' rollers were above detonator the tank itself was above mine. So rollers triggered detonator underneath them and mine exploded under tank.
__________________
Historic-Battles forum moderator

Last edited by aktarian; 11-07-2005 at 08:11 AM.
aktarian is offline  
Old 12-29-2005   #3
SWJED
Small Wars Journal
 
SWJED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Largo, Florida
Posts: 3,988
Default Deadly Attacks Prompt Safer Combat Vehicles

29 Dec. Washington Times - Deadly Attacks Prompt Safer Combat Vehicles.

Quote:
... The Department of Defense has not publicly called for replacing the Humvee, yet several companies are developing more advanced armored utility vehicles in response to the deadly roadside bombs being used by insurgents against U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lt. Col. Keir-Kevin Curry, an Army public affairs spokesperson at the Pentagon, would not divulge whether officials desire an alternative to the Humvee, only saying, "soldier protection is our No. 1 priority. Everything we do is built around that priority."

"As new technologies emerge, the Army is aggressively working with industry to develop, test, produce, and rapidly field the best possible equipment, and get it into the hands of our soldiers in the field as soon as possible," Col. Curry said.

Although attacks by roadside bombs, which the military calls improvised explosive devices (IEDs), are decreasing in frequency since they became widespread in 2003 in Iraq, the sizes of the explosive charges are increasing....

...new 7.5 ton armored "Rock" -- in service with both private contractors and Department of Defense agencies -- has been struck by at least five IEDs, and all passengers have survived without injury. It's a different story for those soldiers and Marines who continue to travel Iraqi highways in up-armored Humvees...
SWJED is offline  
Old 12-29-2005   #4
SWJED
Small Wars Journal
 
SWJED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Largo, Florida
Posts: 3,988
Default On the Subject of Vehicles...

29 Dec. USA Today - Corps Pays $100K for Retooled Jeep.

Quote:
The Marine Corps is paying $100,000 apiece for a revamped Vietnam-era jeep as part of its program to outfit the hybrid airplane-helicopter V-22 Osprey, Pentagon records show.

That's seven times what a deluxe commercial version of the vehicle costs. It's also three times what U.S. Export-Import Bank records show the Dominican Republic paid four years ago for a military version of the vehicle, called the Growler, a recycled version of the M151 jeep.

The Marines and the contractor, General Dynamics, say the vehicle has been thoroughly revised with modern automotive parts and adapted to fit on the V-22...
SWJED is offline  
Old 04-02-2006   #5
KenDawe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Kent, WA
Posts: 9
Default "Pope Glass" on HWWMVs

This sounds like a good TTP:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060402/...q_pope_glass_4
Quote:
RAMADI, Iraq - The 21-year-old gunner was standing atop the turret of a Humvee called Frankenstein's Monster when the bomb exploded on the ground beside him, sending a wave of sizzling shrapnel and ball-bearings toward his head.
Knocked down inside his vehicle by the blast, Spc. Richard Sugai regained consciousness minutes later and realized he was lucky to be alive. His savior: a glass cocoon of 2-inch thick bulletproof windshields he had welded around the top of his turret three days earlier.
Troops mockingly call the modification "Pope Glass" because it brings to mind the ballistic-proof glass box the late Pope John Paul II traveled in after being wounded in a 1981 assassination attempt....
Not a truely innovative tactic, I suppose, but if it keeps troops alive, and uninjured, it's worthwhile. A buddy who is "over there" now tells me that a lot of troops are paying KellogBrownRoot guys to make these mods. Also that his Platoon Sergeant refuses to allow this on any of "his" M1114s because they are unofficial mods.
KenDawe is offline  
Old 04-04-2006   #6
Nat Glozer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4
Default Re: Pope glass

But there is always a downside to every measure of force protection. On a convoy, gunners are the main eyes. They are the ones most likely to spot signs of an IED or possible ambush. That "pope glass" is going to get scratched up, reducing the gunners ability to see detail. Not saying I'd be against it, but you have to consider the downside as well.
Nat Glozer is offline  
Old 04-04-2006   #7
CPT Holzbach
Council Member
 
CPT Holzbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 74
Default

Quote:
They are the ones most likely to spot signs of an IED or possible ambush.
I'd have to disagree with this. Generally, the gunner should be down behind the turret armor to avoid being the victim of an IED. The driver and TC are responsible for spotting IEDs, the driver scanning the TC side, the TC scanning the driver side. The gunner only pops up as you go through major intersections to stop traffic. His primary duties are providing security while stationary, and engageing VBIEDs as necessary.

Quote:
That "pope glass" is going to get scratched up, reducing the gunners ability to see detail.
We had some HMMWVs use that glass on their turrets, usually layered on top of the metal to provide double protection. It works well. I also had it around the BC's position on my two Bradleys. It does get a bit scratched and dusty, but the loss of visibility wasnt too bad. And it did allow you to expose yourself and see more without having to worry as much about having your head taken off by an IED, or sniper.
__________________
"The Infantry’s primary role is close combat, which may occur in any type of mission, in any theater, or environment. Characterized by extreme violence and physiological shock, close combat is callous and unforgiving. Its dimensions are measured in minutes and meters, and its consequences are final." - Paragraph 1-1, FM 3-21.8: Infantry Rifle PLT and SQD.

- M.A. Holzbach
CPT Holzbach is offline  
Old 04-04-2006   #8
Nat Glozer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4
Default

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. When we were rolling, my policy was that all eyes were responsible for scanning for IEDs. The best way to avoid being a victim of one was to was to spot them before they detonated. So, though every one was looking, as dusty as Iraq is, and as old as those HMMWVs were, if you were inside looking out, visibility was poor. Gunner's in a dangerous position, no doubt, but kept everybody safer overall.
Nat Glozer is offline  
Old 04-10-2006   #9
Beowulf
Council Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nat Glozer
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. When we were rolling, my policy was that all eyes were responsible for scanning for IEDs. The best way to avoid being a victim of one was to was to spot them before they detonated. So, though every one was looking, as dusty as Iraq is, and as old as those HMMWVs were, if you were inside looking out, visibility was poor. Gunner's in a dangerous position, no doubt, but kept everybody safer overall.

Common TTP now is "name tape defillade" for gunners. I don't necessarily agree with it but that is the guidance from higher. It is intended to minimize casualties from ied's and rollovers.

The Pope glass should enable a gunner to sit a little higher and be a bit safer, I supose scratching/visibility would be an issue, but not substantially more than the hmmwv windshield.
Beowulf is offline  
Old 10-31-2006   #10
SWJED
Small Wars Journal
 
SWJED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Largo, Florida
Posts: 3,988
Default IED-resistant Vehicles Speeding to War Zones

31 October USA Today - IED-resistant Vehicles Speeding to War Zones by Tom Vanden Brook.

Quote:
The military is rushing armored vehicles with specially designed hulls to Iraq and Afghanistan to limit the damage from roadside bombs, the No. 1 killer of U.S. troops.

The bombs, which the military calls improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, have killed or wounded thousands of troops and shredded conventional military vehicles. The new vehicles have a V-shaped hull, which disperses the force of an explosion and helps keep the vehicle from flipping over...

The Pentagon's Joint IED Defeat Organization is spending nearly $3.5 billion this year to combat IEDs. Pentagon records show that since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began, 1,074 troops have been killed and 11,513 others wounded by insurgent bombs.

A major Pentagon supplier of V-shaped vehicles is 9-year-old Force Protection of Ladson, S.C. The Pentagon says the number of the company's Buffalo and Cougar V-shaped vehicles in Iraq is classified, but public records show the military has bought almost 300. That compares with more than 35,000 Humvees, the military's main multipurpose vehicle, in Iraq. The Buffalo vehicles cost $750,000 apiece, about five times the cost of an armored Humvee, which is smaller.

Force Protection says nobody inside a Buffalo has been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan despite encountering thousands of IED blasts...

Foreign companies, many of them in South Africa, have been the leaders in developing the vehicles. Some of the Pentagon's largest contractors are marketing V-shaped vehicles with foreign partners. They include:
  • AM General, the maker of the Humvee, is pitching to the Pentagon a V-shaped armored car called the Cobra. It is made by Otokar, a Turkish company, and uses a Humvee drivetrain.
  • Oshkosh Truck, which makes many of the military's trucks, has partnered with ADI of Australia to market the Bushmaster armored vehicle.
  • Blackwater, a private security firm that protects U.S. diplomats in Iraq, developed is own vehicle, the Grizzly, which it will send to Iraq soon...
SWJED is offline  
Old 10-31-2006   #11
Ray Levesque
Council Member
 
Ray Levesque's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 20
Default

What amazes me is that it took so long. V-shaped armored vehciles, to deflect mines, were in use in the 80s in Africa. It's long been known that mines are the "tactic" of choice for insurgents -- whole studies were done in the Vietnam war.

It's sad that it's taken this long to implement this lesson.
__________________
Ray
Ray Levesque is offline  
Old 10-31-2006   #12
Stu-6
Council Member
 
Stu-6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Occupied Virginia
Posts: 243
Default

One of the major problems is we went in to Iraq with an army equipped to fight a war with front lines. Humvees which work so well for moving troops around outside of the line of fire are no match for modern weapons improvised or not. We armor them to increase survivability but by the time there is enough armor on them to make them internal security vehicles the suspension will break.
Stu-6 is offline  
Old 03-24-2007   #13
SWJED
Small Wars Journal
 
SWJED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Largo, Florida
Posts: 3,988
Default Military Claims Victory with V-shaped Truck

23 March The Australian - Military Claims Victory with V-shaped Truck by Robert Lusetich.

Quote:
A relatively minor redesign of military Humvees could save the lives of thousands of US soldiers in Iraq.

The Pentagon is spending $US210 million ($260 million) - and eventually probably billions - on almost 400 mine-resistant-ambush-protected (MRAP) combat trucks after the success of 200 prototypes in the Iraq war.

The MRAP has a V-shaped steel body to deflect blasts from improvised explosive devices, which have been responsible for 70 per cent of the almost 3200 US military deaths in Iraq.

No US soldier in Iraq has died while in an MRAP.

"The shape channels the full force of a blast up the sides of the vehicle rather than through the floor," said Joaquin Salas, a spokesman for Osh Trucks, one of the MRAP's makers...
SWJED is offline  
Old 03-24-2007   #14
Uboat509
Council Member
 
Uboat509's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 681
Default

Claims Victory is a bit strong. These things certainly have a place but they are no where near the be-all and end-all. More on it here.

Quote:
The Army may order more of the vehicles, but it doesn't intend for them to replace its 16,000 armored Humvees in Iraq, Brig. Gen. Charles Anderson said. The new vehicles are too heavy and hard to maneuver in urban areas such as Baghdad, said Anderson, the Army's director of force development.

"The Humvee is still a viable option in the theater," he said. The Army is committed to add-on armor kits for the Humvees, which cost almost $29,000 apiece. Each of the new vehicles costs at least $700,000, according to Army budget documents.

SFC W
Uboat509 is offline  
Old 03-24-2007   #15
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 10,764
Default Does the military ever learn?

The V-shpaed vehicle design has been around since the 1970's, first in Rhodesia and then developed in South Africa. The only open source book I know is Peter Stiff's 'Taming the landmine', which is now somewhat dated and is easy to find on Google.

Why the later South Africa versions have not been purchased or licensed by the coalition eludes me.

Yes, they were originally designed for 'bush warfare' where land lines were the main threat, not IEDs in urban areas. Are the principles of design and threat not the same?

davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline  
Old 03-24-2007   #16
marct
Council Member
 
marct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 3,682
Default

Hi David,

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
Why the later South Africa versions have not been purchased or licensed by the coalition eludes me.

Yes, they were originally designed for 'bush warfare' where land lines were the main threat, not IEDs in urban areas. Are the principles of design and threat not the same?
As far as the threat envelope is concerned, it appears to be quite similar: mines/IEDs, RPGs, occasional anti-armour, etc. The designs should work, as would some of the Israeli designs.

The only problem with the South African versions is that they suffer from a fatal flaw: "Not designed here in the good ol' USA" . Which means that some congressman doesn't get to claim they got their constituents a juicy contract to research something that has already been designed.

Marc
__________________
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
marct is offline  
Old 03-24-2007   #17
J Wolfsberger
Council Member
 
J Wolfsberger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 806
Default

All,

The vehicles produced by Force Protection (www.forceprotection.net) are the South African designs, produced under license. They are selling to the U.S.

However, the deep vee design can't be applied retroactively. The writer who stated that "A relatively minor redesign of military Humvees could save the lives of thousands of US soldiers in Iraq" is completely wrong. Unless by minor redesign he means: raise radiator cap, insert new vehicle, replace radiator cap.
__________________
John Wolfsberger, Jr.

An unruffled person with some useful skills.
J Wolfsberger is offline  
Old 03-24-2007   #18
J Wolfsberger
Council Member
 
J Wolfsberger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 806
Default

With regard to MRAP, there are a bunch of companies producing several different vehicle. Defense Daily is a good source for finding out who has received contracts so far. This program looks to become a large multi source procurement for interim vehicles until the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) develops a new one from scratch.
__________________
John Wolfsberger, Jr.

An unruffled person with some useful skills.
J Wolfsberger is offline  
Old 03-25-2007   #19
TROUFION
Council Member
 
TROUFION's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 212
Default victory? thats a bit much

Ok I think it is great to get these vehicles to the troops that need them but, claiming victory because you can break the red-tape barrier to procurment, 'eh not too impressive. The US built victory ships in one week, some of these remained in service around the globe more than 30 years later. Bombers, tanks, trucks flowed off assembly lines at the 'rapid rate'. No, while it is good to be able to buy what is needed it is 2007 the war started in 2003, the need for the vehicles was identified in late 2004. This is no victory, though it is a good thing.
TROUFION is offline  
Old 04-19-2007   #20
tequila
Council Member
 
tequila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,665
Default

Seems like it's working thusfar - at least until the Iraqis develop something else. EFPs?




Quote:
In more than 300 attacks since last year, no Marines have died while riding in new fortified armored vehicles the Pentagon hopes to rush to Iraq in greater numbers this year, a top Marine commander in Anbar province said.
Brig. Gen. John Allen, deputy commander of coalition forces in Anbar province, said the Marines have tracked attacks on the vehicles since January 2006. The vehicles' raised, V-shaped hulls deflect the force of blasts from homemade bombs buried in roadways.

There's been an average of less than one injured Marine per attack on the vehicles, Allen said. There have been 1,100 attacks on coalition vehicles during the period in Anbar province, the heart of the Sunni Muslim insurgency.

Attacks on other vehicles caused more than two casualties per attack, including deaths, Allen said.
tequila is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Terrorism in the USA:threat & response SWJED Law Enforcement 482 3 Days Ago 07:29 AM
Matters Blackwater (Merged thread) SWJED PMCs and Entrepreneurs 317 3 Weeks Ago 06:17 PM
Colombia, FARC & insurgency (merged thread) Wildcat Americas 173 10-08-2016 10:34 AM
The David Kilcullen Collection (merged thread) Fabius Maximus Doctrine & TTPs 451 03-31-2016 03:23 PM
After the Bin Laden op, what is the impact? Not on terrorism. Merged thread Ray Global Issues & Threats 69 05-23-2012 11:51 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation