The article indicates the new armor on the vehicles is working to keep those inside safe. Is there some reason (other than cost) that an automatic gun, romotely controlled from inside the vehicle, can’t be used? The tech to create something like that exists. I would think that would be better than these suits.
In other interesting military news, appears the Canadian sub fleet (they have subs?) isn’t faring too well.
Armoured suits are ‘too goofy’ say US troops
American troops have complained that a new armoured body suit designed to be worn in Iraq makes them look “goofy”.
The water-cooled “alien spacesuits” are being handed out to turret gunners in their notoriously vulnerable Humvee vehicles.
The protective suit, based on those worn by bomb disposal officers, was intended to cut spiralling casualties for one of the most dangerous jobs in modern warfare.
But some troops have complained that the armour and headgear is inelegant. Others say the water-cooling system, designed for the soaring temperatures of an Iraqi summer, regularly breaks down.
Nonetheless, the suits being tested in combat by US military police units in northern Iraq have produced good results.
Capt Larry Bergeron told the military newspaper Stars and Stripes that the armour was credited with saving the lives of three men sprayed with shrapnel from roadside bombs.
“One soldier’s visor stopped a piece of shrapnel that hit dead centre,” he said. “If he had not had that suit on, the effects could have been catastrophic.”
Gunners on Humvees have high casualty rates. While newly-installed armour protects those inside, the gunner stands with the upper half of his body exposed, making him far more vulnerable to roadside bombs and gunfire. Others have been crushed as vehicles overturn.
But Specialist Michael Floyd, 19, said: “I am not a big fan of this thing. It is really hot and hard to move around in. I do feel safer, but only in an explosion. I would not feel safer in a rollover or in small-arms fire.”
Critics say the heavy suits also restrict movement during combat.
I dunno about ‘inelegant’ but, you wouldn’t want to be injured wearing one as you might have to remortgage the house to pay the DoD back (if you make it back that is) (check out the current Vanity Fair editor’s letter for details of a particular case of a solider paying for damage to his gear).
Pathetic.
To be honest, if it keeps more soldiers safe who cares what it looks like – although it does seem to me that it would restrict movement if your vehicle was put out of action during a firefight – I can’t imagine that you can run in it! It also looks a bit like the costumes they used to have in old series of Doctor Who, but to my mind that’s a plus đ
The technology is there for the gun turrent to be remotely controlled, but it could malfunction and lead to friendly fire…which is definitely a possiblity the military does not want to explore.
Isn’t it easier for them to install some sort of armored blast shield around the machine gun turrent? Instead of putting more bulk of protection on the units themselves, shouldn’t we design a better protected vehicle to protect it’s occupants? I can sort of understand the point about leaving the actual people as mobile as possible, especially if they are caught in a firefight that requires them to move and turn swiftly.
I think an more important case can be made in that these suits could provide better protection for soldiers from snipers though…
First off, the number one priority of Gubmint is to APPEAR to be doing something. The second step to DO something as half-assed as possible. We Canajuns bought decrepit subs from the Brits on the assumption (more likely some old schoolchum style “bonding”) that the vessels were sea-worthy… Technically, the were, but practically, they ended up at the bottom of the ocean.
Anyhoo, after the US army was showered with rose petals on the way in to Iraq, so it’s no surprise they were caught unawares by the nationals of a soverign nation fighting back the invaders… How strange is that? I mean, if a hostile nation wanted to invade the US to rid the country of the leader who does not listen to international law, harbours terrorists, stockpiles, chemical, nookular and biological weapons (and has the honour of being the ONLY nation to use nookular weapons againts another country), the Americans would be showering them with rose petals too!
About the Canadian subs. Yeah, we have a few of them. The one in the story happens to be one that was withdrawn from service by the British Royal Navy.
There’s been problems one could say. Particuarly electrical ones.
I’ve been thinking lately about the deaths of 2,000+ soldiers in the past couple of years. I used to be opposed to them dying but I’ve had a change of mind. Being a soldier is risking your life for a cause not your own, but of the State. Because our army is all-volunteer soldiers deaths is no one else’s fault but the soldier’s. It doesn’t matter if the war was justified or not. Kids who die in these fake wars have no one to blame but themselves. Grieving families are just that: grieving. Blaming Bush for their son’s deaths is out of place. If anybody, they should blame themselves for letting their son/daughter enter into the military. Let them die. That is the thrill they seek. They wouldn’t be soldiers if there was no risk in dying, they would be cheerleaders, instead.
Canadian subs … yeah … we bought four piece-of-crap DIESEL subs from the UK … one was pretty severly damaged by an electrical fire on its maiden voyage (as a Canadian vessel) across the pond … hopefully [new Prime Minister] Harper will fix the military … you don’t even want to hear about our Sea King helcopters – I think they need like 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of airtime, they’re that old and dilapidated – we should give them to the Iraqi insurgents – it’d save us money, and they’d all die in air crashes. Problem solved. (Well, Afghani insurgents – we aren’t in Iraq)
Robo guns are on every Abrams tank right now.The reason they don’t put them on Humvees is stupidity and and the inertia of large organizations. An M2 “50 caliber machine gun” is much more accurate used this way than by hand. The only advantage a human gunner has is the ability to see the battlefield.
Er, well when it comes to being safe vs looking good, I would go with being safe…inelegant or not…who cares.
It’s been a while since I deployed…2004 (al anbar province, I’m out of the military now), and the main problem with gunners wasn’t just shrapnel and small arms from the ouside, but IED’s from underneath. You, since uparmored hummv’s don’t have armor underneath. At least they didn’t then.
After two tours there, all I feel like is F this stupid war, and david is right – no one forced anyone to join, it is all volunteer, and everyone should known the risk – thats why I got out, I had a flash of intelligence! (though to be honest, I joined before all this crap started).
Pain the armour black. It’ll look cool enough.
David, while I agree those who are in the military now are there because they joined, I disagree with your comment about they have no one to blame but themselves if they get killed or injured. They signed up to be warriors, but it is those at the top who start the wars and manage them that should be held accountable for how the wars start and how they’re run. If they don’t return whole it’s reasonable to question if what happened to them happened for reasons that could have been avoided by those at a much higher pay grade.
“Robo guns are on every Abrams tank right now.The reason they donât put them on Humvees is stupidity and and the inertia of large organizations.”
How about the profit margin of defense contractors? You know, Bush’s base.
For one thing, they are not going to look goofy in a casket.
I said it before and I’ll say it again:
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=4829
comment #8
“Is there some reason (other than cost) that an automatic gun, romotely controlled from inside the vehicle, canât be used?”
Nope.
Remotely-controlled weapons come standard on Armoured Personnel Carriers [APC] or Infantry Fighting Vehicles [IFV].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier
i.e Bradleys [treads] & Strykers [tires].
But those are big vehicles with small [25mm] cannons – built to safely transport troops in close-support of tanks. Can you say “open-field battle”. I knew you could.
Humvees are supposed to replace jeeps, not APCs. Stacking a motorized gun turret on top would may them too top-heavy to be maneuverable.
An automated turret would also cost you the ability – critical in “urban” areas – of the gunner to also be the look-out from an elevated position. Able to quickly scan around the vehicle, and check windows & rooftops – something that would have an automated turret spinning like a top, if you were trying to use its camera to look at the same things.
The water-cooled âalien spacesuitsâ are being handed out to turret gunners in their notoriously vulnerable Humvee vehicles.
Why an entire suit, vice just a jacket & collar.
If the entire suit is water-cooled, how much does it weigh? The bulk/weight – and the connecting hoses [shown in the picture on the right] – must degrade movement in the gunner’s position…
I would be scared by the loss of peripheral-vision – and by not being able to turn my head much to either side because the visor would hit the collar.
Not an issue for EOD, but a concern for your vehicle’s lookout/gunner.
Only problem is…the Casspir is NOT American…we can’t go buying non-domestic weapons that actually work…
Smartalix et al: Don’t you remember the article about how they can’t sell civilian Hummers?
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/index.php?s=hummer&submit=Search
What do you think a good conservative administration would do if the market is killing off a product?
Oh wait a minute. What do you think the Bush cronyocracy would do about it? The ideal military system is vastly expensive and needs constant servicing… if you’re a defense contractor. Sell ’em a Hummer and then sell them armour and a gun turret that has to be custom fitted etc. Soon they’ll be trying to push some kind of helicopter rotor system and a buoyancy add on for sailing!
Yes, an automatic gun controled from the inside does exsist, is being used, and the troops love it. No the current version of the Abrams tank does not have an automatic gun, the troops said they didn’t want it so it was taken out. The tank still has a coax gun near the main gun, but that is as close as it gets. The system was designed at Picatinny Arsenal in NJ and quickly sent to the field for them to use.
Remote gun? And who gets the job to exit the vehicle when it jams? Will that short straw at least wear this armor?