2 soldiers' deaths in Iraq raise doubts about MRAP vehicle

Source: McClatchy Newspapers



Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/35931.html

Unfortunately this is what happens in a war: weapons evolve.

Not Rocket science

Just Read The Guns of Krupp by William Manchester

To get an idea that the latest armor piercing shell is always met with a new type of armor plating.

Which is the met by a NEW armor piercing shell which is met with a NEW type of armor plating.


The whole exercise is a boon in $$$$ for defense contractors

And Tragedy for Gold Star Mothers

Been there --- Done That

Someone's making a killing!
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/how-much-for-th.html

uses Depleted Uranium as a piercing device. We have fired hundreds of thousands of them since Bush the First went into Kuwait. Not all of them hit the desired target or detonate and lie buried in the sand waiting for an enemy to modify them and turn them around to face us. The VC did it in Nam and to very good advantage. Quite a bit of the stuff used by the guerrillas was "found" weaponry.

Between that and all the armories that were looted when we were derelict in our responsibility to secure and police the country as occupiers I'm not surprised that stuff that can kill an M1A1 Abrams tank is showing up. That other countries have developed similar projectiles and MAY be providing them to the opposition isn't all that surprising.

It's a question of who has the most stuff, us with MRAPS or them with stolen EFPs.

Another weapon that penetrates armor...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge

had a few thousand AP rounds lying around when we took over and let "people who have been oppressed do that they do" as Rummy said.

The old IEDs and and the new EFPs are the same shit, just deployed better. Don't have to work that hard to blow up a humm vee but it takes a bit more finesse (but not that damn much with HE artillery)to take out tanks and MRAPS.

upcoming July Fourth Celebration at our Home Owners Association.

Just kidding of course.

The best vehicle to protect the soldiers is to put them in a plane.... and then fly that plane back to the United States and then they are protected from IED's.

Your idea makes sense

Except Bechtel, Northrop, Boeing, Black Water, Halliburton etc are SOL

Bush doesn't want to spend borrowed money so that his all-volunteer army can "hide" from the enemy of the "Iraqi people" in these very expensive gas-guzzling machines. He wants boots on the ground. e.g., a more visible presence. Betrayus stands behind him on this. Any other general would be outraged that the MRAP is getting a bad rap. Here is the skinny on the MRAP which is why I call this old news:

MRAP V Superbomb: Round 2
By David Hambling September 03, 2007 | 4:04:00 AMCategories: Ammo and Munitions, Bomb Squad, Ground Vehicles, Terror Tech
The new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles will not provide protection against explosively-formed projectiles (EFP), the roadside bombs that fire a high-velocity metal slug. So contractors are already working on MRAP II, which will provide a much higher level of protection against this sort of attack. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's 'game over' for EFPs.

Iraqi insurgents have shown themselves high adaptable. IED design has mutated rapidly, with a range of techniques being used to stay ahead of bomb jammers. If MRAP II is proof against existing EFPs, there are several routes the insurgents might take to upgrade their bombs.

1) Enhanced design. Basic EFPs form a dish-shaped liner into a crude metal slug. Sophisticated designs using supercomputer modelling can create a longer, more aerodynamic projectile with fins for greater range. Another alternative is a design which produces of a 'stretching rod' – the front is moving faster than the rear, so it stretches in flight. With a greater length-to-diameter ratio, these rods have shorter range but greater armor penetration.

Rating: Very unlikely without major outside assistance

2) Enhanced material. Existing EFPs are made of copper; US weapon designers also started with copper, but found that other, denser metals can produce improved performance. A common material for US weapons is the dense metal Tantalum, which will improve penetration by about 35% for the same diameter EFP.

Rating: Very unlikely. Tantulum is much harder to obtain and work than copper.

3) Enhanced targeting. All vehicles have specific weak points. For example, in Afghanistan Mujahideen learned to attack Soviet BMP armored vehicles from behind – the rear doors are hollow and contain fuel, so a hit on them can destroy the vehicle. Careful positioning of EFPs combined with more sophisticated triggering could take advantage of any vulnerability in MRAP II.

Rating: Possible, but difficult.

4) Bigger EFPs. Simply by making the EFP bigger its range and penetrating power can be increased. Existing insurgent weapons seem to have a diameter of around four inches and fire a slug weighing ounces. Larger EFPs can be fabricated; those pictured are made by Defence Industries of Iran and include one which fires a nine-pound slug capable of piercing fourteen inches of armor.

Rating: Likely. Fabricating and positioning larger EFPs is more challenging, but well within the capabilities of insurgents.

Such a move would then be a new challenge to the makers of amored vehicles - roll on MRAP III, or some EFP-defeating add-on. The arms race continues.


This adminstration is more than willing to take the casualties and save the money being spent on MRAPs for more tax cuts for the rich oil companies. Hence, we see them badmouthing these vehicles. Just so we don't forget, here is what they replaced. Which one would you want your kids to ride in?