David Axe has been to Iraq six times, now. So, as part of our big Popular Science feature on the technology of the Iraq war (more on that in a sec), he put together a report card on the U.S. military’s ten most important systems in the combat zone.
Check out his grades for everything from the Apache Longbow helicopter (“C”) to the M-14 sniper rifle (“A”) to the M1A2 Abrams tank (another “C”). And leave your own reviews down below.
Axe Grades Iraq Tech
Previous post: War in Kansas!
Next post: Winning (and Losing) the First Wired War
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
The AH-1W would rate a strong B in my opinion. the Marines have haven’t experienced nearly the maintenance issues of the apache, it has been effective in combat, and has, at least from an observers standpoint, shown it’s survivability is greater than that of the apache.
The AH-1Z may score an A if it lives up to its hype.
I was surprised at how vague the “grades” were. Is the Apache really vulnerable? How many downs in how many sorties? How do ground forces feel about it’s use? I have similar questions about the Abrams, which has also proven to be “vulnerable” but then, what isn’t?
uhmmm… for some reasons i dont like your posted images anymore.
sorry.
i like your tanks, arms, soldiers, but i dislike that puzzling pictures of whatever you decided to post the last days.
sorry & halllujah.
I’d disagree with the ‘C’ grade of the Abrams. The M1 is very, very good at what it’s designed for – blowing other tanks to bits in open battle while protecting it’s crew. It’s probably the finest main battle tank on the planet, and demonstrated this in Desert Storm.
The main ‘Con’ marked against it is that it’s poorly suited to urban combat, which is true. But then, the M-14 rifle, which earned a deserved A, is pretty lousy against a T-72 at 3000 yards. This doesn’t make it a bad weapon. Of course in Iraq these days there are a lot more baddies in doorways than T-72s in dugouts, but that’s not the tank’s fault (actually, the M1 probably has a lot to do with the lack of T-72s in the region…).
I’d say it deserves at least a strong B+ (minor points off for weight and cost).
Dispite the Abrams not being suited specificly for urban combat, it has defently provin its value in Iraq. Hell, one even took 14 rpgs and kept on trucken without any injury to the crewmen.
The Apache is one of the most valuable assets in Iraq now. As stated in the article it does need a lot of maintenance in the harsh desert, but when its in the air its absolutely one of the best tools in Iraq.
There to much missing from these “grades” to judge anything from them.
C for Stryker?? It has “too thin armor”?
Geez, another one for the crowd of people who think the Stryker was designed to be a tank with enough armor to stop an A-bomb.
Just as stupid as saying the Humvee is defficient because it cant hold up against IEDs.
If it wasnt designed to do it, find something that is, or shut up.
David Axe, it seems that not many posts here agree with your views.
Hey folks,
Take it easy, all right? I didn’t want to grade these Iraq techs. It was a requirement passed down from the editors at Popular Science.
The problem with a letter grade is that it offers no nuance and ignores context. An M-1A2 tank is the best possible solution to a “breach” problem (bad guys behind concrete) like you find in truly intensive urban fighting in Iraq where RPGs are flying. But in almost all other situations, the Abrams is a gas-guzzling burden. How do you assign a letter grade that acknowledges this?
At best, the PS scorecard serves to provoke conversation. Otherwise, it’s pretty meaningless.
Not sure what qualifications this “Axe” guy possesses in order to make any well informed judgements on the combat effectiveness of our current equipment but it is obvious that he’s never spent a single day in real combat. And no, being in Afghanistan or Iraq doesn’t count unless you’ve slugged it out with the bad guys. (getting blown up by IEDs and running doesn’t count either, sorry CAB wearers).
Both the Apache and Super Cobra are excellent gunships and have performed admirably over the sands of Iraq. For those that may be nay-sayers – I have had the opportunity to have seen both in combat – and I am still filled with awe and respect for the whirly bird. The poor “C” grade comes from a “never-will-be” couch commando.
Now being Infantry I don’t have the best inclinations towards those metal monsters known as “Abe” (M1 Abrams). However it’ll put a smile on even the most anti-cav grunt’s face when ol’ Abe lets loose with his smooth bore big gun. Yes, there is an achilles heel to this goliath but that’s why the urban tank tactics of WWI and WWII included Infantry for protection. We need to remember our lessons learned.
As for the M14, great rifle. That said there is nothing critically wrong with the M4/M16 rifle. 5.56… 7.62×39… 7.62×51… whatever. If you ever find yourself on a two way firing range and you’ve got a 5.56 “BB gun” just remember one thing – shot placement.
OIFgrunt out.
“M-14″ ??? I qualified with an off the rack “14″ in 1969…If you really want to reach out and touch someone this is the weapon! Great distance , great stopping power , great accuracy..It will ring their bell every time!!!What a shooter!