# SW Asia: how well protected are in-theater medical folks and their patients?



## mycrofft (Aug 21, 2012)

A recent thread

  (http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?p=421756#post421756

cited the loss of New Zealand medics to an IED in Afghanistan near Do Abe. 

What do you think? (Yes, it is impossible to build a vehicle that will resist the largest imaginable IED unless it has wings, but how is it on the ground?).

This has been going on over a decade now. How has it evolved and how is it hanging in now we are starting to withdraw? How about civilian providers? ROLE 3 facilities? (PLEASE do not divulge anything of use to the bad guys, though).


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 21, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> A recent thread
> 
> (http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?p=421756#post421756
> 
> ...



You've been there.

I wouldn't exactly call replacing uniformed military with contractors "withdrawing" in any sense of the imagination.


----------



## mycrofft (Aug 21, 2012)

At the bases I was at, and I saw not too much, there was a lot of on-base "organic defense" (everyone carrying assault rifles, but often very dirty and sometime with magazine in the belt and not in battery), the giant dirt bags being replaced with blast walls, and permanent building foundations being laid. Bagram was very "porous", many locals on site, didn't see medical except to note the civilian clinic for contract workers was shut.

I wish everyone involved good luck, except the bad guys. I wish them patience and a change of heart.


----------



## Hemostatic (Aug 22, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> What do you think? (Yes, it is impossible to build a vehicle that will resist the largest imaginable IED unless it has wings, but how is it on the ground?).
> 
> This has been going on over a decade now. How has it evolved and how is it hanging in now we are starting to withdraw? How about civilian providers? ROLE 3 facilities? (PLEASE do not divulge anything of use to the bad guys, though).



I guess I don't understand what you're trying to ask. Yes, there are certain trucks that do a better job protecting the occupants from a blast than others. Yes, even the good trucks wouldn't handle the largest IEDs very well. 

One of the other threads got into a discussion about vehicle mobility and offensive capabilities vs. armor and protection..... 

For civilian contractors and ROLE 2/3 facilities, the biggest threat is indirect fire. Once those personnel leave the wire, the threats are basically the same as what Joe Grunt is facing day to day. 




mycrofft said:


> At the bases I was at, and I saw not too much, there was a lot of on-base "organic defense" (everyone carrying assault rifles, but often very dirty and sometime with magazine in the belt and not in battery), the giant dirt bags being replaced with blast walls, and permanent building foundations being laid. Bagram was very "porous", many locals on site, didn't see medical except to note the civilian clinic for contract workers was shut.



A lot of the bases I was at, we (the actual soldiers) were not allowed to have a magazine in the well. That could've been dangerous..... :huh:

As far as all the LNs, TCN, and even all the indig military army and police personnel being allowed on base and to integrate with the coalition troops, one only has to look at the number of friendlies getting killed by our supposed counterparts to figure out how well that is working. :angry:

The bottom line is that if they want us to fight a war and actually crush the taliban, then they need to unchain us and let it happen. If that's not what they want, then they need to bring the troops home and quit throwing lives at this "hearts and minds" bull:censored::censored::censored::censored:.


----------



## EpiEMS (Aug 22, 2012)

Hemostatic said:


> The bottom line is that if they want us to fight a war and actually crush the taliban, then they need to unchain us and let it happen. If that's not what they want, then they need to bring the troops home and quit throwing lives at this "hearts and minds" bull:censored::censored::censored::censored:.



Just out of curiosity, do you meant that the ROE needs to be loosened? Or is it more of a change of mission into a search/destroy Taliban forces rather than "hearts and minds"?


----------



## Doczilla (Aug 22, 2012)

Hemostatic, you're missing a.very important rule: know your operational environment. 

You will never, EVER "kill all the bad guys", or "crush the Taliban." 

Know why? Because there is an almost limitless supply of foreign fighters with an infinitely sustainable source of income and weapons. 

The difference between a civillian and a "bad guy" changes on a daily and hourly basis, deoending on wether or they wanna make five bucks to pick up that initiator. 

We arent in a "red vs. Blue" war. Fighting an insurgency is much more complex.


----------



## Hemostatic (Aug 22, 2012)

EpiEMS said:


> Just out of curiosity, do you meant that the ROE needs to be loosened? Or is it more of a change of mission into a search/destroy Taliban forces rather than "hearts and minds"?



I think the ROE needs to loosened _a little bit._ I'm certainly not advocating rolling into villages and shooting everything in sight. However, opening things up so that we could be somewhat offensive, rather than 110% defensive would be a great start. It is also my *personal opinion* that warning shots should be brought back as part of EOF. 

Putting more effort in the search/destroy mission would also be good, however, see below:



Doczilla said:


> You will never, EVER "kill all the bad guys", or "crush the Taliban."
> 
> Know why? Because there is an almost limitless supply of foreign fighters with an infinitely sustainable source of income and weapons.
> 
> ...



Trying to run search/destroy ops is extremely difficult because, just as Doczilla pointed out, the enemy changes on an hourly basis. So we try to put more effort into intelligence to root out local taliban commanders, and regional leadership. But that presents it's own challenges. I don't want to get to deep into that, 'cause it's not really my lane. 

I think most (90%) of Afghans don't really care one way or the other who is governing them, because they are not going to follow that goverment anyway. They are loyal to their family and their tribe, and that is all. After that, they just want to be left alone to ranch their goats. They'll smile and be friendly to whoever is standing in front of them right now (American or talilban), and then stab that group in the back as soon as the other one rolls into the village. I certainly don't have any answers to that situation. 


Here's my biggest dilemma: It is my personal opinion that we haven't had another successful terrorist attack (think 9/11 magnitude) on US soil, because the bad guys have been too busy committing their resources to fighting us in Afghanistan. Sure, there have been a few attempts, but they have been poorly planned and resourced, ultimately leading to their failure. 

So, in order to defend the country, do we continue sending troops over there to keep the bad guys busy in their own back yard? 

Again, my personal opinion only.


----------



## mycrofft (Aug 22, 2012)

"I think most (90%) of Afghans don't really care one way or the other who is governing them, because they are not going to follow that goverment anyway. They are loyal to their family and their tribe, and that is all. After that, they just want to be left alone to ranch their goats. They'll smile and be friendly to whoever is standing in front of them right now (American or talilban), and then stab that group in the back as soon as the other one rolls into the village. I certainly don't have any answers to that situation. "
We "Murricans" can't get our head around that...yet look at our elections, with turnouts as low as 30% and everything polarized along lines of race, party, and religion.

Afghanistan has been overrun so many times , in recent history and back through time. "Here's the new boss, same as the old boss". Plus, saying no to Taliban is like saying no to Al Capone in 1920's Chicago.

Indirect fire...yeah, I seemed to see that vulnerability too, and obvious to anyone with binoculars off base.


----------



## Doczilla (Aug 22, 2012)

The biggest threat will always be IEDs. There's EFP's that can defeat tanks. So the vehicles make little difference. 

The best way to mitigate that is stay off the roads. Dominate the terrain. 

But that also requires you to be able to manuver at altitude with heavy, cumbersome armor, and additional gear. Not everyone can do that. 

The few Times that IDF has been executed well in my presence, they were soon met with A-10's hungry for blood. And they get fed.


----------



## mycrofft (Aug 22, 2012)

Glossary note to others: EFP= explosive formed penetrator, often a thick copper plate which explosive shockwave turns into a super battering ram-cum-projectile. We started experimenting with them in the late Sixties.

Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator







Quote:
"As a rule of thumb, an EFP can perforate a thickness of armour steel equal to half the diameter of its charge for a copper or iron liner". And it doesn't just penetrate, it is extremely energetic.


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 23, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> Glossary note to others: EFP= explosive formed penetrator, often a thick copper plate which explosive shockwave turns into a super battering ram-cum-projectile. We started experimenting with them in the late Sixties.
> 
> Article:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator
> ...



I think this is basically a combination of the WWII German APBC tank rounds (armor piercing ballistic capped) and HEAT (high explosive anti tank) which was a chemical mediated force.


----------



## Doczilla (Aug 23, 2012)

Mind you, these aren't really common. But the bigger the truck you build, the bigger the bombs they make. Look at the progression of vehicles over the years. And we still sustain a steady flow of IED casualties.


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 23, 2012)

Doczilla said:


> Mind you, these aren't really common. But the bigger the truck you build, the bigger the bombs they make. Look at the progression of vehicles over the years. And we still sustain a steady flow of IED casualties.



The natural course of war.

One side builds a weapon, the other builds a counter. Always has been always will be.


----------



## mycrofft (Aug 23, 2012)

So defense of patients and practitioners must reside more in procedures such as site security, sound perimeters, short time on scene under fire, and agile advanced care (MD) closer to scene of injury?


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 23, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> So defense of patients and practitioners must reside more in procedures such as site security, sound perimeters, short time on scene under fire, and agile advanced care (MD) closer to scene of injury?



That is generally how it has been for a few decades.


----------



## mycrofft (Aug 23, 2012)

(just making a point).

There are literally acres of desert tan uparmored humvees sitting around here at reserve and depot installaitons all dressed up and nowhere to go because they are outmoded and outgunned.

"We brought a Humvee to an IED fight?"


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 23, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> (just making a point).
> 
> There are literally acres of desert tan uparmored humvees sitting around here at reserve and depot installaitons all dressed up and nowhere to go because they are outmoded and outgunned.
> 
> "We brought a Humvee to an IED fight?"



because the US doesn't know how to use cavalry.


----------



## mycrofft (Aug 23, 2012)

Invaders with cavalry (think Genghis Khan* or Hitler's blitzkriegs) require long supply lines or living off the territory. We think D Day (crushing logistics and local superiority of forces).

*Not to be confused with Genghis Kahn, his converted orthodox half-brother. Just a typo.


----------



## EpiEMS (Aug 23, 2012)

Hemostatic said:


> So, in order to defend the country, do we continue sending troops over there to keep the bad guys busy in their own back yard?



I guess it's a situation amenable to eliminating the targets we need to eliminate by Predator/UAV or SOF strikes, and keeping an eye on the place?


----------



## Doczilla (Aug 23, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> (just making a point).
> 
> There are literally acres of desert tan uparmored humvees sitting around here at reserve and depot installaitons all dressed up and nowhere to go because they are outmoded and outgunned.
> 
> "We brought a Humvee to an IED fight?"



GMV's are a different story


----------



## mycrofft (Aug 23, 2012)

MRAPS are a problem. Too expensive to bring home, don't want the bad guys (which means local armies) to get them. Maybe we could outfit them as limos and sell them to third world dictators?

Or NYC cabbies?

Artificial reef off Dubai?


----------



## Doczilla (Aug 23, 2012)

That's assuming that they're still servicable. Lol


----------



## RocketMedic (Aug 24, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> because the US doesn't know how to use cavalry.



No, because the Humvee is designed as a general-purpose light utility vehicle. In a conventional WW3, those are useful again. For now, with IEDs along known roads the primary threat, the MRAP is a better (safer) answer, although it sacrifices mobility for protection.


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 24, 2012)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> No, because the Humvee is designed as a general-purpose light utility vehicle. In a conventional WW3, those are useful again. For now, with IEDs along known roads the primary threat, the MRAP is a better (safer) answer, although it sacrifices mobility for protection.



I think you may be confusing strategy with tactics.

Cavalry throughout history has been demonstrated to have 2 uses.

1. A highly mobile force used to cover great distances to exploit waeknesses or use maneuverability to force your enemy to fight on the ground you choose.

2. Best described as "a spearhead" in WWII as a slightly less mobile, but sustainable heavy fighting force. (dating all the way back to "heavy calvary" in the middle ages.

As Mycrofft pointed out, it requires considerable logistics.


----------



## Hemostatic (Aug 24, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> The natural course of war.
> 
> One side builds a weapon, the other builds a counter. Always has been always will be.



Apparently not so:

http://defense-update.com/20120824_jltv_emd-2.html

We're going to go backwards instead, and spend way too much money on something that, in reality, will probably prove to be no better than an up-armored Humvee. Unbelievable.


----------



## RocketMedic (Aug 24, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> I think you may be confusing strategy with tactics.
> 
> Cavalry throughout history has been demonstrated to have 2 uses.
> 
> ...



Cavalry has no connection with a specific series of vehicles, especially in a conventional war. Most Western mechanized-infantry formations are cavalry in all but name, regardless of their designations.

The MRAP would be a poor substitute for a Humvee as a scout truck.


----------



## mycrofft (Aug 25, 2012)

MRAP would reconnoiter South Central Anywhere, USA, pretty well. Wouldn't fit through the local Wendy's drive through though.


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 25, 2012)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> Cavalry has no connection with a specific series of vehicles,



That was my point.




Rocketmedic40 said:


> Most Western mechanized-infantry formations are cavalry in all but name, regardless of their designations.



This too.

I would argue it is how units are used.

If you look at air cav in vietnam, armored cav, or just about any motor or mechanized unit today (for ease, let us call them "light cavalry" similar to Hussiers, on horseback in medival times and fulfilling a similar role.)

they all attempt to use the mobility of cavalry, but do not function as cavalry in the sense of what I detailed above. 

Which is probably why it doesn't work.



Rocketmedic40 said:


> The MRAP would be a poor substitute for a Humvee as a scout truck.



I would think so too. 

Basically a bomb resistant box would alert an enemy to your presense long before you discover theirs on the modern field.

I think you said what I said in a different way.


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 25, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> MRAPS are a problem. Too expensive to bring home, don't want the bad guys (which means local armies) to get them. Maybe we could outfit them as limos and sell them to third world dictators?
> 
> Or NYC cabbies?
> 
> Artificial reef off Dubai?



It is basically siege equipment. 

Just blow it up where it is.

Besides, who cares if the enemy gets it, I doubt it will be very protective against air assets. 

It would basically be a group sized coffin.


----------



## RocketMedic (Aug 25, 2012)

I really think it depends what series of MRAP you're talking about, and whether or not you can drive them out (to the north or through Pakistan). Shipping them home by sea is quite efficient -if- the US Government is able to secure those roads.

If they have to go out by air, it isn't as practical, and the protective technologies will be obsolete as compared to new production if faced by cutting-edge threats.

Mycrofft, although the MRAPs are decent on roads and stable surfaces, they are simply too big and too heavy to perform as well as dedicated scout trucks in most terrain. Even on Fort Bliss, there are plenty of areas MRAPs simply cannot effectively manuver in, and that's on stable, relatively flat sand. For a potential Central or South American counterinsurgency, the MRAP would be a fantastic truck. For conventional warfare against, say, the Chinese Army, the MRAP would be a liability in most front-line settings.


----------



## mycrofft (Aug 25, 2012)

I think the economical and political solution is probably give some of them to Pakistan and Afghan governments as presents/mil aid, and use a portion as targets for A-10 proficiency training where they are.


----------



## EpiEMS (Aug 25, 2012)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> For a potential Central or South American counterinsurgency, the MRAP would be a fantastic truck. For conventional warfare against, say, the Chinese Army, the MRAP would be a liability in most front-line settings.



So, unless we're going to war in northern Mexico against the cartels, we probably don't need the MRAP, or so it sounds like. If anything, in a conventional war, you'd be better off with relatively unarmored vehicles behind the lines, that armor is useless assuming there still exists a "behind the lines" in future wars (as there once was in WW1 and WW2). If we're going to war against China, I'll take an Iowa class covered in Phalanx 1D and SeaRAM launchers


----------



## Doczilla (Aug 26, 2012)

They don't use MRAP's offensively anyway. They're just rolling panic rooms for non-kinetic operations.


----------



## Doczilla (Aug 26, 2012)

They don't use MRAP's offensively anyway. They're just rolling panic rooms for non-kinetic operations.


----------

