# US Army Strykers at Kandahar criticized



## MarkOttawa (5 Nov 2009)

Any relevance to our LAV IIIs (fairly long story)?

Armored troop carriers called unsafe for duty
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/05/armored-troop-carriers-unsafe-for-afghan-duty/



> KANDAHAR, Afghanistan | Staff Sgt. Daniel Paul Rabidou nervously rubbed the sweat from his palms onto his Army fatigues.
> 
> The tall, well-built 24-year-old from San Bernardino, Calif., had already survived two improvised explosive devices (IEDs) on convoys in the past six weeks, including one on the same road he was getting ready to traverse again from Forward Operating Base Ramrod near Kandahar to a small outpost in the heart of Taliban territory.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson (5 Nov 2009)

Note that the main critic is a well-known tanker (retired) who is concerned that an increase in the number of Stryker units may decrease the number of tank units.

I suspect this article has more to do with internal conflict within the US Army.


----------



## AC 011 (5 Nov 2009)

Making an issue of the IED vulnerability of the Stryker is just a continuation of the tracks-vs-wheels "debate" that's been going on since Gen. Shinseki put forward his plan to buy them.  No vehicle is invulnerable to IEDs.  The heavy track proponents seem to forget all the Bradley and Abrams losses to IEDs.  From the US Army pers I've spoken to from Strker units out of Iraq, almost all said they wouldn't want to ride in anything else.  The recent announcement that two heavy brigades (read "tracked") are set to be converted to Stryker brigades seems to have provided an opportunity to reignite the argument.


----------



## kilekaldar (5 Nov 2009)

The Stryker's are meant to replace the uparmored Humvees, not Bradleys or MBTs which the Americans mysteriously refuse to deploy to the relatively flat terrain of Southern Kandahar. 
And frankly the American I saw on my tour liked to race down high risk roads going mock-chicken, ignoring basic counter-ied drills that saved us lives.


----------



## Dean22 (5 Nov 2009)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3037



> The recent experiences of the Canadian Forces and other nations in Afghanistan and other operational theatres continue to demonstrate the ongoing requirement for a highly protected, yet highly mobile Light-Armoured Vehicle.  The use of mines, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and anti-armour weapons has become more prevalent, posing a greater risk to personnel.
> 
> The LAV III Upgrade project will capitalize on existing and evolving technology to improve the protection, mobility and lethality of the LAV III fleet.  The project will modernize a portion of the existing LAV III fleet to ensure it remains a highly protected, operationally mobile and tactically agile combat vehicle that will remain the backbone of domestic and expeditionary task forces, extending the life span of the LAV III to 2035.
> 
> ...


----------



## ArmyRick (5 Nov 2009)

That article is not well written. Hitting a pressure plated IED strong enough to do in a Stryker IMV is going to knock out a bradley. 

Is that general on crack? Tanks are tanks and they are not troops tnansport vehicles. Yeah we have tanks but we also have LAVIII, hull and suspension is very similar to Stryker IMV.

Some of these IEDs have thrown LAVIIIs into the air, what the hell does this guy think IED that strong are going to do a Bradley? There will still be deaths and wounded, but in a slower vehicle.


----------



## ArmyRick (5 Nov 2009)

One other thing. I hope Sparky doesn't see this article. That will further fuel his irrational beleif that M113 (I won't call them Gavins) are the answer to any secnario.


----------



## AC 011 (5 Nov 2009)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> That article is not well written. Hitting a pressure plated IED strong enough to do in a Stryker IMV is going to knock out a bradley.
> 
> Is that general on crack? Tanks are tanks and they are not troops tnansport vehicles. Yeah we have tanks but we also have LAVIII, hull and suspension is very similar to Stryker IMV.
> 
> Some of these IEDs have thrown LAVIIIs into the air, what the hell does this guy think IED that strong are going to do a Bradley? There will still be deaths and wounded, but in a slower vehicle.



IMO, given the size of some of the IEDs encountered, the biggest thing a Bradley or Abrams has going for them is the smaller crew size (different role & different vehicle = different crew size?  go figure).  A catastrophic hit on a tank, with a crew of 4, generally won't garner the same attention in the media that a similar hit against, say, a Stryker ICV with a crew of 11.  Those with an agenda will exploit that.


----------



## Jammer (5 Nov 2009)

There are some in the US Army who have fought tooth and nail against the Stryker since the beginning for political reasons.
Maybe an LO from Foxhound U could school the Stryker types on what not to do...


----------



## Dean22 (5 Nov 2009)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> That article is not well written. Hitting a pressure plated IED strong enough to do in a Stryker IMV is going to knock out a bradley.
> 
> Is that general on crack? Tanks are tanks and they are not troops tnansport vehicles. Yeah we have tanks but we also have LAVIII, hull and suspension is very similar to Stryker IMV.
> 
> Some of these IEDs have thrown LAVIIIs into the air, what the hell does this guy think IED that strong are going to do a Bradley? There will still be deaths and wounded, but in a slower vehicle.



Indeed, I have seen a video before on the liveleak where an Abrams was flipped completely over. 

There's such thing as mine resistant but I doubt there is such thing as naval shell resistant (referring to the big-mass 155mm IED's).


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Nov 2009)

.... compared to IRQ from the folks at Small Wars Journal, via foreignpolicy.com:


> Why are Strykers seemingly more vulnerable to improvised explosive attack in Afghanistan than they were in Iraq? Iraq has a much more developed road network than Afghanistan. A denser road network provided U.S. mission planners with more routes to choose from, complicating the enemy's roadside bombing effort. In Afghanistan by contrast, U.S. forces may be lucky to have one usable road to get from an assembly area to an objective. The standard counter-IED strategy is to constantly observe such roads for insurgent bomb-planting activity. Fewer roads would mean less for the Americans to observe, in theory making it easier to find the insurgent bomb-planters. But the level of surveillance assets in the 5th Brigade's area might not be at the same density that U.S. units have enjoyed lately in Iraq. In fact, Col. Harry D. Tunnell IV, the brigade commander, has called for more surveillance help.
> 
> The best solution to the problem of IEDs is to infiltrate, attack, and destroy the insurgent organizations that plant them. While that effort progresses, coalition forces can reduce the IED threat by 1) staying off the roads and 2) dispersing by putting fewer troops in a greater number of vehicles. Obvious solutions, but often impractical to implement ....


----------



## 155mmMoose (6 Nov 2009)

Referring to MarkOttawa's original post, Its good that we are making a good impression to the Americans, and setting an example for all the troops in A-stan.


----------



## Loachman (7 Nov 2009)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> There's such thing as mine resistant but I doubt there is such thing as naval shell resistant (referring to the big-mass 155mm IED's).



From where would terrorists get naval shells?

What fires 155mm ammunition?

What is the most commonly-used explosive in IEDs found in Afghanistan?


----------



## AC 011 (7 Nov 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> What fires 155mm ammunition?


 ;D


----------



## Dean22 (7 Nov 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> From where would terrorists get naval shells?
> 
> What fires 155mm ammunition?
> 
> What is the most commonly-used explosive in IEDs found in Afghanistan?



I haven't been to Afghanistan but I would imagine terrorists get their supplies by arms trading and then shipping through the Pakistani border. That, or they are still sitting on the massive pile of weapons and ammo the Soviets left behind after the Afghan-Soviet war. We all know that the IED's in Iraq however, came from the munitions warehouses and the Iranian border.

(It's practically cheaper for world powers to build new weapons/ammo/vehicles than to ship them back home)

155mm is fired by artillery, tanks (more so self-propelled gun) and ships.

Ship: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_61-52_MONARC_Hamburg_pic.jpg

Tank: http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/images/auf1_cat8g.jpg


I'd have no idea I only have second hand knowledge of 105's and 155's, there have also been reports of them using HME's and very rarely gas, poison and radioactive IED's (I would imagine these are built with the left over Depleted Uranium shells in Iraq due to the radiation on those bullets lasting 60 billion years but I would be willing to bet $20 that they aren't using thermite, C4, etc. I have also heard of the Taliban using anti-mobility mines on Abrams (what's used essentially when a tank can't be killed with mines and in modern warfare not many people have 8 hours of a day to bury four gigantic shells in the road). The mobility mines knock out the treads which, make the tank a sitting duck for 3-12 hours until things could be handled. 


I can imagine why the americans are upset about the stryker however, these guys were lucky ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/Size0-army_mil-44434-2009-07-10-090719.jpg ) but that bomb was very deep and under a large amount of concrete and still managed to flip the stryker.


----------



## Jammer (7 Nov 2009)

If you put enough bang in the road/culvert, whatever, you will destroy/mobility kill anything. Proven!


----------



## Journeyman (7 Nov 2009)

> I haven't been to Afghanistan but I would imagine...
> 
> I'd have no idea I only have second hand knowledge...
> 
> ...


  
There are _lots_ of threads where people can contribute useful information based on actual knowledge and experience. The other threads are often wonderful places to read and learn; there's no requirement to post. Opinion is fine, but _informed_ opinion is much more valued.

But no, despite repeated suggestions they "stay in their lane," some folks persist in believing they're being unfairly picked on. 

:brickwall:


----------



## Jammer (7 Nov 2009)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> I haven't been to Afghanistan but I would imagine terrorists get their supplies by arms trading and then shipping through the Pakistani border. That, or they are still sitting on the massive pile of weapons and ammo the Soviets left behind after the Afghan-Soviet war. We all know that the IED's in Iraq however, came from the munitions warehouses and the Iranian border.
> 
> (It's practically cheaper for world powers to build new weapons/ammo/vehicles than to ship them back home)
> 
> ...


----------



## Jammer (7 Nov 2009)

Taliban using anti-mobility mines on Abrams?
Wrong war, but thanks for coming out though.

"We all know that the IED's in Iraq however, came from the munitions warehouses and the Iranian border."

Really? ...and you are an expert how?


----------



## Scott (7 Nov 2009)

What Journeyman said.

And now what I say: Welcome to the Warning System for continually posting outside of your lanes.


----------



## AC 011 (7 Nov 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> If you put enough bang in the road/culvert, whatever, you will destroy/mobility kill anything. Proven!



It's easy to make a bigger bang.  Not so easy to design/build/upgrade an armoured vehicle to successfully deal with ever larger IED's and still have it capable of fulfilling its intended role.  Protection - Firepower - Battlefield Mobility.  You can't change one without impacting the other.  The Strykers (and every other AFV for that matter) are designed to counter a under-belly/under-wheel/under-track blast of a given size - usually standard AT mines since IED's have only become a real concern in the last few years.  Most AFV's have had upgrade kits applied to increase their protection level against a "standard IED" (there is such a thing), but larger IED's will start to find the weak points.  But then, an IED large enough to throw a  25t LAV/Stryker, or even a 70t MBT, into the air takes things to a whole other level.

It's unfair to level criticism at the vehicle until the actual size of the IED is known, unless one is looking to score points with some target audience.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Nov 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> If you put enough bang in the road/culvert, whatever, you will destroy/mobility kill anything. Proven!



So true. Even the Israeli Merkava's have been shown to vulnerable to IED's and its considered one of the best protected tanks in the world.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Nov 2009)

BTW Dean that was only an experiment to mount a PzH 2000 howitzer turret on the deck of the FGS Hamburg. It hasn't happened since '03 so read between the lines.


----------



## Loachman (7 Nov 2009)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> I haven't been to Afghanistan



Or anywhere else where you might have actually learned/experienced anything useful here.



			
				Dean22 said:
			
		

> I would imagine terrorists get their supplies by arms trading and then shipping through the Pakistani border. That, or they are still sitting on the massive pile of weapons and ammo the Soviets left behind after the Afghan-Soviet war. We all know that the IED's in Iraq however, came from the munitions warehouses and the Iranian border.



You have imagined at least semi-correctly.

Regarding your "naval shells":

How many tons (short, long, metric - your choice) of naval shells would the Russians have imported into a land-locked country?

Bonus marks:

Why?

What calibres do Russian artillery and naval guns use?

Congratulations are in order, though - you managed to find what is probably the only example of a ship onto which somebody has ever stuck a self-propelled gun turret. I didn't know about that, so I've just learned something. Thanks.

Anyway, the Taliban like to import things that they can actually use, and they lack artillery and ships.

Another source of arty ammunition to use in IEDs, besides old Russian stuff left behind, are things that didn't go "bang" the first time. ISAF is not lobbing rounds in from ships.



			
				Dean22 said:
			
		

> 155mm is fired by artillery,



Yes. It's a standard NATO calibre.



			
				Dean22 said:
			
		

> tanks



None of which I am aware, however, yes, somebody might have concocted some other weird experiment somewhere.



			
				Dean22 said:
			
		

> (more so self-propelled gun)



Self-propelled guns are not tanks. They are artillery. There is a difference.



			
				Dean22 said:
			
		

> Tank: http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/images/auf1_cat8g.jpg



That's not a tank. It's a self-propelled gun.



			
				Dean22 said:
			
		

> I'd have no idea I only have second hand knowledge of 105's and 155's,



Not really news.



			
				Dean22 said:
			
		

> there have also been reports of them using HME's


That's the most common explosive used.



			
				Dean22 said:
			
		

> very rarely gas, poison and radioactive IED's (I would imagine these are built with the left over Depleted Uranium shells in Iraq due to the radiation on those bullets lasting 60 billion years



So rare that I have not heard of any such encounters in Afghanistan. And I don't believe that we've flung too much DU around Afghanistan, although I would not stake much on that.



			
				Dean22 said:
			
		

> I would be willing to bet $20 that they aren't using thermite, C4, etc. I have also heard of the Taliban using anti-mobility mines on Abrams.



Would you be willing to put another twenty on that Taliban/Abrams thing? If so, I'll risk twenty on it as well. PM me with your bank account number and PIN so that I can do a direct deposit for you.



			
				Dean22 said:
			
		

> anti-mobility mines



No such thing, by the way.



			
				Dean22 said:
			
		

> in modern warfare not many people have 8 hours of a day to bury four gigantic shells in the road



The Taliban are not exactly fighting a "modern" war, it does not take them eight hours to dig a big enough hole, and 155mm shells are not exactly "gigantic".

Read more, post less.


----------



## Dean22 (7 Nov 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Would you be willing to put another twenty on that Taliban/Abrams thing? If so, I'll risk twenty on it as well. PM me with your bank account number and PIN so that I can do a direct deposit for you.
> 
> No such thing, by the way.




Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Tr1Epiga0

Background: Officer's Abram hit by a mine designed to take out mobility of tanks (ie. detrack).

Tank hit by mine designed for mobility kills (hmm a mine that takes out mobility of tanks. What is that? An anti-mobility mine? Holy crap!).


Please PM me for details to send me $20.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Nov 2009)

Dean22

You have posted once again, (when you should not have) and opened your mouth (when you should not have) thereby removing all doubt.

NOW!


Send the man the details including your Bank Branch, Acct Number, and PIN so that he can deposit your $20.


----------



## AC 011 (7 Nov 2009)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Tr1Epiga0
> 
> Background: Officer's Abram hit by a mine designed to take out mobility of tanks (ie. detrack).
> 
> ...



Hmmm, the title of the video is "Tank that just got hit by AT-mine".  I wonder what AT could stand for?   :brickwall:


----------



## aesop081 (7 Nov 2009)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> Tank hit by mine designed for mobility kills (hmm a mine that takes out mobility of tanks. What is that? An anti-mobility mine? Holy crap!).



I know it has been 5 years since i stopped being a combat engineer but in all my time in that trade (including 3 years at the school BTW) i never came across "anti-mobility" mines.......

You just like to argue don't you ?


----------



## Scott (7 Nov 2009)

And up a level in the Warning System. And based on your PM's to me I won't be sending you one to tell you why, it'll just fall on deaf ears anyway. I;ll say this though, you are on the ramp and I will take you to ban next time. Comprende?


----------



## X-mo-1979 (7 Nov 2009)

I know the Canadian army has a problem with anything track nowadays.Most likely due to the large amount of times we were all told "tanks are the past" etc and the infantry got the lav's out on the validation ex in 2001.

When a track blows the wheelly guys start complaining.However spending jan-feb and part of march hauling them behind our vehicles the whole trace in Astan....wasnt a "problem".

Let's look past the IED factor,as EVERYTHING will explode with enough HME,arty shells,AT mines,etc.

A tracked element is needed.It is superior in all things minus top speed.


----------



## Loachman (7 Nov 2009)

Un-frakking-believable...



			
				Dean22 said:
			
		

> Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Tr1Epiga0
> 
> Background: Officer's Abram hit by a mine designed to take out mobility of tanks (ie. detrack).



You are going to use _*YOUTUBE*_ as a reference?

There are two basic types of mines: Anti-personnel and anti-tank. No "anti-mobility" or "de-tracking" mines nowhere, never.

You obviously failed to understand what I meant by "Would you be willing to put another twenty on that Taliban/Abrams thing?" so I'll explain it.

You said:



			
				Dean22 said:
			
		

> I have also heard of the Taliban using anti-mobility mines on Abrams



There are no Taliban in Iraq where the US Army is operating Abrams tanks. None.

There are no Abrams tanks in Afghanistan where the Taliban live. None.

That makes it rather tricky for the Taliban to blow up Abrams tanks.

Clear?

Take my advice, placed here for the _*second*_ time: Post less, read more.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Nov 2009)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> I'd have no idea I only have second hand knowledge


Doesn't seem to slow you down dude  ;D


----------



## kratz (7 Nov 2009)

Here's the popcorn FD, it's one of the NFB (National Film Board) Short Films.  :nod:


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Nov 2009)

ARMY Magazine November 2009  

http://www.ausa.org/publications/armymagazine/armyarchive/november2009/Pages/Letters.aspx

‘Stryker Update’ 

The versatility of the Stryker vehicle family was underscored in Scott Gourley’s August “Soldier Armed” column (“Stryker Update”). The Stryker has demonstrated its ability to accept continuous upgrades in response to emerging requirements generated by units in the field.

Improved armor, new floor plates, better seats and new-generation sensors are all examples of major upgrades to the Stryker. Without question, there will be more improvements in the future.

The Army is now looking at the redesign of its heavy brigade combat teams (HBCTs) based, in part, on the replacement of the aging M113s and eventually the Bradley fighting vehicle. As the article suggests, the Stryker medical evacuation vehicle could easily find a place in the HBCT alongside an upgraded Bradley and, someday, a new ground combat vehicle.

I remember back a decade or more to a time when the idea of a wheeled armored combat vehicle generated enormous opposition in defense circles. Not only has that opposition all but disappeared, but we are discovering new ways of employing Strykers.

Without a doubt, the Stryker will be with the Army for decades to come.

Dr. Daniel Goure
Vice President
The Lexington Institute
Arlington, Va.


 ARMY Magazine August 2009 

http://www.ausa.org/publications/armymagazine/armyarchive/august2009/Pages/SoldierArmed.aspx

Soldier Armed  
  
Stryker Update
By Scott R. Gourley 

As the U.S. Army’s Stryker family of vehicles approaches the sixth anniversary of its initial combat deployment, government and industry representatives are continuing to develop and field a number of enhancements designed to increase the survivability and tactical flexibility of the vehicles for Army warfighters.

According to Wendy Staiger, Stryker program director at General Dynamics Land Systems (the prime contractor for the Stryker), many of the ongoing efforts have been designed and developed to meet emerging requirements generated by users in the field.

Staiger pointed to the new Stryker blast mitigation kit, which she described as “focused on improving the survivability from a mine blast underneath the vehicle.”

“That particular kit is composed of four components, with all of the components working together to improve the crew survivability in the event of a blast,” she said. The first component of the kit is a new “belly armor” design. “That’s additional armor that goes on the bottom of the vehicle to protect the crew compartment,” Staiger explained.

“Previously, we had introduced something called the driver’s enhancement kit, which really covered the driver forward. This new kit starts where the driver’s kit ends and goes back through the rest of the compartment. So that’s basically more steel.”

“The next thing within the kit is replacement of the floor plates with new ones that also improve the performance of the vehicle after a blast,” she said. “In order for the kit to work, we have added the capability within the vehicle to increase the distance between the vehicle and the ground. We do that with our height management system, where we can raise it up, and at the end of the day that equals better protection.”

The fourth element of the new kit involves the installation of new blast mitigation seats. “A lot of the injuries that soldiers have seen in the field are really related to what happens in the blast,” Staiger said. “The new seats are basically cantilevered from the side of the vehicle, and what they do is attenuate the blast: They absorb the blast ‘going up’ and they control the descent [of the seat] coming down. That will lessen the risk of spinal compression injuries and also address such injuries as broken ankles and those you might see when those seats are coming back down.”

Noting that the new seats are just being deployed, she said, “We actually just completed the retrofit of the first unit. We’re under contract with the government to provide five brigades with this kit, and we are also under contract to cut portions of the kit into production so that future retrofit will be easier in the field.”

Another new Stryker enhancement kit addressing an identified field need is the remote camera system. Displayed at the 2008 AUSA Annual Meeting, the kit joins a camera into the taillight of the Stryker vehicle. “It gives you vision outside the vehicle, around the area where the ramp goes down,” Staiger noted. “For the soldiers inside, the most critical point of the operation is when that ramp first goes down. This will give them more situational awareness.”

Although the remote camera requirement originally came from the medical community for their Stryker medical evacuation vehicle (MEV), Staiger said that the tactical enhancements resulting from the camera design have led to its adoption for all of the vehicles. “We should start seeing this particular kit going into vehicles this month as they get ready to deploy,” she said.

Another new enhancement kit is an external lighting kit. “It is now fully under contract, and we are just working on the material to put it out there,” Staiger said.

“Those are just a couple of the enhancement kits,” she said. “We are under contract with the government for a number of these kits, and I don’t know that a month goes by when we are not asked to make additional kits to try to meet emerging requirements from the field.” 

In addition to those fleetwide enhancements, other new kits in development focus on specific vehicle variants. One example of this variant-specific upgrade is a removable firing pin capability for the Stryker mortar variant. The new kit—prompted by issues discovered with dismounted mortars, never in the Stryker—allows the crew to remove the firing pin so that there could be no chance of a “stuck round” going off. The first 37 safety-enhanced tubes were sent to 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, in June, with that capability scheduled to enter the field by late July.

In addition to the individual kit enhancements, government and industry planners have also taken a larger programmatic look at the complete spectrum of potential enhancement packages for the Stryker system. A significant milestone in this holistic approach occurred in June 2008, when General Dynamics Land Systems, in support of the U.S. Army Program Management Office Stryker Brigade Combat Team (BCT), hosted a Stryker product improvement program (S-PIP) technology day and request for information. The S-PIP day focused “on design concepts and material solutions” that could satisfy the Stryker capability development document requirements.

Looking back at those efforts over the past year, Staiger observed, “There’s still a lot going on in the S-PIP world. If you take all of those capabilities, there are more than a billion potential combinations that you could put together from a value-added standpoint of what Stryker modernization is going to be. We have completed that initial trade study with the government, and we are in the process now of working with them to put the next phase of S-PIP under contract, which will take us to a preliminary design review.”

In addition to the enhancement efforts within the Stryker BCTs, Staiger acknowledged considerable program excitement over the broader fielding of Stryker MEV variants.

“The MEV is going to see its first deployment very shortly with the 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division. That really represents, from our standpoint, the first Stryker in a heavy brigade combat team. We are very excited about the MEVs. The crews are excited. They just finished up a National Training Center rotation and they are going to go to port, get these kits installed, do a quick train-up and then deploy for the first time with a heavy brigade,” she said. “There’s so much going on with Stryker every day.”


----------



## 392 (16 Nov 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> What is the most commonly-used explosive in IEDs found in Afghanistan?



In Kandahar province, HME is the most commonly used main charge, more specifically An Al (Ammonium Nitrate w/ Aluminum). Depending on who's cooking it, TNT equivalencies of anywhere from below 1 to almost 2 have been seen. TNT equivalency is a standard measurement of how much "bang" an explosive has when compared to an equivalent weight of TNT. FWIW, C4 has a TNT equivalency of 1.37, which means 1kg of C4 has 1.37 times the explosive strength of 1kg of TNT....

Other HMEs have been seen in our AO specifically, such as Urea Nitrate, ANFO, Ammonium Nitrate with race car fuel (the techno geek name escapes me at the moment), & home made RDX, among a few other things. Most of the munitions seen in IEDs in our AO are left over Warsaw pact stuff. The only NATO stuff *I have seen* being used was the casings from 155 smoke rounds being used as containers for HME. That's not to say they don't use 155 HE or mortars that don't function as designed, but it's the exception rather than the norm....


----------



## 392 (16 Nov 2009)

Andy011 said:
			
		

> Most AFV's have had upgrade kits applied to increase their protection level against a "standard IED" (there is such a thing).....



I'm not sure what this is based on - there is no such thing as a "standard IED". IED main charge size is only left to the imagination of the guy building and employing it and what the target is, regardless of where in the world it is being employed. I'm thinking though, that what's meant here is that the upgrade kits are designed to withstand a certain size charge that may have been seen in the recent past?



> But then, an IED large enough to throw a  25t LAV/Stryker, or even a 70t MBT, into the air takes things to a whole other level.



Once the enemy started figuring out what size charges were effective to defeat the armour on certain AFVs in our AO, they started increasing the charge size to ensure success. Once the charge reaches a certain size, it ceases to punch through the armour and starts pushing the target. Not getting into dates, locations or veh type, but some AFVs targeted by very large IEDs in Afghanistan traveled over 30m through the air before coming to rest. In at least one case, the deaths of the occupants weren't caused by blast / frag injuries, but what is suspected to be the shockwave from the explosion traveling through the passenger compartment.

Anyways, the observation by this little cog in the big wheel is that bigger armour = bigger bomb and undoubtedly bigger crater....


----------



## X-mo-1979 (17 Nov 2009)

Thats awesome dean.Glad we now have a deal with the terrorist to only M kill vehicles.That works out really well for us.Who brokered that deal?I'm glad as the K kill has been a pain on NATO forces in general.

Do you have a NSN for de-tracking mines?As they would  be easier to use than track tools to remove old track.I'll see if I can get those ordered in for our guys.

I'll be mastered leading change for sure using detracking mines.No abuse or damage to tooling,more effective.Thanks a million dean!Now this is thinking outside the box!

Thanks to whom ever brokered a M kill only rule and developed detracking mines.


----------



## ArmyRick (18 Nov 2009)

What the ??? Please explain your post a bit, It seems my simple infantry mine is not tracking your response.


----------



## ArmyRick (18 Nov 2009)

OK, never mind. I re-read dean's comments. Gotcha.

Maybe next they will design RPG warheads that target engines and suspension only and do no harm to the crew?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Nov 2009)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> OK, never mind. I re-read dean's comments. Gotcha.
> 
> Maybe next they will design RPG warheads that target engines and suspension only and do no harm to the crew?



Don't be giving the NDP any ideas otherwise they will insist that we build one so that we will maintain our "Canadian Values"


----------



## X-mo-1979 (19 Nov 2009)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> OK, never mind. I re-read dean's comments. Gotcha.
> 
> Maybe next they will design RPG warheads that target engines and suspension only and do no harm to the crew?



PKM's that hurt feelings.

PRI Golf's all over the battlefield.


----------



## brihard (23 Nov 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> PKM's that hurt feelings.
> 
> PRI Golf's all over the battlefield.



I hope you don't mind if I steal 'Pri Golf'.  ;D


----------

