Mission creep APC > MRAP
- Thread starter Distiller
- Start date
No I don't believe there is trend to relpace them, it is more of a feature on future armoured vehicles and some current armoured vehicles. They are being used for patrolling mainly because of the dangers faced in Iraq and Afghanistan. that the prexisting vehicles could not keep up with.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
I'd just say that now, where peace keeping/enforcing missions are the primary objective of most Western armies, it is quite self-evident that vehicles of the MRAP-class are more needed than classic APCs. APCs which are made to be old-style battlefield-taxis are suited for heavier terrain and shall carry the biggest possible troopsize, but offer only basic ballistic and mine protection. You don't need heavy-terrain suitability and not necessarily a big troopsize if you patrol the streets of Bagdhad or Kabul, but protection is all the more important.
So I would not really separate APCs and MRAPs as truly different classes, they are both "troop carriers", just for different purposes.
So I would not really separate APCs and MRAPs as truly different classes, they are both "troop carriers", just for different purposes.
So I would not really separate APCs and MRAPs as truly different classes said:You will notice MRAP stands for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, does this sound like an APC, it sounds more like a patrol vehicle that is modified to withstand an ambush
Yes, indeed "Mine Resistant Ambush protected" sounds like a patrol vehicle that is modified to withstand an ambush. On the same note you could ask "Aren't MRAPS vehicles that carry personnel and are armoured? Sounds like an Armoured Personnel Carrier."
Of course we could argue about the names that the marketing bureau guys make up for these vehicles, but I guess we could spend our energy more efficiently elsewhere. It was not my intention to depict the term "MRAP" as superfluous or wrong, I just wanted to say that there is not necessarily a sharp disctinction between APC and MRAP, because both can do most of the tasks of the other one and vice versa (just they are not optimized for it). Next to this, the term "MRAP" was invented/introduced by the US forces, the armed forces of other nations consider these vehicles simply as another APC (e.g. the South African Casspir, which the Marines would surely call a MRAP, but which has been advertised by it's manufacturer simply as APC for about 20 years). There's no such difference between an APC and a MRAP as there is between a MBT and an IFV, for example.
Of course we could argue about the names that the marketing bureau guys make up for these vehicles, but I guess we could spend our energy more efficiently elsewhere. It was not my intention to depict the term "MRAP" as superfluous or wrong, I just wanted to say that there is not necessarily a sharp disctinction between APC and MRAP, because both can do most of the tasks of the other one and vice versa (just they are not optimized for it). Next to this, the term "MRAP" was invented/introduced by the US forces, the armed forces of other nations consider these vehicles simply as another APC (e.g. the South African Casspir, which the Marines would surely call a MRAP, but which has been advertised by it's manufacturer simply as APC for about 20 years). There's no such difference between an APC and a MRAP as there is between a MBT and an IFV, for example.
This is maybe interesting.
From DefenseNews.com:
In the end it is not easy to say what kind of vehicle one should purchase to prepare for the next war.
The next war might easily not take place in an urban/desert environment but also in heavy terrain and the MRAPs may have a huge disadvantage when it comes to cross country performance.
IMHO one should also have a look at mine resistant APCs to cover this capability gap.
From DefenseNews.com:
Seems like the they are not sure how much they really need.U.S. Marines Cut MRAP Plans
By KIMBERLY JOHNSON
And MICHAEL HOFFMAN
The U.S. Marine Corps’ top general doesn’t want to order any more bomb-proof vehicles, and is slashing by more than one-third the number of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles it once expected to buy.
The decision is a sharp about-face for the service, which once envisioned every Marine in Iraq traveling outside the wire in the vehicles, and comes as Commandant Gen. James Conway openly complains that MRAPs are weighing the Corps down.
The Corps had planned to buy as many as 3,700 of the vehicles, but Conway approved a reduction in the requirement to 2,300, which was presented on Nov. 29 to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, an advisory group to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
“This reduction results from a thorough assessment that shows fewer MRAP vehicles are necessary to meet the Corps’ needs in Iraq and elsewhere,” said Maj. Jay Delarosa, a Marine Corps spokesman.
While the MRAPs have effectively provided protection from roadside bombs, the number of such attacks against Marines has dropped dramatically over the past six months in Iraq, reducing the need to travel in the massive vehicles, Delarosa said.
Conway said the reduction of requested MRAPs doesn’t put Marines at risk, he said in a statement.
“We have an imperative to provide MRAP protection to our Marines and sailors consistent with mission and terrain,” Conway said in the statement. “I am completely comfortable with reducing our requirement for MRAPs based on input from Marine field commanders with experience employing these vehicles.”
The cut is in line with Conway’s directive to return the Corps to its expeditionary mission. The heavy vehicles are not as maneuverable as other transport, and not quick or agile enough to pursue the enemy off road, in confined areas or across many bridges, Delarosa said. ..........
In the end it is not easy to say what kind of vehicle one should purchase to prepare for the next war.
The next war might easily not take place in an urban/desert environment but also in heavy terrain and the MRAPs may have a huge disadvantage when it comes to cross country performance.
IMHO one should also have a look at mine resistant APCs to cover this capability gap.
Well as you said waylander that the next war might not take place in an urban/desert environment. But I think by then the US or any other country for that fact will have their own series of highly manouverable MRAP's for daily use. No country can be totally prepared for war or COIN especially the US, its track record of COIN is not too good, I mean look at Vietnam, shows they havn't learnt much (but that is not to say that the environment diddn't play a part the switch from jungle to desert).
The US was never prepared to begin with for a COIN operation they were prepared for the cold war, although they diddn't get any hints from the meantime that this style of war was going to happen.
Other countries such as Australia even though sending a small contingent were much more prepared for a war like what is ensueing and sent vehicle like the bushmaster (which is better suited to both dense and sparse terrain).
The US was never prepared to begin with for a COIN operation they were prepared for the cold war, although they diddn't get any hints from the meantime that this style of war was going to happen.
Other countries such as Australia even though sending a small contingent were much more prepared for a war like what is ensueing and sent vehicle like the bushmaster (which is better suited to both dense and sparse terrain).