A Stryker takes a beating AND survives

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-10-18 02:16pm

Care to give me examples of either side living up to the Conventions? Between being ass-raped by Lynddie England and the glowsticks and getting beheaded with a dull breadknife by Zarqawi's men, the Geneva Conventions went out the window a long time ago.

Besides, they don't have to wear disguises, just not flaunt their uniforms or equipment.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-10-18 02:19pm

It's not even a matter of principle; its a matter of pragmatism. If soldiers are captured out of uniform, suddenly there's no legal room to complain if they're beheaded, since they can at that point be legally executed as spies.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-10-18 03:06pm

There's no legal room to complain anyway after the cornholings at Abu Ghraib. Besides, I doubt Zarqawi's thugs care any more about the laws of war than Bush, Rumsfeld or Gonzales. You might as well threaten to put them in Time Out.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-18 04:55pm

Elfdart wrote:
But aren't most of these patrols along known roads?

Known roads?

You're assuming that the soldiers and vehicles would be "flying their colors". Why not have the trucks painted in regular civilian colors?
Better yet, made to look like the beat-up vehicles used by locals. If the weapons and uniforms of the soldiers are concealed (or just not brandished openly) they might not even be noticed. Even if it leaked out that some American units were doing all of the above, the insurgents would be in a bind. They could start harassing ALL traffic, thus alienating the locals. Or they might be deterred from harassing such traffic for fear of what pops out of the Jack-in-the-box.

This is the stupidest plan I have heard in a while. You cannot conceal a convoy of military vehicles driving through a populated area and you cannot conceal combat ready soldiers sitting in the back of a damn pickup truck, Espically when the enemy is observing you from point blank range. The fact that the only people regular driving around with weapons in vehicles are either Iraq police or foreign troops, and thus all targets, further makes this an exercise in absurdity. It will not work. It will however provide one more job for already overtaxed soldiers to try and accomplish.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-10-19 04:08am

Cpl Kendall wrote:I seem to remember reading that the Aussies had the exact opposite experiance in East Timor with their LAV's then the Kiwi's did. THe Aussies found that they were unable to leave the roads and were generally unsurvivavle in combat. So they have switched their forces in East Timor to 113's and apperently they have provided excellent service.

The 113's were ok in some area's, but not all terrain. Timor is primaraly leg infantry country.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-10-19 04:11am

JointStrikeFighter wrote:so were spending milliosn of dollars to create a convoy escort vehicle when this task can be performed far chaeper and better by using guntrucks

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/guntruck.html

JointStrikeFighter wrote:
Quote:
*snort* well then your army need's to take a serious look at its purchasing sytems, because you have a vehicle which is desgned to do A and your army expected it to do B C and D, which some basic research would have uncovered. The NZ army seems to like its version as its faster, quieter and, overall, more capable than the 113. It meets the capabilities that we required. So I wouldnt crtitizize the vhecle so much as the US army

Yes for new zealand it is a good vehicle, new zealand isnt going to be getting into any wars so they maintain a token defence force.

Says who?
says the fact that theyve eliminated there airforce, navy and much of there army, instead relying on australia to protect them

Irrelivant. Now who says that NZ is not going to be getting into any wars?
and who says ours is a token defence force? and by what standard?

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-10-19 04:47am

Labour is transforming NZ's military into a specialised force suited to fit into a broader coalition during conflicts, and to be used as a peacekeeping force. It's not so much that we've got a token defence force - the strategy is simply to focus our resources in a few key areas. It's not a complete defence force because it's inconcievable that NZ would be defending itself alone anyway.

The decision to scrap the strike wing, and to spend a more on the army is a controversial one, but not one that I think decreases our security.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-10-19 05:09am

Predator wrote:Labour is transforming NZ's military into a specialised force suited to fit into a broader coalition during conflicts, and to be used as a peacekeeping force.

Well, its not so much Labour, as a lot of army politicking {and possibly unconstitutional imo} when Labour was in opposition

, and another issue adressed below.

It's not so much that we've got a token defence force - the strategy is simply to focus our resources in a few key areas. It's not a complete defence force because it's inconcievable that NZ would be defending itself alone anyway.

The decision to scrap the strike wing, and to spend a more on the army is a controversial one, but not one that I think decreases our security.

This is where you have cost cutting and ideology going hand in hand. Labour certanly has an interesting veiw point for some, but what the public do not realise is that all Labour has done is reequip army at the expence of air and to a lesser degree, navy.
Also the Armies new dodads and widgets only bring it up to par compared to likley opponents within Labours world veiw and does not add new capabilities compared to possible opponents. Nor have they created a defence force that is self sustaining because, probably for political reasons, logistics aint sexy.
Mind you, this is better than National, who talks a balanced defence force but never actually puts words into money and equipment

and whats even more amusing is that NZ's capabilities have been redusing gradualy since 1945, and its Labour that actually suspends the rot for a couple of terms

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-10-19 09:23am

Elfdart wrote: Why not small Toyota trucks like they used in the Chad/ Libya war? They are lighter, faster, more fuel efficient, more reliable, and a smaller target. They are so popular in the Middle East (and all over the Third World) that they might not even be fired upon because they would blend right in. As the article above points out, the Hummer might as well be painted red, white and blue with stars and stripes.

Aside from the valid criticisms already pointed out, there is also the load-bearing ability and road sturdiness to consider. A M2 Browning (.50-caliber) machinegun is very heavy, and that would strain the little Toyota quite a bit once you got three or four 200-lb soldiers and all their gear and aremor in there.

Plus the high center of gravity makes the vehicle prone to tip over.

When we were running convoy escort missions in Taji, we ran Humvees as escort vehicles with our 5-tons, and the Humvees had 'ghetto armor' and other armor kits on them that made the vehicles so heavy that we had to replace a new set of tires every week. Shocks and springs wore out after a month of use.

A purpose-built military cross-country hauler like the Humvee had difficulty-- a Toyota would be scrap in a month.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-21 02:52am

I suspect a lot of that trouble was the result of the Humvees's having been armored without having had upgraded suspension. With the proper suspension for the weight the stuff should last at least a few months of non-stop heavy use. The Tire issue though probably wouldn't change unless you had a completely different wheel with a bigger tire on it.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-10-21 06:50am

Sea Skimmer wrote:I suspect a lot of that trouble was the result of the Humvees's having been armored without having had upgraded suspension. With the proper suspension for the weight the stuff should last at least a few months of non-stop heavy use. The Tire issue though probably wouldn't change unless you had a completely different wheel with a bigger tire on it.

Well, that was the case, and we were operating the original issue M-998 HMMWV. Now there is a newer version, the M-1114, with heavier suspension, turbocharged, some expansion of liter capacity on the engine (I'm repeating what a buddy of mine here said, who's a 'car guy', since I don't understand any of this) and increased radiator capacity. It also has more bulletproof glass.

Theoretically these are being built to counteract the weak ass performance of the up-armored Humvees, but it is still just a beefy SUV with some stuff on it. We need armored cars of dedicated purpose.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-21 03:08pm

Coyote wrote: Well, that was the case, and we were operating the original issue M-998 HMMWV. Now there is a newer version, the M-1114, with heavier suspension, turbocharged, some expansion of liter capacity on the engine (I'm repeating what a buddy of mine here said, who's a 'car guy', since I don't understand any of this) and increased radiator capacity. It also has more bulletproof glass.

Theoretically these are being built to counteract the weak ass performance of the up-armored Humvees, but it is still just a beefy SUV with some stuff on it.

The M1114 isn't a response to the poor performance of armored Hummve's, it's the original armored Hummve and has been in production since 1994. The US military just never bought that many of them, and the plant that builds them is really small. Though I believe they built a new production line when the US Army ordered something like 4,500 for them not long after the invasion. That's about twice as many as the entire pervious production run, for both US and export use.

We need armored cars of dedicated purpose.

Sounds like you need them very badly, and about fifty decent designs are around. Unfortunately the Army only has M1114's and Strykers on order.