Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Give Fighters Against ISIS Unarmored VEhicles

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US Give Fighters Against ISIS Unarmored VEhicles

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015.../?intcmp=hpbt1
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

  • #2
    Well, considering our track record with the Iraqi army, I don't actually disagree with the decision to keep technology away from anyone in the region.

    Unfortunately the genie is well out of the bottle when it comes to that sort of thing, and we shouldn't try to protect technology that is cold war at best.

    OTOH, we can't do what I'd have authorized in this instance, which is acknowledge that the Kurdish region of northern Iraq is an independent autonomous region only connected to the rest of Iraq due to some line-drawing by the British post-WWII. I'd have already sent in a battalion-sized training cadre, and started shipping in light armor from our stocks of stuff we're taking out of service post-war. Weapons AND training....but the problem would be that to do so would be to acknowledge that Iraq is a failure as a state, and to throw in with Kurdistan.

    That would **** off Iraq and Turkey. So it's a non-starter.
    Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

    Comment


    • #3
      Armor isn't "technology".

      The function of an MRAP is to protect the occupants against mines and IED's; therefore, to send one without armor is to betray people and sentence them to death, given that they undoubtedly believe that an MRAP will protect them the same way it does us without understanding the difference. This is akin to sending them rifles without firing pins.


      Best course? DON'T SEND MRAP's AT ALL. That saves money all around and avoids deceit and betrayal.


      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        They're not claiming that they're soft-skins. According to the article the MRAPs do perfectly well against bullets, shrapnel, mines, and IEDs. What they're saying is that the applique spaced armor that makes the sides of the MRAP resistant to things like EFPs and HEAT rounds, such as are found in RPG warheads, is not being included.

        With ISIS now having access to a moderately large supply of RPG 29s....which IIRC have taken down a Chally 2 and at least one Abrams in the past decade, the MRAPs are very vulnerable to ambushes by these weapons.

        Overall it's a case of everyone assuming that all armored vehicles are 'tanks'. An MRAP is a battle taxi, able to keep its passengers alive against things like mines and bullets and mortar shrapnel. Get them close to the fight so they can dismount. In Iraq we were using them primarily as convoy escorts in what would be considered 'rear areas'....we went with battle-worthy kit when a fight was definitely in the offing.

        I respect the Kurds, but from what I've seen, they're falling victim to the same things that most others in the region do. They use armored vehicles in or even ahead of the front lines, like Knights rather than using infantry with the armor providing support. They're also riding in them all the way into battle. The squad should dismount as quickly as possible at a point prior to the main fight.....sheltered if possible. If the MRAP is to continue on, it should be rolling at a walking pace behind the squad....say 200m or more. It's only got one weapon, the MG in the turret. At most 3 people should be at risk if it's hit, the driver, the A-driver or vehicle commander, and the gunner.

        They're bleating 'false advertising' because they think that a Mine Resistant AMBUSH PROTECTED vehicle should be a mobile bunker proof against all weapons. What they really have is 'false expectations' of a truck that is damned good at one thing, and that's being a taxi that can take a mine hit.

        It's like whining that your minivan can't carry 15 passengers....when you were told you were getting a minivan.
        Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, giving them armored and armed vehicles would promote a view that they were violent and aggressive. That would be bad and not conducive to singing Kumbaya around a campfire...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
            They're not claiming that they're soft-skins. According to the article the MRAPs do perfectly well against bullets, shrapnel, mines, and IEDs. What they're saying is that the applique spaced armor that makes the sides of the MRAP resistant to things like EFPs and HEAT rounds, such as are found in RPG warheads, is not being included.
            And those are precisely the weapons of choice of the enemy.

            Might interest you to recall that the terrorists began creating shaped-charge IED's several years ago and have been using them regularly ever since.

            the whole conflict on the part of America has become a Keystone Kops farce.
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #7
              Should we then provide them with TUSK equipped M1A2SEP's?

              I mean, an M1A1 is vulnerable to the RPG29.

              We have provided them with vehicles that are far superior in every combat respect except sillhouette when compared to the random trucks or no vehicles they were using.

              It is not the fault of the equipment that there is a huge training and doctrine deficit on the part of the end user. If US troops used MRAPs like they were MBTs, they'd be getting blown up on the regular as well. It wasn't sent as the end all to their problems......it was sent as better than what they currently have to work with.

              In that regard it is far superior at handling MG fire and IEDs than a pickup truck. It doesn't handle top-of-the-line Anti-Tank Rockets......because it's not a top of the line tank.....it's an armored truck with a hull designed to resist mines.

              I have many issues and reservations with how the whole ISIS mess has been handled from top to bottom. However, this 'indictment' is spurious. It's a case of the end user placing misguided 'hollywood' expectations on what is nothing more than a Light Armored Vehicle. And a case of reporters finding something to report on, even if it's utterly moronic.

              Tell the damn fools driving the MRAPs to use them for route recon for supply trucks, and for 'taxi' services to the battlefield....and stop using them like they're a F*cking Tank!
              Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

              Comment


              • #8
                Middle Eastern tank:

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                  Well, considering our track record with the Iraqi army, I don't actually disagree with the decision to keep technology away from anyone in the region.

                  Unfortunately the genie is well out of the bottle when it comes to that sort of thing, and we shouldn't try to protect technology that is cold war at best.

                  OTOH, we can't do what I'd have authorized in this instance, which is acknowledge that the Kurdish region of northern Iraq is an independent autonomous region only connected to the rest of Iraq due to some line-drawing by the British post-WWII. I'd have already sent in a battalion-sized training cadre, and started shipping in light armor from our stocks of stuff we're taking out of service post-war. Weapons AND training....but the problem would be that to do so would be to acknowledge that Iraq is a failure as a state, and to throw in with Kurdistan.

                  That would **** off Iraq and Turkey. So it's a non-starter.
                  YUP! Screw current Turkey and Iraq.

                  The Kurds helped us ~ USA so much thru OIF; 2003-2013ish that we owe them big-time in payback and support!

                  The Middle East is in turmoil at least; Chaos at worst, and fecund land for for "Reshaping" ...

                  Free Kurdistan!
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well... they could always ride in something else .

                    How far do they need to travel to get to battle?

                    Are they driving stuff straight into ISIS territory .

                    Use them in non-ambush type situations.

                    Are these vehicles better than what they were driving before?

                    Is the US required to give them vehicles at all?


                    Just a few ?
                    SPORTS FREAK/ PANZERBLITZ COMMANDER/ CC2 COMMANDER

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      There are many logical and pratical resoans to not use the ADDD ON ARMOUR. Its heavy so will greatly decrease the off road ablities and it puts undue strain on the vehicle witch is bad for maintenance.

                      They still proceted the ocupants from small arms, motars, mines well moveing faster than some one can walk.
                      you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

                      CPO Mzinyati

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X