Comments for Explosive news from the Marines.

Explosive news from the Marines.

2007-12-17T17:10:13Z

First up - some "good training" at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia.

FORT A.P. HILL, Va. -- “Back blast area all secure … Rocket,” shouts Lance Cpl. Joseph P. Adams Jr. (center) and Pfc. Robert Challener (right), assaultmen, Company K, 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, before a high explosive round is fired downrange, while Staff Sgt. Jerome Owens (top), platoon sergeant, 2nd Platoon, Company I, and range safety officer, shields his ears from the blast during a firing exercise here Dec. 1. Companies I, K and L participated in a Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, or SMAW, exercise mainly aimed at familiarizing the junior Marines with employing it in combat situations. Photo by: Cpl. Chris Lyttle

Larger version here, if you want some wallpaper.

Next, over in theater... HIMARS debuted with the Marines this last year.

AL ASAD, Iraq (July 31, 2007) – Marines of Battery F, 2nd Battalion, 14th Marine Regiment launch rockets during a firing exercise. The HIMARS is the first of its kind in the Marine Corps and killed 25 enemy combatants and assisted in the capture of 47 more last month.

HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) is essentially MLRS-lite. While the MLRS, which initially fielded in the 80's is a large tracked vehicle based on Bradley components, the HIMARS takes a single MLRS "six-pack" of rockets and mounts them on a truck chassis - giving up the second six-pack carried by the MLRS. The HIMARS is cheaper to operate, faster over most types of terrain, and easier to move around strategically. MLRS was built for massed fires to stop the Soviet horde, and to operate in a very hostile counter-fire environment. HIMARS was developed to provide most of the firepower, at considerably reduced overall costs, while giving a greater strategic flexibility. Heh. If I sound like an advertisement, I was involved in some of the early studies that resulted in HIMARS getting built. Just as a sim-geek, not an idea guy.

Comment from emdfl on 2007-12-18

2007-12-19T03:41:04Z

They should consider bringing back the old launcher set-ups that were mounted on the Sherman tanks. Something like 30 or 40 three or four inch tubes of happiness IIRC.

Comment from Oldloadr on 2007-12-17

2007-12-17T19:46:06Z

John - If you recall, before I left Iraq (I know, that was over a year ago) I reported on the increased use of wheeled armor vehicles being driven by what you said, but also by concern for the infrastructure. The tracked vehicles were eating up the roads faster than the COE/Iraqi contractors could repair them, especially in urban areas. You normally would only see Abrams/Bradleys out in the boonies but you would see strikers/other wheeled armored vehicles in the cities. And now, the MRAPS are wheeled vehicles that are more resistant to EFPs than Bradleys are...

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-12-17

2007-12-17T17:45:34Z

Jim, I think it's both cost and strategic mobility, coupled with a belief we just aren't going to be fighting a Big War with a peer/near-peer competitor, as we like to term potential adversaries today. HIMARS was seen, among other things, as a Good Deal for 18th Airborne Corps, so they could get some of that long range rockety goodness without having to deploy MLRS systems proper, when they were in the early stages before the 24th ID was scheduled to come in to provide the heavy punch.

Comment from JimC on 2007-12-17

2007-12-17T17:36:30Z

The HIMARS thing is quite interesting. Guess the Ruskies never left the truck mounted rockets for mobility reasons? On a serious note, I thought we got away form wheels for combat systems because tracks were more capable of performing on the world's varying terrain. Has the off-road capablity of wheels improved that much? or has the world gained that much more infrastructure? Perhaps the answer with indirect weapons is that close is a relative term and being roadbound is not that great a hinderance. The last doesn't explain the STRYKER. Anyway we seem to be moving away from tracked solutions to wheels. I hope it is not simply based on wheels costing fewer dollars.