PDA

View Full Version : Hopeless Humvees et al



Sarsfield
21st August 2004, 04:17
Hope Smithy has noted the rather disasterous showing of the humvee, LAV [Piranha 111] and British armoured landrovers in Iraq. The US grunts have now nicknamed it the hopeless hummer and renamed the M1A3 MBT the petrol can. Despite the humvees' problems being widely publicised in Somalia everyone is still using it as a mini apc!!!!
I know we are a banana republic but that is no reason to send out the boys in borrowed British army landrovers in Liberia. If the same speed and efficiency that was demonstrated in acquiring the Learjet for VIP TRANSPORT was applied to equipment acquisition for all three services then we really would be able to interoperate with other forces on peace enforcement missions.
Please explain why the Celtic Tiger hasn't produced the 80 armoured vehicles [small] promised during the restructuring? Please let them be Mowag Eagle 4,or krauss Maffei Dingo or Auverland 4.
Urgent recommendations : sufficient Mowag Piranha 3/4 [uparmoured with 25 ATK turret] to equip 3 battalions. These should be supplied with rear video camera as every other western army has been. This order should include Piranha 4 10 * 10 raised roof command vehicles and the 2m Euro Piranha ARV crane and winch and not the fitters vehicles that Smithy euphemistically calls ARV!!!!!
The army urgently needs new armoured recce vehicles for the cavalry. 40 Alvis Rooikat 105mm or Iveco-Oto Melara Centauro 120mm armoured with the new ceramic additional "plate" from Germany. NB same armour package is being supplied to Stryker apc [Piranha 4 ] for US infantry and Canadian army.
60 armoured Pinzgauer 6x6 all terrain vehicles to pull 105mm artillery.They can carry 6 crew and shells and charges instead of those dilapitated 20 year + Acmats.
Finally will someone for Godsake employ a qualified transport manager. How many different types of vehicle do 8000 troops need? Sell everything + spares and implement a five year procurement plan with Just-In-Time spares based around 4 vehicle types.Specialist vehicles such as dedicated heavy recovery vehicles, fuel bowsers, NBC detection vehicles would be in addition to this. It is frightening to think that we have "equipped" the army with 2 heavy recovery vehicles and they are both from different suppliers!!!! Lets hope the boys don't need one in Liberia, Eritrea and Liberia and Donnellys Hollow at the same time!!!!!
Finally, could we have the correct helmets to fit individual comms, about 6000 should do and about 1500 FN Minimi for the new 4 man fire team [like every other army in the Western world. Thankyou.

If the politicians, people and the media don't realise the importance and legal requirements for an army, then transfer everyone to the Garda and merge the"navy" and "air corps" into a coastguard. Oh sorry what's that you say? They are planning to do this anyway! Oh well, we might as well go to the pub then!!

Bam Bam
21st August 2004, 08:17
The anger is strong in this one.

greyfox
21st August 2004, 18:47
can you imagine the crusty green outcry ? that could push the defence budget to an astronomical 1% GDP are you mad ! with all those hospital trolleys in the corridors , and the crime wave sweeping the country , and anyhow the hard working TDs are long overdue a pay rise , good points though sarsfield ,

ODIN
22nd August 2004, 04:01
If the government got rid of some of the bloody tribunals maybe more money could be spent on the Defence forces and hospitals.

hptmurphy
22nd August 2004, 04:19
I wouldn't worry about the cavs requirement for new AFVs as they are being retasked in the CTR role with training ongoing at the moment and the next deployment to liberia will signal the cavs commencement in that role.

California Tanker
22nd August 2004, 11:00
Forgive me...

"Hopeless Hummer"? Never heard that one yet.

"M1A3 MBT?"

"Petrol Can"

What have you been smoking?

The M1114s are doing pretty well, there just aren't enough of them. One of ours ran over a mine with a 152mm shell under it, it flipped over the vehicle but the armoured crew compartment remained intact.

Stryker (LAV) users I've run into over here seem quite satisfied with the vehicle.

There's no such thing as an M1A3

Americans don't even use the word 'Petrol'. So I would be reluctant to say that they call anything a petrol can, even if it's a fictional tank.

NTM

warlord
22nd August 2004, 18:24
Originally posted by hptmurphy
I wouldn't worry about the cavs requirement for new AFVs as they are being retasked in the CTR role with training ongoing at the moment and the next deployment to liberia will signal the cavs commencement in that role.


Just because the cav is tasked with CTR doesn't mean that they're requirement for new AFV's isn't urgent. CTR is only one of many tasks that the cav is required to undertake.

ex pat 007
22nd August 2004, 19:16
I assume that CTR is close target Recce. Is direct fire support not one of the roles of the cav?

Goldie fish
22nd August 2004, 19:29
I heard,from someone who was speaking with a Col he served with overseas that a large number of Humvee type vehicles are back on the shopping list. This may be an exacceration,but is 100 a lot to expect?

hptmurphy
22nd August 2004, 20:07
The vehicles will arrive when the new minister is good and ready to part with the cash.The CTR role requires substantial funding with a requiremnt for the aquisition of more NVG . letsget equipped for the new role before we go overhauling the fleet of vehicles we already have. the upgrades in the AFVS will be seen as a reduction in urgency for replacement.

why is such a small corps tasked with so much!

Sarsfield
22nd August 2004, 20:08
Sorry about the typo, I was referring to the MIA2 which has thrown up many problems since the real conflict started , after George told everyone the war was over. An American crewman said the Abrams has now the same nickname that the Sherman had in WW2 which was coined by British crews. Officially there has been an urgent upgrade ordered due to a previously unaware of chink in the Abrams which has seen it vulnerable to RPG Heat rounds which left it with the propensity to become engulfed in flames. This is not helped as it is the only modern tank to run on 'gasoline'.

Regards the Hopeless Hummer, crews have been desperately sourcing local steel plate to weld on the doors while orders for 4 urgent armour upgrade kits have been ordered to be fitted in situ. AM General has now built over 245,000 various models of the HMMWV [Humvee] but its O'GARA HESS that build the armoured versions M1114 / M1116 and so far only 2200 have been manufactured!!!

Denmark has not been pleased with there 'armoured humvee' in Yugoslavia/ Bosnia. This is of course the Mowag Eagle 2/ 3, which could explain by Mowag / General Dynamics based the vastly superior Mowag 4 on the Duro chassis.

Our US friends should note , despite a recent 'analysis' done in the US, that the Abrams is not the best tank in the world. They should also note a UK Challenger 2 took 8 direct hits from RPG HEAT rounds, turned around and promptly obliterated the ambush!!!!

The US Army does not operate LAVs, they pulled out of the competition in the late 80s. The US Marines have had to upgrade their LAVs [ Piranha 3 ] with the same 'mesh' that the UK had to introduce in South Armagh and the Russians introduced in Chechnya to protect against RPGs. The US Army have only recently introduced the Stryker [ Piranha 4] into service and none have left CONUS yet. Secondly please note that the Army has acquired Marine mesh and is hastily welding it over the rear engine which has proved so vulnerable.

Don't mess with the best , 'cos the best don't mess ......Sarsfield.

combatlogo
22nd August 2004, 20:34
There's no such thing as an M1A3

I thought there's one in the works???


This is not helped as it is the only modern tank to run on 'gasoline'.

No it's not, it's run on JP 5 or JP8, like any other US military vehicle....basically, high speed diesel, not close to "petrol"....or MOGAS as it's called in the US military.

Regarding the HMMWV - there are multiple variants, only some of which are armored....this shouldn't be news to anyone.


The US Marines have had to upgrade their LAVs [ Piranha 3 ] with the same 'mesh' that the UK had to introduce in South Armagh and the Russians introduced in Chechnya to protect against RPGs.

You make this sound like a design flaw - the LAV protects up to 7.62, hardly news.


Our US friends should note , despite a recent 'analysis' done in the US, that the Abrams is not the best tank in the world. They should also note a UK Challenger 2 took 8 direct hits from RPG HEAT rounds, turned around and promptly obliterated the ambush!!!!

Yes it is - get over it.

Sarsfield
22nd August 2004, 21:25
Referring to above General Dynamics, Land Systems MIAI / MIA2 new production ceased 1996. All US Army being remanufactured to M1A2 Standard. Built in Lima Army Tank Plant, Lima, Ohio and assembled under licence in Egypt. Now I wonder how those nasty Iraqi armed groups got to hear about how much fun you could have with the Abrams.

Best tank in the world = the Krauss Maffei Leopard 2A6 [with MTU MB873 Ka501 4- stroke, 12 cylinder multi-fuel, exhaust turbocharged LIQUID-COOLED DIESEL, developing 1,500hp at 2,600rpm. Janes Armour. In use with Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Poland and ordered by Greece and Finland.

Abrams, Textron Lycoming AGT GAS TURBINE producing 1,500 hp at 30,000rpm. Remind me again what it is that Textron Lycoming is famous for? Oh thats correct HELICOPTER ENGINES!!!

Abrams users = US, kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Australia just ordered 59 reconditioned Abrams at knock-off prices.

PS, Americans have such broad minds open to widespread debate and discussion, obviously engendered by such a superb education system, it is easy to see how they never offend and have so many friends!!!!!!

John
22nd August 2004, 21:28
Originally posted by Sarsfield
The US Army have only recently introduced the Stryker [ Piranha 4] into service and none have left CONUS yet. Secondly please note that the Army has acquired Marine mesh and is hastily welding it over the rear engine which has proved so vulnerable.

Don't mess with the best , 'cos the best don't mess ......Sarsfield.

Strykers have been in Iraq since Dec 2003 approximately.

The Stryker is not the Pirhana IV, it is based on the Pirhana III.

The slat armour is not confined to the area around the engine compartment but is all around the vehicle.

John
22nd August 2004, 21:30
Originally posted by combatlogo
Yes it is - get over it.

California Tanker might not agree with you.

Sarsfield
22nd August 2004, 21:47
OK. my initial comments were esentially geared at the complete lack of planning, procuring and rearming of our Irish ARMY despite the best efforts of our top brass.

However lets let above into an open secret! General Dynamics, Land Systems own Mowag, Switzerland and General Motors Defence, Canada.
The STRYKER and Piranha lV are both essentially the same vehicle and, guess what, are both based on the Piranha lll !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course the new ceramic armour is applied all over and no, it is not in service in Iraq --------------CHECK THE US ARMY WEBSITE.
Those are Marine Corps LAV's and they have been equipped with 'mesh' to protect the vehicles from HEAT rounds.

Anyway can we now return to actually implementing a 5 year acquisition plan of 100 m Euro pa to properly equip the Irish Armed Forces for the first time since the creation of the state!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

Aidan
22nd August 2004, 22:03
Anyway can we now return to actually implementing a 5 year acquisition plan of 100 m Euro pa to properly equip the Irish Armed Forces for the first time since the creation of the state!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

Ahh, I get it now.

Let me guess, you're the new Minister for Defence, right?

John
22nd August 2004, 22:09
Originally posted by Sarsfield
However lets let above into an open secret! General Dynamics, Land Systems own Mowag, Switzerland and General Motors Defence, Canada.

That isn't much of a secret. Mowag was a family business and was sold when there was nobody from the family interested in taking over.


Originally posted by Sarsfield
The STRYKER and Piranha lV are both essentially the same vehicle and, guess what, are both based on the Piranha lll !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Stryker and the Pirhana III are essentially the same vehicle, not the Pirhana IV (which is about four to five tonnes heavier).



Originally posted by Sarsfield
Anyway can we now return to actually implementing a 5 year acquisition plan of 100 m Euro pa to properly equip the Irish Armed Forces for the first time since the creation of the state

If you do your sums and based on expenditure per soldier/airman/sailor you'll find that the government is under-funding the DF to the tune of about €275 million per annum in comparison with the modern armed forces of other countries.

ex pat 007
22nd August 2004, 22:17
Originally posted by Sarsfield

PS, Americans have such broad minds open to widespread debate and discussion, obviously engendered by such a superb education system, it is easy to see how they never offend and have so many friends!!!!!!

sorry, at a moment of weakness I opened my broad mind to widespread debate and discussion.There I go again making friends

warlord
22nd August 2004, 22:28
Sarsfield if your gonna make remarks make sure there about something you have a knowledge of and are correct.

California Tanker
22nd August 2004, 22:38
There is indeed talk of putting a little more armour on the right side of the turret, just about where the gunner sits. Not a major issue, really. Look at all the add-on armour the Brits put on their Challengers. Common enough over the life of a tank to add things.

I would submit that if the Irish Army were in Iraq right now, they also would be scrounging for steel plate to put on their Nissan FFRs. A HMMWV designed for patrolling is an M1114. The M998s which are predominantly in use (such as by my company) are designed as rear-area vehicles and are out of their depth. It is not a reflection of the vehicle, just the use it has been put to. A demand for the M1114 has been identified which was not required before, and the M1114 is doing an excellent job at it where they are available. As time progresses, more M1114s become available, and HMMWV patrols become more viable.

A Chally taking 8 RPGs doesn't prove very much. An M1 taking 8 RPGs to the front half, including the front three side skirts would just blink as well.

Marine LAVs if I recall correctly are Pirhana IIs. For the sake of being incredibly pedantic, the US Army has operated LAVs, the 82nd Airborne had a company of the things.

The Nasty Iraqi groups in our area have heard about how much fun you can have with an Abrams. Indeed, so much fun that after the first time they shot at us (the first night we were out, incidently), they've left us alone ever since. I think it's safe to say they choose not to directly engage our tanks.

It occurs to me that if Lycoming are famous for helicopter engines, then it would be reasonable to assume that any turbine they make is quite likely to work. After all, 2,000 ton trains and 8,000 ton cruisers are propelled by JP turbines, so I don't see a 70 ton tank being an issue. Strv.103 tanks served for some thirty years in Sweden with Chinook engines. There's not much wrong with the concept of the turbine, the Russians have done it as well. The only issue is that it requires a huge logistical tail, which really only the US Army can afford.

The list of users isn't much of an indicator as to a tank's quality of itself. After all, Challenger 2 has only exported 16 tanks. (Oman) but is a great tank. Just refers to politics and unit cost. That said, I will gladly admit that the latest Leopards are also great tanks with their own assets.

Is Abrams the best tank in the world? Probably not, but the M1A2SEP is bloody good. Then again, so are Leo2, Challenger 2, Merkava IV...

What I will say is that I feel extremely safe in my tank, and confident that I can take on anything that anyone throws at me short of a 500lb road bomb, which nothing can really stop.

NTM

Sarsfield
22nd August 2004, 22:51
Well I don't know. I would have thought that a Masters Degree in Strategic Studies and International Relations counted for something.

Check your facts, the Stryker and the Piranha lV are to all purposes the same vehicle and both were developed from the Piranha lll.

I write for a number of international defence journals and have yet to be accused of getting my facts wrong. The Abrams has been found to have a number of serious design flaws while the Challenger ll has done considerably better after its faults were ironed out since the Oman training operation.

The feeling at the moment in US military circles is that they don't have the correct mix for the present urban conflict, regarding the heavies as being too heavy while the lights have been found to be next to useless.There is now such concern that a review has been called into the armour capabilities of the armys new Stryker Combat Brigades.

Oh to be back in Montana with nothing but Big Sky above me.

Goldie fish
22nd August 2004, 23:07
Your facts are wrong. Check out Naval.

warlord
22nd August 2004, 23:09
Stryker is a derivative of the LAV III which is the GDLS version of the Piranha III.

So you write for several defence journals and have never been accused of being wrong but you've stated that the U.S Army has no LAV's in Iraq, if you'd bother to research properly you'd discover that the U.S Army has a whole Stryker Brigade in Iraq.

Apparently having a Masters Degree doesn't make you right, just makes you think you are.

Next time make sure your right before opening your mouth.

mutter nutter (again)
22nd August 2004, 23:34
Originally posted by Sarsfield
Well I don't know. I would have thought that a Masters Degree in Strategic Studies and International Relations counted for something.

Check your facts, the Stryker and the Piranha lV are to all purposes the same vehicle and both were developed from the Piranha lll.

I write for a number of international defence journals and have yet to be accused of getting my facts wrong. The Abrams has been found to have a number of serious design flaws while the Challenger ll has done considerably better after its faults were ironed out since the Oman training operation.

The feeling at the moment in US military circles is that they don't have the correct mix for the present urban conflict, regarding the heavies as being too heavy while the lights have been found to be next to useless.There is now such concern that a review has been called into the armour capabilities of the armys new Stryker Combat Brigades.

Oh to be back in Montana with nothing but Big Sky above me.

It count's for nothing when the guy your using it against, is driving a bloody Abrams in Iraq right now:rolleyes:

warlord
22nd August 2004, 23:57
Here's a chance to redeem yourself sarsfield and show that you do have some idea about military matters.

Name the vehicle and list the 2 drawbacks of it compared to the Irish Armies Mowags

yellowjacket
23rd August 2004, 00:18
Originally posted by Sarsfield
Well I don't know. I would have thought that a Masters Degree in Strategic Studies and International Relations counted for something.


Was AFV design on the syllabus?

Aidan
23rd August 2004, 00:55
Well I don't know. I would have thought that a Masters Degree in Strategic Studies and International Relations counted for something

My brother has one of those too. He spends a lot of time driving a van in his current job.

Waving your qualifications are not going to do you a lot of good when you can't get your basic facts straight. Some advice, take a deep breath and calm down. Then read through the past threads on the board. A lot of the subjects you've touched upon have been discussed exhaustively on the board already over the past few years. Then maybe you'll be 'qualified' to engage in discussions here.

Sarsfield
23rd August 2004, 16:40
Aidan, I did not wave my qualifications about but merely stated them in my defence against vitriolic personal attacks. I am sorry to hear about your brother but there are limited opportunities for such a specialised course available in Ireland. In fairness though most graduates from LSE or Aberyswyth go to work for NATO, the British Civil Service, the UN or specialised journals. That said it is sad that the Irish government fails to recognise the value of many relevent qualifications which would be of real use both to the armed forces and the dept of defence.

My original post was merely to express frustration at the continuing dithering and excuses offered for the lack of an effective re-equipment programme for the Irish armed forces. I have followed this site and discussion board and only regret that many of its champions and their causes do not get greater coverage. It is great to know that there are people out there who share a love for and pride in all our three services but it is really frustrating that we as a diverse group cannot influence the politicians to realise the importance and value to Irish society of our forces.

I wish you all continuing success in building the fight to give our people the kit and equipment they deserve.

Come-quickly
23rd August 2004, 18:41
You must actually be taking the piss at this point?
May I ask in what nation did you receive your masters degree?

California Tanker
23rd August 2004, 20:50
That middle paragraph makes some sense. Just I'd be very careful about flinging facts around.

What I find interesting, however, is that you point out that the British also had to modify their Challys with the benefit of experience. Seems to imply that the one is as bad as the other then.

I mentioned the Oman incident to the British ambassador to OSCE during my two weeks R&R last month actually. Pointed out to them that the British Army had a stroke of genius with that exercise, and that the highly politicised and zero-tolerance US Army would do well to follow the example.

NTM

Goldie fish
24th August 2004, 06:13
Originally posted by California Tanker


I mentioned the Oman incident to the British ambassador to OSCE during my two weeks R&R last month actually.

NTM

Now thats what I call name dropping! Next time you see him,be sure to tell him you know sarsfield :)

mutter nutter (again)
24th August 2004, 06:22
Originally posted by Goldie fish
Now thats what I call name dropping! Next time you see him,be sure to tell him you know sarsfield :)

You might get a knighthood.........Sir california tanker, nice ring to it:)

andy
24th August 2004, 14:48
effective re-equipment programme for the Irish armed forces.

There is no such thing.


give our people the kit

Are you straight out of the Royal Irish Regiment or what:rolleyes:

ias
24th August 2004, 16:03
Getting back to the original point (not whether Sarsfield is genuine or not?), I think there must be some question marks over a Humvee type vehicle for use in forward areas and/or IS, as I have said before I think th DF, should consider the Bushmaster/MP44 for this role. With the significant threat from mines etc. a heavier vehicle is required rather than a LTV.

IAS

andy
24th August 2004, 16:36
yes, there is a lot to be said for the bushmaster, the juries still out on the Humvee as far as im concerned. The DF better get humvees with extra armour if they decide to purchase them.

warlord
24th August 2004, 18:30
Cant see the Humvee being bought, the Wing tried them out a few years ago and politely said no thanks.

Johnny2Stripes
24th August 2004, 18:47
What have the Oz troops got to say about the Bushmaster?

California Tanker
24th August 2004, 19:35
As an aside, the most high-demanded vehicle in our company is the one M1114 we have.

Even more so than any tank or PC.

NTM

DeV
26th August 2004, 02:36
Are all HMMVVs armoured?

Come-quickly
26th August 2004, 02:54
Originally posted by DeV
Are all HMMVVs armoured?

No, this is one of those false assumptions propogated by sloppy journalists who think that an APC is a tank and any helicopter with a weapon is an attack helicopter.
The HMMWV is basically just a large jeep or small truck designed to fulfill the same roles as the Landrover 110 in british service in its basic form its completely softskin but one of the upsides to having such a big powerful machine dedicated to carrying so few men is that it has heaps of spare power to lug around additional armour and weapons systems.

irishrgr
26th August 2004, 09:05
Agree with the above, the HMMV is the US Armys Landrover. It's available in various configurations, pick-up truck, ambulance, radio module and can be mounted with various weapons. The most desired version in the Middle East right now is the M1114, which is the armoured version, they are worth their weight in gold. There is another version (commonly called the "turtle shell" or "hard-top") mostly used by MP's but it is not armoured, it just has a fibre glass top with a ring mount for a GPMG or the likes.

It's a decent vehicle, reasonably reliable and seems to meet the needs. I've used the different versions and other than the radio module version being a little slow (due to weight) they seem like a decent truck. Only real issue that came up in Afghanistan was the HMMV is wider than most of the roads there, especially in the mountains. To overcome this we used various Toyota trucks and Landcruisers. They were civvy models, did Ok but were less than adequete. We finally got our hands on some 110 Landrovers and the were the dogs bo@#$%ks over there.