wanderfull galery

dddf

Posted by: av videoları at August 19, 2008 03:12 PM

wanderfull

Posted by: av videoları at August 19, 2008 03:11 PM

it is a horrible idea to fly black hawk in iraq any insurgent can go to the "goody shop in iran and pick up fifty cal rifle and shoot it down

Posted by: russian at July 18, 2008 11:53 AM

Some of you have a pretty good idea what an IED and an EFP IED can do to a vehicle. One of you, and I'm not pointing fingers, really do not have a clue what you are saying. Maybe because you stayed at a holiday inn and read a few reports or articles it still doesn't make you an expert to comment about such things (IED and MRAP).

Before you talk about paranoia, understand what CIED is about. There is a device out there that will counter REMOTE triggering devices but not command, pressure, or victim operated devices. There are so many things to trigger an explosive, just keep that in mind.

These insurgents have changed their tactics since more and more IEDs are found and disarmed/destroyed before it can hurt our own. As we adapt to changes, they adapt as well. You will not stop an EFP unless you multiple layers of various protection. So, if you really haven't seen one of these in real life, just keep your tone down. It is a simple design with deadly results. I almost lost a good friend and commander with one of these. I physically had witnessed its effects. ANGLES can deflect it but not a 100% guarantee.

Doc

Posted by: Doc at May 20, 2008 08:59 PM

HI my name is Aaron Ramsey I work for Red River Army Depot out of texas im currently working in taji,iraq on the mraps. I have been here for about 8 months now and have seen just about all of the defects and fixes that are being made to the mraps. I decided it would be in my interest to help out any i could .

For one before i forget on the new mrap img (international) the new amour that is being added is a great addition even though its pretty heavy but thats just protection.Its the doors im worried about because they have come up with the new electronic doors to help open easier than the air assisted ones. They have a sensor that if the battle lock is engaged it wont open or close the door until the sensor is pressed back down by the battle lock lever. Well if the battle lock isnt just right then the sensor wont let the soldiers open or close the door that could be a problem if you have to fight with the door trying to get it closed in case of fire or anything to that effect. Another thing about the IMG's is the goal lights they are going to have to be covered or something because they go out like crazy over here in the sand and stuff.Another thing is the fuse box located between the driver and passenger in the cab of the img's the box has loose parts in it and loose wires do we need a 1million dollar vehicle burning up in the middle of a convoy because of careless mistakes. We at the iraq sights are now informed of this problem and have been fixing them as they come in but what about the other hundreds that are already aout there and any other mistake that could be avoided. Besides that the img's are a great mrap probly the most produced so far at our site.

The caiman mraps are having a lot of trouble out of the CCU boxes for the air conditioning that could be something to be upgraded or fixed from the factory. Besides that the caiman seems ok just maybe a lilttle less cheap beacuse they are kinda hard to work on.

I havent seen a lot of the BAE rg33's but they are a big tough vehicle and seem to be working ok they also are related to the bradley tank alot i believe .

I truthfully like the FPI cougars they seems like the tough box out of the bunch but thats just my opinion on that. I havent really seen any big problems with them so far.I know that my little info cant help much but im working on that.

I know that I cant really help a whole lot with this little bit of information but Im just trying to help the troops out as much as possible, im not trying to be a hero or anything but I love to Be a 100 percent sure that I can do watever it takes to get those soldiers just wat they want in there vehicles from wiring there sound systems in to the there 110 outlet inside there trucks lol. I know its not much but im really not supposed to do that because my boss says i cant but i do what the troops need and when i see them around it makes me feel great knowin that they are still alive and when i ask them how everything is goin for there vehicle and they tell me I did a good job and there happy, you just cant beat that moment of pride. I am very happy to be apart of the DOD and I am goin to do everything i can to make sure everything goes right for the soldiers even with this small letter . Aaron Ramsey RRAD taji,iraq

If I can come up with any ideas or see anymore problems I will do my best to address them to this site thanks.

Posted by: Aaron Ramsey at May 17, 2008 04:29 PM

DA,

MRAPs buy you several things that other vehicles do not. The most important is survivability versus stacked anti-tank mines, chain 152mm shells, Huge SVBIED's and culvert bombs.

This is what Cpl David Goldich (USMC) said about MRAPs uses in Iraq:

"JERRV/MRAPs are advantageous but nowhere near as useful as the initial hype. I understand why USMC has backed off their initial plan to completely replace the Humvee with MRAPs. It just is not practical. The vehicles are monstrous and provide excellent protection/comfort at the expense of visibility and mobility. EOD and route clearance units have been using MRAPs for a while now, but 2007 marked their first widespread use among regular units. My section actually went on the first MRAP non-EOD patrol for MNF-W. Murphy's Law went into effect as to be expected; one of the MRAPs broke down and had to be towed back to base.

Once the kinks were worked out it became obvious that MRAPs provided protection against the most dangerous threats in the AO at the time: Huge SVBIED's and the aforementioned culvert bombs. If you wanted to check out a possible IED on the side of the road you could literally just drive up to it and peer out the window. If traveling down a dirt road, a convoy could place an MRAP as lead vehicle and thus virtually eliminate the threat of buried pressure plates on the rest of the convoy. The vehicles are relatively quick considering their size, have great creature comforts, and the class III large variants we had have seating for eight plus one gunner in the turret. If need be in a pinch I could easily fit a squad and probably in a dire emergency around two dozen marines with full gear inside. I would recommend modifying the class III as a convertible medical vehicle; one large MRAP could fit up to four litters while having two corpsmen provide medical care without interfering with operation of the vehicle at all.

MRAPs are not without severe limitations. The largest variant weighs 40,000 lbs. During the summer dry months, and on a paved MSR, we had little problems. However during the winter rainy season, it remains to be seen how well these tremendously heavy vehicles can trudge along through the mud without getting stuck, leading to the next problem. An MRAP cannot be towed by another MRAP, you have to call Regiment and get the engineers out with a wrecker to tow it once stuck. This is immensely time consuming and leaves the crew/convoy potentially vulnerable. If a Humvee breaks down outside the wire, you can hook it up to another Humvee with chains, a tow bar, tow strap, etc. The hooking up and towing process should take less than a minute or so when time is of the essence. Waiting for the engineers to come tow your MRAP can take hours. What is the expected number of MRAPs to break down per day and how long will the average wait time be in the future? I envision these vehicles getting stuck in the mud all the time and having maintenance issues once they have had some serious miles put on them. Furthermore, MRAPs can simply not travel down certain dirt roads that are too narrow or too unimproved.

Once our platoon moved to half MRAP vehicles it became evident that we simply did not need a 100% MRAP force. Having two Humvees mixed with two MRAPs in a four vehicle section allowed us to negate the IED threat while still maintaining mobility. I was told by an officer allegedly in the know that the original plan was to replace almost 90%+ of RCT-6 Humvees with MRAPs by the end of 2007, and I'm glad to see that the MRAP full replacement policy has stalled in light of the decreased violence in the province, in addition to the issues mentioned above."

The comparison of an MRAP Cougar 6x6 getting hit by one of the above mentioned threats here:

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/25423

versus an M1A2 Abrams getting hit by the same threat:

http://www.armada.ch/04-6/004.cfm

and what happened to a wheeled Stryker when hit by a 500lb explosive car bomb:

http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/2004101123.aspx http://www.strategypage.com/military_videos/military_photos_20051523.aspx

The extra hard MRAP design does not mean troops can't be killed in a MRAP when struck by that threat, see this:

US DoD DefenseLINK, Jan 19/08:
"Pentagon Officials Remain Confident in MRAPs Despite First Casualty":

(http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=48731)

“That attack has not, as reported in the headline of a leading newspaper today, caused anyone to question the vehicle’s life-saving capacity,” Morrell countered. “To the contrary, the attack reaffirmed their survivability.”

Defense Department officials are in preliminary stages of reviewing the bombing attack, which sent the vehicle airborne and caused it to overturn, Morrell said. The size of the bomb and materials comprising it are undetermined, and the exact cause of the gunner’s death is under investigation.

“(The gunner) was positioned atop the vehicle, outside the vehicle, or partially exposed on top, and we’re trying to determine now whether or not the force of the blast is what claimed his life or whether the rollover itself took his life,” Morrell said.

What it does mean is that the other side has to go to much greater lengths under American UAV surveillance to pull of such an attack.

That is a worth while in that it forces the insurgents to put in much more effort for a much smaller return with each attack.

Posted by: Trent Telenko at May 13, 2008 03:30 PM

Christian
The money spent is more of a political ante/wager for the people in my opinion. Just trying to make it seem like the government can make a difference.

Roadside bombs are a better term than IED's. However, I just thought you audience was tuned in enough that they'd understand the difference.

Your coverage of EFP in the current war(s?) has informed me very well. While I think this article is a (well deserved) self horn blowing (because you called it). I still think better protection of the MRAP is still better than the some protection of the alternative.

Of course.. it is only a matter of time until the effects of an EFP will be neutralized if at all possible. Until that happens black hawks and V22s will be the best way to keep soldiers alive.

Posted by: Foreign.Boy at May 11, 2008 09:53 PM

Trent,

That article from StrategyPage is wrong. IED's as I said before are specifically designed to destroy particular types of vehicles. When you encounter an IED, it is rarely by chance, you and your vehicle were very carefully chosen. So when an MRAP encounters an IED built to destroy an up armored humvee then yes, you are more likely to survive.

As MRAPS become more common, the insurgents are placing IEDs designed to deal with that type of vehicle. If you have notice, MRAP/IED casualties are increasing as the insurgents adjust their TTP's to ours.

At one time up armored humvees reduced casualties compared to regular humvees. Then EFP's and other more powerful IED's showed up. This MRAP fielding is no different. This is classic sword vs shield and as usual the sword is more adaptable and cheaper to improve then the shield. Especially if the sword is explosives.

The mass fielding of MRAP is a knee jerk reaction and the funds would have been better spent elsewhere.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at May 11, 2008 12:57 AM

This is what it means to be in an MRAP versus an armored Humvee:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20080409.aspx

""Passengers in these vehicles are much less likely to be killed or injured if they encounter a roadside bomb. Thus if all the troops who encountered these bombs were in a MRAP, casualties would be up to 65 percent less. Until about a year ago, about two-thirds of all casualties in Iraq were from roadside bombs. Thus the army and marines expected widespread use of these vehicles to reduce overall casualties by about a third. But in the last year, the use of IEDs (roadside bombs) has fallen by two-thirds. Still, experience so far shows that troops are about five times more likely to be killed or injured if in an armored hummer, rather than an MRAP. The marines, for example, have not had anyone, in an MRAP when hit by an IED, killed or seriously injured. But this has been expensive. The bomb resistant vehicles cost about five times more than armored hummers or trucks.""

Posted by: Trent Telenko at May 9, 2008 12:10 PM

For those wanting to understand just what an "EFP is, see below:

This is a link to a picture of an EFP in flight:

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_EFP,,00.html

And this link has a very good technical summary of what an explosively forged projectile is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator

Google can be your friend.

Posted by: Trent Telenko at May 8, 2008 01:04 PM

For those wanting to view evidence of M1A2 Abrams destroyed in Iraq, this link will be of interest.

http://www.leechvideo.com/video/view1587057.html

Posted by: Trent Telenko at May 8, 2008 12:53 PM

"People on this board keep claiming an insurgent EFP can defeat an M1A2's armor. I seriously doubt that. An IED EFP weapon will probably only penetrate 100-200mm RHAe, if it's lucky. An M1A2 has 600-950mm RHAe protection against KE threats and 600-1600mm RHAe of protection against CE threats. TUSK upgrades offer even more protection."

While I agree that an M1 is one of the most heavily armored tanks around and going by your math and IED grade EFP shouldn't kill an M1 but I have to ask what part of the M1 are you citing? Is that 600 - 950 all around or just in the front? I'm sure that a decent sized EFP set off underneath an M1 might cause a bit of damage, it would certainly take a far smaller EFP to go through the bottom of an M1 than it would from the front or side.

Posted by: Riceball at May 8, 2008 10:39 AM

Foreign Boy,

Do you think for one second the people who appropriated $5 billion for 4,000 MRAPs make the IED/EFP distinction? Do you think for one second the services who accepted this money tried to diabuse them of the distinction?

Tell you what, I'll call them "roadside bombs"...does that cover it?

TB...Speicher EOD. The garage-made ones were more than Coke bottoles, but they were hammered copper rather than machined...

Posted by: Christian at May 8, 2008 08:30 AM

The description of an EFP is not correct - it is an aerodynamic slug (unlike a normal shaped charge which projects a narrow, short-range jet) , and it is not superheated.
The gist of the article seems correct though.
.
Note that all vehicles have weak points; in one well-known instance an Abrams was knocked out by a 25mm APDS round from a Bradley from behind, so a large EFP could certainly do it.

Posted by: Davod Hambling at May 8, 2008 07:42 AM

IED's are generally not able to defeat the Abrams unless like the previous poster said it's a massive purpose built IED. The most common EFP's that are targeted at M1151/M1114/M1117 will not destroy an Abrams.

IED's are not just a bunch of explosives randomly placed on a road in the hope of hitting an American. Insurgents carefully watch their prey and target specific vehicles with a specially designed IED. A lot takes place between the target selection and actually carrying out an attack. Since a main battle tank is much more better protected, it generally requires a much larger IED. The insurgents have to do the survaillence, get the materials, move the materials, assemble the IED from the materials, place the IED, if possible record the results and then escape after the attack. As you can imagine, a larger IED increases the chance of getting caught or killed.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at May 8, 2008 02:46 AM

People on this board keep claiming an insurgent EFP can defeat an M1A2's armor. I seriously doubt that. An IED EFP weapon will probably only penetrate 100-200mm RHAe, if it's lucky. An M1A2 has 600-950mm RHAe protection against KE threats and 600-1600mm RHAe of protection against CE threats. TUSK upgrades offer even more protection.

Since Desert Storm, there have only been a handful of enemy weapons that somehow managed to penetrate a M1's hull, and we are talking about actual dedicated, somewhat modern, anti-tank weapons. An M1 has defeated threats from 125mm HEAT and W SABOT rounds, ATGM, RPG's, various IED's, EFP's, heavy machine guns, and survived without losing hull integrity. (not including fratricide, or the few massive underbelly IED's). Practically every M1 in Iraq has been attacked, and the crew survives; most tanks are patched up and sent back to the streets of Iraq.

Need to keep the EFP threat in perspective. A problem for current MRAP's, maybe, but not M1's. current MRAP's will be upgraded if the threat is really there. Also, MRAP 2 is testing now, but those are like 30-40 ton trucks.

70 tons of Chobham/DU armor is good for something.

Posted by: HumanPestControl at May 8, 2008 02:12 AM

I told you(all) to expect this at about this time too. The weather is warming to temps that allow for insurgent activity and we have an election coming up. Perfect conditions for IED strikes. Now, it's important that everybody understands what the MRAP really is. Sure it offers more protection overall since it is purpose built to take these kinds of attacks. But it was never able to survive the EFP or large IED attacks. The MRAP is a political weapon primarily who's armor is designed to protect politicians and senior officers from criticism. It is designed to shield policy makers from being accused of not providing the best protection possible for troops.

We never needed MRAP.

-DA

Posted by: DarthAmerica at May 8, 2008 01:15 AM

EFPs could be defeated. Probably no one could guess what it is. I just wonder if the technology I assume was applied on Ceradyne Bull. There is another possible method in my mind, but it's not availible at this point.

Posted by: pedestrian at May 8, 2008 12:28 AM

As I have ALWAYS said MRAP vehicles are "good" against IEDs but not-so-good against "real" anti-vehicle weapons. Many of us (maybe not so many) knew this day would come & suddenly everybody would have questions about MRAP vehicles just like us. Unfortunatley TOO MANY fell hook line & sinker for MRAP as THE answer to "all our problems" & now we are (& have been) spending $ billions on specilized convoy vehicles which do do well against the most common threat in Iraq but are of limited usefulness against most/all other threats.

***

Roy Smith,

Don't drink the water. ;)

Just because you are paranoide doesn't mean they AREN'T arfer you...

It is TRUELY sad that there are those who are more willing to accept that there is some comspiracy within the US government/military to kill ITS OWN CITIZENS/TROOPS for little more than their own economic gain than that there are in fact OTHER people in the world who wish us harm. ;(

Posted by: pfcem at May 7, 2008 11:12 PM

Since a EFP can take out an M1A2 tank i doubt it would have much trouble penetrating the shell of a MRAP.

Jack

Posted by: jack at May 7, 2008 07:57 PM

Roy,

Take a breather, go for a walk, and have a dip. IEDs aren't set off by some vast conspiracy of devices planted on vehicles, so knock it off. IEDs and EFPs are detonated like any other weapon system in the world. Either with a timer, a pressure plate, an RF signal, or a guy with a wire and a switch. We're on the roads so much in Iraq you don't need to be a genius to know when a convoy is going to show up.

MRAPs are called "resistant" because the DoD isn't foolish enough to call something mine "proof." There will always be a bigger mine. As stated by others, the physics behind an EFP really can't be beat by vehicular armor. There are a few ways to beat an EFP that I've seen, but they aren't practical, nor are they public knowledge.

Christian, I've probably seen the same weapons caches that you were shown, and yes, there is a major difference between IEDs made out of machined metal and those made from a plastic coke bottle.

Posted by: TB at May 7, 2008 05:10 PM

Do we believe that IED explosions are like a game of Russian Roulette & chance,or that triggering devices could be planted on specific military vehicles(like say the Commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq) with the specific IED made to destroy the specific vehicle placed on the convoy route in advance.If you want to stop the IEDs,place snipers well in advance to cover the convoy route,inspect your vehicle for any electronic devices that could trigger an IED explosion,AND our "allies(Israel)" does not need to know our convoy plans period.You stop letting our allies(Israel) know the make-up, routes,& time of departure of our convoys & task forces & I bet a hell of a lot of these IED & sniper attacks will stop(why would israel do such a thing? to keep us believing its the Sunni insurgents,al Qaeda,& Iran through the Mahdi Army instigating these attacks & fuel the war to go further.Ditto with the appalling killings against the Iraqi people by high explosives & "death squads").It was in Israel's best interests for Iraq & Iran to keep fighting each other during the 80's(AND NOBODY could fault them for that) & it is in their best interests to keep us in Iraq breathing down on Iran.Lets face it,Olmert is a scumbag Mother F**ker.But the same could have been said about Sharon & also about Peres,Netanyahu,& Barak.In no way am I criticizing the citizens of Israel,just their scumbag leaders.Actually,I blame the Rothschilds above the Israeli government.

Posted by: Roy Smith at May 7, 2008 04:27 PM

Christian,
Before you even said in this blog that EFP wouldn't be stopped by a MRAP. The MRAP provides protection from IEDs and Mines. But not EFP. To put EFP's in the same class as an IED or a mine would be wrong. Wouldn't it?

The way they work is different and the way they kill/destroy is different. Maybe I'm not getting the point of this article...

But comparing the protection of a MRAP and EFP's is like comparing the protection from an AK-47 to a tank.

Posted by: Foreign.Boy at May 7, 2008 04:10 PM

Shawn, you've got a good point there. That's why the cage works against RPGs. So couldn't the cage work by spalling the copper penetrator before it gets to the vehicle armor?

And all you nitwits who refuse to believe that at least some of the EFPs come directly from Iran, I know it for a fact. I have seen an Iranian one and an Iraqi-made one with my own eyes. One is clearly manufactured with precision tooling and high end materials, the others are banged out from scraps in someone's garage. One works, one frequently doesn't. Guess which one...

And it's a story because the MRAP is the 3rd largest DoD-wide acquisition program and the expectation was that it would change the dynamic on the battlefield. Now we know that a roadside bomb that's readily available in Iraq can defeat it. Doesn't that raise some question about the $5 billion being spent on them? How about spending 1/4 that on sniper teams? Want to see the #1 best IED defeat weapon? One shot one kill.

CAL

Posted by: Christian at May 7, 2008 03:44 PM

The cage on the stryker is for catching RPGs early, not EFPs. An EFP basically turns into a mini sabot round that will go through absolutely anything. This isn't the fault of the MRAP and there isn't really a good way to defend against them, other then to cut off the supply. Obviously these are being shipped in by Iran. They aren't complex but require some degree of industry to make, which makes it unfeasible for insurgents to make them in their backyards.

EFPs are made of copper. Absolutely nothing else. Exactly where would Iran or the insurgents get DU? Wouldn't we be finding guys with 3 arms? What an asinine suggestion. Clearly made by someone whos sum total of experience in war comes from playing Call of Duty in a comfy arm chair.

I'm surprised SA7 Grails and Anti-tank missiles haven't shown up en masse in Iraq yet. You'd think Iran would love to shoot down some Apaches or a big juicy transport.

Posted by: SW1911 at May 7, 2008 03:40 PM

What about the cage like what is on the Stryker? Would that trigger the EFP and cause it to form the cone before it gets to the armor? I thought that was the reason for the cage on the strykers. I know alot of you out there are more knowledgeable about this that I am.

Posted by: shawn at May 7, 2008 03:21 PM

This is not news EFPs routinely kill M1s in country. MRAP is still a hell of a lot better than the 1114 I get to ride in while the rest of my team ride in new "light" MRAPs. EFPs are not that prevalent yet but they will kill any thing out there, lets hope we can keep the local and foreign production down.

Posted by: kensei at May 7, 2008 02:59 PM

I'll say it again,soldiers & marines need to check their own vehicles "religiously" to make sure that no one has put any "trigger device" on them that will set off any IED planted in the road.If you ask who would plant such a device in what is supposed to be a secure location,you'd have to ask who benefits from us fighting "terrorists" in iraq & Afghanistan("who" benefited from Iraq & Iran fighting each other in the 80's? Who sold each side information AND weapons to keep the war dragging on?)."Who" has favored status & access to our military in Iraq AND knows when each convoy will leave & what is in each convoy? Who knows which convoy to hit to cause maximum shock value(like the marine convoy hit in the Anbar province,I believe in 2004,where so many female marines & soldiers were killed,including 4 females taken hostage & later found dead with their throats cut) & most likely promote more rage to keep this fighting going? When you can answer THAT question,then you have solved the IED problem.

Posted by: Roy Smith at May 7, 2008 02:49 PM

I'll say it again,soldiers & marines need to check their own vehicles "religiously" to make sure that no one has put any "trigger device" on them that will set off any IED planted in the road.If you ask who would plant such a device in what is supposed to be a secure location,you'd have to ask who benefits from us fighting "terrorists" in iraq & Afghanistan("who" benefited from Iraq & Iran fighting each other in the 80's? Who sold each side information AND weapons to keep the war dragging on?)."Who" have favored status & access to our military in Iraq AND knows when each convoy will leave & what is in each convoy? Who knows which convoy to hit to cause maximum shock value(like the marine convoy hit in the Anbar province,I believe in 2004,where so many female marines & soldiers were killed,including 4 females taken hostage & later found dead with their throats cut) & most likely promote more rage to keep this fighting going? When you can answer THAT question,then you have solved the IED problem.

Posted by: Roy Smith at May 7, 2008 02:49 PM

An Explosively Formed Projectile is created by the detonation of the warhead before it contacts the target. This is in contrast to an ordinary hollow charge, which should a detonate a short distance from the target. Explosive Reactive Armor will not, as a rule, interfere with it. ATGMs such as the TOW III & the Swedish Bill have EFP warheads in order to destroy AFVs with ERA.

Posted by: Will at May 7, 2008 02:36 PM

This is the kind of story that gets my goat.

The 'penetrator' from an EFP is a metal fragment traveling at several miles per second. Faster in fact than most sabot rounds fired from cannons. It will penetrate anything in the inventory - including an 85 ton M1 tank. To expect a lighter vehicle to withstand one is a pipe dream that simply will not happen.

Ditto for an RPG, or any other fair sized shape charge weapon - which I expect, is the 'other thing' refered to above.

That's not news to the bad guys Christian. That's just battlefield physics. Weapons designed to kill tanks (and RPG's are designed for just that purpose) eat lighter vehicles for lunch. It's always been that way and it WILL always be that way.

The explosive/reactive armor that some have asked about could help with the shaped charge weapons. But it will do nothing against an EFP. That's because the 'armor' works by creating a shock wave that disrupts the jet of gas a shape charge creates when it is detonated. That gas traveling at many miles per second is what does the damage. With an EFP there is just a metal slug. When it hits you're done.

Posted by: Rick at May 7, 2008 02:36 PM

Besides the "conspiracy theories" about "who" is really both supplying AND arming those EFP IEDs(& also,by the way,doing the sniping against our troops),I heard that EFP IEDs had depleted uranium in them which is how they can penetrate ALL armor so well.The truth is that if you make a big enough bomb,you can blow anything up.The Palestinians proved that you could even blow up a Merkava Tank if you had enough explosives.
Here is an interesting question,again not pointing any fingers,what if someone on base(FOB) knew in advance what convoys were going out,where they were going,& who would be in them? What if someone planted a device on any particular vehicle that would set off the IED specifically planted to take it out? Maybe I'm paranoid,but "perfect paranoia is perfect awareness." Maybe when the drivers do PMCS on their vehicles,they can check to make sure that devices that have no business being on their vehicles are not there &/or remove the suspicious devices that are there.Maybe they should put out some more money for those hand held mirrors they use to check under vehicles for explosive devices.They should extensively check out any vehicle they have received from depot that has been worked on by "civilian contractors." maybe I'm nuts,but if these soldiers want to return home alive,what would it hurt to do such excessive "paranoid" checks on their vehicles?

Posted by: Roy Smith at May 7, 2008 02:25 PM

"I guess it didn't take long for the IED arms race to catch up with the MRAP."

WHAT?!?!
Come on! I've been reading this long enough to know you guys posted months ago (maybe a year ago) that EFP's were slicing through Humvees' before the MRAP's were even purchased.

It was just a matter of time until the MRAP was hit by one of these... this is just the beginning of the results of MRAP vs. EFP's.

Posted by: Foreign.Boy at May 7, 2008 02:18 PM

Why not strap some explosive reactive armour to the bottom of the v-hull?

I guess if we are looking for answers to this next phase, I guess this is the only true answer.

The next phase for them is a dual efp design... which I guess would be much more difficult, but obviously, as with all things, you can always figure out a solution. So I wouldn't put it past them, no matter what we create I guess they can defeat.

Only thing is though, that the more difficult we make it, we increase the chances of them failing.

Posted by: Vstress at May 7, 2008 01:35 PM

Why is the even news? These are not M1's or even Bradley's or Strykers. They are way more protected than any Hummer deathtrap. But they are not EFP or RPG proof; at least not until they are upgraded-which have built in capabilities for the heavier armor packages for EFP, the military was hoping not to use. Looks like the EFP threat is increasing, after all. Shocking.

But since the US is fighting Iran, not some rag tag Shia militia, expect more effective anti-armor and anti-aircraft weapons. Expect MANPAD and ATGM kill teams next, surprisingly haven't shown up, yet. Thank god we have F'22s [couldn't resist]. Lebanon anyone?

Posted by: HumanPestControl at May 7, 2008 01:18 PM

Oh puleeze, whats with the Israel bashing all the sudden...come on, get over it, they are just another country looking out for their own best interest and surrounded on every side by enemies. Hell, we've probably GIVEN them more than they have "stolen" from us.

Not much CAN stop an EFP, just because of the nature of the projectile. An EFP is NOT an IED...EFPs are purpose built armor penetrators, which means these are more than just "locals" using old ordinance to blow up our vehicles.

Posted by: coolhand77 at May 7, 2008 01:16 PM

It's time to bring the EFP resisting MRAP II "Ceradyne Bull" to Iraq. Any words from Pentagon about phase shifting to Ceradyne Bull yet? It's time to tell Iran and Hezbollah the gloden ages of EFP are about to end. Oh, and please don't attempt to steal from us, Israel.

Posted by: pedestrian at May 7, 2008 01:08 PM