Frantically, the Army tries to armor Humvees

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4731185/

The week before he died, Army Pfc. John D. Hart called his parents in Bedford, Mass., from his base in northern Iraq. Amid the joy of hearing familiar voices, the 20-year-old paratrooper told his dad that he felt exposed in the soft-skinned Humvee he and his comrades rode into battle each day.

“The full consequences of what he was telling us was not obvious at the time,” Hart’s father, Brian, told a news conference a few weeks after his son’s death. “The concern was genuine and very real.”

When Hart died in a small-arms ambush in mid-October, the Army had no official plan to “retrofit” most of the 12,000-odd Humvees in Iraq. This in spite of continuing attacks on convoys and complaints from combat units that they were taking unnecessary casualties in the thin-skinned Humvees.

There is no official figure on how many of the 728 U.S. combat deaths might have been prevented by better armor. Yet as attacks on convoys escalate, an increasing number of the deaths and injuries are being sustained in vehicles. That, combined with public pressure from bereaved parents like the Harts and their representatives in Congress, pushed the Army into action. In late March, the Army told its commanders to make “hardening” of their Humvees a priority.

Even if the Humvee problem escaped the attention of senior military officials, it certainly got noticed quickly at the unit level, where maintenance battalions watched one blood-stained vehicle after another come back from patrol.

[Mari333]

1. Too little too late. In the meantime

I was on the phone months ago with Senators and Congress screaming about the inadequate Humvees and DC moves slow as molasses when it comes to the troops. Bremer has private security guards, our kids are blown up in POS vehicles.
http://www.bringthemhomenow.com

[RamboLiberal]

3. Keep up the good fight Mari333 - you know we are all with you

And we're all thinking of Michael and all our troops. I think of all of you every day.

[Earth_First]

4. I totally agree...

When I served with the Reserves, I came across a piece of equpipment that had "1972" etched in the bottom of it and I thought to myself "typical."

[happyslug]

25. When I was in the National Guard the truck I drove was stamped 1946

And I served till 1989. On the other hand old does not mean bad, the problem is not the age of the Vehicle but the Humvee was NOT design to be taken into combat. A Humvee was to transport personal and equipment to a battlefield but never to go into battle. That works against a conventional army for if your trucks are behind the lines and safe from most attacks but in guerrilla warfare these trucks are as likely to be hit as any tank (and if I was leading the guerrillas more likely, tanks can not move without fuel and spare parts, fuel and spare parts are carried in trucks).

Given the use of Humvees, I have questions on tactics being used. When I was in we were told to use bounding over watch tactics when we were in vicinity of the enemy. Bounding Over watch is when one set of soldiers move (bounds) to a new location while being covered by a second group of Soldiers (the Over watch). When the first group had "bounce" than it over watched the Second group of soldiers doing their "Bounce". This means that if any group is attacked, someone on your side will cover for you. In the case of Humvees, one Humvees moves than its partner, than the first. You do this doing the whole patrol.

The chief problem with bounding over watch is it is slow,. "Traveling" is faster. You can Travel overwatch, but that requires someone to be able to see ALL OF THE HUMVEES. For example an Apache Helicopter can "overwatch" a Humvee Convoy. With an Apache in the Sky, the Humvees can "Travel" in safety provided the Apache can see all of the Humvees and can pounce if any are attacked. The problem is in urban areas you may not be able to see every Humvee from an overflying Apache AND the Humvee patrols may be lasting longer than the flight endurance of any Apache (Thus once the Apache leaves, the Humvee should revert to Bounding Overwatch themselves).

What I fear is the patrols are "traveling" through Iraq as they go from one point to the next without any over watch. The convoy than gets in trouble with no one to get them out of it. The solution is No Convoy movement without some sort of Overwatch but that just slows down convoy movements.

What it appears the Commanders want is to send out patrols in Humvees as a show of force, and want them to cover a large area during the patrol. Thus the Patrols travels instead of bounding and are getting into trouble without anyone in an over watch position to cover their retreat.

You can travel in a tank (Provided the other side has little ability to destroy the tank) but even in tank warfare bounding over watch is the preferred tactic. Thus my observation is that we are so short of troops that to have troops where we think they are needed they can NOT be sent Bounding Overwatch, and the areas where their are needed foreclose effective Traveling overwatch. The solution? More men even in unarmored Humvees but no movement unless some sort of Overwatch covers the movement. Unless this is adopted we are headed for a disaster and the losses will go no where but up (But bounding and traveling overwatch slows down movements thus giving the Iraqis more freedom of Movement, another sign of an impending disaster).

Thus the fact Bush does not want to face, we need more men in Iraq, men we can only have if he calls up all of the reserves and National Guard. Bush does not want to do that until after the election for it would be a kiss of death for his election efforts. The alternative is the Draft, but that is another kiss of Death. The big question is will Congress give him the Draft and/or the rest of the Reserves after the election AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN THAT OCCURS.

[baronessniki]

11. Rumsfeld insisted that he wanted a 'light, agile' military force.

That's exactly what he got. It really doesn't matter that much. They will hit us any way they can.

[Occulus]

31. And there was that story

about a company around here trying to put steel plates on them for our soldiers- and not beind allowed to.

GOD, that made me angry. Our own soldiers don't have the authority to perform a vehicle mod.

[curlyred]

2. Golly, this only took a year to figure out?

I fail to see why a combat vehicle wasn't armored to begin with, and I also do not understand why it took a year for someone to realize this needed to be done.

Bush's Army.

[AussieInCA]

5. oh because they are the Cheney liberator model, not the occupier model

[MSgt213]

7. In the military if it takes away from those very expensive missles

and big ticket items that never seem to work quite right but cost a bundle its considered a low priority. This is'nt a joke or funny observation. It's the absolute truth. You all that talk about support the troops does'nt equate to giving them the proper protective gear.

[Mithras61]

6. Well, DUH!

Back in the early '80s when they were first introducing these POSes, the range control guys rode around in 'em and said that they preferred their old jeeps, as they were more maneuverable and had about the same ammount of armor! They all said that the HumVee didn't have enough armor to stop even an M16A1 round, much less one from a Kalashnikov...

[jmowreader]

9. How much armor a HMMWV has...

The M1028 HMMWV body is made of soft aluminum approximately 1/16" inch thick. You can bend it with your fingers. It is glued and riveted together.

The hood is made of fiberglass-reinforced plastic. The FRP in the hood is fairly thick, but it's not reinforced with steel anywhere. If a soldier tries to lift the hood by himself, it will twist and crack. All military HMMWVs have cracks in the hood in the front half of the wheelwells.

You can shoot through a HMMWV body with a .22 Long Rifle.

[Mithras61]

13. Sounds like...

"Gee, why don't we send our boys & girls to battle in a coke can? If it's a quick one, they can just DODGE the bullets!"

I don't know where this pile of junk came from, but I bet it's somewhere like the so-called "Bradley Fighting Vehicle"... you know the one I mean... aluminum armor so it gives off poison gas when it burns, no "big main gun" but a couple of .50s in a "turret" so it looks vaguely like a tank, just tankish enough to attract hostile RPGs which'll certainly cause it to burn...

There's a film out there called "The Pentagon Wars" about a Col. Burton that tried to derail it, but ended up derailing his career instead. It's supposedly based on Colonel Burton's book, but apparently teh producer or director took some serious liberties with the material. I do know Israel bought some, but only after substantive changes were made (like steel armor).

[jmowreader]

17. The Bradley is worse than you think

And not just because of the aluminum armor--the same metal that was used to armor the M-113, the vehicle the Israelis rode into combat in the Six Days War sitting on top of because if it gets hit with an antitank round the vehicle catches fire. (How we got into this aluminum fetish is vehicle weight--someone in the Pentagon says "this vehicle will weigh 25 tons and no more" then puts so much crap on the vehicle they can't make weight without building the hull from aluminum.)

The genesis of the Bradley was the Soviet BMP, a vehicle which like the Bradley has a cannon, a missile system and room for a squad of soldiers. Unfortunately, when the US decided to create a Fighting Vehicle they built the thing without worrying about anything but the standards: how many congressional districts can we build parts for this thing in, and how can we get the weight down to fifty thousand pounds.

There are three weapons systems on a Bradley. The first is the TOW 2 antitank missile. Its maximum range is 3000 meters and you really need to fire the thing fairly close to its maximum range because gunners who fire this weapon close-in don't last long. Next is the 25mm Hughes Chain Gun. Its maximum range is 2000 meters. Last, you have an understrength squad--seven men at full manning. Each of these soldiers carries a Firing Port Weapon, which is a carbine with no sights. A soldier's maximum effective range is about 200 meters. Now let me ask you: how can you effectively use all three systems on the vehicle in contact? You either blow off two systems or you use the vehicle as a tank--which it is not.

[happyslug]

27. The BMP-2 The Best MICV in the World

Why do I call it the best Mechanized Infranty Combat Vehicle (MICV)? It has the best balance between armor, firepower, number of people it can haul, durability and the thing most military writers tend to ignore but is the most important, price.

The BMP-2 has 30mm cannon with a Antitank Missile. It has cast steel armor (To stop most shell fragments but still cheap) and can fit seven crampy fitted soldiers (I did not say it was perfect, just excellent).

Overall an excellent design, the attempts to better it (the German Marauder and the M2 Bradley) tend to be twice the weight, ten times the cost and only marginally more effective.

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/bmp-2.htm

[BootinUp]

8. Wasn't Mogadishu enough of a lesson for

the assholes that love these humvees?

[DeepModem Mom]

10. Anyone know if MSNBC is airing the story on tv?

This should have been a BIG story long ago, in print and on television --

[Florida_Geek]

12. I do not remember all the details but one NG/Reserve

unit going over got a local steel company to donate the plating and a local company cut the plates to fit their Humvees/trucks and the total cost was like $4,000 in ALL. But per the article the Army did not know if they could install them without "testing". But they took the plating to Iraq, and I am sure they are installed today.

It does not take a genius to add some, maybe not the best, but some protection.

[MidwestMomma]

19. I'm sure I read an article about the soldiers at Ft Riley KS

having to reinforce their vehicles themselves with donated steel.

But hey, I heard we're going to spend a zilliion dollars on a defense system that can take out 1 (yes, that's ONE) missile. Oh yeah, and it's accurate 1 in 4 times. What a complete crock.

My first preference is that we had never gone to Iraq. But by the Almighty Bush swears by, if their going to send people into harms way, at least spend the bucks to protect them.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

14. Hold Up!! Whats with the combat deaths figure?

This MSNBC article posted at 4:51 p.m. ET April 15, 2004 says:

There is no official figure on how many of the 728 U.S. combat deaths might have been prevented by better armor.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4731185

Yet this Rueters article posted on 12 Apr 2004 at 04:37 says:

The deaths raised to at least 470 the number of U.S. soldiers killed in action in Iraq since the start of the war to oust Sadam Hussein.
http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle.jsp?type=worldNews&locale=en_IN&storyID=4800426

That is a difference of 258 in three days!

Which number is correct? Is either of them correct? Surely they can't BOTH be correct?

[papau]

15. 792 w 682 us

http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx
Military Fatalities: By Time Period: News

Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
3 550 26 44 620 1.77 350
2 22 2 0 24 1.09 22
1 117 31 0 148 7.05 21
Total 689 59 44 792 2.02 393

[papau]

28. 12000 unarmored Humvees in Iraq at this point - so I suspect the

toll will go much higher.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

30. So MSNBC can't even get the numbers right?

Is this meant to be a major news network or what? Did they "outsource" their fact checkers?

[Aidoneus]

22. that may be counting the mercenaries that die quietly

:shrug:

[Frangible]

16. Well, duh?

Our wannabe-Blitzkrieg strategy just doesn't work in this situation. Sometimes "light and agile" is bad.

[Solly Mack]

18. My husband said that soldiers were using every piece of scrap metal they

could find to cover their HMMWV's ..this was while he was in Iraq.

COMMO guys have cloth-top HMMWV's and there was no way to add protective metal.

[Crachet2004]

20. Can you imagine what a real adversary, like Iran or North Korea,

would do to all the low bidder Bullshit we have bought down through the years?

For the money we spend, you would think we would be better served by our weapons. Graft, corruption and greed are to blame...not to mention cronyism and rigged bidding.

I truly fear for the troops, if they are sent against anyone who represents a serious military threat. I mean, gee whiz, the people we are fighting in Iraq are civilians, after all. If our military can't handle fragmented rabble, why would anyone believe we will triumph against any adequately equipped national military?

Our 'superweapons' are highly overrated, IMO. I'll bet the Russians and Chinese are laughing their asses off...and all we have in return is a threat to use nuclear weapons in a first strike.

How does THAT make the world safer?

Face it people, if we cannot bomb the living daylights out of an enemy for as long as we want prior to ground action, WE are'nt really that much of a threat.

I respect the people who serve, but I think for the money we spend, our military is a joke...and the carriers are nothing but a target.

[Frangible]

24. no doubt

For as much as we spend, they should all be walking around in frickin powered armor.

[Eye and Monkey]

32. Considering the body-count, perhaps we have a real adversary now.

[atreides1]

21. So...

...once again where is that 87 Billion dollars???

[soup]

36. Good question.

Here's an article well worth a read. Sometimes wish entire articles could be posted-

Hummer Bummer
Why is the White House underfunding armored Humvees?
By Eric Umansky
Posted Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2004, at 3:43 PM PT

You've read the story countless times: An American convoy in Baghdad or Fallujah or Tikrit is attacked; a GI is killed and others are wounded. Nearly all those convoys include the all-purpose Humvee, which, it is becoming clear, lacks sufficient armor. Many feature no more than canvas roofs and doors. "We're kind of sitting ducks in the vehicles we have," one lieutenant colonel told Newsday.

The Army has acknowledged that it miscalculated the intensity of the guerrilla war in Iraq and subsequently goofed on the number of armored Humvees it needed. "We do not have as many armored Humvees as we would like," the Army's vice chief of staff testified before Congress in late September.

So how is the White House proposing to deal with this? By underfunding the program to armor Humvees.
>full article-
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095705/

[soup]

37. and another

from September of last year - with a link to the complete supplemental funding request (in PDF format).

Congress Mulls President's Supplemental Funding Request
By Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample
American Forces Press Service

>snip<
For example, the Army plans to spend $2.4 million for a Paladin artillery system, $30.5 million for logistic support equipment and $42.2 million for command and control equipment lost during the war. The Army also needs $177.2 million for improved armored Humvees to help protect soldiers; and $6 million for replacement of multiple-launch rocket systems destroyed during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The Navy needs $128 million for aircraft spare parts, including $55 million to replace wing panels for EA-6B Prowlers. The Navy also would spend $76 million to support the increased operational tempo of is deployed fleet, to include spending $25 million for explosive ordnance equipment and $13.2 million to replace fleet hospital equipment damaged or destroyed during the war.

The Marine Corps procurement needs are to replace lost or damaged M88 A2 recovery vehicles and MK48 logistic vehicle systems at a cost of $21 million. Light armored vehicles destroyed during the war total $23 million. Upgrades to its amphibious assault vehicles will cost the Corps $78.8 million.

Meanwhile, the Air Force needs to replenish its arsenal of Hellfire missiles for use on the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle at a cost of about $20 million. Other Air Force procurement needs include $150 million for improved theater communication systems and components; $39 million for replacement vehicles; $25.9 million for deployed civil engineers and $1.5 million for explosive ordnance disposal systems.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2003/n09222003_200309221.html

expensive business, hey?

[midnight armadillo]

23. i always was confused about the humvee

It may be able to go some places jeeps can't, but they're huge, seat only 4 (!), are massively uncomfortable - you'd think lower NVH would mean lower better soldiering - and guzzle fuel like there's no tomorrow.

Plus they're VERY pricey!!!

How are they such an improvement over a jeep? :wtf:

[happyslug]

26. In my opinion NO

I drove both, the Jeep was lively and easier to get into tight spots. The Humvee is a one Ton Truck designed to haul men and equipment. It was to replace not only the Jeep but the 2 1/2 ton truck (It failed in that job also, the Army recently brought back the 2 1/2 ton, the Humvees just could not haul the 105mm Howitzer in difficult terrain).

The Humvee was adopted for two important reasons, first the US Army wanted to get away from gasoline. The Jeep had a gasoline engine. Gasoline engines had greater torque than Diesel engines and thus able to get more power to get out of mud traps than a similar sized diesel engine. Diesels have better fuel economy and more powerful (but less high end torque). Once you get to the size of the Humvee 350 ci engine the difference in torque is not that much of a factor, but in smaller engines the difference between the high end torque of a gasoline engine and a diesel engine may be the difference between getting stuck or not stuck in the mud.

Given this difference the US Army in the late 1950s decided to keep the Jeep as a gasoline engine Vehicle (and adopted a new version the M151 Series). At the same time the benefits of the Diesels became to obvious for the Army to ignore so starting with the M60 series tanks, US tanks were diesels (The M4 Sherman Tank of WWII, the M26 and M46 Pershing tanks of the Korean War, the Post Korean M47 and M48 Tanks were all gasoline engined tanks, through many were re-engined as Diesels starting in the 1960s).

The immediate post WWII 2 1/2 ton trucks were Gasoline, than a Diesel engine was installed in the 1960s (a "Multi-fuel engine was also used but later withdrawn).

Thus in the mid-1970s the US Army had gasoline and Diesel engine vehicles. At that time it was decided to go with Diesel fuel only, and given the problems with traction and torque with small diesel engines it was decided to drop the Jeep and go with the Humvee as its diesel engined replacement.

At the same time a decision was made to replace the old WWII era cook stoves (which were operated by Gasoline) with microwave ovens (with the power be provided by Small diesel generators. Diesel generators can be small for the only load on them is the generator thus the problem of traction and torque does not exist in such small generators).

The second reason is that the brass was tied of being transported in a small dinky vehicles. Even Patton during WWII had not used the Jeep for it was to small for his ego (Patton used the "Command Car" a larger four wheel drive vehicle about the size of Blazer or Explorer today but with a worse ride). Do not forget ego when something like the Humvee was being authorized to replace the Jeep.

[Frangible]

33. Humvees are much better, in pretty much every way

And they get absolutely fantastic fuel economy compared to a tank :P

[happyslug]

34. We are comparing the Humvee with the Jeep NOT a Tank.

The Jeep gets about 20-25 mpg, the Humvee gets about 10-15 mpg, the M1 tank gets 9 gallon per mile (and the older M60 gets 3 gallons to the mile)

For fuel usage of the M1:
http://www.periscope1.com/demo/weapons/gcv/tanks/w0003593.html

When the US had to patrol the border of Macedonia and Serbia the US Army and Marines found that the Humvee was to big for what passes for roads in that area (and what passes for roads in most of the World). Given that problem, the US brought back the old Jeep do to its much smaller body (It could travel on those roads).

Now the Marines are looking into a Hybrid vehicle to replace the Jeep. Electric Motors will drive the wheels (Solving the problems of lack of torque in small diesels) with either a diesel engine or very small gas turbine generating electricity for the fuel cells. Seems to be sometime in the future but the Marines were looking into it because they have found a small Jeep like vehicle is needed in many third world countries.

US Special Forces have used the "Gator" for the same purpose, but the Gator has a problem, it is NOT road usable, to slow, lack of braking power (But is small and diesel).

Thus while the Humvee has been a success (The US Army has needed something between the 2 1/2 ton truck and the Jeep since WWII. The British had its Land Rover, but the US had nothing to fit that gap and it was needed) it has been made clear that the Humvee failed to replace EITHER the 2 1/2 ton truck and the Jeep.

Thus the Jeep will come back, how and why has not yet been decided.

[kainah]

29. Is it better or worse, though

to be in an armored Humvee if they are using depleted uranium to make the armor??? Seems to be the choice between a quick death or a slow one. Can things get any more depressing???

[happyslug]

35. Armor is straight Steel NOT depleted Uranium

This is what is being added (With some Kevlar armor). Aluminum seems to be avoided. Depleted Uranium is used only in the front part of M1A2 tanks and than only under and between heavy ceramic steel plates.

The down side with the increase armor, is the Humvee will be slower and use more fuel (And harder to get out of in combat). As I have said in another thread the problem with the Humvees is NOT their lack of Armor but bad tactics adopted do to lack of personal (Patrols are sent out without adequate over watch to cover those patrols).

Thus the US Army is hoping Armor will overcome bad tactics that had been adopted do to lack of troops. Yes, this is a debacle slowing occurring.

[pippin]

38. AMG and GM

Anyone know what profits AMG (the manufacturers of Hummers) and GM (they have the Hummer name and marketing rights) are? Wanna follow the money anyone?

What do you want to bet that the trail will lead to the doorsteps of some of our estimed decision makers? :think: