Comments on: Are We Sure About the MRAP?

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:12:46 +0000

More choppers dude, keep ‘em coming. You wanna stay off the roads? Fly over them. Clear, hold and then send vehicles. Just off the top of my head…which is not always firing on all pistons. Pls exuse me, and bare w/ me…thanx

By: Veronica

Veronica — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 04:38:04 +0000

My husband and six of his fellow soldiers owe their lives to the MRAP that they were in. Yesterday night they hit a +200 lb IED in Afghanistan. They all walked away. This vehicle saves lives. Anyone who disagrees obviously doesn’t value the caliber of lives that are using them.

By: clyde

clyde — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:50:57 +0000

If you think you’re going to ride to work in an urban war zone, that’s the first problem.
The second probelm is investing in a fleet of vehicles and their maintainance which the insurgents will quickly adapt to, defeat, and impose another round of super-vehicle funding:yeah,I think we’re playing right into Ossama’s hands with fiscal self-destruction.
Read about the Boer War, Napoleon in the Penninsula,NVA,Mao, Che, Mujihedeen, Aguinildo, and ask yourself, “How has the guerilla changed over the centuries?” Not much! And what’s been successful in defeating them? Same sort of thinking, in which high tech fire and maneuvre plays an important, but really, small role: much smaller than in conventional warfare, and, may even be detrimental to counter-insurgency. Insurgents fight on the cheap and count on persitance vs set piece battle field victories. In terms of that, who do you think is really winning?

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:07:05 +0000

Yes, the MRAP is a specific piece of equipment made for a specific task. That task is to survive an IED strike. The maintenance yard here in Sharana, Afghanistan has several MRAPs that have pieces blown off, doors broken, and even a turret thrown off. In every case, everybody survived. These MRAPs can be repaired and sent back to the line, HMMWVs in the same situations would be a pile of scrap metal. If these guys were in HMMWVs, we would have been burying most of them. The MRAP design has two advantages over HMMWVs– height (above ground, and the blast) and shape (hull deflects, not absorbs the IED blast). And don’t even get me started on how overweight the armored HMMWVs are. Plus, the MRAPS have more room in them for equipment and personnel. Riding around in a HMMWV is like being in a tuna can. The MRAP turret is higher, so you get better fields of fire, especially over the walls that line many roads. The MRAP is not perfect– there are first production run defects(generators, pulleys, track bar) and the weight (17+ tons)is a problem. Final answer– ask the soldiers here what they would prefer to be in. They know firsthand what others can only write about.

By: Wynand Meyering

Wynand Meyering — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:17:19 +0000

The South Africans have made all their tanks, ambulances, reconnaissance vehicles and other land vehicles IED proof by just sacrificing a little armor at the front and back and incorporating the V shaped hulls. This has given a lot of protection for just a small modification. I expect other companies to take note of that and to try to incorporate it in their army designs too…

By: MikeA

MikeA — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:12:25 +0000

You are fighting co-in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan right now; you are very likely to fight more co-in wars in the near future (regardless of withdrawal from Iraq). That means you need MRAP for all your vehicle functions outside protected bases, whether you like it or not.
Of course MRAP vehicles are not proof against all IEDs — but they massively decrease your casualties. Also, if the insurgents try to deploy bigger IEDs to combat the MRAP, it costs them heavily in resources, time, logistics and signature.
In Afghanistan, we Aussies and the Dutch use the Bushmaster — highly mine resistant, light, capable of going anywhere. And they do not intimidate the locals. The Bushmaster is a Co-in warwinner.

By: GE

GE — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:23:08 +0000

“Hasn’t the never-ending conflict in Israel… taught you anything about this type of war?“
Yes, it’s taught that making bigger vehicles makes the opponents build bigger bombs. Technology like this will never win a guerilla war. You could have people driving around in goddamn tanks and it wouldn’t help. The key to winning a guerilla war is to make it so there is no reason to fight one. Nothing you can do militarily — short of literally blowing up every town with people in it — will end the fighting.

By: Cindy

Cindy — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:00:27 +0000

My son is in Iraq right now and he is suppose to get a MRAP soon. Who cares if they are intimidating, MRAP’s save lives. My son is worth more than $1million dollars to me and I am sure everyone that has a loved one in Iraq would agree. With all the money that is spent for this war, who cares how much money is spent on MRAP’s as long as it saves lives, its worth it.

By: tired old soul

tired old soul — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 02:09:46 +0000

i don’t guess there was ever a piece of equipment fielded that was exactly what one hoped for. but i would say, if it gets you there in one piece what does it matter what the damn thing costs? certainly the writer made some very valid points.but lets remember regardless of the reasoning for the war, i believe all would aggree that if the damn thing had been prosecuted in the correct manner we probably wouldn’t even need a mrap vehichle in the first place.so why would anyone think that the same incompetent leaders would have the forsight?? to request development of a tactical vehicle tailored to urban warfare in an ied enviroment.

By: Rich

Rich — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:23:36 +0000

I think what the author was saying is while the MRAP is a very capable vehicle for what is designed for its not the end all of armored vehicles. The Army & Marines only need X amount of the MRAP’s, they still need humvees, bradleys etc. As for all the flamers…try reading the article & actually comprehending what is stated