Only Real Armor Can Help Keep Our Troops Safe

[MORTARDUDE]

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/c....0004350720695

DefenseWatch "The Voice of the Grunt"
05-19-2004

Only Real Armor Can Help Keep Our Troops Safe







By Ralf W. Zimmermann



While America?s media focus shifted rapidly to the deplorable conduct of the sad sacks who ran our military prisons in Iraq, our combat and support troops continue to battle uprisings and roadside explosives at a steep price in blood and mutilated limbs.



Again and again, the newscasts have addressed the need for simple protective gear for the troops. These improvements include improved body armor, splinter goggles, better fitting helmets, radio frequency jammers, and up-armored/up-gunned Humvees. To cover their butts, the slick Pentagon briefers have made promises after promises ? Santa would soon deliver the life-saving gear.



But waiting for next Christmas isn?t good enough for many hard-pressed grunts who must respond to ambushes in the three-dimensional jungles of Iraq?s dangerous cities. They can?t wait for super-Hummers and other fancy inventions to arrive in the distant future.



What they need is a variety of hard-hitting American armored vehicles ? now!



But overwhelming numbers of armored combat vehicles aren?t what our Pentagon Peacekeeping Department planned for after the initial Blitzkrieg success last year.



With Iraq close to sinking into all-out civil war, Bradleys, Strykers and a few M1-series, American-made ?King Tigers,? ought to be saturating the streets of the most dangerous cities. And believe me, there is nothing more intimidating than hearing the rumble of heavy tracks and the sharp bark of the cannon and on-board weaponry to put the fear of god or Allah into anyone planning some sneaky stuff against our troops.



Quite a few Army tank experts have recently assured me that Stryker, the Army?s interim armored vehicle, is on its way to make things better. I say that Stryker is a nice armored vehicle and has its place in the arsenal. But I don?t believe that Stryker will solve all our problems. Iraq isn?t Kosovo and only a prudent mix of armor for specific tasks can do the job.



The Bradley, believe or not, is the second-best tank in the world and most suited for duty in Iraq. Relatively fuel efficient, it carries two machine guns and a fine 25mm cannon that can do a trick on snipers and any other evildoer. The Brad?s armor is sufficient to survive rocket-propelled grenades and other nasty surprises. The nice thing about the Brad is its maneuverability. Best of all, it carries grunts into the fight. And if you don?t need infantry ? good! The Brad can be stuffed to the gills with ammo, allowing it to spit fire for a very long time.



The Stryker, in my opinion, is a fine long-range patrol and reconnaissance vehicle and battle taxi. For my taste, it has too little armor for employment in cities and it?s way too vulnerable to land mines, RPGs and heavy machine gun bullets. Stryker?s other weakness is a miserable turn radius to extract itself from tight spots when too many tracers converge on your front slope. Compared to other light armored vehicles, actually featuring real automatic cannons and other potent guns, Stryker has no nasty punch, merely a remote Cal. 50 machine gun. That reduces it to just another wheeled battle taxi.



Even Stryker?s derivative armored gun system is flawed. More difficult to transport, its main gun can?t be depressed very well for close-in targets. Looking at supplemental firepower on a wheel platform, our Army should have examined a few French designs, such as AMX-10RC or something like the Renault VBC 90. Even better, we could have bought a track-mounted gun system.



So, if you really ask me, Stryker should mainly be employed in convoy protection and for fast reaction outside of major built-up areas. Given its vulnerabilities, it seems outrageous to buy over 2,000 of these wheeled Swiss Army Knives.



Although a bunker on tracks, our M1-series Panzers are logistics nightmares in low-intensity conflicts and austere operations areas. Yes, the heavy rides suck too much fuel and require too much maintenance. Although it packs the biggest punch and armored protection, it?s best used in its current mode ? as a back-up and break-through weapon against highly protected targets.



To better pacify Iraq?s streets requires many more U.S. troops and a much more versatile and plentiful armored force. And while we?re mulling over the lessons from Iraq, it would be prudent to tell ole Santa to give the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions each a battalion of a real armored gun systems. No, not the wheeled kind but something with a real gun turret and tracks to put the fear of God into anyone opposing it.



DefenseWatch Senior Military Correspondent Lt. Col. Ralf W. Zimmermann, USA (Ret.) is a decorated Desert Storm veteran and former tank battalion commander. His recent novel, ?Brotherhood of Iron,? deals with the German soldier in World War II. It is directly available from www.iUniverse.com and through most major book dealers. Zimm can be reached at r6zimm@earthlink.net or via his website at www.home.earthlink.net/~r6zimm. ? 2004 LandserUSA. Send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.

[39mto39g]

I take it the this guy, Zimmermann, wrote this stuff, Kinda reminds me of "Bull Halsie" His assumptions are wrong and some even stupid.
The M-1 A-1 and A2 are nothing like a Tiger or Panzer. except they are both tanks, Its kinda like compairing a Corvett to a Model-T, There both cars, but thats all they have in common.

I dought the Bradly could stand the latest Russan RPG or even an older RPG-7, As far as the gun goes, The 25mm bushmaster is a very good gun for 1 inch or less armor, I seen a demonstration of this gun shooting holes in 1 inch plate steel.
And the Bradly the second best tank in the world. This is the stupid one. ANY of the "T" tanks from russa are far better, the French even have a very good tank.
The Bradly is a very good vehicle but it an't no tank.

The Military in Iraq are useing the men and equipment just how they should be useing them and if they wanted advise on how to conduct operations they would probibly ask for it.

This whole artical reeks of why he was asked to leave the military.

Ron

[john39]

39,


Agree, the ONLY thing in Iraq that can keep out an RPG is an 'Abrams'.

The 'Humvee', the 'Bradley', and the 'Stryker' are ALL just mince-meat and target practice to a determined muslim terrorist/insurgent hiding behind a wall.

It seems to me that to send a convoy down the same main highway with rows of building down each side is ASKING for trouble.

All it takes is a mobile phone call to their mates and they are waiting for you round the next bend.


The claim that the 'Bradley' is the"2nd best tank in the world" simply tells me that the claiment knows little or nothing of his subject.
He has obviously never heard of the Leopard 2, the Challenger 2, the Merkava 4. and, as you point out the latest Russian T.80/90 series etc, though there are precious few of them in the Russian arsenal.



John.

[Desdichado]

The very thought of a "pure" armored force being sent into an urban environment just makes me ill. I was absolutely aghast and dumbfounded when I watched the Russians attempt just that in Grozny - with predictable results; and a bonehead move like that from an army with Stalingrad, Kiev, Berlin and a hundred other street fights on its resume!

I can't believe we were actually afraid of them.

[MORTARDUDE]

Always nice to know what "experts" are thinking. A lot of these same "experts" get contractor jobs with DOD after getting out of the military and produce all the useless military projects that we have to pay the bill for...

Larry