This new up-armored vehicles we are using in Iraq are great except...

[NNN0LHI]

...that now with all the extra added weight from the armor they have become too slow to make it through the "kill zones" that the Iraqis have set up to ambush them. I think some here had predicted that was going to happen.

Just heard some former military guy mention that on Imus.

Don

[meegbear]

1. Pssssst ...

it's "except", not "accept".

[NNN0LHI]

2. What are you talking about. It made it through the spell checker

:P

[meegbear]

5. Ooops, my mistake!

:hi:

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Boundless Incompetence

Incredible.

[EFerrari]

4. Watching Barbara Lee's town hall, there was a vet there who said

his Marines were so ill equipped with spare parts that they had guys walk in single file in front of their vehicle to look for bombs, that their legs weren't as valuable as those vehicles.

[Thothmes]

6. Up armored vehicles

In addition to a loss of speed, the added weight puts considerable stress on the drive trains and suspensions. This has caused a much accelerated wear rate on these components. The army supply system is strapped to keep sufficient spares to keep these vehicles operable.

[happyslug]

9. And Vietnam Era M113 Tracked Vehicles are sitting in Warehouses in the US

Soldiers have been asking them for years. At least one National Guard Unit took one to Iraq and used it (And was reprimanded for using it, How dare that unit bring in a superior Vehicle WITHOUT checking with the Army high Command first). Now some units do have M113, mostly the Armor and M2 Bradley Mechanized Infantry Units (The M113 is used in support roles for example in the form of 120mm Mortar Carrier variation of the M113, in the form of Maintenance units for the M2 Bradly and M1 tanks). As to regular units, they have to use up armored Humvees, whose off-road performance is further restricted do to the extra weight of the Armor most are carrying now (But these Up-armored Humvees still use less fuel, tires can last up to 20,000 miles in the up-armored role, and can be hauled by the normal tow vehicle the Five ton Wrecker).

The M113 is a track vehicle so it can go into the sand (i.e. get off the roads), it has enough armor to protect soldiers from .50 caliber weapons (Which means most of the IEDs would barely damage them) and designed form day one to carry the weight of its armor.

The downside is the M113 use more fuel, its tracks only last about 2000 miles, needs daily maintenance especially greasing the tracks) AND you have to upgrade the support vehicles (i.e. Tow Trucks, the Five Ton Wrecker can be used with up-armored Humvees, but NOT with the M113, the M113 is to heavy).

The biggest reason the M113 has NOT been shipped to Iraq seems to be that the US Army does NOT think it can support the number of M113 that would be needed. Gives you an idea of how stretched the US Supply lines are to support the US Army in Iraq. The M113 was used extensively in Vietnam, and proved it s worth. It has several weaknesses, first it is NOT a Tank (I weighs just under 13 tons) has Aluminum armor (Which tends to catch on fire when hit with a RPG round, but this has been addressed by the addition of Reactive Armor and other improvements since Vietnam) and has no way to fight from inside the Vehicles (But the same can be said of the Armored Humvee) and gets about three miles to the Gallon of Diesel fuel (Compared to the Humvee's 10).

For more on the M113 see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m113.htm

[Wilber_Stool]

10. I used to drive M-113s.

They have between two and three inches of aluminum armor. They will not protect you from a 50 cal. A 50 will blow holes in them big enough to put your head through. An RPG will split one open like a stomped grape. In Viet Nam, sand bags were piled up around the top access hatch and everyone stood up while they rode. They drive well in the sand but the wear and tear on the tracks and road wheels would wear them out in a month or two.
What we need is a vehicle actually designed to operate in the sand. I don't know of one that is.

[happyslug]

15. 3 inches of Aluminum is better than 1/2 inch of Steel

That was my point, as a whole the M113 is a BETTER vehicle for troops in Combat than an Armored Humvee. Yes, the tracks wear out quickly (I mentioned that above) but Humvees with tires and armor do NOT go in sand at all.

Yes, the US needs a better sand going Vehicles than the M113, but we have NONE IN STOCK TODAY. We do have M113s. The limitations of the M113 are while known but as a COMBAT VEHICLE THE M113 IS STILL BETTER THAN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ARMORED HUMVEE.

[TX-RAT]

11. And Vietnam Era M113 Tracked Vehicles are sitting in Warehouses in the US

As they should be, aluminum makes for very poor armor.

[happyslug]

16. Any Armor is better than none.

And the Armor of the M113 is better than the armor on an Armored Humvee. Remember you fight with the Army you have not the army you want. M113s can be shipped to Iraq within six weeks to 3 months. Anything else will take YEARS to field. Thus the M113 is the best alternative the US has today, to Armored Humvees, and as such SHOULD BE USED.

[whistle]

7. There is a simple solution to this, leave Iraq now!

[Solly Mack]

8. That's been a problem. It was a problem back in 2003-2004 with the

up-armored vehicles..and there were a limited number of up-armored vehicles back then. My husband got one and didn't like the slowness of the vehicle because of the kill-zones. He opted for speed.

The choice was armor and slow...lack of armor and speed

You need both speed and protection but depending on the situation you need one more than the other and you never knew which situation you were going to be in

In November of 2006 a friend came home from Iraq and he had opted for speed over armor while in Iraq..with up-armored vehicles being more readily available for him this time around than they were when he and my husband first went together back in 2003.

I didn't like my husband's choice - and he wisely kept that to himself until his return - but then I wasn't the one on the ground having to make the call.

Can you imagine making such a choice? Basically it is making a choice on how you will die...blown up or shot to death in ambush...gee, which do you prefer...

[meldroc]

12. Hummers are not designed for this.

Hummers are great for what they're desgined to do - be trucks to get people and things from point A to point B when you're not being shot at too much. Hummers are tough, they're great in rough terrain, but they're not designed to be armored, and they're not designed to be shot or blasted with RPGs or IEDs.

If the brassholes had any sense, they'd be sending the troops out in Bradleys and Strykers.

[Javaman]

13. So there is the choice the soldiers have...

light armor quick vehicle or heavy armor slow vehicle.

light armor gets blow to smithereens by and IED

heavy armor gets blow to smithereens by a rocket.

Damn what a choice. :(

[TNOE]

14. Little off topic - BUT

I heard on some talk show Sunday morning - can't remember which - some guy said - wait until the world finds out that the money for IED's (detonation/removal?) has been held up in Washington & not spent.

Anybody know about this?