[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report

CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene

NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report

$200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney

Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030

Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman

China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead

FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call

France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence

Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis

Fooling Us Badly With Psyops

The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong

Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking

Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison

Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why)

Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them

America Is Reaching A Boiling Point

The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses

This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research

Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani

Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!


War, War, War
See other War, War, War Articles

Title: Afghan Insurgents Learn to Destroy Key US Armored Vehicle
Source: McClatchy News
URL Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/336/story/78443.html
Published: Nov 5, 2009
Author: Jonathan S. Landay
Post Date: 2009-12-30 00:38:23 by AGAviator
Keywords: None
Views: 360
Comments: 29

Afghan insurgents learn to destroy key U.S. armored vehicle

By Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Taliban-led insurgents in Afghanistan have devised ways to cripple and even destroy the expensive armored vehicles that offer U.S. forces the best protection against roadside bombs by using increasingly large explosive charges and rocket-propelled grenades, according to U.S. soldiers and defense officials.

At least eight American troops have been killed this year in attacks on so-called Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles, or MRAPs, and 40 more have been wounded, said a senior U.S. military official who, like others interviewed on the issue, declined to be further identified because of the issue's sensitivity.

The insurgents' success in attacking the hulking machines, which can cost as much as $1 million each, underscores their ability to counter the advanced hardware that the U.S. military and its allies are deploying in their struggle to gain the upper hand in the war, which entered its ninth year last month.

The attacks also raise questions about how vulnerable a new, lighter MRAP, the M-ATV, which is now being shipped to Afghanistan, are to the massive explosive charges that Taliban-led insurgents have been using against its bigger cousin.

The insurgents are also hitting MRAPs with rocket-propelled grenades that can penetrate their steel armor, according to U.S troops in Afghanistan, several of whom showed McClatchy a photograph of a hole that one of the projectiles had punched in the hull of an MRAP.

The Pentagon has spent more than $26.8 billion to develop and build three versions of the largest MRAPs, totaling some 16,000 vehicles, mostly for the Army and Marine Corps, according to an August report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

Another $5.4 billion is being spent to produce 5,244 M-ATVs, the smaller version that U.S. defense officials contend offers as much protection as the large models do, but is more maneuverable and better suited to Afghanistan's dirt tracks and narrow mountain roads.

"The traditional MRAP was having real problems . . . off road in Afghanistan," said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell. "And clearly we have to do a lot of work off-road. And these new vehicles will provide our forces the ability to travel more safely off road — certainly off paved roads — than they would have been able to do with other vehicles."

Defense officials acknowledged the growing problem of successful attacks on MRAPs, and said the U.S. military is constantly developing improvements for the vehicle that include better sensors and tactics.

"It's not all about the armor. We can't build something that is impervious to everything," said Navy Capt. Jack Henzlik, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We are using a comprehensive strategy to try to provide for the protection of our forces."

The issue was the subject of a high-level meeting convened on Wednesday by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who made the production of MRAPs his highest priority in 2007 as U.S. troops in Iraq were suffering massive casualties from roadside bomb attacks.

The use of powerful explosive charges against MRAPs "is a problem that he (Gates) is keenly aware of, very concerned about, and is determined to make sure this building is doing everything it can to combat," Morrell said. "We have never advertised MRAPs or M-ATVs as a silver bullet for the IED (improvised explosive device) problem. This is but one element of a vast array of capabilities that we need to bring to bear to protect our forces."

However, retired Army Col. Douglas A. MacGregor, a former armored cavalry commander and combat veteran and an expert on armor warfare, said that vehicles such as the MRAP have "very limited utility" in a war against a guerrilla group such as the Taliban.

"The notion of a wheeled armored constabulary force as a prescription for a close combat situation is nonsense," he said.

U.S. troops rely on the MRAP's V-shaped hull, which is designed to deflect explosive blasts, and heavy armored plating to protect them against the landmines and IEDs that are causing most American combat deaths in Afghanistan.

October was the deadliest month for U.S. troops since the 2001 U.S. invasion. At least 59 were killed, bringing the total for the year to at least 272 dead, according to the Internet site iCasualties. At least 139 of those troops died in IED blasts, according to the Pentagon.

"Pentagon officials note that insurgents are building larger IEDs and are finding better ways to conceal them," the Congressional Research Service report said.

"The biggest question is what took them so long," said a senior Pentagon official with extensive experience with the MRAP program and familiarity with the weapons and techniques that the militants in Afghanistan have developed to "compromise" the vehicle.

The fact that the large MRAPs — which range from 7 tons to 24 tons depending on the model — often are confined to narrow mountain roads and valleys in Afghanistan has made it easier for insurgents to prepare ambushes using anti-tank mines, IEDs or rocket-propelled grenades capable of penetrating armor, the official said.

U.S. defense officials insisted that many more U.S. troops would be killed and injured in Afghanistan and in Iraq if they'd been equipped with vehicles other than MRAPs.

"KIA (killed in action) rates in particular are noticeably reduced in MRAPs," said Irene Smith, a spokeswoman for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, the Pentagon agency created to develop defenses against roadside bombs.

U.S. defense officials in Washington and Kabul declined to reveal the number of MRAPs that have been crippled or destroyed since the first vehicles were deployed in Afghanistan in 2003, saying they didn't want to provide the Taliban with information on the effectiveness of their tactics.

McClatchy is voluntarily withholding some U.S. soldiers' descriptions of insurgent tactics out of concern that they may not be known by all of those fighting U.S.-led forces.

The soldiers spoke out of what they said was a heightened concern about the vehicles' vulnerability to ambushes, especially on mountain roads where there's no room for the vehicles to turn around.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 28.

#1. To: sneakypete, liberator (#0)

The biggest question is what took them so long," said a senior Pentagon official with extensive experience with the MRAP program and familiarity with the weapons and techniques that the militants in Afghanistan have developed to "compromise" the vehicle.

War's not as much fun when the other fellow learns how to fight back, is it?

We can't build something that is impervious to everything," said Navy Capt. Jack Henzlik, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We are using a comprehensive strategy to try to provide for the protection of our forces."

In those parts, the "comprehensive strategy" is called baksheesh.

AGAviator  posted on  2009-12-30   0:47:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: AGAviator (#1)

U.S. defense officials insisted that many more U.S. troops would be killed and injured in Afghanistan and in Iraq if they'd been equipped with vehicles other than MRAPs.

He's right about this. I have seen photos of a modern main battle tank turned over on it's side after being flipped from running over a buried 155mm or 175mm artillery shell. There is no such thing as a vehicle being 100% safe. Especially not when the insurgents are shooting at them from above using AP rocket rounds imported from China and Russia. The rag heads ain't building their own tungsten-tipped rocket rounds.

In those parts, the "comprehensive strategy" is called baksheesh.

"Those parts"??? That's a universal language understood and spoken all over the world. It overpowers racial and cultural differences,and even religious differences cease to matter when the language of cash payoffs is being spoken.

sneakypete  posted on  2009-12-31   9:27:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: sneakypete (#8)

Another factor to consider is the more that Americans hide behind their million- dollar vehicles and pilotless drones, the more contempt they will earn from the people there especially with the civilian casualties they almost never admit to causing.

I think fairly soon there will be a tipping point where the majority of the Pashtun population will not be willing to cooperate with the US in any way, shape, or form.

AGAviator  posted on  2010-01-01   6:06:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: AGAviator (#12)

Another factor to consider is the more that Americans hide behind their million- dollar vehicles and pilotless drones, the more contempt they will earn from the people there especially with the civilian casualties they almost never admit to causing.

That has to be one of the lamest complaints I have ever heard. That,more than anything else you have ever written leads me to believe you really ARE a idiot PC westerner who is probably a teenager.

What,you prefer they charge each other with lances from horseback,while the fair maidens swoon along the sidelines? After properly matching the opponents in size and strength,of course.

Why not just have Oprah over there with Doctor Phil to sit everybody down so they can talk about their feelings and resolve their differences around a marshmallow roast with group hugs?

What difference does it make if your enemy has contempt for you? You're not there to marry his sister,you are there to kill the SOB. "Fair" has nothing to do with it. Winning and surviving are everything.

"Fair" fighting a war! It boggles the imagination! You must have lived a very sheltered life.

sneakypete  posted on  2010-01-01   11:18:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: sneakypete (#14) (Edited)

Another factor to consider is the more that Americans hide behind their million- dollar vehicles and pilotless drones, the more contempt they will earn from the people there especially with the civilian casualties they almost never admit to causing.

What difference does it make if your enemy has contempt for you? You're not there to marry his sister,you are there to kill the SOB. "Fair" has nothing to do with it. Winning and surviving are everything.

"Fair" fighting a war! It boggles the imagination! You must have lived a very sheltered life.

That has to be one of the lamest complaints I have ever heard.

As usual, I'm 3 steps ahead of you. It's very clear you never were college material.

As an intensely-disliked foreigner trying to run a country, you either need to

(A) Install your own people as administrators in key executive positions, or

(B) Recruit toadies from the local population to do your dirty work.

Pursuing Option (A) will lead to very high attrition rates among your own people. And no, you can't run a country or even a village giving orders from your "office" in an MRAP.

Pursuing Option (B) requires at least a small minority capable of inspiring respect and obedience from the population that you, the intensely-disliked foreigner, are trying to control.

Since America has already backed away from Option A, the only remaining option is B.

However, it is becoming quite clear there are little or no takers for that option, and the few that appear willing, may in fact kill you at their first opportunity - as the 8 high-ranking CIA people found out this last week.

Now since I understand you're a little slow on the uptake, I'm going to bring you up to speed on how logistics ("military supplies") move through Pakistan and in Afghanistan.

Ih a word: Bribery. Including and especially including bribing the Taliban.

Every stretch of road - and there are tens of thousands of miles of road - has potential ambushers. And fuel tankers for all those mine-resistant gas hogs make especially tempting targets.

A recent Congressional study concluded that once bribes to pay the Taliban not to attack are included with all the other costs, a gallon of fuel costs several hundred dollars delivered.

And the more disliked you are, the higher those costs are going to be, and the fewer locations the bean counters and pencil-pushers in logistics will be willing to subsidize.

So, like Ivan in the 1980's, the US will be limited to hunkering down in a few enclaves, protected by air power round the clock, and people everywhere else doing whatever they damn well please. Yeah, maybe they can increase the drone attacks - until someone offs the puppet Karzai and his enablers in Kabul. Then you'll have a civil war from one end of the country to the other, just like in the early 90's, with 'Murikan people caught right in the middle.

And naturally, the prices of buying support will get one hell of a lot higher. Until it gets so high that a few years down the road, the decision-makers conclude that the costs outweigh the benefits - the same decision about this region that's been coming down for millenia.

Paying people not to attack you is not winning a war, sport. And that's how the game is being played these days - just like in Iraq.

AGAviator  posted on  2010-01-01   14:26:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: AGAviator (#15)

As usual, I'm 3 steps ahead of you. It's very clear you never were college material.

LOL!

Now since I understand you're a little slow on the uptake,

Thank you ever so much! Weezewuns what ain't coluge material preciate yore help. specially thoze ob uz that went to the Special Warfare School.

Now since I understand you're a little slow on the uptake, I'm going to bring you up to speed on how logistics ("military supplies") move through Pakistan and in Afghanistan.

Ih a word: Bribery. Including and especially including bribing the Taliban.

REALLY? You're not putting me on,are you? WOW! I would have never suspected THAT! Thank you ever so much!

sneakypete  posted on  2010-01-01   20:34:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: sneakypete, James Deffenbach (#17)

Weezewuns what ain't coluge material preciate yore help. specially thoze ob uz that went to the Special Warfare School.

Now since I understand you're a little slow on the uptake, I'm going to bring you up to speed on how logistics ("military supplies") move through Pakistan and in Afghanistan.

Ih a word: Bribery. Including and especially including bribing the Taliban.

REALLY? You're not putting me on,are you? WOW! I would have never suspected THAT! Thank you ever so much!

They taught you to bribe your enemy in the Special Warfare School?

Regardless, you're the one alleging that when you fight a war it doesn't matter if your enemy likes you or not.

I'm saying that when you're trying to bribe your enemy not to attack you, it certainly does. At the very least it raises the price, and may also have other unintended consequences like the old "Pretend to Be Ready for a Bribe to Set Up an Ambush" trick.

AGAviator  posted on  2010-01-01   22:30:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: AGAviator (#22)

Regardless, you're the one alleging that when you fight a war it doesn't matter if your enemy likes you or not.

Yeah,but it's only me and every other human being that has ever gone off to war that thinks that,so don't let it throw you.

I'm saying that when you're trying to bribe your enemy not to attack you, it certainly does.

And even then you are wrong.

First off,if they like you,they don't go to war against you.

Secondly,if they aren't attacking you because you are paying them not to attack you,it makes no difference if they like you or not because the money they are paid keeps them from attacking you.

sneakypete  posted on  2010-01-01   23:47:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: sneakypete (#24) (Edited)

You're the one alleging that when you fight a war it doesn't matter if your enemy likes you or not.

It's only me and every other human being that has ever gone off to war that thinks that, so don't let it throw you.

Throughtout history there have been different degrees of enmity between people fighting wars.

In some wars there has been mutual respect between combatants, while in others there was "no quarter asked or given."

Secondly,if they aren't attacking you because you are paying them not to attack you,it makes no difference if they like you or not because the money they are paid keeps them from attacking you.

If they don't like you it will take more money, more frequently, and always with the possibility they will look like they're ready to make a deal and then attack.

AGAviator  posted on  2010-01-02   12:40:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: AGAviator (#25)

Throughtout history there have been different degrees of enmity between people fighting wars.

Name a war where both sides liked each other. You don't try to kill people you like.

sneakypete  posted on  2010-01-02   13:50:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: sneakypete (#27)

Throughtout history there have been different degrees of enmity between people fighting wars.

Name a war where both sides liked each other.

I didn't say anybody liked each other, I said there are some conflicts where there's mutual respect and you have a decent chance of surviving if the other side gets you, and others where if you get captured you'd be better off dead.

AGAviator  posted on  2010-01-03   0:32:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 28.

#29. To: AGAviator (#28)

I said there are some conflicts where there's mutual respect and you have a decent chance of surviving if the other side gets you, and others where if you get captured you'd be better off dead.

No question about that.

sneakypete  posted on  2010-01-03 11:35:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 28.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]