Thoughts on the military and military activities of a diverse nature. Free-ranging and eclectic.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

V-100.


This is coolbert:

Here is another blast from the past.

The V-100 Cadillac/Gage Commando.

A wheeled armored vehicle originally designed in the 1950’s?

"The V-100 series of vehicles was developed in the early 1960s. The first prototype emerged in 1963, and the production variants entered service in 1964."

[I was not far off!]

Is being used again in Iraq. For convoy protection. Program on TV the other night featured a military police company escorting and guarding supply convoys essential to the war effort in Iraq.

American military police DID USE the Commando for the same purpose in Vietnam .

But, as with all wheeled armored vehicles, HAS not been a favorite among Army planners. The thought is that wheeled armor has a serious drawback. An artillery round landing nearby will knock the wheels off instantly??!! So I am told.

[the current Stryker is a wheeled armored vehicle and the nucleus from which U.S. Army infantry brigades are being formed??!! When has the perception of wheeled armor within the U.S. Army changed!!??]

The Cadillac/Gage Commando HAS BEEN used on a widespread basis by the militaries of something like forty foreign nations. After Vietnam, American usage was confined to CIVILIAN guard forces employed at weapons depots, nuclear facilities, etc.

I can well imagine that the U.S. Army in Iraq HAS once again seen a need for the Commando armored vehicle and has “resuscitated” the “breed”.

The Commando does come in an amazing number of variants. A vehicle that can mount, according to task configuration:

* A single .50 caliber machine gun.

* Dual 7.62 mm M60 machine guns.

* A single 7.62 mm M60 machine gun and a 40 mm grenade launcher. The “breed” being used currently in Iraq is configured this way.

* Mortars/with/an armored bi fold “pop top”.

* Recoilless rifles of various calibers.

* Even a 90 mm gun?




Once again, we can observe the phenomenon where “antiquated” weapons are being brought out of mothballs to serve in Iraq. To include:

* M-113 APC [armored personnel carrier.]

* M-14 rifle [7.62 NATO round.]

* M-60 machine gun [7.62 NATO round.]

* .45 caliber auto loading pistol.

And now, the V-100 Cadillac/Gage Commando!

I don’t think that anyone in the U.S. Army - - four years ago - - could have seen any of this coming!!??

Those convoys are a particularly bad way to supply American forces in Iraq. They have to make their way in the open, exposed the entire way, from either Kuwait or Jordan. An overland route through “hostile” territory. The ONLY means of continuous supply necessary to the war effort. Civilian contractors protected by Army troops. If those supply routes were broken or impeded, the U.S. military in Iraq would find itself in a precarious position!!

The military police accompanying these convoys are functioning more or less as combat arms. It is a thing of good that American MP’s receive training NOT a whole lot less than would that of an infantryman. These guys have to be on the ball. A lot is dependent upon them!!

coolbert.

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why the US military isn't using the Tigris/Euphrates as supply routes in simply beyond me. Use the port in Basra and turn it into a fortress as the beginning of the water supply chain. Use barges and tugs or whatever to move supplies and men up and down the river system. Establish riverbank bases and depots for men and material, fuel, etc...You could get to the Syrian border in some shallow draft stuff, I am sure of it. Less trucks and convoys to support and less targets for IEDs and other stuff. And these river forces in Iraq can also be used for going on the offensive. Remember, that is what the Marines were established for.
The jihadis will have a tough time preventing those watercraft from moving around. I guess they could lay mines or shoot from shore, but I doubt that it would be very effective. In any event, an effective water based IED would seem to be pretty tough for them to come up with and without good artillery or rockets, like Katyushas maybe, I can't see them holding up things to much (can those kinds of rockets be used against ships? I don't know). We used to have a brown water navy in Vietnam and my uncle always felt they were quite effective. Plenty of firepower and fearless crews to match. The enemy knew that and respected them because of the firepower and willingness to use it.

It has all been done before, so don't just take my word on it. Great photos here:

http://brownwater-navy.com/vietnam/vietnam.htm

What really pisses me off is that we have to keep relearning the same lessons over and over and lose good people. There are plenty of Vietnam vets who would love to help the current military build and organize a new brownwater navy for the Iraq War. I'll bet they won't take a penny either. They won't do it for money, they'll do it for love.

11:59 AM

 
Blogger Albert said...

Bert says: The idea of shipping supplies up the rivers is a good idea. The "brownwater" navy was a good idea too. American military did not have a lot of successes in Vietnam. The ACAV was a success. The 9th ID on barges comprising the "brownwater" was a success too. A big one. Barges that could carry an entire battalion of air mobile infantry cruising up and down the Mekong. Helicopter assault and gunship units also ALL totally barge mounted. A whole battery of artillery accompanying the flotilla too. I think John Kerry was involved in this sort of thing?? It did work.

Bert.

6:59 PM

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home