And the unarmored GMVs that were driven by SF... WTF were we thinking? We had lower casualty rates in 2006 than the conventionals with up armors. (I think it was the fact that we gave up armor for firepower!!! No one effs with porcupines, but everyone effs with turtles.) The only people with MRAPs and Buffaloes in 06 were 12Bs They did route clearance with them.
... well for starters that when planning, we conducted route reconnaissance and matched intel to the ground, dismounted in choke points and scoured the area for IEDs, and drove off road as much as possible to avoid IEDs altogether. Saved many lives.
You could drive M1 Tanks around Afghanistan. They will build bigger IED's. The article fails to cover brain power and how unit leaders don't think or use their brains and assets (or are too lazy) to avoid getting their men killed.
Also the statement:
Quote:
|
In other words, without MRAPs, the number of combat deaths from those wars would be comparable to the number killed in Korea or Vietnam.
|
Complete and utter BS. The advent of modern body armor has made a 10 fold reduction in casualties. Not to mention we have gotten better at war. Casualties in Vietnam were 10x less than that of WWII (a meat grinder if you look at the statistics), but Vietnam was an "unpopular" war which makes writing about casualties more of a political issue than a statistical one.