Armor Effort 'Good News Story' for Troops

[Riprorin]

Armor Effort 'Good News Story' for Troops

By Jim Garamone
AFPS

"None of us wants to send a young man or woman into harm's way without adequate protection," said the top general in Kuwait this week.

That's why soldiers and civilian technicians are working 24 hours a day to ensure all wheeled vehicles going to Iraq have some level of armor.

Army Lt. Gen. Steven Whitcomb, commander of the 3rd Army and Central Command's Combined Forces Land Component commander, said during an interview from Kuwait that the armor situation is "a good news story for our Army."

He said the need for armored wheeled vehicles became apparent in August 2003. That was when enemy forces turned to the improvised explosive devices to challenge coalition forces. "You name it and the enemy dreamed up a way to use it on our soldiers," Whitcomb said. The IEDs began having a "deadly effect" on soldiers, he added.

The first response was for local commanders to put armor on the vehicles. The situation begged for something better.

Armored Humvees were meant mainly for military police. But they were perfect for all troops in Iraq. First, the Army shipped all available armored Humvees to the Central Command region. Second, the service ramped up production from 30 per month to more than 400 per month.

Third, the service mass-produced Level 2 "add-on armor" for Humvees. This factory-produced armor replaces the glass in the vehicles and provides armor protection. The add-ons go on regular Humvees at two plants in Kuwait or another eight plants in Iraq. About 10,000 Humvees have Level 2 armor.

Also, there are now more than 6,000 Level 1 armored Humvees in the region today. Whitcomb said those are produced in a factory back in the states. "It essentially gives you protection, both glass and on the armament on the side, front, rear, top and bottom," he said. He likened Level 1 to "protection in a bubble."

The requirement in Iraq is for 8,100 Level 1 Humvees. "With the production we have today, we will get there soon," Whitcomb said.

But Humvees are only part of the story. Trucks and other wheeled vehicles need protection too. So the Army has developed Level 3 armor to attach to the families of trucks needed in the combat zone. To date, some 4,500 vehicles have been fitted with Level 3 armor.

There are 30,000 wheeled vehicles in Central Command. All but 8,000 have some form of armor protection. Many of those are tool vans and communications vans that have no need to leave a base camp. Whitcomb said Central Command "is in relatively good shape."

The general said the last full brigade that deployed into Iraq ? the 256th Infantry ? had around 1,000 wheeled vehicles. Just under 1,000 had some level of protection on them. No soldier is driving to Iraq in an unarmored vehicle, he said.

He said the goal is the same for the 278th Infantry and the 116th Infantry ? the next two units that will deploy.

Link

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Armor Effort 'Good News Story' for Troops

By Jim Garamone
AFPS

"None of us wants to send a young man or woman into harm's way without adequate protection," said the top general in Kuwait this week.

That's why soldiers and civilian technicians are working 24 hours a day to ensure all wheeled vehicles going to Iraq have some level of armor.

Army Lt. Gen. Steven Whitcomb, commander of the 3rd Army and Central Command's Combined Forces Land Component commander, said during an interview from Kuwait that the armor situation is "a good news story for our Army."

He said the need for armored wheeled vehicles became apparent in August 2003. That was when enemy forces turned to the improvised explosive devices to challenge coalition forces. "You name it and the enemy dreamed up a way to use it on our soldiers," Whitcomb said. The IEDs began having a "deadly effect" on soldiers, he added.

The first response was for local commanders to put armor on the vehicles. The situation begged for something better.

Armored Humvees were meant mainly for military police. But they were perfect for all troops in Iraq. First, the Army shipped all available armored Humvees to the Central Command region. Second, the service ramped up production from 30 per month to more than 400 per month.

Third, the service mass-produced Level 2 "add-on armor" for Humvees. This factory-produced armor replaces the glass in the vehicles and provides armor protection. The add-ons go on regular Humvees at two plants in Kuwait or another eight plants in Iraq. About 10,000 Humvees have Level 2 armor.

Also, there are now more than 6,000 Level 1 armored Humvees in the region today. Whitcomb said those are produced in a factory back in the states. "It essentially gives you protection, both glass and on the armament on the side, front, rear, top and bottom," he said. He likened Level 1 to "protection in a bubble."

The requirement in Iraq is for 8,100 Level 1 Humvees. "With the production we have today, we will get there soon," Whitcomb said.

But Humvees are only part of the story. Trucks and other wheeled vehicles need protection too. So the Army has developed Level 3 armor to attach to the families of trucks needed in the combat zone. To date, some 4,500 vehicles have been fitted with Level 3 armor.

There are 30,000 wheeled vehicles in Central Command. All but 8,000 have some form of armor protection. Many of those are tool vans and communications vans that have no need to leave a base camp. Whitcomb said Central Command "is in relatively good shape."

The general said the last full brigade that deployed into Iraq ? the 256th Infantry ? had around 1,000 wheeled vehicles. Just under 1,000 had some level of protection on them. No soldier is driving to Iraq in an unarmored vehicle, he said.

He said the goal is the same for the 278th Infantry and the 116th Infantry ? the next two units that will deploy.

Link

Better late than never. Too bad the Dub and his Handlers were in such a hurry to invade Iraq before our troops had the proper equipment. But then time was of an essense because given enough time Americans would have gotten onver of the shock and horror of 9/11 and the truth about the WMDs might have surfaced before this administration could have used them to dupe the American Public into supporting this ill advised adventure into Iraq

 

[Riprorin]

He said the need for armored wheeled vehicles became apparent in August 2003. That was when enemy forces turned to the improvised explosive devices to challenge coalition forces. "You name it and the enemy dreamed up a way to use it on our soldiers," Whitcomb said. The IEDs began having a "deadly effect" on soldiers, he added.

Everyone's a genius in hindsight.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

He said the need for armored wheeled vehicles became apparent in August 2003. That was when enemy forces turned to the improvised explosive devices to challenge coalition forces. "You name it and the enemy dreamed up a way to use it on our soldiers," Whitcomb said. The IEDs began having a "deadly effect" on soldiers, he added.

Everyone's a genius in hindsight.

Or maybe those who envisioned the Iraqi's welcoming the US troops as liberators were plain delusional

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

He said the need for armored wheeled vehicles became apparent in August 2003. That was when enemy forces turned to the improvised explosive devices to challenge coalition forces. "You name it and the enemy dreamed up a way to use it on our soldiers," Whitcomb said. The IEDs began having a "deadly effect" on soldiers, he added.

Everyone's a genius in hindsight.

Or maybe those who envisioned the Iraqi's welcoming the US troops as liberators were plain delusional

Most have welcomed the troops, only a small fraction are causing problems.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

He said the need for armored wheeled vehicles became apparent in August 2003. That was when enemy forces turned to the improvised explosive devices to challenge coalition forces. "You name it and the enemy dreamed up a way to use it on our soldiers," Whitcomb said. The IEDs began having a "deadly effect" on soldiers, he added.

Everyone's a genius in hindsight.

Or maybe those who envisioned the Iraqi's welcoming the US troops as liberators were plain delusional

Most have welcomed the troops, only a small fraction are causing problems.

Unfortunately, that's all it takes. For the most part, it's always been the small fraction of radicals that have caused problems in the Middle East. You would think he Dub & Co. would have known this going into Iraq.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

He said the need for armored wheeled vehicles became apparent in August 2003. That was when enemy forces turned to the improvised explosive devices to challenge coalition forces. "You name it and the enemy dreamed up a way to use it on our soldiers," Whitcomb said. The IEDs began having a "deadly effect" on soldiers, he added.

Everyone's a genius in hindsight.

Or maybe those who envisioned the Iraqi's welcoming the US troops as liberators were plain delusional

Most have welcomed the troops, only a small fraction are causing problems.

LOL, eh, yup, most were throwing flowers, i thing the number is 8-10 who have publically stated so in various articles reported on this forum.

So, if they are so few (the ones who want's US OUT), did the US kill mostly friendly civilians then?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

He said the need for armored wheeled vehicles became apparent in August 2003. That was when enemy forces turned to the improvised explosive devices to challenge coalition forces. "You name it and the enemy dreamed up a way to use it on our soldiers," Whitcomb said. The IEDs began having a "deadly effect" on soldiers, he added.

Everyone's a genius in hindsight.

Or maybe those who envisioned the Iraqi's welcoming the US troops as liberators were plain delusional

Most have welcomed the troops, only a small fraction are causing problems.

Unfortunately, that's all it takes. For the most part, it's always been the small fraction of radicals that have caused problems in the Middle East. You would think he Dub & Co. would have known this going into Iraq.

That would be a more accurate statement and hopefully things will be brought under control in the near future.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

He said the need for armored wheeled vehicles became apparent in August 2003. That was when enemy forces turned to the improvised explosive devices to challenge coalition forces. "You name it and the enemy dreamed up a way to use it on our soldiers," Whitcomb said. The IEDs began having a "deadly effect" on soldiers, he added.

Everyone's a genius in hindsight.

Or maybe those who envisioned the Iraqi's welcoming the US troops as liberators were plain delusional

Most have welcomed the troops, only a small fraction are causing problems.

Unfortunately, that's all it takes. For the most part, it's always been the small fraction of radicals that have caused problems in the Middle East. You would think he Dub & Co. would have known this going into Iraq.

NO nation has ever caused disturbance in the ME like the US has, supporting or overthrowing governments, kings and delivering WMD's too them.

SH was a US ally until the US had no more use for him, now he is gone, this is not the first time the US has done this in the ME, read up on Iran and SA.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

He said the need for armored wheeled vehicles became apparent in August 2003. That was when enemy forces turned to the improvised explosive devices to challenge coalition forces. "You name it and the enemy dreamed up a way to use it on our soldiers," Whitcomb said. The IEDs began having a "deadly effect" on soldiers, he added.

Everyone's a genius in hindsight.

Or maybe those who envisioned the Iraqi's welcoming the US troops as liberators were plain delusional

Most have welcomed the troops, only a small fraction are causing problems.

Unfortunately, that's all it takes. For the most part, it's always been the small fraction of radicals that have caused problems in the Middle East. You would think he Dub & Co. would have known this going into Iraq.

NO nation has ever caused disturbance in the ME like the US has, supporting or overthrowing governments, kings and delivering WMD's too them.

SH was a US ally until the US had no more use for him, now he is gone, this is not the first time the US has done this in the ME, read up on Iran and SA.

It was france that sold him nuclear technology. I dont think we could consider that a very bright move.

 

[Red Dawn]

n/m

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

He said the need for armored wheeled vehicles became apparent in August 2003. That was when enemy forces turned to the improvised explosive devices to challenge coalition forces. "You name it and the enemy dreamed up a way to use it on our soldiers," Whitcomb said. The IEDs began having a "deadly effect" on soldiers, he added.

Everyone's a genius in hindsight.

Or maybe those who envisioned the Iraqi's welcoming the US troops as liberators were plain delusional

Most have welcomed the troops, only a small fraction are causing problems.

Unfortunately, that's all it takes. For the most part, it's always been the small fraction of radicals that have caused problems in the Middle East. You would think he Dub & Co. would have known this going into Iraq.

NO nation has ever caused disturbance in the ME like the US has, supporting or overthrowing governments, kings and delivering WMD's too them.

SH was a US ally until the US had no more use for him, now he is gone, this is not the first time the US has done this in the ME, read up on Iran and SA.

It was france that sold him nuclear technology. I dont think we could consider that a very bright move.

as equally bright when the US sold biological weapons to Iraq in the 80's?

 

[SuperTool]

Damn liberal media, forcing the administration to armor the troops.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

He said the need for armored wheeled vehicles became apparent in August 2003. That was when enemy forces turned to the improvised explosive devices to challenge coalition forces. "You name it and the enemy dreamed up a way to use it on our soldiers," Whitcomb said. The IEDs began having a "deadly effect" on soldiers, he added.

Everyone's a genius in hindsight.

Or maybe those who envisioned the Iraqi's welcoming the US troops as liberators were plain delusional

Most have welcomed the troops, only a small fraction are causing problems.

Unfortunately, that's all it takes. For the most part, it's always been the small fraction of radicals that have caused problems in the Middle East. You would think he Dub & Co. would have known this going into Iraq.

NO nation has ever caused disturbance in the ME like the US has, supporting or overthrowing governments, kings and delivering WMD's too them.

SH was a US ally until the US had no more use for him, now he is gone, this is not the first time the US has done this in the ME, read up on Iran and SA.

It was france that sold him nuclear technology. I dont think we could consider that a very bright move.

as equally bright when the US sold biological weapons to Iraq in the 80's?

In retrospect, it was not a good idea. However at the time Iran was the problem, remember that american hostage thing at the time.

HOwever, iraqs purchases from the US are belittled by what they got from russia and france.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Damn liberal media, forcing the administration to armor the troops.

They already had it. Damn liberal media for making an issue over nothing.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Damn liberal media, forcing the administration to armor the troops.

They already had it. Damn liberal media for making an issue over nothing.

I guess if your ass was in an unarmored vehicle and explosives going off at an instant around you, it would be nothing too. We spend a trillion dollars on worthless crap each year and yet cut corners when sending troops to play-a-war.

 

[Orsorum]

Look, we all know that Riprorin's going to find a way to abdicate Bush and his administration from any and all responsibility. We've already seen how his self-worth is apparently tied to Clinton's degradation and how Christianity is the only way. Why bother? He's trolled this forum up and down, and all he gets is attention and maybe a bit of vindication and reinforcement for his beliefs. Good for him. It's not worth it to argue with him, just a waste of bits and bytes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Damn liberal media, forcing the administration to armor the troops.

They already had it. Damn liberal media for making an issue over nothing.

I guess if your ass was in an unarmored vehicle and explosives going off at an instant around you, it would be nothing too. We spend a trillion dollars on worthless crap each year and yet cut corners when sending troops to play-a-war.

However, that was not happening. Unarmored humvees were not leaving bases....

We only spend about 400B on the military every year.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Damn liberal media, forcing the administration to armor the troops.

They already had it. Damn liberal media for making an issue over nothing.

I guess if your ass was in an unarmored vehicle and explosives going off at an instant around you, it would be nothing too. We spend a trillion dollars on worthless crap each year and yet cut corners when sending troops to play-a-war.

However, that was not happening. Unarmored humvees were not leaving bases....

We only spend about 400B on the military every year.

I'm not talking about military spending, I'm talking about pork barrell projects in this country and it was an estimate. Point, we spend money on worthless crap here and cut there. I don't think we should have went there, but on the other side, since we are, there is nothing that the troops should be spared to save their lives. If that means a tax raise for everyone in this country to do so, then so be it.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Engineer

I'm not talking about military spending, I'm talking about pork barrell projects in this country and it was an estimate. Point, we spend money on worthless crap here and cut there. I don't think we should have went there, but on the other side, since we are, there is nothing that the troops should be spared to save their lives. If that means a tax raise for everyone in this country to do so, then so be it.

And force Bush's base to have to sacrifice and subsist with the $10M yacht instead of the $20M one?

What kind of heretic are you?

:Q

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

He said the need for armored wheeled vehicles became apparent in August 2003. That was when enemy forces turned to the improvised explosive devices to challenge coalition forces. "You name it and the enemy dreamed up a way to use it on our soldiers," Whitcomb said. The IEDs began having a "deadly effect" on soldiers, he added.

Everyone's a genius in hindsight.

Or maybe those who envisioned the Iraqi's welcoming the US troops as liberators were plain delusional

Most have welcomed the troops, only a small fraction are causing problems.

Unfortunately, that's all it takes. For the most part, it's always been the small fraction of radicals that have caused problems in the Middle East. You would think he Dub & Co. would have known this going into Iraq.

NO nation has ever caused disturbance in the ME like the US has, supporting or overthrowing governments, kings and delivering WMD's too them.

SH was a US ally until the US had no more use for him, now he is gone, this is not the first time the US has done this in the ME, read up on Iran and SA.

It was france that sold him nuclear technology. I dont think we could consider that a very bright move.

as equally bright when the US sold biological weapons to Iraq in the 80's?

In retrospect, it was not a good idea. However at the time Iran was the problem, remember that american hostage thing at the time.

HOwever, iraqs purchases from the US are belittled by what they got from russia and france.

The American hostage thing was over at the time. Russia and France are legitimate trading partners with Iraq. If the U.S. can trade with them so can Russia and France. Or do you neocons want to control all international trade as well as conquer the world militarily?

If Bush insists no one can tell the U.S. what to do the Russians and French, or any nation for that matter in the free and democratic world the neocon policies of George Bush will usher in, can do whatever they decide is best in their interests too. Let's just cut to the chase and fulfill the neocon vision of world domination through military invasion. But just remember, after 21 months, the US can't even control Iraq. Don't expect good results from USA vs the world.

And it was Pakistan that sold nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea, and who knows who else. Dr. Khan. Bush's ally Musharaff. Another militarist goon just like Bush. If you have any proof that Russia and France were selling nuclear technology I'd like to see it. I haven't seen or heard of any credible evidence of such to date. But please feel free to continue the important work of turning our enemies, our allies, and the entire planet (outside of Bush's poodle Tony Blair's UK), into our enemies.

Good move. I've always thought the best form of world government is feudal states engaged in permawar. :roll:

 

[BBond]

Speaking of armor...

Soldier Says He Asked Rumsfeld 'Armor' Question Without Aid of Embed

By E&P Staff

Published: December 19, 2004

NEW YORK In his first public account of last week?s controversy, Spc. Thomas Wilson says that he came up with the now famous ?armor? question for Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld himself, without the help of oft-criticized reporter Edward Lee Pitts. And he adds, "If this is my 15 minutes of fame, I hope it saves a life."

The account appears in next week?s edition of Time magazine.

Wilson, who serves with Tennessee?s 278th Regiment in the National Guard, tells Time that he befriended Pitts, an embed for the Chattanooga Times Free Press, at California's Fort Irwin, where his unit trained. Later, in Kuwait, after Pitts learned that only soldiers could ask questions at the upcoming town hall meeting with Rumsfeld in Kuwait, he urged Wilson to come up with some "intelligent questions."

After his convoy arrived at Camp Arijan in Kuwait, Wilson found hundreds of fully armored vehicles promised to another unit months down the road. Wilson says he asked if the 278th could use them in the meantime, and was told no. That inspired his question about the shortage of armor, which he showed to Pitts.

The reporter, far from being the protagonist, suggested that he find ?a less brash way of asking the question," but Wilson ?told him no, that I wanted to make my point very clear."

Wilson says he also came up with three alternate questions on his own.

The Time account continues: ?As for Rumsfeld's brusque response ? that even a fully armored vehicle ?can be blown up?--Wilson says, ?Personally, I didn't like that answer.??

But he added, ?I hope I didn't do any damage to Secretary Rumsfeld.?

Following the meeting, Wilson told Rumsfeld he did not intend to put him ?on the spot? or show disrespect, and the two shook hands. Most soldiers were ?overwhelmingly positive? afterward, Wilson says, but one officer suggested he should have asked the question in a more ?proper forum.?

Wilson says he replied: ?What would the proper forum be?? He adds: ?If it costs me my career to save another soldier, I'll give it."

 

[CycloWizard]

Unfortunately, there is no newer armor that has been tested and met spec that could be sent over. Now we're sending over untested armor plates that may or may not be any better than what we had before. Sure, we could wait until we develop invincible armor plating for every troop or vehicle, but that will never happen. The military spends an asinine amount of money every year developing new types of armor for vehicles and personnel - the media telling them to hurry up about it isn't helping anything.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Unfortunately, there is no newer armor that has been tested and met spec that could be sent over. Now we're sending over untested armor plates that may or may not be any better than what we had before. Sure, we could wait until we develop invincible armor plating for every troop or vehicle, but that will never happen. The military spends an asinine amount of money every year developing new types of armor for vehicles and personnel - the media telling them to hurry up about it isn't helping anything.

This administration sent our troops into combat in vehicles with NO armor. The amount of money spent on developing armor doesn't matter if there is no armor on military vehicles.

One of the most disturbing stories I've seen told of U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq using plywood and sandbags in an attempt to help protect themselves against IEDs because their vehicles lacked the armor the U.S. military spends so much money on developing. This is disgraceful treatment of our troops. Development is useless unless the products of development are made available. Rumsfeld said you go to war with the army you have. News flash, Rumsfeld, there was no reason to invade Iraq. Saddam wasn't going anywhere. He didn't have any means to project a threat against the U.S. or anyone for that matter. The rush to war without sufficient troop levels or sufficient equipment was a choice the Bush administration. It's like a surgeon going into the operating room without equipment for an elective procedure. There is absolutely no excuse for rushing to war unprepared in an unprovoked, elective invasion.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: BBond
This administration sent our troops into combat in vehicles with NO armor. The amount of money spent on developing armor doesn't matter if there is no armor on military vehicles.

One of the most disturbing stories I've seen told of U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq using plywood and sandbags in an attempt to help protect themselves against IEDs because their vehicles lacked the armor the U.S. military spends so much money on developing. This is disgraceful treatment of our troops. Development is useless unless the products of development are made available. Rumsfeld said you go to war with the army you have. News flash, Rumsfeld, there was no reason to invade Iraq. Saddam wasn't going anywhere. He didn't have any means to project a threat against the U.S. or anyone for that matter. The rush to war without sufficient troop levels or sufficient equipment was a choice the Bush administration. It's like a surgeon going into the operating room without equipment for an elective procedure. There is absolutely no excuse for rushing to war unprepared in an unprovoked, elective invasion.

So, are you arguing against the war or the method in which it was waged? I think you need to decide on one or the other if you want to have any sort of reasonable discussion. I guess it probably makes you feel better to throw in an anti-war paragraph in every post because it makes it sound like you have something to say, but it doesn't add much to the discussion.