The stuff will help but the bigest threat is still the mines and RPGs which it won't stop. But at least the powers are starting to grasp the seriousness of the problem over there.

When I was deployed to Bosina and we where getting replaced by 1st Infantry division I remember seeing Armor kits on the 5 Tons and Humvees. They looked like pieces of sheet metal though.

aren't those problems that can't be solved for the smaller vehicles ?
BTW I have seen a video of a Humvee on a testrange driving over a mine. The damage was considerable but the dummy was still in tact.

Marc

AWESOME Article, I was pleasantly suprised..About time !!!!

Yeah, I remember this guy from about 5 years ago...he makes a somewhat decent point, but...well, you see what kind of "zeal" he has.

He does raise a few valid points even beyond the politics...why no sandbaggin of vehicles and why no better tire systems for the wheeled vehicles. Are we "running on the cheap?" I have seen the unit commanders interviews and I have several friends over there...there is no lack of concern over survival, but there are no sandbagging of vehicles either...anyone else have a explanation?

Oh My....Goodness....REALLY ?? Even with ERA ?? Well is thier an answer to the delimna then. Because IF ERA is not doing the trick....What then ??

It doesn't matter how much armor you put on a vehicle, someone will always make a bigger, more powerful bomb, RPG, or AT weapon. Yes, sandbagging vehicles and armoring up trucks as guntrucks is a good idea. However, unfortunate as it is, there will always be casualties in war. There is no answer to stopping them. You can only try to minimize them and complete the mission.

The only sure fire solution is not to have wars. But since we have the human factor involved we do the best we can to survive.

well, more what I was getting at was that it seems kinda stupid to 1. assume that invading a country will not lead to your softskin vehicles being shot at let alone blown up and 2. wouldn't you want to ENCOURAGE units to use sandbags as much as possible for not only the smaller weapons but also the "near miss"?

Or is this a matter of pride, that if we show concern, we loose face?

As a specific point, when I was in the Nat G. and we were using the M981 FistV, all the unit guys hated it. We made a decent and much more usable vehicle employing a HMMV (cargo/troop carrying version...sorry, forgot my Mseries number) with the laser rangefinder on its tripod in the rear. Yes, it still had four (shoot me first) antenna's on it, all we lost was the ability to be oversize, slow in speed, and to shoot 12 digit grid coordinates. The "Local Command" did not agree with our training basically because we were supposed to train on what we had to use, not on what would be the best for us in a "supposed" combat situation.

Of course, these are the same yahoo's that sent into a training area that had been a depository for radioactive debris and unexploded ordinance (a old firing range inthe 40's). #:-)

Well far as I can see it the IED problem isnt going to be Solved by adding armor to softskins. The Mighty M1A2 fell victim to one and thats prob the best piece of armored equipment in the US.

Most units train as they fight and I never seen a Sandbagged Softskin in my 4 yrs active duty and 4 yrs in the National Guard. Mines where a big concern in Bosina before I deployed there and nothing was done about up armoring or sand bagging our vechicles.

Wow, this thread really took off didnt it? As somebody who is currently in Iraq and has seen a lot of these field modified trucks, all I can say is that not even "Armor" will survive every encounter with these things that go Ka-boom. A lot of what motivates the use of wheels over tracks is maintainence, mobility, and cost to operate. As far as the article on the use of wheels being a failure, the pictures showing unsandbagged, un-armored vehciles are in my best guess early war pictures. Since the "locals" started using IED's we have gone all out to better outfit our trucks to keep the crew as safe as possible. If I was in a truck the was shot up, was able to get out, make it to another vehicle and flee, only to watch my truck burn to the ground.......burn on baby. The truck and equipment can be replaced, I'm not so easy to replace. The author of the article seems to think we should use armor for everything, show me an armored equipment transport and I'll consider it.
Our job in inherently dangerous. We take the steps that we can to ensure that we all come home in one piece. Some of the mods I have seen to the trucks here are rather inventive. Others are as simple as building plywood boxes the same width as the fender wells on a hummer and filling the space with sandbags. Not all of us here have the resources to do what we want to our trucks, so we make do with what we can. Nobody has failed us, or the American public. War is a dangerous environment and we are smack dab in the middle of it. I have a camera with lots of pics on it of the various mods I have seen. Once I am back I will do my best to get them out to all of you here. They will make for some interesting model conversions. I hope I didnt ramble/rant. Thanks for your support.
"Q"

Please stay safe! (...and upload those pics...)

Talking about OIF guntrucks, what about this one ? It can be considered as an "early" version...


IIRC I've found it on webshots.com

Frenchy

I can't wait for these pictures to come in. This should be a great modern buildiing expieriance!!

Thanks for posting the photo Frenchy - I think it would eventually be considered an "early" OIF guntruck as the concept seems to be returning the modern force. It's also interesting that it's a Deuce - the M35A3 - which hasn't been done in kit form. Ever since I got to see an USAF 'A3 I've been wanting to model one, now with some light armor plate and a gun mount the idea is more attractive...

Gunnie

Simple.....and effective

Talking about the M35A3 ( as a scratchbuilding project would interest me either), I was wondering what aftermarket set of wheels (if any) I should use... I'm not sure that M923A2/M925A2 wheels (with CTIS) would do the job , considering the size and the number of bolts of the wheel rim.
Any suggestion ?
TIA
Frenchy

I was considering using a set of resin LAV tires to start out with. Grind out the Hub and insert new detail(s). I have not gone to the point of measuring the part(s) to test the idea. Naturally, this is a backburner project, too many ahead of it right now to complete...

Gunnie

That's the same situation for me. Thanks for the tip !

Frenchy

Hey Red 4, great to hear that the higher ups are not stopping you from excersizing common sense. I hope all of you make it home with all the parts you went over with.

and while it is combat over there, I do not think it is actual "war" is it...did I just open a bad can of worms...? Just trying to clarify a point of minutia...

And I believe the main point of people being pissed is: Is the Stryker a better platform than the LAV-25, or did the military just buy another overexpensive new toy? I would LIKE for it to be a much better system, but from what I have seen, STRYKER seems to be a pork-barrel project.

Lav's and Guntrucks may have been a cheaper and overall more effective answer. Comments?

Now I'm confused.... I thought that stryker was a nickname for the LAV-25.... #:-)
(sorry if I'm switching the subject from guntrucks to lav's.... )

Nah, the Stryker is like an LAV-25 on steroids...

I think that both the modern cargo trucks and perhaps the LAV in a hardened convoy program might be interesting (selfish modeler that I am) and perhaps more practical than Stryker. If in command, I certainly wouldn't relish the fact of putting a new vehicle into a situation like that. The Sheridan got off on the wrong foot by being pressed into a situation it wasn't designed to be effective in too.

But, a "hardened" LAV-25 would be a most interesting "what-if" for the armor modeler - can you say "T2K"???

Gunnie

O.K. guys, just limping along here...(my computer is 'freaking' out, my moniter about to go(it's constantly flasj=hing) and I think I have a 'hot bar' virus of something going on.....
Anyway....real quick. Isn't the new 'Stryker' a version of the 3rd generation LAV manufactured by MOWAG? or some such?

Tread.

I am building the harden LAV for T2K now. It is almost finish.

Ok.. here's my take on things. The Stryker looks like it will be a good vehicle. Its fast, has decent firepower and can haul troops. Where everything, and I mean everything is lacking here is in the way of combating things that go ka-boom that you cant see. In order to man a lot of the weapon systems you need "joe" somewhat exposed and in a hatch/opening. While there are some systems that negate that through the use of r/c systems, I havent seen any as yet. I think once the guys who are actually using the Stryker figure out all of its little "oddities/glitches" and adapt it to the situation at hand, it could very well pan out into a great platform.
The Stryker does in fact "resemble" a LAV somewhat, albeit quite a bit bigger. I havent looked at them side by side so I cant give my input on building one as yet. The LAV might be a starting point that will require a lot of surgery to get it done, but it might be doable.
As to the Combat vs War, no we arent in an all out war, but we are in combat on a daily basis or if some of you prefer the term....skirmishes, bullets are flying and things are going boom, I can think back to another time and country where they ran into very simular problems that we are experiencing here,...ala Vietnam. Not exactly the same, but very close. I am making more rounds today and trying to gather some more pictures of the trucks that are running around our compound. There are some doozies here. Hope this finds all of you building to your hearts content. Talk to you all soon. "Q"