MRAP's really work! - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #16 02-28-2008, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Lets put on our logic caps.... Does anyone know what a 500LB would do? I see no obvious bomb crater, hard to tell, maybe one in the background of the first photo. And explain why none of the windows are broken? Also there is no hole in the bottom of the engine bay, if there was enough force to blow the engine out, why is that plate still intact and not even buckled? Also no burn marks on the body of the truck and none of the tires are flat or shredded.

That said, I don't know what would cause this kind of damage. Maybe dropping from a plane??

Great observations. I got nuthin'.

Medmech · #17 02-28-2008, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Lets put on our logic caps.... Does anyone know what a 500LB would do? I see no obvious bomb crater, hard to tell, maybe one in the background of the first photo. And explain why none of the windows are broken? Also there is no hole in the bottom of the engine bay, if there was enough force to blow the engine out, why is that plate still intact and not even buckled? Also no burn marks on the body of the truck and none of the tires are flat or shredded.

That said, I don't know what would cause this kind of damage. Maybe dropping from a plane??

I have a good MRAP link on another puter, your observations are correct IIRC it was not a known 500 lb bomb but a massive bomb hidden beneath the road which is behind the MRAP and out of view. I have seen many MRAP blast pictures and never have seen a broken window. The "glass" is very thick blast resistant plexiglass.

Medmech · #18 02-28-2008, 07:38 AM

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003692.html

Tests on how much the MRAP can withstand is classified for obvious reasons.

Botnst · #19 02-28-2008, 07:51 AM

^^^ If it takes a 500# and keeps going then some smart bad guy is going to build a 501# bomb. Etc. History has repeatedly reminded the military that no defense is sufficient for protection -- technology always overcomes. They key is to keep the enemy off-balance so that he cannot effectively overcome the defense but instead, must worry bout his own defense.

Medmech · #20 02-28-2008, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

^^^ If it takes a 500# and keeps going then some smart bad guy is going to build a 501# bomb. Etc. History has repeatedly reminded the military that no defense is sufficient for protection -- technology always overcomes. They key is to keep the enemy off-balance so that he cannot effectively overcome the defense but instead, must worry bout his own defense.

Its more difficult to conceal an explosive of that size, most of the IED's are modified artillery pieces and unexploded sub-munitions from Desert Storm and the current war which cannot penetrate that MRAP.

Chad300tdt · #21 02-28-2008, 08:30 AM

It looks like the solution is leaning toward large scale Robot Wars.
http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13382-robot-arms-race-underway-expert-warns.html

Perhaps a combination Asimov's ideas will be the final answer (overlooking his laws of course).

Botnst · #22 02-28-2008, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howitzer

Its more difficult to conceal an explosive of that size, most of the IED's are modified artillery pieces and unexploded sub-munitions from Desert Storm and the current war which cannot penetrate that MRAP.

What I meant by the 501# comment is just an analogy. Any defense ever designed has been overcome. Thus, to depend on defenses for safety is to depend on illusion. The best defense is to kill the enemy.

Artillery shells were the most popular when armor was light. But I thought the enemy was shifting to shaped charges, designed specifically for use against coalition vehicles, made in Iran. Those weapons (as I understand them) don't depend on undirected shrapnel and blast pressure from a large charge. Instead, they are a directed charge designed to focus the energy on a particular point, directing the shrapnel at a tremendous velocity, to a single point. Thus they do not require a massive charge.

Medmech · #23 02-28-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Artillery shells were the most popular when armor was light. But I thought the enemy was shifting to shaped charges, designed specifically for use against coalition vehicles, made in Iran. Those weapons (as I understand them) don't depend on undirected shrapnel and blast pressure from a large charge. Instead, they are a directed charge designed to focus the energy on a particular point, directing the shrapnel at a tremendous velocity, to a single point. Thus they do not require a massive charge.

Correct, but the MRAP armor can withstand the anti-tank weapons due to the V hull. In any case its much harder for the enemy to aquire the charges needed. The logic that we don't need better armor to transport troops is flawed because if that was the case it would be more cost effective to put the troops in unarmored cars and trucks and teach them to drive fast. What is killing many soldiers is the armored Humvee which is not designed for that kind of weight and the easily roll when cornering @ 25 MPH.

The biggest problem with the IED's is not really the blast itself it the incinerary effect that the "road side" bombs have which the wounded numbers due to those was above 30,000 last time I checked, the MRAP fully protects soldiers from those type of IED's.

There is a pretty in depth discussion regarding the MRAP on another forum, its normally a closed forum but i may be able to muster and invite for a crusty ol sailor with deep military roots.

and a family member of yours that is already in the club

will help.

Botnst · #24 02-28-2008, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howitzer

Correct, but the MRAP armor can withstand the anti-tank weapons due to the V hull. In any case its much harder for the enemy to aquire the charges needed. The logic that we don't need better armor to transport troops is flawed because if that was the case it would be more cost effective to put the troops in unarmored cars and trucks and teach them to drive fast. What is killing many soldiers is the armored Humvee which is not designed for that kind of weight and the easily roll when cornering @ 25 MPH.

The biggest problem with the IED's is not really the blast itself it the incinerary effect that the "road side" bombs have which the wounded numbers due to those was above 30,000 last time I checked, the MRAP fully protects soldiers from those type of IED's.

There is a pretty in depth discussion regarding the MRAP on another forum, its normally a closed forum but i may be able to muster and invite for a crusty ol sailor with deep military roots.

I don't think it is an either/or decision.

One of the comments on the link you provided previously hit it right on the button: Let the generals and majors make the decisions on missions and materials, not politicians. If they need the machine, give it to them. But just as marines are apparently dumping the new (very effective) body armor because it impairs their fighting ability, and keeping the lighter, less effective armor, the MRAP is useful for some, but not all missions. As another soldier said, if protection were the mission they'd stick everybody in an M-1.

I'd like that invite.

B

Medmech · #25 02-28-2008, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

The best defense is to kill the enemy.

.

Absolutely 100% agreement on that! Except I would add, kill all future enemies as well.

Medmech · #26 02-28-2008, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

One of the comments on the link you provided previously hit it right on the button: Let the generals and majors make the decisions on missions and materials, not politicians.

B

That is the war drum I have been beating since Rumsfeld's bull**** moves, I think I have made that point crystal clear here, but with an addition, let the Generals and Majors that have actually seen combat make the decision, most of the guys in Washington are politicians that wear uniforms.

Bill Wood · #27 02-28-2008, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angel

Webillmaster - Where did you find these ? I'd like to link/show them to some buddies on a .mil base but fora are blocked there

The pics were part of a Powerpoint presentation emailed to me from someone I know in the military. It can be found HERE.

The first page of the presentation contains the following information:

Soldiers survived!!

This is one of the new "hardened" MRAP vehicles that was hit by a 500 lb bomb (IED). The vehicle was totally destroyed, but EVERYONE IN THE VEHICLE WALKED AWAY.

Note the unusual construction of the bottom of the hardened Pathfinder APC. Note the bottom looks like the hull of a ship. The blast picked up the truck and turned it around! The driver got some broken ribs (see the photo of the steering wheel), but that's it. Everyone walked away from a 500 lb explosion directly beneath their vehicle

MAJ Brent Ruhlen
Sr. Project Officer
TCM-BC, CP Division
Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027
(913)684-4498
DSN: 552-4498

Medmech · #28 02-28-2008, 12:17 PM

I'm with you google http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3A*%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GFRD&q=500+lb+explosion+mrap+&btnG=Search

the presentation is all over the net, the exact size of the bomb is the part that is the part that is not verified, if it ever was. IMo it could have been larger than 500lb, I would like to see the math on how much force it would take the knock an engine block that size off its mounts and move it 100 yards.

There is no doubt that the occupants will have ringing ears for awhile as well.