First TUSK, now BUSK!

[John Kettler]

Bradley Urban Survivability Kit (BUSK)! First I've heard of this program, and it's got some threat protection issues it addresses I freely admit I never thought about.

http://defense-update.com/newscast/0807/news/100807_armor.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Looks like either people already knew what BUSK is, or that it's so obscure people aren't even interested enough to respond to the now apparently lousy headline I wrote.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Pandur]

well to be a bit cynical here, at some point its nothing new anymore that the US is packing their vehicles with ever more armor and weapons and gizmos to shoot up barefooted ragheads.

in wich way that happens is not important, i am sure they put a lot a thought(and a lot of $$$) behind it and it turns out to be of high lethalety and protection until a new threat emerges.

i mean i did read the articles but its nothing new...more of this more of that...more more more...

EDIT: cant take too long and there is a HUSK too, guess what vehicle it is made for

[Homo ferricus]

Don't mean to take it upon myself to moderate, but you may want to use less colorful terms when referring to enemy combatants, Pandur. As I understand it, that might be against the rules and I don't want you to get in trouble for silliness :D

On the topic, I largely agree with Pandur; the Bradley seems to be the most recent vehicle to receive up-armoring in response to IEDs and other insurgent tactics. Just the US probably overpaying for reactive measures that may or may not ultimately hurt the troops' capabilities in the long run.

What I mean is, with every layer of armor you put on, the vehicle gets heavier, and unacceptably heavy vehicles seem to be one of the major problems for the military in Afghanistan lately. I've read articles about how QRFs mounted in MRAPs are so slow and sluggish that by the time they reach the fight, the Taliban have already done their damage and disappeared. Bridges become impassable because of weight restrictions, vehicles bog down frequently due to lack of paved roads in many areas, vehicles are made bigger targets, etc.

Among more problems is that with every new tech you add, that's something new to repair, replace, and take care of, adding to the overall cost of the upgrading. On top of everything, the rule of unexpected consequences always applies. For example, the brutal irony of a ballistic vest the weighs a soldier down and limits his movements, yet will stop a bullet from any angle or direction, BUT, the impact of a round causes so much pressure, bruising, and general internal abuse, that the wearer will 80% chance die of shock, hemorrhaging, or cardiac arrest, and thus die anyway. DISCLAIMER: none of that is true as far as I know, just trying to come up with an extreme example that obviously illustrates the rule of unexpected consequences in a way that does more damage to the troops than it benefits them. Silly example but it's 4:30am over here and I haven't slept

I realize this is all cynical and sorta makes me sound like I'm the type to be shouting anti-military-industrial complex conspiracy junk, but I care about the military deeply, and as a person who has taken interest in all the aspects of warfare, I often wonder if these types of splurging reactionary expenditures are game-changing moves that will stress and strain the insurgency and come that much closer to breaking it's back, or (more likely) ignorant, inefficient, patriotism-fueled, bottomless cash graves that congressman hastily throw our nation's money into, so that they won't be branded as anti-military communists in their next election campaign.

[Pandur]

Don't mean to take it upon myself to moderate, but you may want to use less colorful terms when referring to enemy combatants, Pandur.

hehe, i know where you are comming from, but when some persons get away with calling them worthless trash and the like, my terms are actually quiet polite.

@John

thanks for takeing the time to post all this stuff, its not like its not interessting and i usualy enjoy the documents you link to. but you have to understand and accept my lack of interesst in this special case no harm ment!

[Clavicula_Nox]

Yeah, it's neat, but the pattern of continual uparmoring isn't new. I'm glad for the post, though, it's something to look out for.

[John Kettler]

Pandur,

I thought that with all the excitement here over TUSK's being included in the game, that BUSK might be of similar interest. Of course, the external changes are nowhere nearly as dramatic.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Pandur,

No offense meant, none taken.

Homo ferricus,

Excellent points, and we already have infantry that can't catch the people it's chasing in the mountains of Afghanistan. Some people need to go back and read Marshall's A Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation! As for unintended consequences, please be sure to read the thread on casualties in vehicles http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=89881 , where I present shocking combat data indicating that ballistic vests are the bane of AFV crew survival in the presence of explosion, greatly multiplying blast lethality over crew without such hardening. Apparently, ballistic vests are excellent lung crushers.

Clavicula_Nox,

Glad to help!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Homo ferricus]

John,

Yeah, I took a look at your posts there and followed the links to do some more investigation, even

That's partly what made me draw the body armor example, along with actually hearing old vets and ballistics grogs occasionally giving cases where getting shot or blown up is more harmful/lethal when wearing a ballistic vest, not even considering the limitations of the armor, like it's hindering of mobility/endurance, and the fact that people who wear body armor tend to feel safer because of it, and may have a false sense of vastly improved survivability when in hostile situations, which is also very dangerous to the wearer.

edit: In the vast majority of situations, I'd always wear a ballistic vest rather than not. I don't think that helicopter medevac and advance in battlefield medicine are the only things that account for the fact that so few of our casualties are KIA, relatively speaking.

also edit: yeah I meant "unintended" consequences, not "unexpected". Like I said, sleeplessness and all...

[SSG Grymm]

I can only speak from my experiences and I felt a heck of alot safer wearing my full body armor than the spalling protection I wore in the early 90's. Which makes a great pillow when sleeping on a Bradley turret floor, by the way.

When I hear people talk about how its safer to have less body armor and take a few cases as examples, I think of the seat belt opponents. I won't lie and say it doesn't suck wearing and humping it, but ask the soldier who took a close range AK round to the chest and got up if it was worth it.

Everything in the military, even more so in combat missions, is a trade off. Do we cross the field quickly and make the commanders time line or do we skirt it with a heavy over watch? Do we clear every room or make a hasty sweep? Do we take extra ammo or move quicker? (A recon one) Do we wear kevlars or go in boonies? All have pros and cons.

If the current body armor was so very bad I think you'd see a out cry from the active soldiers, just like back when they were in Iraq and wearing the old kevlar vests, on how poor it is and how they were buying thier own.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Homo ferricus]

I can only speak from my experiences and I felt a heck of alot safer wearing my full body armor than the spalling protection I wore in the early 90's. Which makes a great pillow when sleeping on a Bradley turret floor, by the way.

When I hear people talk about how its safer to have less body armor and take a few cases as examples, I think of the seat belt opponents. I won't lie and say it doesn't suck wearing and humping it, but ask the soldier who took a close range AK round to the chest and got up if it was worth it.

Everything in the military, even more so in combat missions, is a trade off. Do we cross the field quickly and make the commanders time line or do we skirt it with a heavy over watch? Do we clear every room or make a hasty sweep? Do we take extra ammo or move quicker? (A recon one) Do we wear kevlars or go in boonies? All have pros and cons.

If the current body armor was so very bad I think you'd see a out cry from the active soldiers, just like back when they were in Iraq and wearing the old kevlar vests, on how poor it is and how they were buying thier own.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Right. Which is why I had those couple disclaimers to reiterate that I indeed do believe body armor is worth wearing for the average grunt. I'm on the same page as you and agree thoroughly, but it's interesting to point out your first sentence, when you said that you "feel" safer wearing it. It definitely does make you feel safer, the danger may be that it makes you feel too safe.

I can't quite remember, but we had a member on the forum here post that he disliked how all the extra armor put on Humvees lately has the negative effects of poorer visibility and more importantly, it lulls a soldier into complacency. Causes a feeling of utter enclosure and protection that leads to the occupants having a lesser level of readiness or awareness. Either he really believes that or I really don't get military humor.

[SSG Grymm]

I don't disagree that the up-armored trucks have limitations, but its better than riding around in the plastic coverings we used to use, LOL. All current US Army vehicles seem to have that enclosed feel. I've never ridden in a MRAP, but the video I've seen has that feel also. Theres that trade off I was talking about. How do you protect the crew but allow them easy access to the outside? I'm sure if we can figure that out, we could make alot of $$$$, LOL.

I can't and won't disagree that the idea of feeling safe is dangerous also. But I think we can both agree that body armor we would want body armor on a battlefield. I know I'd wear mine. If we can find a more lightwieght body armor that can take a AK round to the chest and let a soldier get up and walk away, the Army or someone would be willing to listen. But once again we get back to that trade off, of protection vs mobility/stealth, which as a former soldier and NCO can tell you, is really mission dictated.

[Clavicula_Nox]

I don't disagree that the up-armored trucks have limitations, but its better than riding around in the plastic coverings we used to use, LOL. All current US Army vehicles seem to have that enclosed feel. I've never ridden in a MRAP, but the video I've seen has that feel also. Theres that trade off I was talking about. How do you protect the crew but allow them easy access to the outside? I'm sure if we can figure that out, we could make alot of $$$$, LOL.

I can't and won't disagree that the idea of feeling safe is dangerous also. But I think we can both agree that body armor we would want body armor on a battlefield. I know I'd wear mine. If we can find a more lightwieght body armor that can take a AK round to the chest and let a soldier get up and walk away, the Army or someone would be willing to listen. But once again we get back to that trade off, of protection vs mobility/stealth, which as a former soldier and NCO can tell you, is really mission dictated.

You and I are completely opposite. I remember the days of rolling around with no doors, canvas doors, those POS scrap metal doors, and finally, the varying stages of armor doors and always preferred the lightest possible armor. Whether that meant no doors and a some protection for the gunner (re: front plate and maybe some side panels), or something "slightly" uparmored. I spent a lot of time either driving my humvee, or dismounting to fight bad guys, and always, always, always, hated the armor (vehicle and personal). I recognize that I am fully in the minority, and that's okay. I recognize that the personal armor has done a world of good, and I am thankful for those who it has helped. I would rather move and be able to breath without some damn plate stabbing me in the back of the neck and rubbing against my esophagus.

[SSG Grymm]

Oh I remember the days and remember wishing how they had something on them, LOL. Maybe not as much as there is now, but more than the plastic we had.

Maybe the difference is age, MOS, or AO. I did my first combat tour as a young NCO in a Bradley turret sitting on the spalling protection I was given. Spent my last as a senior NCO wearing my trama plates sitting in a humvee talking on radios 90% of the time.

Edit Note: I do want to say I think there are missions where less is more. But those are the exception not the rule.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Oh I remember the days and remember wishing how they had something on them, LOL. Maybe not as much as there is now, but more than the plastic we had.

Maybe the difference is age, MOS, or AO. I did my first combat tour as a young NCO in a Bradley turret sitting on the spalling protection I was given. Spent my last as a senior NCO wearing my trama plates sitting in a humvee talking on radios 90% of the time.

Edit Note: I do want to say I think there are missions where less is more. But those are the exception not the rule.

I don't think age, MOS, or AO would have any bearing. Everyone was 11b in my AO, and I did not have the youthful feeling of immortality. I'm just presenting a differing opinion, that's all. I don't necessarily think my way is the right way. The personal armor has been very successful in saving the lives of many troopers, my own experience with the armor hasn't been that great. It was useful for some fragmentation, but not direct small arms fire. I don't see the point in uparmoring vehicles when the bad guys are simply going to build bigger bombs, and now we're left with a vehicle that has a hard time manoeuvring and wears out very quickly due to too much stress on the suspension.

[SSG Grymm]

I agree with most of what your saying. I know alot of 19D's that agree with you, for recon any body armor other than the barest amount is too much. If they can't do 60MPH in thier vehicle its too slow. I'm just saying the amount of protection should be dictated by mission and enemy capabilities.

[Homo ferricus]

About age--most all the folks I've talked to served In combat during the 60's/70's. I guess they were skeptical when the idea of flak jackets came out, and they remain just as skeptical today.

Of those, I could see AO as they most important factor. It seems like the usual case with FOBs/outposts in the mountains of Afghanistan is combatants who are far from marksman taking potshots at the base from 800 or so meters with AKs and such. It hardly seems necessary to wear the stuff.

In all seriousness, every time I question wearing body armor, I watch this:

[Clavicula_Nox]

About age--most all the folks I've talked to served In combat during the 60's/70's. I guess they were skeptical when the idea of flak jackets came out, and they remain just as skeptical today.

Of those, I could see AO as they most important factor. It seems like the usual case with FOBs/outposts in the mountains of Afghanistan is combatants who are far from marksman taking potshots at the base from 800 or so meters with AKs and such. It hardly seems necessary to wear the stuff.

In all seriousness, every time I question wearing body armor, I watch this:

I was deployed when that happened and remember it. The soldier in question was a medic who ended up treating the sniper who shot him.

I agree with most of what your saying. I know alot of 19D's that agree with you, for recon any body armor other than the barest amount is too much. If they can't do 60MPH in thier vehicle its too slow. I'm just saying the amount of protection should be dictated by mission and enemy capabilities.

Yeah, definitely agree with the last bit. I would have, personally, been more receptive if it wasn't some blanket mandate that we MUST at ALL TIMES wear armor NO MATTER WHAT. I am pretty much of the opinion that the armor is just to satisfy the press and Mom Back Home.

[SSG Grymm]

Asking a Viet Nam veteran if they believe in body armor isn't really a good question for them. The body armor then vs now serves different purposes cause it has different capabilities. Back then it was pretty much strictly sharpnel protection and todays body armor is made and designed to stop direct fire. I would even say asking someone that only served up till the mid/late 90's isn't a decent group to survey, as then we only had those kevlar vests(which we used more for PT than anything else).

But I always go back to the mission and enemy capabilites should be what dicates how much protection is worn. If I'm going to do some sneaking and peeking I don't want to wear most of that armor, cause stealth and mobility are important. If I'm going to be going house to house, kicking in doors I know I always prefered more.

I always hated blanket uniform standards. As part a member of a few recon platoons in inf battalions it drove me crazy to get blanket orders that were meant for the line companies and they disregarded everyone elses mission.

[akd]

Story seems to be from 2007. We already have ERA and enhanced IED protection, I believe. I can't see a handheld spotlight having much relevance in CMSF and I have seen no evidence of implementation of the CLAW upgrade. The "dome tent" combined with camouflage netting would provided unbuttoned crew some protection from snipers, but I assume make spotting of the vehicle much easier.

[Inkompetent]

Well, seems like a general issue with warfare. TUSK and HUSK are Urban survival kits, not in any way with their name trying to say that they are universally good to have. They make vehicles bulkier, slower, less mechanically reliable due to overweight, and less maneuverable because of the same. I assume that the benefits outweights the drawbacks in urban warfare, unless so much politics are involved that the military has zero say in what they actually kit their vehicles with (which I assume is not the case) since they outfit so much with it, but that's not to say it's good for rural or wild nature warfare.

Hard line to draw really, what one want to achieve. Is it soldier survivability or is it to kill the enemy? Is it mobility or safety? Is a surviving crew or a surviving tank worth more? Are few but well equipped better than more but not just as well equipped?

Lots of factors to consider, and a lot doesn't go hand in hand.

For capital city peacekeeping duty I bet that the survival kits are nice to have, since it's IEDs and snipers (and apparantly low power cables) that are the big threats, and due to the low chance of getting to shoot first, but rather having to take a shot and then shoot back, then obviously survivability and safety comes high on the list.

But what about the countryside soldiers in Afghanistan? How will they every catch up with the unconventional warfighters stretched over incredibly large areas of terrain with terrible accessibility? IED safety is of course nice to have, but IED safety doesn't kill any enemies. They take a few sniper shots with their SMLEs, PKs, or a few random shots with mortars, and then they are gone. Slow-as-a-slug MRAPs or overarmoured IFVs won't catch anything.

Sacrificing mobility is definitely to sacrifice the ability to kill. You might outlive getting shot or getting hit by fragmentation without any severe injuries, but you can't possibly catch up with a disengaging enemy.

Edit: I guess that in the end public opinion gets too much say in things. No single war is won by NOT killing the enemy. But to keep the domestic war morale high and good then one has to stop soldiers from dying, even if it also mean one stops killing. Then again it's hardly news that war effectiveness and being nice doesn't work well together.

[Chops]

In relation to some comments about body armor in this thread, here is an article that I came across today.

More money down the tubes to BAE and other Defense Contractors.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/ARMOR120409.xml&headline=U.S.%20Army%20Focuses%20On%20New%20Body%20Armor&channel=defense

[John Kettler]

Chops,

The body armor part was worth reading, but I had no idea DoD had fielded accelerometer equipped helmets to monitor brain trauma, let alone 6-axis models. Am glad DoD's seriously addressing providing helmets able to withstand at least some level of rifle bullet impact. About time!

Regards,

John Kettler