Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Countrydave55

Back To The Draft

Recommended Posts

Lot of stuff to read ..The bit I quoted seems logical though ...sort of reminded me of some valid criticisms by troops in N.Ireland ....They wanted better protection ...But our carriers were tracked ....A political decision was made that tanks would not be seen on UK mainland (If it had tracks it must be a tank) So they got plated and sandbagged Landrovers ..and dead or wounded soldiers sniped at by a .50 that went stright through .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lot of stuff to read ..The bit I quoted seems logical though ...sort of reminded me of some valid criticisms by troops in N.Ireland ....They wanted better protection ...But our carriers were tracked ....A political decision was made that tanks would not be seen on UK mainland (If it had tracks it must be a tank) So they got plated and sandbagged Landrovers ..and dead or wounded soldiers sniped at by a .50 that went stright through .......

A .50 cal around can penetrate pretty much anything that could be placed on a mobile unit for armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have enough respect for the lives of soldiers that their transport could at least stop a bullet ....... an AK at the bare min

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have enough respect for the lives of soldiers that their transport could at least stop a bullet ....... an AK at the bare min

An AK uses a high-power 7.62mm round, which is more than enough to penetrate any armor the Humvee could possibly dorn without being a giant paper weight.

 

The whole advantage of a Hummer is it's light weight and speed, thus it is hard to hit.

 

And the greatest threat (:filtered: in the armor) to land military vehicles of any kind is from the bottom. It won't matter how much armor you cram on a Humvee, it will still be obliterated by weapons designed for neutralizing tanks.

Edited by Z10N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have enough respect for the lives of soldiers that their transport could at least stop a bullet ....... an AK at the bare min

I think you are missing the point. The danger isn't really so much from small arms fire, it is from improvised roadside boobie traps. At least that's what is causing all the controversy.

 

The above mention of the .50 cal is interesting. The plate armor kits aren't designed to stop it. That requires special kits like this:

 

 

http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/aztik-100.htm

 

And even then, the .50 cal is at the upper range of the limits of this armor.

 

The Humvee was designed during the height of the cold war as a fast personnel mover capable of traversing the European battlefield. The assumption was that it would function in an armor-battle environment where anything likely to hit it would erase it completely, armored or not. It was never intended to function as a convoy protector or as an up-armored patrol vehicle (that's what the bradley was supposed to be for). Somewhere in the next generation of military vehicles, there will be designs for the kind of environment we are seeing now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we send the rich off to war then you'll be left with on one to watch on TV, no one to entertain you at the movies, no one to cheer in stadiums, no one to listen to, no one to view in museums, no one to create the products that America relies on, no one to further the reach of science and the arts, no one to teach higher learning, no one to build your computers or write games... you get the point yet?

Maybe. Is the point that we should immediately fall to our knees and thank God for the rich because they are the only people who work at anything worthwhile? Can you tell us where to send our thank-you notes?

 

 

It's perfectly fair to send those off who haven't done anything with their lives and will never give anything back to thier country.

Is this how all rich people regard our troops? Or is it just your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted Image

An Affricaan's response to the same problem .....

Old ...but interesting

Edited by Tankus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An AK uses a high-power 7.62mm round, which is more than enough to penetrate any armor the Humvee could possibly dorn without being a giant paper weight.

 

The whole advantage of a Hummer is it's light weight and speed, thus it is hard to hit.

 

And the greatest threat (:filtered: in the armor) to land military vehicles of any kind is from the bottom. It won't matter how much armor you cram on a Humvee, it will still be obliterated by weapons designed for neutralizing tanks.

Actually, many AKs are chambered for other rounds. The standard armor kits for the Humvee will effectively stop the 7.62 (M.43) in general.

 

 

The standard AK-47 or AKM fires a 7.62x39mm round with a muzzle velocity of 710 m/s. Muzzle energy is 2,970 joules. Cartridge length is 38.6mm, weight is 18.21g. Projectile weight is 7.91g.

 

The new model AK-74 fires a 5.45x39mm round with a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s. Muzzle energy is 1,385 joules. The cartridge weight is 10.75g. Projectile weight is 3.42g.

 

 

They are also chambered for the 5.56x45mm (.223 Remington) M193, the .308 Winchester, the 7.62X54, the 5.56x45mm NATO / M855, and maybe some others too.

 

The variety of AKs and variants that are used by the Iraqis comprise a virtual menagerie.

 

All of these rounds are effectively stopped by the standard Humvee armor kits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, many AKs are chambered for other rounds.  The standard armor kits for the Humvee will effectively stop the 7.62 (M.43) in general.

 

 

The standard AK-47 or AKM fires a 7.62x39mm round with a muzzle velocity of 710 m/s. Muzzle energy is 2,970 joules. Cartridge length is 38.6mm, weight is 18.21g. Projectile weight is 7.91g.

 

The new model AK-74 fires a 5.45x39mm round with a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s. Muzzle energy is 1,385 joules. The cartridge weight is 10.75g. Projectile weight is 3.42g.

 

 

They are also chambered for the 5.56x45mm (.223 Remington) M193, the .308 Winchester, the 7.62X54, the 5.56x45mm NATO / M855, and maybe some others too.

 

The variety of AKs and variants that are used by the Iraqis comprise a virtual menagerie.

 

All of these rounds are effectively stopped by the standard Humvee armor kits.

Well that's good to know. I knew they could chamber a 7.62 and the 5.56 which are easy to find around the world, I didn't realize AK series weapons could shoot so many other calibre rounds.

 

As we've stated though, the danger isn't from light assault wepons, its form expolsive devices.

Edited by Z10N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A .50 cal around can penetrate pretty much anything that could be placed on a mobile unit for armor.

An AK uses a high-power 7.62mm round, which is more than enough to penetrate any armor the Humvee could possibly dorn without being a giant paper weight.

Sorry but but neither of those statements is even close to being the truth.

 

Having fired many, many .50 cal rounds, I know for a fact that there many types of material that it can not penetrate. I have fired enough 105 mm rounds to know that well placed armor can indeed be very effective.

 

An AK round can be stopped so easily it isn't even funny.

 

I know for a fact there are members of this forum who have been in armored personel carriers that are more then capable of stopping .50 cal rounds, and they have been in personel carriers that couldn't stop a pee shooter.

 

I have watched 105mm rounds punch holes in some pretty impressive armor, and I have seen it bounce off newer lighter metals, .50 cal is a joke when it comes to some of the new armor when that armor is actually used.

 

Yep a humvee can be fitted with some pretty impressive stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted Image

An Affricaan's response to the same problem .....

Old ...but interesting

That's a pic of an old Rhodesian mine resistant buffalo apc, based on a Unimog truck 4x4 chasis & drive train made by Daimler Chrysler and sold commercially by Freightliner.

 

The Humvee was never intended to carry armor. The media needs to stop trying to make it something it isn't. It would be reasonable to look to inexpensive armored cars as an alternative for specific applications even something like the South African Ratel 20 or similar. Oh, that's right...we have the Bradley for that. The Humvee was simply always intended as a heavier Jeep replacement.

 

The $226,000 price tag needed to up armor a Humvee as opposed to $60,000 for a vehicle similar to the old buffalo design would basically allow you to buy 4 armored vehicles specifically designed to survive IED's & landmines as compared to a vehicle that is a cobbled together improvisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yep a humvee can be fitted with some pretty impressive stuff.

Can be. But the standard armor kits for the Humvee are not designed to stop the .50 cal.

 

The composite kits are, but those are in even more limited supply and are even more expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say the standard kits were well suited for the task, I said they can be fitted with some pretty impressive stuff.

 

The standard kits are pretty useless.

 

They complain of the cost, well it costs a hell of allot more to train 6 soldiers then it would to defend them with some decent equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sorry but but neither of those statements is even close to being the truth.

 

Having fired many, many .50 cal rounds, I know for a fact that there many types of material that it can not penetrate. I have fired enough 105 mm rounds to know that well placed armor can indeed be very effective.

 

An AK round can be stopped so easily it isn't even funny.

 

I know for a fact there are members of this forum who have been in armored personel carriers that are more then capable of stopping .50 cal rounds, and they have been in personel carriers that couldn't stop a pee shooter.

 

I have watched 105mm rounds punch holes in some pretty impressive armor, and I have seen it bounce off newer lighter metals, .50 cal is a joke when it comes to some of the new armor when that armor is actually used.

 

Yep a humvee can be fitted with some pretty impressive stuff.

But how heavily would you armor a Humvee though? It isn't designed on a heavy truck chasis you know. If you heavily armor all of them what do we do for light vehicles, send Volkswagens? Then we would have to armor them too. The Humvee is not an APC, yet you are talking about APCs.

 

I can't say that I have ever been under fire in an APC, but I have a fair amount of time behind a .50 cal. I know what it can and can't do, but sometimes it still surprises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe. Is the point that we should immediately fall to our knees and thank God for the rich because they are the only people who work at anything worthwhile? Can you tell us where to send our thank-you notes?

 

 

 

 

Is this how all rich people regard our troops? Or is it just your opinion?

No, it's how the general populace regards the general populace. Americans tend to agree that it's fair to not send people off to war that are much more valuable/productive/beneficial to society. No great civilization would in their right mind send off it's best and brightest to war, talk about screwing over the gene pool.

 

Then there's the fact that drafting the upper class is pointless since we're such a small percentage, of which and even smaller percent is eligible to fight. Furthermore, rich people tend to enlist and become officers mostly due to superior intelligence abilities, officers are much less likely to be killed or wounded in battle.

 

It sounds to me like you just want to see rich people dying and having their limbs blown off.

 

Contrary to what the uber-biased media would have you believe, statisticly speaking this is not a dangerous war where your chances of comming home in one piece and alive are slim as it was in many previous wars. Survival rate is EXTREMELY high, in fact your chances of being killed or wounded in Iraq are less than being killed or wounded while driving your car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We just want them to know that the mission is a vital mission for peace," Bush said.

 

 

Uhh, isn't that what we had before we went over there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have sent any of them. ;) Thats about all I want to say on the whole matter and will leave it at that.

 

I am going to enjoy the rest of this holiday season without useless discussions that solve nothing, and go nowhere, and will reserve my discussions for the more pleasurable things of the season.

 

I wish all our troops a safe Christmas, with that I'll be exiting the thread stage left.

 

Listening to Lennon "And So This is Christmas"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say the standard kits were well suited for the task, I said they can be fitted with some pretty impressive stuff.

 

The standard kits are pretty useless.

 

They complain of the cost, well it costs a hell of allot more to train 6 soldiers then it would to defend them with some decent equipment.

They might complain about the costs, I don't, but I do mention it. It is simply a factor. You and I don't have to like that but cost is a factor.

 

 

Even outfitted with composit armor the Humvee is no APC.

 

I think the life of a soldier outweighs the value of even his training but that is another subject really.

 

People act like lives are being just thrown away because of Humvee armor or lack of it and that simply isn't true.

 

Ultimately the only way to completely protect a soldier is not to put him in harm's way. The oposite end of the extreme is to send him out as cannon fodder. Somewhere in between there is the reality.

 

How far do we push the subject? Should each soldier be issued a tank? It would be hard to do anything but level everything in that case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sorry but but neither of those statements is even close to being the truth.

 

Having fired many, many .50 cal rounds, I know for a fact that there many types of material that it can not penetrate. I have fired enough 105 mm rounds to know that well placed armor can indeed be very effective.

 

An AK round can be stopped so easily it isn't even funny.

 

I know for a fact there are members of this forum who have been in armored personel carriers that are more then capable of stopping .50 cal rounds, and they have been in personel carriers that couldn't stop a pee shooter.

 

I have watched 105mm rounds punch holes in some pretty impressive armor, and I have seen it bounce off newer lighter metals, .50 cal is a joke when it comes to some of the new armor when that armor is actually used.

 

Yep a humvee can be fitted with some pretty impressive stuff.

Apparently you've never seen a single .50 anti tank round completely demolish a tank with the latest and greatest in battle armor.

 

The point is MOST armor will not stop a .50 round. There's body suits that will stop a .50 cal round, but of course they cost a fortune and are nearly impossible to move in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's how the general populace regards the general populace. Americans tend to agree that it's fair to not send people off to war that are much more valuable/productive/beneficial to society. No great civilization would in their right mind send off it's best and brightest to war, talk about screwing over the gene pool.

 

Then there's the fact that drafting the upper class is pointless since we're such a small percentage, of which and even smaller percent is eligible to fight. Furthermore, rich people tend to enlist and become officers mostly due to superior intelligence abilities, officers are much less likely to be killed or wounded in battle.

 

It sounds to me like you just want to see rich people dying and having their limbs blown off.

 

Contrary to what the uber-biased media would have you believe, statisticly speaking this is not a dangerous war where your chances of comming home in one piece and alive are slim as it was in many previous wars. Survival rate is EXTREMELY high, in fact your chances of being killed or wounded in Iraq are less than being killed or wounded while driving your car.

Actually, there are 33% more millionaires this year than there were last year and the number continues to rise. The "minority" is growing. It is no longer so exclusive to be wealthy, and is less so every year.

 

Historically the best and brightest did in fact go to war. But further than that I can't equate the wealthy with the best and the brightest. It simply isn't true.

 

It is true that very often the wealthy or influential enter as officers, but that has more to do with privilege than ability.

 

It is true, the survival statistics in this conflict are revolutionary. One might be at greater risk wandering into a bad neighborhood in Detroit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, there are 33% more millionaires this year than there were last year and the number continues to rise.  The "minority" is growing.  It is no longer so exclusive to be wealthy, and is less so every year. 

 

Historically the best and brightest did in fact go to war.  But further than that I can't equate the wealthy with the best and the brightest.  It simply isn't true.

 

It is true that very often the wealthy or influential enter as officers, but that has more to do with privilege than ability.

 

It is true, the survival statistics in this conflict are revolutionary.  One might be at greater risk wandering into a bad neighborhood in Detroit.

Yep, no longer is a million dollars considered "a lot" of money.

 

I'm not saying that the best and brightest don't go to war; just that we usually do not, and when we do it's as an officer, hence no need for a draft amongst the rich class.

 

I just can't believe people get all puffed up about a 1,000 soldiers dying, and while any loss is tracig, soldiers in any war prior to about 1980 would take those odds with a big smile. We're in Iraq for the same core reason we were involved with WWII, a war that saw tens of thousands of men die in less than a day. The difference is how the media depicts (twists) the facts, I wonder how the media would paint the picture of war during the forties if they'd been around in the same manner that they are today.

Edited by Z10N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently you've never seen a single .50 anti tank round completely demolish a tank with the latest and greatest in battle armor.

 

The point is MOST armor will not stop a .50 round. There's body suits that will stop a .50 cal round, but of course they cost a fortune and are nearly impossible to move in.

That's not a standard .50 round though...and even then if you are talking the latest and greatest in armor you will need depleted uranium rounds. Far from standard .50 cal fodder.

 

Mentioning the latest and greatest I assume you are talking about an Abrams with steel encased depleted uranium armor. I don't know for sure how it is rated but I suspect that a .50 cal...even a depleted uranium .50 cal isn't a very big threat.

The antitank "gatling" guns ar high rate of fire mounted weapons...not .50 cal machine guns. Yes, they can and do kill tanks and are designed for it...but they are specialized weapons. I suspect if you put some depleted uranium rounds in a traditional .50 cal Browning machine gun and faced off against an abrams you would have a very bad day.

 

This is getting beyond my knowledge base so I am speculating here. I suspect that google could tell us the actual threat level the newest Abrams armor is designed to resist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, Iraqi's will likely NOT be using these weapons. The preferred Iraqi instruments of combat are RPG's, explosives, and booby-traps. It's classic guerrilla warfare... if you kill a guy, he lays there until fighting has stopped. If you wound an enemy, it will take another couple guys to aid the wounded man, effectively stopping them from fighting. Do this enough itmes and you've created a legistical obstical for your enemy.

Edited by Z10N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My daddy always taught me if I had nothing intelligent to say...

 

Say nothing at all...v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...