Hmmm...Steel or Fiberglass?
Haaretz and The Telegraph are discussing the lack of heavy armor in Iraq and connecting that lack to high casualties in April. That situation will only continue, because I just read in my newsletter that the 1st Cavalry Division, which is completing its deployment to Iraq and is for all intents and purposes an armored division, left most of its armor in Texas.
FORSCOM commander General Larry Ellis (under whom I served when he was Colonel Ellis, in his final weeks leading the 1st BDE, 3rd ID and who is a fucking super stud) points out that the improved humvees in service now are the best available solution to the situation. Until either more Strykers become available or an entirely new vehicle designed and fielded, this is it. A different option is to go back to the future: another Army officer says he has 700 old M113s that were prepositioned in Kuwait and have been gathering dust. Why not use them as battle taxis instead of soft humvees, he asks?
Problem is that humvees were never intended for frontline battlefield usage. They were designed to replace the venerable jeep as a mechanized mule, not to operate in the real fight. But in these counter-insurgency operations, where the bad guys are everywhere and nowhere, there are no rear areas where humvees can operate safely. The tactical question might be whether this or that upgraded humvee can do the job, but the larger question should be, what vehicle do we need that can act as ambulance, police cruiser, tactical command post, and general purpose people mover while providing enough occupant protection and vehicle survivability in an environment of 360 degree hostility? And while we're bullshitting, it needs to be light enough for easy air transport and cheap enough to buy a zillion of them. Have something on my desk for Monday.
I was a support guy and worked on commanders' staffs in two different Bde HHCs and one Bn HHC. I drove M577s, the command post carrier version of the original '113. You'll notice that you have to crouch in a '113. On '577s, you'll see how tall the vehicle is- the interior was tall enough to stand up in, and the walls had steel shelving crammed with radios, COMSEC gear, maps, batteries, personal weapons, sledgehammers, shovels, food, shit-tickets (aka victory paper aka toilet paper), comic books, porn, and everything else too heavy or...uh, sensitive... to carry around.
The M113 family is very noisy and very slow. Both the '113 and moreso the '577 (due to the generator and cradle next to the driver's hatch; clearly visible in the pic) severely restrict the driver's field of vision. Not only do the tracks damage roads, but roads also damage track! Wear and tear and continual use on hard surface can increase the likelihood of throwing the track, literally, where the whole damned thing pops right off the road wheels. I don't know how prevalent this problem is in Iraq, since there are numerous '113-family vehicles in the field already, but I'm not sure adding 700 more to the end of the supply chain would be a good thing. Furthermore, stock models are not armored beyond the steel they're made of. They'll stop small arms- probably- but I'm not optimistic about heavy crew-served machine guns (say 12.7 mm+) or RPGs. Even if the steel stops the heavy round or rocket, it would likely spall the interior. I understand that actual '113s, as opposed to '577s, have some sort of an anti-spall kit for interior surfaces and bolt-on armor kits for the hull, but I don't know how available that gear is. Even with after-market add-ons though, an RPG will still likely ruin your day; if an IED blows a drive sprocket, you're in deep doo-doo.
BUT- is all that better than tooling around downrange in the fiberglass and canvas convertible that is the humvee? Probably!
At least until we get some Halderman-ian armored infantry fielded.
§ 3 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]


About two weeks back, there
About two weeks back, there was some ex-general on NPR (don't know who) who pointed out that the lack of heavy armor in Iraq is problematizing security. In his opinion, there was nothing better for policing the cities than a big, nasty tank. (Tell that to the Chinese at Tienamin).
NDR,
NDR,
The whole point of a tank, from a design standpoint, is to kill other tanks: you have a heavily armored and maneuverable platform that sends big bullets very far, ideally engaging the bad guys' tanks outside the range of the bad guys' guns. Tanks in cities, not such a good thing. Tanks can be delicate beasts.
But the classic infantry/armor mix is tough to beat in cities, where a force has a rifle platoon, say, screening every tank. Tanks also signal the level of commitment the US has in taking/leveling a position and have the psyops scary iron monster thing going for them, which isn't too too effective on professionals or veteran jihadis.
The IDF takes it further, using them as battlefield taxis and a variety of other uses. Of course, they're not as concerned about the media percpetions of their armored forces as the US seems to be about its own.
NDR,
NDR,
Um, not that I know shit about shit as opposed to a general, who spent his entire adult life thinking about stuff like this!