Pimp my ride.....Iraq contractor style

[SUBMAN1]

Where's the sunroof? Found this while looking for manuals!

-S


http://static.flickr.com/56/143322630_b7d927d73c_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/54/128817243_4d9d6546b5_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/49/128826897_8ee41c0f70_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/67/156187891_07edd10850_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/54/128814120_c76bfe2e86_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/47/128814116_f3801205b9_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/53/128817245_9569dcd8e8_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/56/128817244_b0f94aebcd_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/39/128814118_957065e75a_o.jpg

[blue3golf]

All of those are a mainstay in Iraq anymore, only problem is all that protection is pretty much rendered ineffective when the gunners are standing up like that, IED's packed with ball bearings punch through it like nobodys business as well. That 1025 on the far right of the first picture also illustrates the problem with just adding armor, the suspensions aren't made for all that extra weight and the vehicle loses alot of its performance characteristics.

[Wim Libaers]

Seems a little top-heavy.

[scandium]

Looks like these mods are more for intimidation than protection of the crew - not seeing much there to protect against IEDs and such, and they look more likely to roll over than do anything useful (though the .50 cals are pretty).

[The Avon Lady]

If you'll look at the pic before the last, you'll see that the convoy also contains armored Humvees, including one with what looks like a heavier duty armored turret and gun on it.

I assume these convertables are more for zipping around and going off road should the convoy come under attack.

Think of different escort types when accompanying a convoy across the N. Atlantic. :hmm:

[Spoon 11th]

Depressing picturess. I hope they shoot only flowers and my little ponies out of the barrels of the guns.

[SUBMAN1]

Depressing picturess. I hope they shoot only flowers and my little ponies out of the barrels of the guns.

Hah! THey are ridding the world of bad guys. Whats so bad about that?

[blue3golf]

That 1114 with the turret and .50 cal on it is standard now. That turret is nothing but about a half inch of steel and aluminum thats sits on a gear system to crank around. It works great for 7.62 rounds and average size shrapnel. When you start getting into shaped charges and the like which is pretty common now days there it really is for peace of mind. My unit in particular stopped using them and went exclusively to Bradleys.

[Ducimus]

I wonder if they've revived the M series gun trucks, or ever will. That would be an intresting throwback.

They were total "home made" jobs, ( http://www.guntrucks.com/SlideShow/ ) but it would probably work if constructed to meet todays requirements. A duece and a half or a 5 ton can support alot of weight, you have alot of room to work with, so you could armor the piss out of them. Espeically the floors.

[tycho102]

It might look like a redneck job, and in all reality it *IS* a redneck job, but I imagine that's what works. You need mobility and you need it cheap, because when the fighting starts up, your equipment is expendible.

Incidently, there's probably not a lot of "off road" capability with those trucks because the frame simply cannot handle the load (that has to be 500kg of steel for those turrets), not to even account for center of gravity and dynamic forces (recoil from rounds both fired and received). I would imagine those are foam-filled tires, but they might very well not be. If you lose a tire on one of those trucks at any kind of speed, especially in a fire fight, it may very well roll if the tire completely shreds.


Pretty interesting and something I haven't seen/heard. 5 stars.


edit-- Also, I'd just like to add: Anyone that runs is a jihadist. Anyone that stands still is a well-disciplined jihadist.

[Kurushio]

I don't know what's more evil, the contractors or the insurgents. I wonder how many of us would put up with being shot at by Iraqi civilians on a daily basis...because that's basically what they are. I don't make any excuses for the insurgents, but the contractors are responsible for converting their fair share of "civilised" citizens into extremists. Anyone see that vid of the insurgents shooting up civilian vehicles with Elvis playing in the background? :damn:

[blue3golf]

The tires are nothing but regular steel belted goodyear off road tires filled with air. All that homemade armor really does throw off the center of gravity, we rolled a couple of them partly because of that. The weight pushed down so far there was barely any suspension travel. The actual weapon firing or rounds impacting do very little on the "heavy duty" suspensions that are on those stock armored 1114s. The 1025's are the ones to worry about. Accleration is also killed with all that extra weight. When you lose a tire in combat though, mos6t of the time the vehicle is stationary, the few times it happens when your moving the vehicle handles surprisingly well. Need to use more aluminum and space out the layers of armor some to help take the blast.

[SUBMAN1]

I don't know what's more evil, the contractors or the insurgents. I wonder how many of us would put up with being shot at by Iraqi civilians on a daily basis...because that's basically what they are. I don't make any excuses for the insurgents, but the contractors are responsible for converting their fair share of "civilised" citizens into extremists. Anyone see that vid of the insurgents shooting up civilian vehicles with Elvis playing in the background? :damn:

They are a crazy bunch - those contractors - Go here - http://www.militaryvideos.net/ - and click on the Blackwater in Najef video's and you will get an idea of their mentallity.

-S

[Kurushio]

I've seen just about every video these contractors sent out. Including the one where they have their arse handed to them...and one of 'em dies. "Camel...camel...". Anyone see that one?

I don't like them...they are mercs and the result of greedy US policy and Rumsfeld.

Oh yeah...and that link you posted: militaryvideos.net. I was a member on that forum/website 3 times. I was banned once and left twice. This is throughout the years. The last time I was banned cos I called one of the mods (who is a contractor) a merc. I'm not the only one. A lot of mods there are contractors...and all twerps.

[Ducimus]

"contractor". lol i love euphisms. What was the acronym.. PMC? Private Military Contractor? Or some such bull. They really are mercenaries. Ok.. let me rewind a little.

Are they soldiering? They carrying a weapon? In combat? Not currently in the armed forces? Being paid to be there? Thats a merc. Not that i think anything positive or negative about it. I personnaly attach no stigma to the word mercenary at all, either good or bad. Well i take that back, i think you'd have to be crazy to be a merc.

[SUBMAN1]

"contractor". lol i love euphisms. What was the acronym.. PMC? Private Military Contractor? Or some such bull. They really are mercenaries. Ok.. let me rewind a little.

Are they soldiering? They carrying a weapon? In combat? Not currently in the armed forces? Being paid to be there? Thats a merc. Not that i think anything positive or negative about it. I personnaly attach no stigma to the word mercenary at all, either good or bad. Well i take that back, i think you'd have to be crazy to be a merc.

Agreed. Paid mercs have been here with us since the beginning of time. Nothings changed. Just gave them a new name along the same vain of administrative assitant vs secretary.

-S

[Kurushio]

Yeah but mercs have no loyalty, so if you think loyalty is a valued character trait, a merc is definitely not a good thing in the traditional sense. Also, anyone can be a merc, even without military training...another negative there. Thirdly, mercs have been responsible for much of the coups in Africa over the last century and in actual fact there are reports thay'd fight for both sides in the same conflict. :lol:

A Mercenary is a sort of fighting prostitute...that's what I told the mod. Don't think he appreciated it. :88)

[Ducimus]

*shrug* im pretty ambivalent about it. To me it's just a job. Kinda like a security guard "rent a cop". Not a job i would personally take, but just a job. And if it's an honest living, i personnaly can't knock it much.

One thing that does worry me however, is how it may effect our image. I mean, put yourself in a ragheads towel for a minute. Not only do you have American troops on your soil, but how now you got these yahoo rednecks in pickuptrucks sporting 50 caliber machineguns. Id be asking myself, "WTF!?!".

[bradclark1]

They're doing a job guarding convoys. Troops can't do it nor can they use military equipment. They probably work for the same company that operates the convoy. Calling them mercs is a long stretch. They are armed guards nothing more, nothing less.
Brinks and Wells Fargo use armed guards. They aren't mercs. What makes this any different.

[SUBMAN1]

They're doing a job guarding convoys. Troops can't do it nor can they use military equipment. They probably work for the same company that operates the convoy. Calling them mercs is a long stretch. They are armed guards nothing more, nothing less.
Brinks and Wells Fargo use armed guards. They aren't mercs. What makes this any different.

Ahh - they act like Mercs - watch the vids and you will see why. These guys are nothing like a simple security guard from Brinks!

[bradclark1]

Where do you see these video's?

[SUBMAN1]

Where do you see these video's?

http://www.militaryvideos.net/

Blackwater is the Merc vids. There are like 3 of them.

-S

[scandium]

They're doing a job guarding convoys. Troops can't do it nor can they use military equipment. They probably work for the same company that operates the convoy. Calling them mercs is a long stretch. They are armed guards nothing more, nothing less.
Brinks and Wells Fargo use armed guards. They aren't mercs. What makes this any different.

They are mercs. Brinks and Wells Fargo don't operate in war zones or draw their paychecks from whichever side of the conflict that funds them. Further, as they are in a combat zone where they are not bound by the ROE that the U.S. Military is yet are paid by the same U.S. Government (through contracts with Blackwater etc) and U.S. Corporations, they have a lot more latitude in how they can behave than the grunts or any Brinks guard who is bound by both the rules of his employer, but more importantly by domestic U.S. criminal and civil laws.

[SUBMAN1]

They're doing a job guarding convoys. Troops can't do it nor can they use military equipment. They probably work for the same company that operates the convoy. Calling them mercs is a long stretch. They are armed guards nothing more, nothing less.
Brinks and Wells Fargo use armed guards. They aren't mercs. What makes this any different.
They are mercs. Brinks and Wells Fargo don't operate in war zones or draw their paychecks from whichever side of the conflict that funds them. Further, as they are in a combat zone where they are not bound by the ROE that the U.S. Military is yet are paid by the same U.S. Government (through contracts with Blackwater etc) and U.S. Corporations, they have a lot more latitude in how they can behave than the grunts or any Brinks guard who is bound by both the rules of his employer, but more importantly by domestic U.S. criminal and civil laws.
By definition, you would be correct!

A mercenary is a soldier (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Soldier) who fights, or engages in warfare primarily for private gain, usually with little regard for ideological (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Ideological), national (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/National) or political (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Political) considerations.

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. 2. A mercenary is any person who: (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.


Take #1 up there and apply that to captured forces from other countries - seems to me that Guantanamo guys don't even get the rights of enemy combatant status!

[bradclark1]

What I'm seeing is a bunch of defensive actions as in providing security under Blackwater Security Inc..
These guys aren't used in offensive actions like assualts, raids, movements to contact, ambushes etc. They are used to provide security to CPA facilities. They stay in static positions. I'd call that armed security/guard and I'm not even saying that in a belittleing way. These guys are ex SF and Seals and can kick ass but they are still armed security/guards and not mercenaries (in my view).
Some word games can be played with that definition so I guess it just how one interprets it.

[scandium]

They're doing a job guarding convoys. Troops can't do it nor can they use military equipment. They probably work for the same company that operates the convoy. Calling them mercs is a long stretch. They are armed guards nothing more, nothing less.
Brinks and Wells Fargo use armed guards. They aren't mercs. What makes this any different.
They are mercs. Brinks and Wells Fargo don't operate in war zones or draw their paychecks from whichever side of the conflict that funds them. Further, as they are in a combat zone where they are not bound by the ROE that the U.S. Military is yet are paid by the same U.S. Government (through contracts with Blackwater etc) and U.S. Corporations, they have a lot more latitude in how they can behave than the grunts or any Brinks guard who is bound by both the rules of his employer, but more importantly by domestic U.S. criminal and civil laws.
By definition, you would be correct!

A mercenary is a soldier (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Soldier) who fights, or engages in warfare primarily for private gain, usually with little regard for ideological (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Ideological), national (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/National) or political (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Political) considerations.

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. 2. A mercenary is any person who: (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.


Take #1 up there and apply that to captured forces from other countries - seems to me that Guantanamo guys don't even get the rights of enemy combatant status!

What rights?

[SUBMAN1]

They're doing a job guarding convoys. Troops can't do it nor can they use military equipment. They probably work for the same company that operates the convoy. Calling them mercs is a long stretch. They are armed guards nothing more, nothing less.
Brinks and Wells Fargo use armed guards. They aren't mercs. What makes this any different.
They are mercs. Brinks and Wells Fargo don't operate in war zones or draw their paychecks from whichever side of the conflict that funds them. Further, as they are in a combat zone where they are not bound by the ROE that the U.S. Military is yet are paid by the same U.S. Government (through contracts with Blackwater etc) and U.S. Corporations, they have a lot more latitude in how they can behave than the grunts or any Brinks guard who is bound by both the rules of his employer, but more importantly by domestic U.S. criminal and civil laws.
By definition, you would be correct!

A mercenary is a soldier (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Soldier) who fights, or engages in warfare primarily for private gain, usually with little regard for ideological (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Ideological), national (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/National) or political (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Political) considerations.

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. 2. A mercenary is any person who: (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.


Take #1 up there and apply that to captured forces from other countries - seems to me that Guantanamo guys don't even get the rights of enemy combatant status!
What rights?
Perfect! I still don't know why we don't follow the Geneva convention which I think demands they be put in front of a firing squad and shot? Problem solved.

-S

[Kurushio]

What I'm seeing is a bunch of defensive actions as in providing security under Blackwater Security Inc..
These guys aren't used in offensive actions like assualts, raids, movements to contact, ambushes etc. They are used to provide security to CPA facilities. They stay in static positions. I'd call that armed security/guard and I'm not even saying that in a belittleing way. These guys are ex SF and Seals and can kick ass but they are still armed security/guards and not mercenaries (in my view).
Some word games can be played with that definition so I guess it just how one interprets it.
:roll:

They stay in static positions? Is that why they have pickups?

These guys are trigger-happy mercs. Do I need to show you the video where they shoot up innocent civilians just because they don't see a sign which says "STAY BACK 100 METRES"...which can't be read over distance of more then 20 metres even with perfect vision and is written in English which most Iraqis cannot read?

Oh yeah....and those kick arse Seals and SF had thair arse handed to them on more then one occassion. Don't make me post the "Camel" video....you forget that what makes the SF so special is also the support they get...you know, minibird, AC130 Spectre etc. These guys only have a Toyota HiLux as back up. :roll:

They are mercs...they leave the service and join these dubious companies cos they pay more.

[tycho102]

That Geneva convention sh*t is based off a RECOGNIZABLE UNIFORM. The requirement was intended to make guerrila warfare much less attractive.

Amazingly enough (to me, anyway), throwing on a pair of black pajamas with some kind of rank insignia and carrying an AK-47 is enough to validate this requirement. And when the Russians went through Berlin, they shot non-uniformed bastards on sight; they were fortunate enough to have that luxury, however, since they had very little use for intelligence (pun intended). It's too bad we need intelligence as much as we need dead jihadists. C'est la vie.

It also occurs to me that people are confusing "freelance mercs" with "nationalist mercs". American mercenaries are nationalists -- they intend to return to America and live in America. They sign contracts which, along with an NDA and a form of the UCMJ, includes a non-competitive clause. Meaning that unless they become freelance mercs (and consequentially be hunted across the "western world"), they have to abide by that contract.

Freelance mercenaries are the ones that go for the most cash. Blackwater does not employ freelancers. The CIA and NSA probably do on a routine basis.


Oil. It all comes right back to oil. And general anti-Americanism, which is based off the need for oil and fear of a fatwa on you.

[Ducimus]

and fear of a fatwa on you.

Do you think any American really gives a **** about what some whackjob Islamic cleric says? All we see is a nutjob in a black turbin spouting alot of bull****. And the instant kneejerk reaction to any threats that they make, is the overwhelming desire to kick their asses.. I don't know what it is, but its just something about us as a people. Fear and intimidation tactics will almost always do nothing but make us very aggressive.

errhh... sorry for the hijack.

Now back to merc debates. :roll:

[Kurushio]

Well a merc is a merc...whatever you call it..."nationalist" or otherwise. The end of the day, if the US cannot provide security in Iraq through their military and have to use mercs...than that to me is wrong. But then again...the wars all about making money for Rumsfeld. :yep:

[SUBMAN1]

That Geneva convention sh*t is based off a RECOGNIZABLE UNIFORM. The requirement was intended to make guerrila warfare much less attractive.

Amazingly enough (to me, anyway), throwing on a pair of black pajamas with some kind of rank insignia and carrying an AK-47 is enough to validate this requirement. And when the Russians went through Berlin, they shot non-uniformed bastards on sight; they were fortunate enough to have that luxury, however, since they had very little use for intelligence (pun intended). It's too bad we need intelligence as much as we need dead jihadists. C'est la vie.

It also occurs to me that people are confusing "freelance mercs" with "nationalist mercs". American mercenaries are nationalists -- they intend to return to America and live in America. They sign contracts which, along with an NDA and a form of the UCMJ, includes a non-competitive clause. Meaning that unless they become freelance mercs (and consequentially be hunted across the "western world"), they have to abide by that contract.

Freelance mercenaries are the ones that go for the most cash. Blackwater does not employ freelancers. The CIA and NSA probably do on a routine basis.


Oil. It all comes right back to oil. And general anti-Americanism, which is based off the need for oil and fear of a fatwa on you.

All you need is an insignia - the point is, some way to recognize the bad guy to keep from killing civillians - and to prevent spies - the two very things this writting is written so strong for. Fail to have a simple insignia, regardless if you are wearing some stealth uniform, even if its black pajamas ninja style, violates this simple law of warfare. The terrorists claimed war on America and the rest of the world, so if its war they want, then they must abide by this, or suffer its consequences. Just my 2 cents.

-S

[bradclark1]

They stay in static positions? Is that why they have pickups?
If you are referring to the above photo's
They're doing a job guarding convoys. Troops can't do it nor can they use military equipment. They probably work for the same company that operates the convoy. Calling them mercs is a long stretch. They are armed guards nothing more, nothing less.

These guys are trigger-happy mercs. Do I need to show you the video where they shoot up innocent civilians just because they don't see a sign which says "STAY BACK 100 METRES"...which can't be read over distance of more then 20 metres even with perfect vision and is written in English which most Iraqis cannot read?

What does the video have to do about being mercenary or not?

Oh yeah....and those kick arse Seals and SF had thair arse handed to them on more then one occassion. Don't make me post the "Camel" video....you forget that what makes the SF so special is also the support they get...you know, minibird, AC130 Spectre etc. These guys only have a Toyota HiLux as back up. :roll:

Don't know anything about a "Camel" video. Who hasn't had their asses handed to them in war before? Look at that SAS team from Gulf 1 that got captured. A shepard boy done them in. S#!t happens. It's how they are used that makes the difference. Their skills are keener than the average soldier and they are more motivated. It doesn't make them bulletproof.
If you were some muckidy muck who would you rather have guarding you? Average Joe Smuck or a highly motivated and skilled special operations type?

[Kurushio]

Well your last question is obvious. Though they aren't all ex-SF. A lot of these guys are South Africans and Australians...with dubious past military experience, I'd bet.

The "camel" video I was talking about is this one:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=n-fjrRB7WPQ&search=contractor%20%20iraq

Don't bother watching if you don't like this sort of thing...no gore...but one guy dies...his name was "camel".

By the way..ignore the comments...whoever wrote that doesn;t have a clue. The camera is mounted on the car dashboard...there is no "camera-man". One fatality...Camel was shot in the head (he's the one with the Australian accent who says "ahh...f*ck, I'm hit bad!). There was no road block. The commander ordered them to wait there. They were ambushed on the "Highway of Death"....the one that goes to the airport, I believe. For some reason they were just sitting there...like dead ducks. Nobody knows why.