4 ms·

Hesco barriers were pretty wide spread in Iraq as well. Baghdad was the only place I saw where the concrete barriers outnumbered the Hescos.

dogma1138 10y ago
Because hescos do not need logistical support 2 people can deploy one and fill it with sand and gravel even by hand if needed. Hescos are also better since they don't cause ricochets and they don't shatter on impact creating shrapnel. From my experience when concrete walls are used for fortifications the SOP was to cover them with a sheet of Kevlar like fabric between two layers of metal webbing (concrete bolt/nail gun was used to secure the webbing to the barrier) to protect personnel from secondary impact risks. If that wasn't available then you usually had a layer of either sand bags or a spaced secondary wooden or sheet metal wall with sand filling the gap between it and the concrete. When bullets are flying at you you want to be behind a barrier but not near a bare concrete wall.
- sedachv 10y ago
  Also, when heated/on fire cement will explode.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    If it's not dry yeah, tho if you are taking in napalm you have bigger issues than exploding concrete.
- LoSboccacc 10y ago
  would be interesting to develop a gluing agent to convert local gravel into a concrete like material that could be formed like Hescos but in thinner, taller L shapes for the purpose of erecting barriers as in the article. drying would be the main issue, probably.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Cement plus sand, this is what most walls in the middle east are made of they are very soft tho, you can crumble them with your fingers if you get past the outer layer of plaster. The upside is that they don't ricochet as much if at all, the downside is that bullets leave pretty large impact craters and if the wall isn't thick enough simply pass through like it wasn't there. But the problem remains if it's hard bullets will ricochet and it will splinter into shrapnel, if it's soft it's not an effective barrier and the wear on it is very high. Hescos or any other similar fortification are simple and effective, there is a reason why we still use sandbags and planks of wood with sand in between them, sand is a great bullet trap and you can shoot at hescos and sandbags all day long and you won't really do much damage. there needs to be a pretty big hole for the sand to sip out since it's kept in place by the pressure and compression.
    - sandworm101 10y ago
      Hescos also have a lower surface area to weight ratio. They are therefore much less likely to be moved by nearby explosions. And their softer insides make total failure, shattering, almost impossible.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    On that note, i recall reading about a British project to produce quick rise shelters. They were basically a inflatable tent with cement impregnated outer canvas. Roll out, inflate, soak in water, and wait for it to harden before releasing the pressure. And such a gluing agent would be cement. Concrete is really nothing more than cement mixed with sand or gravel. The farm i grew up on had a barn where the foundation was nothing more than cement and small rocks from the land. It was built up like a layer cake. One spread of cement, then a layer of rock, repeated until desired height.
    - rurounijones 10y ago
      > On that note, i recall reading about a British project to produce quick rise shelters. http://www.concretecanvas.com/ http://www.concretecanvas.com/ Their price (that I could find) quotes on old news sites were insanely high unfortunately (GBP15-20k). It looks like the shelter use has been relegated to a secondary product vs the main use: rolls of the stuff for construction uses.
- AcerbicZero 10y ago
  Sounds like you found a better war than I did, or at least a fancier one. Bare concrete was definitely the norm for our concrete fortifications. You need to remember that the concern is less about bullets and more about mortars/rockets/VBEDs, which I can assure you, both types of barriers did a reasonably decent job of stopping.
- ChuckMcM 10y ago
  Hescos seem like a better deal in terms of material moved vs material acquired on site. But they also seem like they would have to be wider to be stable, what that your experience? Pictures seem to have them as 3x - 5x the thickness of a concrete barrier of similar height.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Yeah they are considerably thicker, not really for stability but to be effective at stopping large penetrating and explosive projectiles and even acting as tank traps. They are also slower to deploy, tho if you do it properly you dig both the obstacle outer ditch (which makes the effective height of barrier too high to scale) and trenches as you fill them since the ground needs to come from somewhere. That said to deploy concrete barriers you need a crane, when push comes to shove a squad with shovels can fill a hesco. Some concrete barriers can also be higher than hescos, tho you can stack hescos without much trouble. Overall if you are building an FOB all you need is a few flatbed trucks and a bobcat (small earth mover) to pretty quickly deploy hescos, concrete barriers need heavy trucks (which also means proper roads, you won't be driving a truck filled with concrete barriers over soft terrain) and you actually need engineers (as in the military definition, not academically educated ones) to deploy them. In an urban environment concrete can make more sense tho, you can't dig ditched to increase the height, can't dig up the ground randomly, and since concrete barriers are thinner they are more easily deployed in urban environments and it's not like you have issues with logistics. Although it wouldn't surprise me if the pentagon somehow managed to airlift these barriers from the US to Iraq to be deployed in Baghdad instead of just contracting the local concrete factories.
    - angersock 10y ago
      I don't know if this matches your experience, but in theory you can deploy a big line of Hescos all at once: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPuw-f8JMTw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPuw-f8JMTw > Although it wouldn't surprise me if the pentagon somehow managed to airlift these barriers from the US to Iraq to be deployed in Baghdad instead of just contracting the local concrete factories. What, pay hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless gallons of fuel to transport big concrete blocks across the world? Our DoD? Surely you jest. 8)

dogma1138 10y ago

Because hescos do not need logistical support 2 people can deploy one and fill it with sand and gravel even by hand if needed. Hescos are also better since they don't cause ricochets and they don't shatter on impact creating shrapnel. From my experience when concrete walls are used for fortifications the SOP was to cover them with a sheet of Kevlar like fabric between two layers of metal webbing (concrete bolt/nail gun was used to secure the webbing to the barrier) to protect personnel from secondary impact risks. If that wasn't available then you usually had a layer of either sand bags or a spaced secondary wooden or sheet metal wall with sand filling the gap between it and the concrete. When bullets are flying at you you want to be behind a barrier but not near a bare concrete wall.

sedachv 10y ago
Also, when heated/on fire cement will explode.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  If it's not dry yeah, tho if you are taking in napalm you have bigger issues than exploding concrete.
LoSboccacc 10y ago
would be interesting to develop a gluing agent to convert local gravel into a concrete like material that could be formed like Hescos but in thinner, taller L shapes for the purpose of erecting barriers as in the article. drying would be the main issue, probably.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Cement plus sand, this is what most walls in the middle east are made of they are very soft tho, you can crumble them with your fingers if you get past the outer layer of plaster. The upside is that they don't ricochet as much if at all, the downside is that bullets leave pretty large impact craters and if the wall isn't thick enough simply pass through like it wasn't there. But the problem remains if it's hard bullets will ricochet and it will splinter into shrapnel, if it's soft it's not an effective barrier and the wear on it is very high. Hescos or any other similar fortification are simple and effective, there is a reason why we still use sandbags and planks of wood with sand in between them, sand is a great bullet trap and you can shoot at hescos and sandbags all day long and you won't really do much damage. there needs to be a pretty big hole for the sand to sip out since it's kept in place by the pressure and compression.
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    Hescos also have a lower surface area to weight ratio. They are therefore much less likely to be moved by nearby explosions. And their softer insides make total failure, shattering, almost impossible.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  On that note, i recall reading about a British project to produce quick rise shelters. They were basically a inflatable tent with cement impregnated outer canvas. Roll out, inflate, soak in water, and wait for it to harden before releasing the pressure. And such a gluing agent would be cement. Concrete is really nothing more than cement mixed with sand or gravel. The farm i grew up on had a barn where the foundation was nothing more than cement and small rocks from the land. It was built up like a layer cake. One spread of cement, then a layer of rock, repeated until desired height.
  - rurounijones 10y ago
    > On that note, i recall reading about a British project to produce quick rise shelters. http://www.concretecanvas.com/ http://www.concretecanvas.com/ Their price (that I could find) quotes on old news sites were insanely high unfortunately (GBP15-20k). It looks like the shelter use has been relegated to a secondary product vs the main use: rolls of the stuff for construction uses.
AcerbicZero 10y ago
Sounds like you found a better war than I did, or at least a fancier one. Bare concrete was definitely the norm for our concrete fortifications. You need to remember that the concern is less about bullets and more about mortars/rockets/VBEDs, which I can assure you, both types of barriers did a reasonably decent job of stopping.
ChuckMcM 10y ago
Hescos seem like a better deal in terms of material moved vs material acquired on site. But they also seem like they would have to be wider to be stable, what that your experience? Pictures seem to have them as 3x - 5x the thickness of a concrete barrier of similar height.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Yeah they are considerably thicker, not really for stability but to be effective at stopping large penetrating and explosive projectiles and even acting as tank traps. They are also slower to deploy, tho if you do it properly you dig both the obstacle outer ditch (which makes the effective height of barrier too high to scale) and trenches as you fill them since the ground needs to come from somewhere. That said to deploy concrete barriers you need a crane, when push comes to shove a squad with shovels can fill a hesco. Some concrete barriers can also be higher than hescos, tho you can stack hescos without much trouble. Overall if you are building an FOB all you need is a few flatbed trucks and a bobcat (small earth mover) to pretty quickly deploy hescos, concrete barriers need heavy trucks (which also means proper roads, you won't be driving a truck filled with concrete barriers over soft terrain) and you actually need engineers (as in the military definition, not academically educated ones) to deploy them. In an urban environment concrete can make more sense tho, you can't dig ditched to increase the height, can't dig up the ground randomly, and since concrete barriers are thinner they are more easily deployed in urban environments and it's not like you have issues with logistics. Although it wouldn't surprise me if the pentagon somehow managed to airlift these barriers from the US to Iraq to be deployed in Baghdad instead of just contracting the local concrete factories.
  - angersock 10y ago
    I don't know if this matches your experience, but in theory you can deploy a big line of Hescos all at once: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPuw-f8JMTw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPuw-f8JMTw > Although it wouldn't surprise me if the pentagon somehow managed to airlift these barriers from the US to Iraq to be deployed in Baghdad instead of just contracting the local concrete factories. What, pay hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless gallons of fuel to transport big concrete blocks across the world? Our DoD? Surely you jest. 8)