Replies

The walls of every 113 I've ever seen are at least half the thickness of a Bradley, and I've had Bradley Master Gunners tell me that the M2 most likely would not survive an RPG. If a Bradley couldn't take it, then I highly doubt a 113 could. Bradleys also have reactive armor, and it can also stop .50-cal rounds, however, RPGs have just a little more bang for their buck, so to speak, and thost same Master Gunners were talking about the newer reactive armor-plated M2s (the Operation Desert Storm models with the original armor and brackets for adding reactive armor plates).

Now, obviously, you are correct about killing the guy first, and in any vehicle, 113 or Bradley, with thermals, our guys have the advantage, but look at the environment in which they're fighting. It's not the jungle, it's not the open desert, it's in the middle of a city. Add that level of complexity to the fact that we're trying to kill these terrorist scumbags while simultaneously trying to win the heats and minds of the populace. Our guys don't have the freedom to kill anything that moves, unfortunately.

When it comes down to it, our best weapon is the fact that theirs suck. The past several conflicts we've had, RPGs have shown to be infested with duds and their operators can't shoot for sh*t. Once they lose the element of surprise, they're ours. I'm just worried about when they're able to hit us the first time. Unless they're in an M1, the armor of any vehicle in the Army can't come close to guaranteeing the occupants will be all right.

I have never suggested that an M113A3 would repel an RPG. As you say, I don't know of anything thta will.

In the same vein it is inconceivable to me that CAS General Eric Shinseki would agree to the Stryker in 2000 when he KNEW the Soviets got murdered in Afghanistan by the Mujahideen using the same RPG weapon. General Dynamics just gave themselves a raise and Strykers now cost us $3.3 million bucks each and are less survivable than a M113.

General Dynamics is not even looking for a solution to the RPG problem. They are content to run up the price of the program by raising the price of each Stryker by a 1/2 million bucks per year and just sell us more if their product is blown up by an RPG. Don't they have a role to play here?

Our Bradleys survived countless hits from RPGs during the combat phase of OIF. The only thing that punctured a Bradley was a T-72 and that did not destroy the vehicle. I am unaware of any M113s getting hit, probably because they tend to be towards the rear of any formation. Fortunately, nobody needed to be the guinea pig to see if their M113 would withstand the hit.

The threat is not explosives that destroy our vehicle, but rather explosives that spray shrapnel into the bodies of soldiers. Just because the vehicle is destroyed does not mean that the soldiers will be killed. And, just because the vehicle survives does not mean that the soldiers will.

1st AD had soldiers killed when they were crossing a bridge with soldiers moving along side an armored vehicle. I have no idea what LT came up with that idiotic idea. Some goon fired an RPG, which hit the vehicle, and the blast killed every soldier walking on that side of the vehicle. Stupid. The vehicle survived; the soldiers didn't.

Most IEDs that are hidden in an urban environment will probably destroy a vehicle, if detonated underneath it, but the real danger is that they were being placed at head and chest level, so that the blast would go through the open door/open window/open hatch of a vehicle and kill anyone inside. An IED placed under a vehicle will destroy the vehicle, but only wound the crew. I had a soldier wounded by a buried IED, made from an anti-tank mine. He was in an M998 HMMWV, which is about as little protection as one can get. The M998 MHHWV was destroyed, but the soldier suffered only injuries to his ankles (because you can't sandbag under the foot pedals, which is where the blast came through). Had Haji been a little smarter and placed that IED at head or chest level, all 5 soldiers in that vehicle would be dead.

No matter how much armor one has, you still need to stick your head out of the vehicle and look around. So, even an M1 isn't totally safe. It is no safer than a Bradley - the only difference is that the M1 can survive more of a blast. But, to a guy sticking his head out of either vehicle, the threat of small arms fire and well-placed IEDs is the same. If given a choice, I would take the Bradley, because it guzzles less fuel, it is smaller and more maneuverable and, most importantly, it can transport up to 7 of the Army's most dangerous weapons in the back - infantrymen.