Plywood armor plating

Page 1 of 10  
I was reading this article:
http://citypaper.net/articles/2005-01-20/cb2.shtml
about a national guardsman returning from Iraq, and happened to notice this:
"The majority of vehicles in Resta's brigade, as throughout much of Iraq, were poorly armored. Most were protected by only half-inch sheets of plywood."
Plywood!? Surely that can't be right, can it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I guess it would keep out a haistly thrown rock & maybe some sand, but not much else- especially not a bullet
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If you built a plywood box and filled it with sandbags you would have something. Maybe the news geeks didn't understand what they were looking at.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
BTW have you ever looked at WWII pictures of Sherman tanks? You notice the sandpags piled on them and all the extra track stuck all around the sides? That is hillbilly armor. (the Sherman had inferior armor too) Iraq is not the first time guys have made up for bad congressional appropriations decisions with things they have lating around.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Pretty common. The US troops went into Iraq expecting small-arms fire and instead received RPGs. These have a shaped charge warhed which explodes _outside_ the armour and sprays a hot jet of molten metal forwards, cutting a hole through the armour. The jet is only effective for a few inches, so if you can make it hit something _above_ the armour, you trigger the warhead too early and it just scorches the surface of the real armour. This spaced armour appeared in mid-WW2 and has been made out of anything from chicken wire to corrugated iron chickenhouses.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Andy Dingley" wrote in message

Horseshit, Andy ...RPG's have been around for a long time and to state they were not "expected" is either spin or ignorance, but ludicrous in either case.

We actually used chain link fencing in Vietnam to set them off before they hit our sandbags.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So why are the Americans taking so many casualties from them ?
Given the choice between a Humvee and a CAMAC-armoured Landie, I know which one I'd rather be in. Amazingly enough, the Brits know a thing or two about CQB and dealing with a well-armed population with a dislike for squaddies. The US troops seem to have taken all their advice from the LAPD - Compton is a tough neighbourhood, but not as well armed as the Bogside.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andy Dingley wrote:

Expense. A proper armored personel carrier like the Strycker is much more expensive than a Humvee plus a half dozen body bags.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

... anybody who would believe that is one sick puppy.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Kevin" wrote in message

Go ahead, read the original statement again and then tell me "in denial" of what?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
That money comes before bodies in wartime. I agree that whoever believes is a sick puppy, but I think that the people in control of these situations do believe just that. That was what Andy was saying, I think.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No, not at all
In fact I'd disagree with it. Bush has just asked for another squillion dollars without batting an eyelid, but photographing bodybags is a major thoughtcrime these days.
My point is that Team America is tooled up for fighting the 1991 war, and they're being asked to do something quite different instead. Winning "the war" would be easy - call in a couple of airstrikes, destroy the ville in order to save it, that kind of thing.
Instead though they don't _have_ that option. It stops being a "war" when you lose the option to use military-grade force in response. If you have to work under those constraints, you need to think and act differently from being an infantryman (as the Brits learned after Bloody Sunday). Some of this includes bringing along vehicles and armour that's appropriate to the threat in hand (there should be brass rolling in the Pentagon for that screwup).
And it's not a war anyway, as Bush keeps telling us, because that would mean the Geneva Conventions would apply and America really can't face having that.
--
Smert' spamionam

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:28:17 +0000, Andy Dingley
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

But good chance for a rant! <G> Sorry. I misattributed it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Andy Dingley" wrote in message

Horseshit ... you know better than that. Spoken from emotion with no reason whatsoever. Take the time to read Section II. Combatants and Prisoners of War, then note who it is that qualifies as such, and who it is beheading prisoners and violating every tenet of same.
And you want to treat them as POW's under the GC?
Wake up, Andy ... your way of life, and very possibly your life and the lives of those whom you love, is on the line.
Go ahead ... bitch, moan, and sit around _waiting_ for the next shoe to fall. Just hope like hell that there is still someone around to protect you from yourself by _carrying_ the fight to those just waiting fo the opportunity to eradicate your infidel ass.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This week the Brits are talking of little else (really - you can no doubt guess why)

So attrocities on one side are equally culpable by all soldiers, and form a valid excuse for the withdrawal of PoW's rights from all members of that combatant force ? By that logic you've just made yourself culpable for My Lai.

No, not particularly. I favour treating them as criminal terrorists, because I accept the legal argument that armed fighters outside a declared combat between nation states are not PoWs.
What I can't accept is the Kafkaesque Guantanamo situation (a PR spokesman at Gitmo really is called "Lt. Mike Kafka" !). These terrorists are either criminals or PoWs - you have to have them one way or the other, not hold them indefinitely incommunicado and without trial. That is not the act of any nation with any claim to decent behaviour, lest of all one that has set itself up as the moral arbiter for the world.
Besides which, I thought you were the one claiming that this was a war?

Really ? Shocking ! Just which part of my way of life was Iraq planning on attacking ? Where _where_ those pesky WMDs ?

Yeah, it's such a great thing for the world that America was watching out for us. _America_ told Saddam that it was OK to invade Kuwait. _America_ taught the 9/11 pilots to fly. Yeah, great vigilance there.

Go Team America ! If there isn't already a fight, carry one right on in there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Andy Dingley" wrote in message news:

Lose the knee jerk rant against "America" .. it is unbecoming of you, and you know better. Your enemy is not America, but muslim fundamentalist ... learn to accept that and you may yet survive.

Don't worry, we've managed to rise to the occasion a couple of times in the past, much to your benefit, and we will do so again.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

cheaper to replace personnel than purchase proper equipment.
As I understand your reply, you believe this is the product of a warped mind, and you do not believe our gov't/military could or would make such a decision.
Somewhere in this thread was mentioned the augmentation seen on Shermans in WWII, almost as justification for the inadequately prepared Humvees. That augmentation was needed because then, as now, the higher ups refused to prepare for the inevitable and sent woefully under-armed and under-armored tanks against the fearsome 88mm gun and thick armor the Germans deployed. The Brits called the Sherman the "Tommy-toaster".
The Sherman only prevailed by virtue of quantity, not quality. In other words: our side could afford to fill more body than their side.
Have you never heard the infantry referred to as "Mk I, Mod I Bullet Catchers"?
Ergo, I maintain you are in denial.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

How do we know what's "best," so we can buy it, and not waste time and money on intermediate products?
How do we fight the next war when we only know the last?
More to the point, how can we plan or purchase anything military without the press and Senator Lenin telling us we don't need it at all?
BTW, it wasn't just the Sherman which was vulnerable. One of my old Soviet tactics instructors fought at Kursk in the T34, and had nothing but respect for what an 88 could do to _any_ tank.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Kevin" wrote in message

<snip of mixed metaphors and faulty logic>
Ergo? ... more like "post hoc, ergo propter hoc".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.