The Iraq thread 4

[denoir 0]

And I think we could afford a boost in numbers/spending somehow, if we cut ourselves off from the Goddamned European Union and stopped spending money on a thousand seemingly little things which end up costing us a fortune.

.

Well, I'd be the first one to wish you well and happily wave goodbye to you. Personally, I think Britain is just a big tumor on the organization obstructing EU growth and integration. So trust me, I would really not be disappointed if you left.

Having said that my statement stands. Your only chance of having any form of action capable military is if you join somebody bigger. You can either do it as in Iraq, with the US, where you have no say or you can try to push for a common EU military where you would have a say.

Quote[/b] ]Just think of all the aid we're going to send to Africa now, when we're still trying to sort out Iraq and the former Jugoslavia!!

Yeah, and just think of how much we could save if we eliminated the costly, inefficient national defence forces in Europe and merged into a single organization. Today the EU countries spend about half of what the US does on military but has about a tenth of the force. Every country is re-inventing the wheel.

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, Denoir, did you do National Service? Sweden has no need at all for Conscription, yet still your country has it. And I'm certainly not calling for Conscription here in Britain

Yes I did, but that was nearly a decade ago, when we still had a military. Today we don't - except for on paper. In my days 2/3 of the 19 year olds males did military service, today it's less than a tenth. Almost all air bases have been shut down, so it takes over two hours to "scramble" fighters over Stockholm. For all practical purposes, we don't have a military.

It makes sense, because it is ludicrous that a nation of 9 million should try maintaining a full military organization - especially since our only potential enemy is Russia, which is orders of magnitude stronger. They should have perhaps waited until we got a common European defence, but I don't think we're about to be invaded any time soon. Sweden can only defend its territorial integrity with the help of others, so if we wish to do so, we have no choice but to do join a common EU military.

[SFWanabe 0]

Sweden has some on coolest planes I've ever seen.

[Necromancer- 0]

Quote[/b] ]I imagine that alot of these terrorists get training in other countries like Syria and Lebanon as well.

There isn´t much training needed for those kind of attacks and it´s best and most efficient handled inside Iraq these days as the security situation is so bad that even countries like Jordan, Tunisia and Morocco have a much better one. So why take a risk when you can do it all in Iraq in a much safer way.

Home made suicide bombers.

I know it's an old joke, but it's applicable to the situation.. somewhat.

[Bordoy 0]

50 years since first flight for the Saab J35 Draken in October 2005.

Quote[/b] ]Well, I'd be the first one to wish you well and happily wave goodbye to you. Personally, I think Britain is just a big tumor on the organization obstructing EU growth and integration.

That's all well except that we haven't said no the EU constitution..............yet. France killed it, while Holland put the nail in coffin. Not that Chirac wants to admit it, which is why he has just changed the subject to the EU Rebate nad blaming everything on us.

[Donnervogel 0]

That's all well except that we haven't said no the EU constitution..............yet. France killed it, while Holland put the nail in coffin. Not that Chirac wants to admit it, which is why he has just changed the subject to the EU Rebate nad blaming everything on us.

I answered to this in the European politics thread as this is not the right place for EU politics.

[ralphwiggum 6]

reminds me of the Saving Private Ryan

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/15/brothers.in.arms/index.html

Quote[/b] ](CNN) -- As the war in Iraq stretches on, American military families feel a mixture of pride and anxiety that comes with having a loved one in a combat zone. The family of Leon and Tammy Pruett knows those feelings four times over.

The Pruetts have four sons serving in combat in Iraq. Eric, Evan, Greg and Jeff are completing an 18-month tour of duty in Iraq with the Army National Guard. Leon and the couple's fifth son, Eren, are just back from Iraq, and daughter Emily would have gone but had not completed her training when her brothers shipped out.

Why would one family be willing to risk so much for the war in Iraq? The Pruetts feel it is their duty to serve, that other people in the world have a right to some of the freedoms and privileges Americans have. And, as Tammy Pruett says, "If not my sons, then whose?"

Far from home

The four brothers are "'weekend warriors" who left their jobs and families in Idaho to fight a war far removed from their rural hometown.

Second Lt. Eric Pruett, 26, is a tank platoon commander in charge of 23 soldiers and the training of Iraqi police. In civilian life, Eric is an assistant manager at a Wal-Mart.

Spc. Evan Pruett, 23, fixes the vehicles his brothers and their units use for missions, and repairs those damaged by makeshift bombs. Back home, he is a bartender and first-time father.

Spc. Greg Pruett, also 23, is a missionary-turned-communications expert currently living at the former home of Ali Hassan al-Majid -- known as "Chemical Ali" for allegedly gassing Kurdish villagers in late 1980s and early 1990s.

Greg hears everything going on in the field from the radios and worries about his brothers on patrols. When he hears about bad things happening, he says, he just hopes and prays that they are all right.

Spc. Jeff Pruett, 20, hunts for insurgents and weapons and trains new Iraqi forces. Back home, he is a grocery store clerk.

During a house-to-house search in Kirkuk, he acknowledges the dangers that the brothers face. "The odds are a lot higher, and what's the chances of us all making it out alive and getting back home?"

[Balschoiw 0]

Blame it on the boogey:

RUMSFELD: IRAQ 'NO SAFER'

Quote[/b] ] Iraq is "statistically" no safer today than it was at the end of the war, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has admitted.

In an interview he said the insurgency has increased since the Coalition took charge of the country.

He told Sir David Frost in an interview for BBC Newsnight that Syria was fuelling the rebellion.

Sir David asked him whether the security situation had improved since the day after the war ended.

Mr Rumsfeld said: "Well, statistically no. But clearly it has been getting better as we've gone along.

"In other words, at the end of the war the army fled, was captured.

"The insurgency then built over a period of time, and it has had its ups and downs."

He added: "A lot of bad things that could have happened have not happened."

Asked which country was being most unhelpful, he said: "With respect to the insurgency, I would say Syria.

"With respect to an effort to try to influence what's taking place, Iran is doing that."

The insurgency has claimed thousands of lives, with suicide bombers frequently targeting Iraqi security and civilians as well as Coalition troops.

I guess the real ones to be blamed are not Syria or Iran. That´s GOP whitewash. The real failures were done in the Pentagon/ White House and some of the most heavy failures were comitted by Rumsfeld himself.

Sure, go blame the others for your own failures....

[walker 0]

Hi all

I think it is exactly as we were told by the generals who TBA sacked.

From the begininig TBA never had a plan.

Sadly Walker

[SFWanabe 0]

Come on Walker dont be sad dude. Look we got some smilies!!!!

[harley 3 1185 0]

I could never understand the whole issue of sacking Generals - A politician should only be able to tell an officer what to do, not end his career - that's a task for the officer's peers and superiors to decide, with the government, or in this case, the TBA, intervening in only rare cases. Or that's what I thought anyway...

[walker 0]

Hi all

Now years after hostilities officialy ended the UK airforce is once again bombing targets in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]RAF bombs sites in western Iraq

Royal Air Force warplanes have been called into action in Iraq alongside American forces fighting close to the Syrian border.

The British GR4 Tornadoes were supporting a US operation against insurgents, the American military said.

They used laser-guided bombs and missiles to support an attack on a building in Karabila, it said.

Around 1,000 US troops are targeting insurgent hide-outs in the offensive, known as Operation Spear.

The operation has seen heavy fighting in Karabila and other areas around the city of Qaim, in north-western Iraq's Anbar province, correspondents say...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4108098.stm

If we realy had control of the country, we would not be having to use LGBs from aircraft.

It is shocking to me that years after invading Iraq the coalition have not been able to secure the country. Clearly there are not sufficient troops on the ground to do the Job as the sacked Generals warned TBA they needed far more troops than TBA were willing to commit to do the job. TBA was wrong the sacked Generals were right.

Sadly walker

[harley 3 1185 0]

Since when are we British having to do the American's work for them? Western Iraq is an American are, is it not. The U.S.A.F. has a few thousand combat-ready aircraft. The U.S.Navy has a few thousand combat-ready aircraft. Why does it fall to Britain with our miniscule force of Tornadoes to bomb this position, unless it's a very expensive form of Bombing practice? I do wonder sometimes what goes on behind closed doors in London and Washington.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

From the article-

Quote[/b] ]RAF planes back US raids in Iraq

Royal Air Force warplanes have been called into action in Iraq alongside American forces fighting close to the Syrian border.

The British GR4 Tornadoes were supporting a US operation against insurgents, the American military said.

However earlier reports that the planes fired missiles and dropped bombs on a building have been denied by the MoD.

Around 1,000 US troops are targeting insurgent hide-outs in the offensive, known as Operation Spear.

The operation has seen heavy fighting in Karabila and other areas around the city of Qaim, in north-western Iraq's Anbar province, correspondents say.

Reports quoting the US military had said the Tornadoes fired laser-guided missiles, but an MoD spokesman said that was not true.

He said the planes "loitered in the air" while the US forces conducted their offensive on a district in Karabila.

"They didn't engage any enemy, they didn't fire anything and they didn't drop anything," he said.

"They were there in support of the US operation and although they could have engaged if they'd wanted to, they didn't have to."

He added that the planes used were part of coalition forces headquartered in Baghdad, not in southern Iraq where the rest of British forces are based.

It seems the article may have changed since walker posted it. So i wonder who cocked up. Could it be a US military spokesman was willing to spice up the news with unverified information? I suppose 'British aircraft also loitered in support' doesnt sound quite as impressive as 'fired laser guided missiles'.

Also it seems that we have aircraft based in Baghdad, which i didnt know.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Also it seems that we have aircraft based in Baghdad, which i didnt know.

My mates a Navy supply officer and he's currently in Baghdad, alot of foreign fighters come through the syrian border where the populace is rather sparse so i don't really see whats so omg loosing control about it, yes areas in baghdad and the surrounding triangle of death are hotbeds of resistence but the north and particularly the south are relativly calm.

[walker 0]

Hi Monkey Lib Front

Sadam had total control over Iraq's borders. There were never any Al Qaida in Iraq until after the coalition came.

I guess I am suprised that the coalition is less capable than Sadam.

Regards Walker

[harley 3 1185 0]

It's not exactly for lack of trying either. The Coalition troops always meant well, yet unfortunately there are the occasional exceptions. Out of deference/fear of Saddam, there weren't any Al Qaeda members trying to get into Iraq. If there were, Saddam's security forces would have made short work of them.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Hi Monkey Lib Front

Sadam had total control over Iraq's borders. There were never any Al Qaida in Iraq until after the coalition came.

I guess I am suprised that the coalition is less capable than Sadam.

Regards Walker

Well Saddam did have the fear of the public that any mass dissent would be greated with great force and maybe chem weapons. Which brings up an interesting question, would saddam have been able to keep hold of his grip over Iraq if they people of Iraq knew that saddam had no WMD's it's probabal that the regime would have collapsed internally leading to maybe civil war between the majority and the ruling minority.

also Al Q would have came no matter how many troops where in country, infact probally it would have been more of a pull as it would have been seen by Al Q and other anti american terrorist organisations/groups as a target rich environment.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Today top US General Vines in Iraq told it like it is:

http://www.cbsnews.com/section....ingnews

Stating the current situation is a stalemate, what he is hoping is that the the coalition can keep the insurgents at bay long enough for an Iraqi army to take over.

read more about General Vines rather sober assesment here

http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050621-3081.html

In the end he also admits May was the worst month for insurgent attacks since "major hostililities officialy ended" according to George Bush Junior all those months ago when he pretended to land the airplane on that carrier.

In this report General Vines explains the four Sunni groups involved in the insurgency.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2061

He sensably ingnores the Shiite groups who will only become a problem if Iraq decends in to a civil war. He seems the type though to be aware that it is the goal of some of the Sunni insurgents and terrorists as is the current US ambasador to Iraq:

Quote[/b] ]Envoy: Insurgents Want Civil War (CBS/AP)

The new U.S. ambassador expressed horror Tuesday at the level of violence in Iraq and said Islamic extremists and former members of Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath Party were using Iraqis as "cannon fodder."

The comments by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad came after a four-day, U.S.-led offensive, "Operation Spear," aimed at preventing foreign fighters from entering Iraq from Syria, ended late Monday in western Anbar province. The U.S. military called it a success.

"Foreign terrorists and hard-line Baathists want Iraq to descend into civil war. Foreign terrorists are using the Iraqi people as cannon fodder," said Khalilzad, who was confirmed by the Senate last week and was envoy to his native Afghanistan. He succeeds John Negroponte, now the national intelligence director

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml

It is certainly a vision of the worst case scenario I am glad to see some in TBA are finaly taking notice in stead of living in the simplified Cheyney/Bush fantasy land of "we are big and will win the war then it is finished." Actions have consequenses something that Cheyney/Bush seem never to comprehend.

TBA went in to this war on Iraq with no thought of the consequenses or for the fact that they were playing right in to Bin Ladens hands.

If Bin Laden succeeds in his grand design the dominoes will fall first Iraq in to civil war, next sunni nations like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to protect there Sunni Bretheren either that or Civil war in Saudi Arabia with Al Qaida the winner, next Iran to protect its Shia population from the Sunni neighbours, riots in Pakistan and theocratic coup legitimised on the grounds it takes Pakistan back to the democraticly elected pre Musharef coup and Al Qaida will have nukes. India and Israel would probably pre-empt.

When is America and the Coalition going to wake up to the consequenses of a failed Iraq war and put the 500,000 plus troops required.

Sadly    walker

[miles teg 1]

Saddam did NOT control Iraq because the population feared that he still had WMD's.  He crushed the Shi'a population of the South without resorting to WMD's. Only the Kurds got gassed in a few towns up North (as far as I'm aware of)...and of coarse the Iranians during the Iran/Iraq War.  Vice versa the Iranians used WMD's on Iraqi forces.   However overall all biological and chemical weapons are not the wisest from of weapon to control a population especially in areas where you have mixed Sunni/Shi'a populations.  

The manner in which Saddam controlled the population was through the Baath party.  The Baath party operated much like a guerilla cell system.  In any given city, there were many cells and cell leaders reporting to different authorities.  However these cells are all generally independent of each other and do not know what other cells are doing.  Only the higher ups know.  However even top government officials in the Baath party were in their own cells.   All of these cells spied on one another and Saddam would reward handsomely any cell that gave them credible information about any kind of attempt to in any way or form challenge Saddam Hussein and his regime.  So nobody knew who was spying on who.  

Those who were caught creating opposition to Saddam were of coarse horrifically tortured and executed.  If they escaped, often their families would meet a horrible end.  Some political disidents he had assassinated in other countries by Iraqi intelligence agents.   Khadaffi of Libya operates in much the same way as does the Baath party in Syria.

Because of this cell system, it was nearly impossible for Al-Qaeda to operate effectively in this type of police state where nobody trusts anyone and where everyone spies on everyone else.

So basically this was Saddam's secret to controlling Iraq.  He did not need to control the borders very effectively.  Anyone who came in and tried to stir up trouble was quickly caught and eliminated.

But with "freedom and democracy" in Iraq we can't do that.  With that said, the Iraqi government is trying to form a type of secret police, but the insurgency is so strong and the police forces are so heavily infiltrated by insurgent spies that its next to impossible to form as effective a police force as what Saddam had.

Iraqis have tasted freedom, and for many Iraqis that means the freedom to fight to the death to set up their dream of an Islamic kingdom ruled by harsh Shariat law and in which they will be warlords like the Taliban who the people will fear and respect.

Also another reason why it was more difficult for Al-Qaeda to overthrow Saddam Hussein is because he acted like a Muslim when it suited him, and he was a Sunni Arab.  Because of this it was much more difficult to rally legions of volunteers against Saddam.  But against Americans who are complete outsiders, it is MUCH easier to do so and inspire young fundamentalist Muslim men to wage Jihad against the infidels who occupy Muslim lands and oppress their Muslim brothers.  THAT is why they never made such a stink about Saddam before when he killed fellow Muslims...besides most of the Muslims he killed were Shi'a.  Al-Qaeda and similar Sunni Islamic fundamentalist groups do not consider Shi'a true Muslims.  At any rate they didn't like Saddam, and considered Saddam an enemy of Islam due to his secular laws limiting Shariat law (although in his last years he brought back in Shariat Law), but they couldn't do much about him due to his almost total control over Iraqi society.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[quicksand 0]

Suicide bomber kills six U.S. troops in Fallujah

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A suicide car bomber attacked a U.S. Marine vehicle in the city of Falluja, killing six American troops in one of the deadliest single assaults on U.S. ground forces in     Iraq, the U.S. military said on Friday.

In Washington,     President Bush vowed insurgents in Iraq would be defeated.

"The way ahead is not going to be easy," Bush told a White House news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari.

"The enemy's goal is to drive us out of Iraq before the Iraqis have established a secure, democratic government. They will not succeed," said Bush.

A U.S. official said two Marines were killed and 13 were wounded in the attack late on Thursday in Falluja, west of Baghdad, while four other U.S. troops were presumed dead, suggesting their remains had so far not been identified.

The deaths brought to 1,731 the number of U.S. troops killed since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 to topple     Saddam Hussein.

U.S. officers say insurgents are developing more powerful "shaped" bombs that are capable of piercing if not destroying U.S. armored vehicles, greatly increasing the deadliness of their attacks.

In mid-June, five U.S. Marines were killed in a roadside bomb blast near Ramadi, a rebellious city west of Falluja. The week before five U.S. soldiers were killed in a roadside bomb attack on their vehicle in a nearby town.

Ah Fallujah,quite ironic I would say that they leveled the entire city to the dust turned it into a ghost town with 250,000 former inhabitants left displaced and in a macabre twist they begun brandashing as the safest place in Iraq,still even there they can't keep their soldiers from geting killed.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Reminds me of Calgacus' famous saying,

Quote[/b] ]...they make a wilderness and call it peace.

The news about "More powerful 'shaped' bombs" is really bad - morale will drop like a lead balloon when troops realise that their armoured vehicles (the ones which had armour in the first place, Goddam Humvees, Goddam DoD) won't even protect them from the "enemy" anymore.

[quicksand 0]

That's spot on Harley,but there is more then the low morale for US soldiers.While I am no expert in suicide bombers mindset I can still have a farily clear picture as to how the news that they can now strike in the enemy's heart piercing through their powerful armor and killing half a dozen of them affect potential recruits.

While there was never a shortage of recruits for such missions I can imagine the ranks will be flooded with new one's eager to really have a matter in this war as opposed to killing fellow muslims such as Iraqi soldiers and recruits.

And on the final note,without a doubt US has been bleeding in Iraq but the casualty numbers are not as dramatic as in past wars.But now given the fact that armored vehicles can't protect them anymore and insurgents can assemble a car bomb even in Fallujah,well prospects are grim to say the least.

[SPQR 0]

And on the final note,without a doubt US has been bleeding in Iraq but the casualty numbers are not as dramatic as in past wars.

So, but news seem to be always focused on killed troopers.

How many wounded, how many being amputed, handicaped, under permanent trauma ?

How do the USA care for them and their family ? Can the American people watch them on TV ?

What I saw on a french TV report about them wasn't really glorious and responsible from the TBA and Pentagon. But fearing lack of objectivity from them, I'd like to know what is told in the USA (not only from Fox News).

[miles teg 1]

Actually Shape charged explosives are nothing new. A few militants apparently knew how to construct a proper shape charged command detonated land mine. You can tell in videos showing insurgent bombings usually whether or not the charge was shape charged. If you see most of the flames blow out sideways in one direction then you got yourself a shape charge. If you just saw a big fire ball and mushroom cloud going straight up, then it was just a hell of alot of explosives. Generally most of their IED's are just a bunch of artillery or mortar shells.

Shape charged explosives are actually very very easy to construct. I had training in making those as an engineer and its really not rocket science to construct if you already have the explosive material and have some welding skills and sheet metal. At any rate, I won't put on an open forum how to make them, but I'm actually surprised that they weren't using shape charged explosives more often.

The next step in sophistication will likely be chemical weapons such as nerve agents and mustard gas.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[walker 0]

Hi all

I think we should all have a read of this article it explains how the US soldiers were robbed of the vehicle that would have saved so many of their lives by the strange and odly influenced practices that seem to prevail in the US procurement policy.

Reading it made me madder than hell.

Quote[/b] ]Psychological Armor

By JB Campbell

Here’s one reason that so many American soldiers and marines have died in Iraq…

Back in 1981, I was the head of a bulletproof car company in Monterey, California.  We’d construct a box made of Lexgard inside a limo or regular car.  It was pretty effective but difficult to install.  Lexgard is General Electric’s transparent polycarbonate armor, very effective at stopping handgun bullets.  If you put a hard surface in front of it, such as glass or sheet metal, it will stop rifle bullets.   After the bullet hits the hard surface it is upset slightly on its axis and is then trapped in the dense but crystal-clear polycarbonate material.

The FMC factory was in nearby San Jose.  I read a story about the troubles with the aluminum armor on their new Bradley Fighting Vehicle.  The Bradley was having PR problems already but now the issue was the armor.   Aluminum is a bad material for armor, since it doesn’t stop bullets very well.  When they come through, they cause something called “spall,†which means that the pieces of the armor itself become deadly little weapons.  And – aluminum burns.

The army, though, wanted to save weight so they told FMC to make the Bradleys out of aluminum.  (FMC was later sold and is today United Defense LP, owned in part by George Bush’s Carlyle Group.)

So I went to FMC and proposed to line the inside of a Bradley with Lexgard, the way we did with limos.  This would protect everyone from spall and fire, because Lexgard is fireproof and non-toxic.  Installation would have been relatively easy in the boxy Bradley.  I was politely turned down.

Puzzled, I called Dr. Charles Church, the head of research at the Pentagon.  He said, “Listen – don’t try to modify an existing vehicle.  If you want to do something, design it from the ground up and make your armor integral with your chassis.â€

So that’s what I did.   I came up with something I called “The FLEA,†which stood for, “Forward Light Escort, Armored.† I used an unknown but powerful fiberglass armor for the body with hardened Lexgard windows.  It was to be hydraulically operated with its wheels almost two feet away from the body, for protection against tank landmines.   My design was based on my experience with landmines in Rhodesia as a member of their security forces in the terror war in the ‘70s.

Shortly after my design was complete (1982), the army put out a request for proposal (RFP) for a new vehicle they called the “High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle,†or “HMMWV.†  The new Jeep and light truck.  I duly submitted the FLEA to Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) in Michigan.

After a month or so, I called TACOM and inquired as to the progress of the selection process.  The officer said, “The FLEA – yes, I have it here…  Oh, yeah – this is armored.  We don’t want armor.â€

I knew the specification they wanted.  The bodywork had to defeat the equivalent of a pellet fired from a pellet gun.  Something like 19 grains at 435 feet per second.  Something silly like that.  I mentioned this to the officer.  “Yeah, right.  We call it ‘psychological armor…’â€

“’Psychological armor?’† I let that sink in to my brain.  “You mean, the guys just THINK they’re sitting behind armor?â€

He chuckled.  “Yeah, pretty much.â€

“But, “ I said, “I’m under the weight requirement even with the armor.  Why not give them the protection?â€

“That’s not what we want.â€

I kept trying to get some interest in the vehicle for its own sake, as a tank killer, not as a Humvee.  No sale.  Well, actually, there was some interest.  I got a retired general to promote it to the army’s Advanced Development Experimental Agency at Ft. Hunter Liggett.  They liked it and sent it to their commander at Ft. Lewis, who liked it and sent it to TACOM, who didn’t like it again...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PsychologicalArmor.html

The major problem with this guy Cambell is he is a bit of a wing nut and anti zionist from the dodgier end of the Militia groups but that describes a large portion of middle America. Never the less the vehicle is a perfectly reasonable one based as it is on the successfull South African mine and IED proof vehicles.

The US has started buying the South African version the buffalo shown above and now has 15 in use in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]..."Particularly in Iraq, what happened was that the threat of IEDs became the growing threat. And it turns out that Buffalo can take an unbelievable level of blast impact from an IED. We have more than 20 deployed now in active duty. They’re used every day and we get field reports back on some of the incidents. We’ve had some blasts that were calculated as two 155 mm artillery shells taped together and detonated at a distance of two to three meters against the side of the vehicle. We had significant damage to the undercarriage of the vehicle--the axles, the drivetrain, the wheels--but we have never had a penetration of the blast-protected armored capsule. We have never had a serious injury of any of the occupants riding in the vehicles. The usual repair cycle is 24 to 72 hours to simply strip off the broken equipment, bolt on new equipment and off she goes, so every vehicle remains in operation..."

http://www.ausa.org/www/armymag.nsf/(soldier)/20053?OpenDocument

Here is the website of the company that makes the buffalo

http://www.forceprotection.net/

here is their page on the buffalo

http://www.forceprotection.net/models/buffalo/

and here is their page on the cougar which is the light version they are selling to the US Marines

http://www.forceprotection.net/models/cougar/

I like the strap line "Drop your purse, it's not a Hummer"

places that lump of junk with its Psychological Armor in perspective.

The US needs a proper home grown amoured transport for its soldiers; if it realy cares for them the FLEA is probably the best option.

Kind Regards Walker