Lack of MRAPSs costs Marine lives

[Bigduke6]

Well, it's a positive if the insurgents lack the brains to teach their trigger men the difference between an armored and unarmored vehicle.

Because if they do that, it's just a matter of waiting for the right target to drive by.

Considering they appear to be smart enough to adapt a roadside bomb so it overcomes thick armor, you would think that the insurgents would be up to using the generic roadside bomb against a truck, and the enhanced armor penetration bomb against the super-armored truck.

Originally posted by FAI:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LongLeftFlank:

And some more from Wired

One bright spot: EFPs produce much less collateral damage than other IEDs. So the number of Iraqi civilians killed as a 'by product' of attacks on military convoys may get smaller.

Bright indeed, in a dark kind of way... </font>

[FAI]

The irony is reducing collateral damage is a PR boost for the insurgents as well... By using EFP they negate the MRAP's protection while at the same time score some PR points.

[Splinty]

Originally posted by FAI:

The irony is reducing collateral damage is a PR boost for the insurgents as well... By using EFP they negate the MRAP's protection while at the same time score some PR points.

Not really as, the insurgents have set off EFPs on busy roadways to hit Coalition convoys as they pass through traffic. An ordinary car won't even phase an EFP, it can cut through armor like a hot knife through butter, whats rusty sheet metal going to do?

[M1A1TC]

"Biden, Bond Seek Probe of MRAP Delay

Associated Press | February 19, 2008

WASHINGTON - Two senators are urging the Pentagon to investigate a Marine Corps report that bureaucrats refused an urgent request from battlefield commanders in 2005 for blast-resistant vehicles. "We need an official investigation to figure out why this happened and to make sure it never happens again," said Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., D-Del.

Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been a longtime advocate of building and deploying more of the vehicles, called MRAPs.

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., said the government shouldn't have to "explain to the families of American troops that a cost effective solution capable of saving lives was not deployed because of bureaucratic delays or insufficient funds."

The Associated Press first reported Friday that hundreds of U.S. Marines have been killed or injured by roadside bombs in Iraq because Marine Corps officials refused the request of the commanders. Both senators issued their statements Sunday.

"This is a stark warning that the military brass back home is not acting on needs of our war fighters on the front lines," Biden said. "We must be as fast and flexible as the enemy. We need an official investigation to figure out why this happened and to make sure it never happens again."

Bond said, "With our troops serving on the front lines in the war on terror, this gross mismanagement of our military's acquisition process is inexcusable. The military needs to take a hard look" at the report that details "the bureaucratic delays of lifesaving equipment to our troops in the field."

"The enemy will continue to search for ways to kill our troops and it is vital that our acquisition process be flexible enough and fast enough to respond quickly to emerging threats," Bond added.

The study, written by a civilian Marine Corps official, accuses the service of "gross mismanagement" that delayed deliveries of the mine-resistant, ambush-protected trucks for more than two years.

Cost was a driving factor in the decision to turn down the request for the so-called MRAPs, according to the study. Stateside authorities saw the hulking vehicles, which can cost as much as a $1 million each, as a financial threat to programs aimed at developing lighter vehicles that were years from being fielded.

After Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared the MRAP (pronounced M-rap) the Pentagon's No. 1 acquisition priority in May 2007, the trucks began to be shipped to Iraq in large quantities.

The vehicles weigh as much as 40 tons and have been effective at protecting American forces from improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the weapon of choice for Iraqi insurgents. Only four U.S. troops have been killed by such bombs while riding in MRAPs; three of those deaths occurred in older versions of the vehicles. "

[LongLeftFlank]

Originally posted by Splinty:

An ordinary car won't even phase an EFP, it can cut through armor like a hot knife through butter, whats rusty sheet metal going to do?

Something still doesn't sound quite right here (this weapon sounds just too bad to be true).

A paint can full of explosive with a lathed metal disk on top seems just so crude and simple that it could EASILY have been developed in 1930 if not earlier. So TNT isn't as powerful as C4 or RDX, just get a bigger can.

So why wasn't it? OK, even if I can swallow the debatable concept that European armies didn't see the urgency of infantry AT weapons before 1940, what about later? Why bother with comparatively complex Panzerfausts, zooks and magnetic mines (much less AT guns) when infantry can deploy massed fields of EFP claymores or buried mines (using WWII era triggers and detonators) to stop the blitzkrieg dead in its tracks? (and I mean, dead) Are you telling me that the Germans, Russians, Brits and Yanks could make atom bombs, rocket arty and jets work and yet totally miss out on a fundamental and dirt cheap kinetic kill technology?

What am I missing here?

[M1A1TC]

Arabs are smarter then Europeans?

[Splinty]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2-shaped-charge.htm

Here's a little history and some info on EFP penetration values.

I was in the vehicle in front of an M1114 that took an EFP strike last January on Rte Pluto in East Baghdad. The device was actually an array of six smaller devices. The impacts each punched a hole the size of a big mans fist in the rear right side door (the M1114 had Level 5 armor), killing the Iraqi interpretor in the left rear seat instantly. The slugs continued into the crew compartment striking the gunner in the legs and feet, the vehicle commander was struck in the legs and lower torso and the driver was struck in the head and thrown from the vehicle. Fortunately the M1114 didn't catch fire, which is common in EFP strikes. The end result of this horrible incident was 2xKIA (the driver and the interpretor)and 2xWIA (TC and gunner)both of whom lost their right legs. The gunner also lost half of his left foot and one of his eyes to spalling effects. The truck was a total write off. This is just one of the three EFP strikes that hit my company last year (it was the only one I was directly involved in) These same weapons have burned Bradleys with reactive armor kits to the ground and punched holes in M1 Abrams, what good is a bigger truck?

[MikeyD]

"So why wasn't it?"

Explosive-formed projectiles are the result of a LOT of high-tech engineering and years of development & testing in the U.S. under the old SKEET submunition program. And like many things in this world, once one person's finally figured out how to do it right its easy for everyone else to follow. Think of stirrups on saddles. You can imagine three thousand years of cavalry collectively slapping their foreheads and exclaiming "D'oh!" because they hadn't thought of it first.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

"So why wasn't it?"

Explosive-formed projectiles are the result of a LOT of high-tech engineering and years of development & testing in the U.S. under the old SKEET submunition program. And like many things in this world, once one person's finally figured out how to do it right its easy for everyone else to follow. Think of stirrups on saddles. You can imagine three thousand years of cavalry collectively slapping their foreheads and exclaiming "D'oh!" because they hadn't thought of it first.

Excellent parallel example.

[LongLeftFlank]

Good point.

[FAI]

Originally posted by Splinty:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by FAI:

The irony is reducing collateral damage is a PR boost for the insurgents as well... By using EFP they negate the MRAP's protection while at the same time score some PR points.

Not really as, the insurgents have set off EFPs on busy roadways to hit Coalition convoys as they pass through traffic. An ordinary car won't even phase an EFP, it can cut through armor like a hot knife through butter, whats rusty sheet metal going to do? </font>

[Apocalypse 31]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

so let me understand, US Combat Bases were established in or around cities and semi urban areas?

This is done for many reasons.

1. It shows the enemy we're not afraid to get into their sector and hang out.

2. It gives a good assembly area to operate out of and allows forces to react faster to incidents in sector.

3. (very important) It builds faith in the locals and gives them added protection and also gives them a way to give us info. I can tell you that on a first hand basis that we had many locals coming to our outpost in Baghdad to give us information on local activity.

Originally posted by Nidan1:

Obviously the road nets become critical, what about helicopter re-supply?

It would never come down to that. We would never allow the bad guys to have that much control.

[John Kettler]

Splinty,

Quite a sad tale, but an impressive writeup and link. Good as the Global Security piece was, though, it failed to mention many significant items,

such as the fact that the Germans used large shaped charges to defeat the armored weapon mounts of the vital Belgian fort of Eben Emael, the British No. 68 HEAT grenade, the Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck, etc. Also, the use of P-charges (plate charges) came well before Skeet.

The U.S. had an AT mine based on this principle by the 1960s at least, and the FRG antiship missile Kormoran had a whole bunch of small ones wrapped around its warhead's perimeter, with the objective being to thoroughly pierce all watertight barriers in the victim ship upon penetration and detonation. The Roland SAM had something similar but much smaller to throughly rip up aircraft, even armored ones. See also Miznay-Schardin devices.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Secondbrooks]

Afganistan was testing ground for NATO AT mines against Soviet tanks. Same EFP princible was shown there, with horrible effect on tanks. AT mine blowing under tank can lift tank's turret off with cheer pressure once hole is made to bottom, atleast with T-55. Soviets even reinforced their tank's bottoms because of bottom has tendensy to rise upper and break something like automaticloader or crewman's legs (in lack of better words).

What i've been thinking about reason why Europeans in general haven't been intrested in EFP's use in Iraq-way is this: I don't know did forexample Germany have territorial defence, in where harrasment of convoys and troops behind enemy lines had strong meaning to support fight of frontline units. If not, then i can see why EFPs like in Iraq weren't in that important role. Traditional AT-mines which blows underneath tanks is enough to halt tanks manuver (atleast for some moments) make them easier targets. Iraq-like EFP is another kind thing. One hardly uses them in massive formations, it's easier and cheaper to use forexample trackmines, which are just mass of TNT and pressure fuze installed in middle of it (this is filthy cheap). When used in massive formations they just become obstacle, Iraq-like EFP is more like tool of destruction not obstacle.

We used and still use EFPs mostly in this convoy harasment task (but they are used in other types of warfighting activities because we have them in big guantities), they are small, light and cheap when comparing to AT-launchers, which is importnant thing to guerilla troop who might get back to friendly lines when war is over (they can't be supplied from air either as very likely enemy has airsuperiority). Iraq is kinda like this, while defening against Soviet horde might not be like this (for most). In repelling Soviet horde you might want to have AT-launchers, ATGMs, tanks, airplanes, helichopters etc. And ofcourse AT mines or trackmines, which in massive formations can halt mechaniced opponent.

There are lots of other things which can be done by use of EFPs. EFP can be just as tiredless watchman as any mine can be. It can also secure minefields with claymores to prevent or destoy engineers or engineervehicles from clearing minefields or atlaeast slow down the process as EFPs (and possible operators) has to be searched first. It can be used as extra AT-power in frontline battles. But main task is the harasment of convoys and troops on march to "frontline", for that it suits best.

EDIT: We started to use various types of industrial made EFP-mines during 70s. Right now the scale goes from 3 kg to 20 kg, types are AT mine and so called "sidemines" or "flankmine", which usually is put to terrain behind road's ditch and it's idea is to hit side of vehicle when it passes by, from that comes the name "flankmine"

What i mean with Iraq-like EFP is that "flankmine", not like traditional 'you bury this to ground'-mine.

[ February 22, 2008, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[M1A1TC]

By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer

Tue Feb 26, 6:22 AM ET

WASHINGTON - The Marine Corps has asked the Pentagon's inspector general to examine allegations that a nearly two-year delay in the fielding of blast-resistant vehicles led to hundreds of combat casualties in Iraq.

ADVERTISEMENT

The system for rapidly shipping needed gear to troops on the front lines has been examined by auditors before and continues to improve, Col. David Lapan, a Marine Corps spokesman, said Monday night. Due to the seriousness of the allegations, however, "the Marine Corps has taken the additional step" of requesting the IG investigation, Lapan said in an e-mailed statement.

In a Jan. 22 internal report, Franz Gayl, a civilian Marine Corps official, accused the service of "gross mismanagement" that delayed deliveries of the mine-resistant, ambush-protected trucks.

Gayl's study, which reflected his own views, said cost was a driving factor in the decision to turn down a February 2005 "urgent" request from battlefield commanders for the so-called MRAPs.

Stateside authorities saw the hulking vehicles, which weigh up to 40 tons and can cost as much as a $1 million each, as a financial threat to programs aimed at developing lighter vehicles that were years from being fielded, charged Gayl, who prepared the study for the Marine Corps' plans, policies and operations department.

Gayl, a retired Marine officer, is the science and technology adviser to Lt. Gen. Richard Natonski, who heads the department.

The Associated Press first reported on Gayl's study Feb. 15. At that time, Gayl's work had not been reviewed by his immediate supervisor, Col. David Wilkinson, Lapan said Monday.

"The paper represents Gayl's personal opinions and is clearly marked as such," Lapan said. "It is both preliminary and pre-decisional, and therefore a mischaracterization to term his work an official study or report."

Gen. Robert Magnus, the Marine Corps' assistant commandant, disputed Gayl's conclusions in a recent interview with Marine Corps Times.

Magnus and other Marine Corps officials have said the defense industry lacked the capacity to build MRAPs in large numbers when the 2005 request was made. The best solution to the deadly roadside bombs planted by insurgents was to add extra layers of steel to the less sturdy Humvee, they said.

"I don't think (the study) stands up to the facts about what we did, about what the industry was capable of doing and why we did what we did," Magnus told the newspaper in an interview. "I just don't think that's accurate."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared the MRAP the Pentagon's No. 1 acquisition priority in May 2007. Defense contractors are now producing close to 1,000 vehicles a month.

Gayl has clashed with his superiors in the past and filed for whistle-blower protection last year. In his study, he recommended an inquiry be conducted to determine if any military or government employees are culpable for failing to rush critical gear to the troops.

"If the mass procurement and fielding of MRAPs had begun in 2005 in response to the known and acknowledged threats at that time, as the (Marine Corps) is doing today, hundreds of deaths and injuries could have been prevented," Gayl said. "While the possibility of individual corruption remains undetermined, the existence of corrupted MRAP processes is likely, and worthy of (inspector general) investigation."

Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del., and Kit Bond, R-Mo., called for an investigation after reviewing Gayl's report.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the nation's oldest veterans organization, said if Gayl's allegations are true, charges should be brought against the military and civilian officials who failed to deliver the MRAPs.

If, however, Gayl's findings are incorrect, he should be held accountable for his actions, said VFW National Commander George Lisicki in a Feb. 19 letter to members of Congress.

"There is no doubt MRAPs have saved many lives in horrendous (improvised explosive device) explosions, but to accuse the Marine Corps of knowingly and intentionally jeopardizing the safety of fellow Marines on the battlefield is a very serious charge," Lisicki said.

[RTFM]

Top quality arguments given for and against these vehicles. I do hope MRAPs save a few lives as the coalition wraps up its obligation as the occupying power in Iraq. If it was up to me the troops over there could have a lifetime tax exemption.

Early next year the US will finally take delivery of the one smart weapon that’s been missing from the inventory…A smarter commander in chief. I’ll eat my horse if history judges the old one kindly.

[FAI]

Originally posted by RTFM:

Top quality arguments given for and against these vehicles. I do hope MRAPs save a few lives as the coalition wraps up its obligation as the occupying power in Iraq. If it was up to me the troops over there could have a lifetime tax exemption.

Early next year the US will finally take delivery of the one smart weapon that’s been missing from the inventory…A smarter commander in chief. I’ll eat my horse if history judges the old one kindly.

Make sure it's a pony. And a BBQ party...

[M1A1TC]

By Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers

Mon May 5, 6:18 PM ET

WASHINGTON — The deaths of two U.S. soldiers in western Baghdad last week have sparked concerns that Iraqi insurgents have developed a new weapon capable of striking what the U.S. military considers its most explosive-resistant vehicle.

The soldiers were riding in a Mine Resistant Ambush Protective vehicle, known as an MRAP, when an explosion sent a blast of super-heated metal through the MRAP's armor and into the vehicle, killing them both.

Their deaths brought to eight the number of American troops killed while riding in an MRAP, which was developed and deployed to Iraq last year after years of acrimony over light armor on the Army's workhorse vehicle, the Humvee.

The military has praised the vehicles for saving hundreds of lives, saying they could withstand the IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, which have been the biggest killers of Americans in Iraq . The Pentagon has set aside $5.4 billion to acquire 4,000 MRAPs at more than $1 million each, making the MRAP the Defense Department's third largest acquisition program, behind missile defense and the Joint Strike Fighter.

But last Wednesday's attack has shown that the MRAPs are vulnerable to an especially potent form of IED known as an EFP, for explosively formed penetrator, which fires a superheated cone of metal through the vehicle's armor.

Military officials are still trying to determine whether last week's attack is a sign of "new vulnerabilities (in the vehicle) or new (weapons) capabilities" on the part of insurgents, said Navy Capt. John Kirby , a spokesman for Adm. Michael Mullen , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

U.S. officials don't know if the EFP that pierced the MRAP was larger, redesigned or a lucky shot from an old one. But explosive experts in Iraq are investigating, said Col. Jerry O'Hare , a military spokesman in Iraq .

The attack comes at a precarious political juncture in Iraq . U.S. officials have accused Iran of shipping EFPs across the border and arming militias. They charge that despite assurances from Iran that it would curtail its shipment of EFPs, new weapons have arrived this year.

So far, military officials in Baghdad don't know whether the EFP used in the attack was Iranian-made or if it was shipped to Iraq this year.

Five of the eight soldiers who've died in MRAPs were killed in April, said Geoff Morrell , a Pentagon spokesman. Earlier in the month, a soldier was killed when an explosive struck an MRAP and it rolled over. Another two died in April when their MRAP rolled over and they drowned, Morrell said.

[Huntarr]

Click here for HI-REZ

[Dragon67]

Originally posted by luderbamsen:

Hmm, that article sounds a bit like a round of the usual Blame Game to me: "Would have, could have, should have". Identifying issues in the procurement process is always a good idea, but laying the blame for dead Marines at the feet of the procurers is going a bit too far IMO.

...

I agree with this. It sounds a bit like the old, "We would have one that game if not for the bad call in the second quarter arguement."

To agree with the whistle blower, you would basically have to state that all Marine casualtys by IEDs would have been avoided by the use of MWRAP. The fact is that the deaths could have been subastantially reduced or just slightly reduced. In the documentary, "Lima Company" a LAV was blown up with an entire Marine squad inside by an IED- nothing could have saved their lives.

The whistle blower sounds like he has a Messiah complex.

[Dragon67]

double post