"How US bedframe armor in Iraq works (with pics)" Topic

If you've seen pictures or TV footage of the Stryker AFVs in combat in Iraq, you've no doubt noticed the large frames of armor on them. They look like bedframes, or the old spring mattress armor that the Soviets were so fond of during WW2.

Here's a picture in case you haven't: picture

Reminiscent of the wire mesh nettings used in Vietnam to prevent RPG hits, they're obviously intended for the same purpose in Iraq.

And because I hit "submit" too soon, here's a picture of a stopped RPG round in the armor.

picture

With the Vietnam-era improvised chain link armor, I assumed the purpose was to short out the fuse at the tip of the round, or to cause it to detonate and forge too early. I wonder if this new armor works the same way (and thus this capture is a fluke), or if it's specifically designed to catch incoming RPG rounds.

I'm sure it is to cause premature detonation. The fuze on an RPG is so sensitive that it would be extremely dangerous to try to remove a bunch of them from the armor like the soldier in the picture is doing.

The Brit's used the same sort of thing on there OP Towers in Nothern Irland to stop RPG's from hitting them.

Nice job.

"Hey Kowalski! Get down here and pull this unexploded RPG round out of the grill."

And I thought working with monkeys sucked.

Hey!

Someone stole my grill! Dang.

I have to believe that round has already been disarmed.

The bedframe armor is intended to cause the round to detonate outside its ideal stand-off distance in order to lessen the chance of a penetration. Similar to the chain link fence on old vietnam 113's. The Germans actually had a mesh version of the side skirts on Pz IV's, works as well, doesn't block vision and weighs less too.

I was reading a report on the operations of the Stryker Brigade in Mosul that says that the bar armor was only effective against HEAT RPG rounds. It did not protect against Anti-Personnel or Anti-Tank warheads.

PDF link

The discussion of bar armor starts on page 48.

'scuse me… But isn't a HEAT RGP = to an Anti-Tank round??

<grin>
Kenny

Sure, a HEAT round has a shaped charge driving molten (plasma?) metal in a jet through the armor. By getting the warhead to trigger on the stand-off armor, much of the penetration power is disapated before it gets to the armor. It would therefore really really only be useful against those rounds. However, the primary AT warhead for RPGs is a HEAT round. Please correct me if I am mistaken here, I'm no expert.

But a HEAT round is chemical rather than Kinetic, a proper AP round would go in side and out the other!

Paul

It looks very similar to a set of Flavor Flav's sunglasses.

Cool stuff about RPG/HEAT rounds here: PDF link

"But, in fact, the screen will electrically dud the grenade and prevent any detenation in approximately 50 percent of the rounds fired into it. This happens because the nose fuse of the round can pass through the wire without striking a wire strand, but this will bend metal ogive on the warhead against the inner cone. This cone carries the firing signal from the nose fuse to the base detonator and shorts when the ogive touches the cone. When this happens, the round completely duds."

Wow, and I thought it was just b/c of the big "'skeeters" they ad over there. :)

Actually, I saw a pic of a BTR with this type of armor. Here it is….

link

the brits are using it on warriors as well ( sorry cant foind a link to it but im shure some one will), I have to admit that it must look impresive to see the RPGs cathch like that

gotta love the BTR. The number of guys who have broken legs disembarking off the tops of those things is staggering… (pun intended)

As for the question on what rounds this armor won't stop, pretty much any penetrator core rounds like HVAP, DSAP, etc. However the primary opponent in Iraq and Afganistan only has HEAT. Occationally they have direct fired mortars but I am yet to hear of one incident where it didn't go badly for the insurgents.

"a proper AP round would go in side and out the other!"

True, but an RPG launcher doesn't generate enough velocity to give a kinetic round the punch it would need to penetrate much armor. That's why the RPG's anti-tank round IS a HEAT round.

The Russians started using mattress springs to try and stop the Panzerfaust in late 44.This is just an updated version of that. It will not stop a Main gun HEAT round.

A HEAT round doesn't care about the speed it was launched at. Look at the British PIAT from WWII. An effective weapon that basically used a spring to launch the warhead. The nice thing about that is that there was no backwash, or smoke to give away your position.

I always liked HESH. Why don't you hear about HESH these days?

Needless to say, there aren't any tank main gun rounds coming at the peacekeeping forces in Iraq. They seem to have done a fairly comprehensive job of totalling what armoured forces the old army tried to throw at them. The interesting question is what tanks will the new army be equipped with (after all when the US leaves, nobody wants devout Iranians, grudge-bearing Kuwaitis or anyone else to be able to just waltz in…), and how long before defectors or deliberate 'plants' in the new army start requisitioning these for the insurgency?

Hungary just donated a whole heap of old but refitted Soviet tanks to the Iraqi Army.

The funny thing is the 50% stopping ratio was established in 1975, thirty years ago, and the stryker report from 2004 had the same ratio. It read as though this were measured in terms of non-detonating rounds, as opposed to non-disabled vehicles. My question would be if the chain link fence has the same effectiveness as the slat armor, why not use the cheaper, lighter solution?

Major Blunder re HESH: Perhaps HESH is inferior to HEAT in some ways or another. Modern armour is probably able to withstand a HESH-hit as it's normally composed out of several layers of armour instead of one big fat chunk.

The theory IIRc correctly was to trigger the piezo electric fuze on the RPG and acheive detonation beyond the optimum distance for the plasma jet of the warhead. The chain link fence used in Vietnam was designed to be erected around vehicles stationary in harbour as I recall. The Brits in Northern Ireland took this one step further (or one step back if you consider the Soviet bedspring/ German schurzen experience in WW2) they fitted a number of Humber Pigs and Saracen's with stand off steel bars in a cage configuration to detonate RPG's, the variant was popularly known as the Kremlin.

There was a report several months ago that the Austalian Government made the Australian Army remove this type of armour from their LAV-25's being sent to Iraq as it made them look 'too agressive' or some similar Political B-S-.

Wouldn't want to be too aggressive in a warzone now, would we? Did they let their troops have guns?

Check out these two sites.

link

link

They main idea behind this is the changed world political situation. The cold war is over so the need for MBT´s forces has evaporated now you need forces that can be deploayed quickly anywhere to the world by plane. So you need something smaller and lighter. The Stryker Brigade is actually the vision that Donald Rumsfeld has for the whole of the US Army, easily airdeployable. In his view of the world the future opponents will not attack with tanks but only with man portable weapons, namely RPG´s and since RPG type wepaons can be defeated (like so many before me mentioned) this was the option to keep them light. These wire frames can easily be removed and refitted saving space on planes.

IMHO it is crap as I think it completely ignores the political situation that was created over the past 5 years, but at least my army will retain it´s MBT´s, so NATO will still have some.

Cheers,

Burkhard

P.S.: I am surprised that noone mentions that the Israely army has been using such penals for decades now!

"There was a report several months ago that the Austalian Government made the Australian Army remove this type of armour from their LAV-25's being sent to Iraq as it made them look 'too agressive' or some similar Political B-S-."

Actually the Australian Army detachment in Southern Iraq removed the RPG screens because the screen made the vehicles considerably wider and less easy to manouvre. The threat being relatively limited the trade off was considered acceptable.

You might have noticed that the Australian government is quite clever at maximising the PR of having troops in Iraq whilst having minimum exposure to actual danger. Allows Howard to indulge his wet dream fantasies about being Churchill, without facing a significant political risk. Ethically dubious but shrewd.

11th AR,

Nice propaganda sites you have there…

Most of its old or highly edited edited, a couple examples:

* The first site says that the Stryker's mortar variant has to dismount its 120mm mortar to fire. The reality is that its on a fixed mount in the vehicle. That vehicle can carry an additional 60 or 82 mm mortar for dismount work.

* The GAO report briefly mentioned in the second link determined that the Stryker was better for the Army's IBCT than the M113.

14th Brooklyn,

The Stryker was NEVER intended to replace the Abrams. These vehicles were deployed in what were called IBCTs (Interim Brigade Combat Teams). Notice the term "Interim". Also, they were being assigned to units that were light (i.e. foot) infantry units before the upgrade. No Abrams has been mothballed because a Stryker came on-line.

The only foreseeable threat to the deployment of Abrams is the FCS. And that's due to come out 2015-ish.

HESH rounds would have more trouble with this "bedframe" armor than other rounds. The round is meant to strike its target, and then the round is "squashed" against the target before detonation. This increases the surface area of the explosion, and causes the backside of the surface to fragment and become shrapnel.

Works great against bunkers.

There are three ways to protect against an RPG round.
1. A lot of metal plating
2. Reactive armor
3. "Bedframe" armor

The first has the obvious problem of weight. All top of the line MBTs have enough armor in the front to stop an RPG. Some don't have enough on the side, and no vehicle has enough on its rear.

Reactive armor will stop just about all RPG rounds. (I've heard that there are a few top of the line rounds that will get by reactive armor.) However, its ablative and can't be used everywhere on a vehicle (e.g. hatches, tracks/wheels).

Bedframe armor is always on, covers all around the vehicle, but there are some RPG rounds that can defeat it.

In short, the only perfect solution to defeat an RPG round is to kill the guy with the launcher before he can shoot.

Visitor,

this is not what Donald Rumsfeld stated after taking office. If this interim test works out they will start replacing the MBT´s!

Cheers,

Burkhard

There are three copies on eBay at the moment.

Visitor,

"Nice propaganda sites you have there…"

May be but they tell the truth when you know people that are on those peace's of "S—T. As I do know some and they are not happy with them.

"* The first site says that the Stryker's mortar variant has to dismount its 120 mm mortar to fire. The reality is that its on a fixed mount in the vehicle. That vehicle can carry an additional 60 or 82 mm mortar for dismount work."

Oh so they are carrying 120 mm and either 60 or 82 mm mortar ammo on board, well that's real effective. Two different calibers of mortar ammo on a vehicle that cant carry that much to begin with. Ether your facts are wrong or its worse then originally thought.

"* The GAO report briefly mentioned in the second link determined that the Stryker was better for the Army's IBCT than the M113."

Dose the GAO go in to combat? NO, Dose the GAO work on these vehicles? NO. You may see some programs on TV about the Stryker AFV's and the officer and NCO's on them are saying positive thing. But in most cases that's because they have OER's and NCOER's hanging over there heads. You don't make problems for your career, especially in a unit that is still under a lot of scrutiny.

Do some time in the Military world and you will see what I mean.

"There are three copies on eBay at the moment."

I never wrought that!

11th ACR

Reviews of the Stryker from those who use them in Iraq:

link

link

GAO's Report:

link

"The SSA concluded that the advantages of GM/GDLS's ICV" [Ref: the Stryker] "in the performance and supportability areas were so significant as to outweigh UDLP's" [Ref: a M113 upgrade] "advantages in the schedule and price/cost areas."

So, the M113 was a better choice of vehicle for the IBCT, if the US Army wanted it 'fast and cheap'. But, they wanted something they could better rely on. And, the GAO agreed.

Stryker Mortar Carrier info:

link

No details on the quantity of rounds. However, it still does show 11th ACR's link has errors/outdated info.

14th Brooklyn,

A quote from the following link about the Abrams TUSK program:

[Lt. Col. Michael Flanagan, product manager for TUSK, said,] "It's important to remember that the Abrams will continue to be the dominant weapons system for the Army until at least 2030."

link

The only tank scheduled to be replaced by the Stryker MGS is the Canadian's Leopard 1. Why? Ask them.

Visitor

"Reviews of the Stryker from those who use them in Iraq:"

It looks like the same people were interviewed in both articles.

And as I stated above. "They have OER's and NCOER's hanging over there heads. You don't make problems for your career, especially in a unit that is still under a lot of scrutiny."

If you work for Pepsi you don't talk bad about your product.

"Stryker Mortar Carrier info:"

"The MC provides accurate and lethal high angle fire to support operations in complex terrain and urban environments. The MC accommodates a 120 mm mortar system that fires a full family of mortar ammunition (HE, illumination, IR illumination, smoke, precision guided, and Dual Purpose Improve Conventional Munitions (DPICM)) while mounted. The mortar section is the rifle company's primary indirect fire support element. The section consists of ten soldiers organized in two mortar crews; each crew is equipped with a 120-mm mortar mounted on a specially equipped mortar carrier (MC). The MC allows for rapid and flexible delivery of indirect fires and increased responsiveness through rapid maneuver in support of company operations. Each crew is also equipped with a 60-mm mortar, which enables the section to provide a more lightweight dismounted mortar system to meet the requirements of a traditional light infantry mission (such as infiltration). With the exception of having two mortar systems rather than four, the mortar section provides the company commander with the same indirect fire capabilities that the battalion mortar platoon provides to the battalion commander. The man-portable nature of the mortar systems gives the company commander a flexible and robust indirect fire capability. Due to crew limitations, only one system (60-mm or 120-mm) can be employed at a given time."

Yea they cant do both 60 mm and 120 mm at the same time. The 120 cant be dismounted and I can tell you from experience 60 mm is not going to do to much damage.

Oh its a great vehicle!

What next?

"It looks like the same people were interviewed in both articles."

I especially liked it when POGO, originally an 'armchair critic' of Stryker, turned around and said that the Stryker is a pretty good vehicle after they went to Iraq.

"If you work for Pepsi you don't talk bad about your product."

Except that Coca-Cola would probably hire you.

"Yea they cant do both 60 mm and 120 mm at the same time. The 120 cant be dismounted and I can tell you from experience 60 mm is not going to do to much damage. Oh its a great vehicle!"

And having ONLY a dismountable 120 mm mortar is better? Do you have any idea how much weapon weight difference we're talking about? Then you have to carry the ammo!

"And having ONLY a dismountable 120 mm mortar is better? Do you have any idea how much weapon weight difference we're talking about? Then you have to carry the ammo!"

Done it how about you?

Sorry Visitor,

but when it come to whom I should believe it is rather Rumsfeld (never thought that I would H2hear" myself saying so) then one of his Generals.

I have done a lot of searching, but could not find the transcript for the speech he gave (in early 2002 I think it was) where he said that he wanted to get rid of the MBT´s. The best I could find was this paper:

link

Maybe this will give you an idea of his plans!

Or maybe you should take a look at weather Rumsfeld owns shares in the company that produces the LAV!

Cheers,

Burkhard

G'day, Carlos.

You might have noticed that the Australian government is quite clever at maximising the PR of having troops in Iraq whilst having minimum exposure to actual danger.

Mate, I know a few people in/ back from AMTG, SFTG, AATTI and the SECDET who'd disagree violently with that view. Remember, a lot happens that the average Australian doesn't hear about, for one reason and another. True, the troops aren't in the hot areas that the US is in, but they aren't sitting in a fortress hiding from danger, either. They're earning their ICB's and ACB's, even if the contacts and incidents aren't being reported in the press.

You're right about the main reasons for removing the bedframe armour, too. And about Little Johnny.

Cheers.

Dal.

The reality is that its on a fixed mount in the vehicle. That vehicle can carry an additional 60 or 82 mm mortar for dismount work.

It's a bit of both.

The A version had a 120mm that, due to the recoil, had to be dismounted to be fired. Bit of a problem as it takes time to remove and set up a 120, and I suspect when the time comes to put it back, it tends to be a case of "fastest way in and we'll sort it out later". The advantage was that the A could be used as a back-up APC or Medivac.

The B version has gone for the lower recoil Soltam (Israeli) 120mm mortar on a fixed mount. This is not removable. The sections carry 60mm mortars while the command unit carries an 81mm. You therefore have a bit of a choice between a mobile 120mm at range or a 60mm up close. However, as has been pointed out, there are not enough crew to man both at the same time.

As I understand it, the problem was that the requirement spec was changed after the design was approved and the necessary modifications to meet the revised requirements take it outside of the operation spec.

14th Brooklyn,

From your own link, Gen. Shinseki was planning on having the FCS replace the Abrams/Bradley combo.

The current Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Schoomaker, had this to say:

"I will tell you point blank the Future Combat System equipped brigade will be far more capable in the environment that we are now in than the heavy brigade it replaces." [Ref: a heavy brigade is equipped with Abrams and Bradleys]

link

So, the Stryker *WILL NOT* replace the Abrams. The FCS will.