Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles

  1. May 1, 2007 #1
    Bush has vetoed the Iraq pull out schedule bill, no big surprise, but what is the plan for Iraq? It appears that we are in this for the foreseeable future judging by the vehicles the Marines have been ordering.

    http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2007/April/Surgeinvehicle.htm [Broken]

    6,800 in one year when we couldn't provide 2,000 up armored Humvees in two years?? Why is there such a sudden a sense of urgency that we are, and will be, buying vehicles from foreign countries? The 2008 election perhaps?


    These vehicles are going to be very expensive, with some costing in the $100K range. If the vehicles could guarantee troop protection I wouldn't be so opposed to it.

    The vehicles are mine resistant with a V shaped hulls. But the insurgents haven't been using mines. The molten copper from the IED's being currently used can penetrate this type of vehicle.

    Set one on fire and the guys inside will still cook and that is a lot to pay for toater ovens.

    The only thing I can see is that they are cheaper than helicopters, our hummers are worn out and we are going to be in Iraq until hell freezes over.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. May 1, 2007 #2
    surge on. In part this is toungue in cheek, really it comes down to a certain desperation, that presupposed technology was all. Sort of tragicomic coming from the inventors of guerilla warfare.
  4. May 2, 2007 #3
    IED is just a generalized term for a rigged explosive so in concept an IED would be less penetrating than a mine because mines are designed to penetrate thick armor.
    Why would you be opposed to something that would at least increase protection? That is like saying since kevlar vests only stop non armor piercing rounds why provide them. Its all about trying to get an edge on your enemy.
    Last edited: May 2, 2007
  5. May 2, 2007 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    The question is whether or not the 'mine resistant' vehicles actually provide effective protection against IED's which are specialized shaped charges rather than mines. So, the troops might get a false sense of security.

    One of the latest version is something called the 'Krakatoa' (after the infamous exploding volcano), which is a shaped charge, which utilizes a high explosive. The liquid metal jet can penetrate 1+ inch of steel from nearly 100m.


    http://dungaroo.com/_wsn/page3.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  6. May 2, 2007 #5


    User Avatar

    A BBC report recently told of an IED attack which pierced one of the UK's main battle tanks the Challenger 2.

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2007
  7. May 2, 2007 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    IEDs, or more aptly EFPs

    They have to change the armour!

    It could also mean that the $100 K mine resistant vehicles will not be as effective as expected.
  8. May 2, 2007 #7
    Even in an Abrams tank, one isn't safe from all IEDs. Insurgents wire two or three 155mm artillery shells together and place them in an abandoned vehicle or bury them on the side of a road. The resulting explosion is so large that body/vehicle armour often makes little difference.
  9. May 2, 2007 #8
    I made a major typo when I mentioned a cost of $100K price range. The vehicles will be coming from a number of companies with some costing closer to one million dollars.

    http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200704251912DOWJONESDJONLINE001332_FORTUNE5.htm [Broken]

    Force Protection and Force Dynamics LLC are heavily involved in this.
    It is suspect to me that new or little know companies have been receiving big contracts form the DOD in the past few years.

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  10. May 2, 2007 #9
    Is there at least a consensus here that these mine resistant vehicles will at least be a reasonable improvement over an armored humvee?
  11. May 2, 2007 #10
    I would say so.

    Maybe not real effective for the vehicle that is the direct target but the other vehicles in the convoy would certainly be more pretected from damage.
  12. May 2, 2007 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Well, hopefully the procurement specs and the military would require that the armour is superior to the Humvee. Many Humvees were sent without proper armour for the situation. Some even had canvas tops. AK-47's and RPGs were knocking out Humvees left and right.

    The IEDs are even worse, especially those taking out an Abrams or Chieftan.

    Somebody, Petraeus perhpas, needs to get the Sunnis and Shiis talking rather than fighting. There is already a rift between Iraqi Sunnis and al Qaida members over the indiscriminate killing by al Qaida people.

    Without a political solution, this civil war will grind on, and the US will probably loose about 1000 soldiers/yr at current rate.
  13. May 2, 2007 #12
    How many documented cases are there of an IED taking out a main battle tank? Im just curious because it never appears in anything Ive read or watched about the war. I have heard of tanks being damaged but never destroyed, and the crew has always had no or minor injuries.

    I still cannot comprehend why the military decided to deploy humvees in the manner they did. Humvees were designed to replace the willis jeep from world war 2 and were not really intended for frontline heavy combat. The types of operations that these humvees have been used for is what we would have used APCs for in previous wars.
  14. May 2, 2007 #13
    The last few paragraphs of this section:
  15. May 2, 2007 #14
    They will definitely be safer than Humvees, And unlike the up-armored Humvees they are built to carry the weight of the extra armor.

    What I wonder is why have we waited so long to build more of these vehicles? They have been used for special protection for VIPs since the beginning of the war.

    Are they just going to be on a political agenda for the 2008 election?

    I am also doubtful whether a company that has only built the vehicles on a small scale will be able to produce thousand by next year. We didn't have much luck trying to manufacture a much smaller number of up-armored humvees.

    The Cougar in the form in the link below is the most common MRAP. There is also one called the Buffalo that has been designed to dig up mines and buried IED's. But both are vulnerable to the newer shaped charged IEDs which Astronuc explained.

    Last edited: May 2, 2007
  16. May 2, 2007 #15
    Im not sure why they just decided to begin manufacturing these for full scale use. You would have thought that they would have been doing this for the last 3 yrs.
    Sometimes at least in the past in order to manufacture large quantities of vehicles many companies recieve contracts on the same vehicle and all mass produce them but Im not sure how they will proceed with this. To say the least it should be interesting to see how the military will manufacture such an enormous quantity in such a small time period. ( I doubt they even meet half the quota) But the way I see it at least the few that are deployed will be better than nothing. As I said in my last post I cant see why they deployed humvees in the numbers they did for jobs they werent designed to perform. Its become obvious that there is plenty of mismanagement going on.
  17. May 2, 2007 #16
    these new weapons could be extremely dangerous to even the new vehicles. after reading this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_Formed_Penetrator it seems kind of disturbing that weapons likely costing less then $200 could penetrate inches of armor from fairly long distances. if these new EFP weapons become as common as roadside bombs, this could be extremely dangerous to coalition forces.

    these vehicles sound more suited to the role the humvee has been used for these past years, but i don't think they could put up well against these new weapons. if they had reactive armor they would be much better off, but there are ups and downs to reactive (not the least of which is the price)
  18. May 3, 2007 #17
    How effective are these against troops on the ground.(obviously deadly if directly hit but I mean the blast radius) Im not entirely sure about this but since almost all the force seems to be concentrated on a relatively small area thus creating a huge velocity over a small area(the plate). So if I am thinking of this correctly would this mean that the effective blast radius is much smaller for these shaped charges than for non shaped charges?
  19. May 3, 2007 #18
    The money might be well spent in technology to see an IED before a vehicle gets to it. Like an ultra long range precision metal detector type deal that scans the road ahead and pinpoints suspect metal concentrations forward of the convoy.

    One problem would be the fact that those convoys are usually moving pretty damn fast to throw off sniper fire.
  20. May 3, 2007 #19
    this is true, these weapons make for poor anti-infantry weapons. however, there are lots of good marksmen in iraq who can shoot soldiers between their helmets and vests. usually when soldiers have somewhere to go they stay in the humvee until it is necessary to get out, which is why these anti-armor weapons are so dangerous
  21. May 3, 2007 #20
    yeah, that or on an intelligence organization that can find who is bringing the materials for the weapons into iraq and stop them... actually yeah, i think the safe bet is to go with the IED detectors.
  22. May 3, 2007 #21


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That's a good question. That's a pretty slow surge.

    Has anyone ever ridden in a 1942 Ford? Or a 1943 Chevrolet? Or even seen a 1944 Chrysler?

    In WWII, the last civilian car rolled off the assembly line around February 1942. The next civilian car rolled off the assembly line in 1946. All of US manufacturing was devoted to wartime production.

    This is a war that wasn't very important when it started. The best justification for it was that it could be fought without impacting the US - tax cuts would still go through, the US could still reap the 'peace dividend', VA spending could be cut, people could still help their nation by going shopping.

    It's a war that only became important when we realized what a mess we made of it.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook