Blackhawk Down, and Rant

[SP33Demon]

My rant is why didn't we learn anything from the Somalia incident for today's warfare in Iraq? Numerous soldiers have died in Iraq when their Humvees got hit by RPG's, the same way our special forces were killed in Somalia. Why didn't the Army add any modifications to the Humvee to withstand an RPG attack since then? Sad that Saddam has probably watched Blackhawk and equipped many of the guerillas with RPG's...

My friend said that the gov't has indirectly admitted that it is more cost efficient to have soldiers die than invest in new technology, for instance, the upgrade of armor on a humvee to withstand an RPG. I don't think this is true, due to the fact that we have new vehicles being tested (GM Defense Stryker and COMBATT trucks), our gov't is investing in better technology. I guess I just have a hard time with the fact that we're still using the same vulnerable vehicles (Humvees) that were sitting ducks in Blackhawk Down. Any thoughts on why we haven't upgraded yet??

 

[DurocShark]

Because "it worked in desert storm" mentalities rule the moment.

Just like the tech used in Vietnam was quietly and quickly moved away... All psychological.

 

[Orsorum]

This is a guess without any knowledge behind it, but I would imagine it's a combination of funding problems throughout the Clinton presidency, combined with other more basic needs during W. Bush's presidency (for the military, of course). Doing a complete overhaul of their motor pool seems like it would be economically unfeasible at the moment, although as the existing vehicles wear out, I am sure they already plan to replace them with more heavily armored light trucks. (is that even the right designation for the Humvee?)

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
My rant is why didn't we learn anything from the Somalia incident for today's warfare in Iraq? Numerous soldiers have died in Iraq when their Humvees got hit by RPG's, the same way our special forces were killed in Somalia. Why didn't the Army add any modifications to the Humvee to withstand an RPG attack since then? Sad that Saddam has probably watched Blackhawk and equipped many of the guerillas with RPG's...

My friend said that the gov't has indirectly admitted that it is more cost efficient to have soldiers die than invest in new technology, for instance, the upgrade of armor on a humvee to withstand an RPG. I don't think this is true, due to the fact that we have new vehicles being tested (GM Defense Stryker and COMBATT trucks), our gov't is investing in better technology. I guess I just have a hard time with the fact that we're still using the same vulnerable vehicles (Humvees) that were sitting ducks in Blackhawk Down. Any thoughts on why we haven't upgraded yet??

Production on the Assembly line started yesterday. RAH-66 Comanche - The future of rotorcraft

 

[Parrotheader]

Sadly, monetary issues probably are one of the major issues. I have no idea if they could find a more cost effective solution, but without knowing the specifics it would seem logical that a Humvee armored heavily enough to withstand an RPG attack would cost substantially more than one not able to withstand that assault. Plus, there would most likely be other tradeoffs in regards to speed, handling, etc. But given all the high tech materials we have to choose from, you'd think they might have something relatively light which could withstand that. Then again, that material would most likely be uber expensive. Either way it sucks.

 

[SP33Demon]

Yeah it does kinda suck that money seems to be more of an issue than life...

 

[vi edit]

I know that most humvee's can withstand a land mine blast. Saw it on Discovery(or history channel) going over a small clip on humvee's. They ran over a land mine, set it off, flipped the car up in the air, and still maintained an intact cabin. That's fairly impressive. I'm sure *something* can be done to help protect from RPG's and small explosives on the upper parts of the vehicle.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
My rant is why didn't we learn anything from the Somalia incident for today's warfare in Iraq? Numerous soldiers have died in Iraq when their Humvees got hit by RPG's, the same way our special forces were killed in Somalia. Why didn't the Army add any modifications to the Humvee to withstand an RPG attack since then? Sad that Saddam has probably watched Blackhawk and equipped many of the guerillas with RPG's...

My friend said that the gov't has indirectly admitted that it is more cost efficient to have soldiers die than invest in new technology, for instance, the upgrade of armor on a humvee to withstand an RPG. I don't think this is true, due to the fact that we have new vehicles being tested (GM Defense Stryker and COMBATT trucks), our gov't is investing in better technology. I guess I just have a hard time with the fact that we're still using the same vulnerable vehicles (Humvees) that were sitting ducks in Blackhawk Down. Any thoughts on why we haven't upgraded yet??

Production on the Assembly line started yesterday. RAH-66 Comanche - The future of rotorcraft

This is a helicopter (not ground vehicle where many casualties are still being sustained in Iraq) and I don't see where it says it has any type of upgraded armor. If it was hovering in Somalia like the Blackhawk, it would have been downed just as easy...

 

[Spoooon]

I think he meant that as an example of an investment in new technology.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
I know that most humvee's can withstand a land mine blast. Saw it on Discovery(or history channel) going over a small clip on humvee's. They ran over a land mine, set it off, flipped the car up in the air, and still maintained an intact cabin. That's fairly impressive. I'm sure *something* can be done to help protect from RPG's and small explosives on the upper parts of the vehicle.

That's encouraging to hear... Although I just read about an APC running over a bomb and a soldier died today. I guess it depends on the type of explosive that the vehicle hits...

If I recall, wasn't Jessica Lynch's convoy ambushed with RPG's shot at their Humvees?

 

[Rogue]

They did learn from it. Many Military Police and Scout units have Up-Armor HMMWVs now that are designed to withstand those kinds of blasts. The glass in them can handle point blank 7.62 shots and the rest of the vehicle is heavily armored. The unberbelly is armored to withstand mine blasts and the doors "combat lock" so that no one on the street can simply open the door and toss in a grenade, etc. Problem is, they're not that wide spread and they're still being rolled out to units as we speak. I'm trained on driving them and let me tell you, I feel a hell of a lot safer in them than a kevlar armored "turtle shell" HMMWV.

The problem in Iraq right now is that they're making non-MPs conduct MP missions by policing the streets, etc. There's simply not enough MPs available for a mission that size, not that every MP unit has Up-Armored HMMWVs anyway.

 

[gigapet]

dont tanks withstand basically anything?

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yeah it does kinda suck that money seems to be more of an issue than life...

I think there's more to it than that. They may be using their funds to protect life, just not in this reguard. If we can put $XXX,XXX,XXX,XXX into the development and upkeep of high tech aircraft and missles, we can take out 90% of an armies forces without loosing hardly a single life.

VS. putting that same money into redesigning a utility vehicle that comes in AFTER most combat has been completed and loosing a few lives here and there.

This is the military. People die. It's part of the job.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: gigapet
dont tanks withstand basically anything?

not a MOAB

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

There are a few impediments here IMO.

First, it would by no means be easy to create an all-purpose personnel-carrying vehicle like a Humvee that would be impervious to an RPG, which is, after all, quite a powerful weapon. Even if it were logistically possible, the vehicle would be a) much more expensive, and b) heavier, and thus more demanding on sealift and airlift, and requiring a greater logistical tail for fuel, lubricants, and maintenance. It would also be inherently problematic in hot climates like the middle east, where the men inside need ventilation of some kind.

Second, any materiel expenditures have to be funded by Congress, and an RPG-proof version of a Humvee would be a tough sale, even if such a thing existed. It would presumably cost well over $100K a copy, and Congress has recently shown great resistance to funding costly new weapons systems, as exemplified by the controversy over the F-22. From Congress' perspective, this would be a vast expenditure for a relatively minor benefit.

Third, the military is a VAST organization, and moving to a new vehicle would require accompanying expenditures in facilities, tooling, and training to service the new vehicles. This would cost billions of dollars and take years and years.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Rogue
They did learn from it. Many Military Police and Scout units have Up-Armor HMMWVs now that are designed to withstand those kinds of blasts. The glass in them can handle point blank 7.62 shots and the rest of the vehicle is heavily armored. The unberbelly is armored to withstand mine blasts and the doors "combat lock" so that no one on the street can simply open the door and toss in a grenade, etc. Problem is, they're not that wide spread and they're still being rolled out to units as we speak. I'm trained on driving them and let me tell you, I feel a hell of a lot safer in them than a kevlar armored "turtle shell" HMMWV.

The problem in Iraq right now is that they're making non-MPs conduct MP missions by policing the streets, etc. There's simply not enough MPs available for a mission that size, not that every MP unit has Up-Armored HMMWVs anyway.

Ah, thanks for the clarification... so it seems like we are upgrading after all!! :beer: :beer: :beer:

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yeah it does kinda suck that money seems to be more of an issue than life...

I think there's more to it than that. They may be using their funds to protect life, just not in this reguard. If we can put $XXX,XXX,XXX,XXX into the development and upkeep of high tech aircraft and missles, we can take out 90% of an armies forces without loosing hardly a single life.

VS. putting that same money into redesigning a utility vehicle that comes in AFTER most combat has been completed and loosing a few lives here and there.

This is the military. People die. It's part of the job.

That's probably true. But if we can save one more life... you can't put a dollar sign on it.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Rogue
They did learn from it. Many Military Police and Scout units have Up-Armor HMMWVs now that are designed to withstand those kinds of blasts. The glass in them can handle point blank 7.62 shots and the rest of the vehicle is heavily armored. The unberbelly is armored to withstand mine blasts and the doors "combat lock" so that no one on the street can simply open the door and toss in a grenade, etc. Problem is, they're not that wide spread and they're still being rolled out to units as we speak. I'm trained on driving them and let me tell you, I feel a hell of a lot safer in them than a kevlar armored "turtle shell" HMMWV.

The problem in Iraq right now is that they're making non-MPs conduct MP missions by policing the streets, etc. There's simply not enough MPs available for a mission that size, not that every MP unit has Up-Armored HMMWVs anyway.

We tested armored Hummers at Grand Forks AFB for Nuclear convoys in 1996. I have driven them a few times and all that extra weight really bogged down the speed and acceleration. Which is pretty critical for a convoy escorting Nuc's to and from the missile field. As far as I know the AF Security Forces didn?t accept the armored hummer, I could be wrong though I have been out for 6 years now.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Spoooon
I think he meant that as an example of an investment in new technology.

How's this for new investment? Defense Stryker that will replace APC's...

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Spoooon
I think he meant that as an example of an investment in new technology.

How's this for new investment? Defense Stryker that will replace APC's...

i want a starcraft seige tank or in general's the chinese overlord tank

 

[Rogue]

The Up-Armored HMMWVs have a turbo charged diesel engine in them now with as much torque and horsepower as the diesel in a 5-ton cargo truck. It's my understanding from the training course we went through on them that they weigh approximately 4+ tons with all the new armor plating. The doors each weigh in excess of 120 pounds by themselves. The one I drove had some get up and go, even compared to the old turtle shell HMMWVs.

Up-Armored HMMWV

 

[Nyical]

The Hummer wasn't designed to withstand a anti-tank round for a reason, it was meant to be a all terrain light utility vehicle that relise on speed and concealment for survival on a urban or open battle field, in order for it to survive
or repel a RPG hit, it would need to have some very heavy armor such as the M2 or M3 Bradley and then it defeats the purpose of what the Hummer was meant to be and even if you put that amount of armor on a Hummer it still wont
be 100% effective, an RPG round in the right spot can disable M1A2 or a Bradley, you have to consider what a RPG
is, in essence its a mini HEAT round designed to defeat light to medium armored vehicles.

As for a lighter stronger armor the only thing that really fits that category is the wheel skirts on the US and British
main battle tanks as well whats on the Bradley, the Chobham composite armor is still rather heavy, 1 skirt weights
about 3 tons give or take a ton.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Rogue
The Up-Armored HMMWVs have a turbo charged diesel engine in them now with as much torque and horsepower as the diesel in a 5-ton cargo truck. It's my understanding from the training course we went through on them that they weigh approximately 4+ tons with all the new armor plating. The doors each weigh in excess of 120 pounds by themselves. The one I drove had some get up and go, even compared to the old turtle shell HMMWVs.

Up-Armored HMMWV

Thanks for the link. Very nice vehicles, I had never even heard of them!

HOT DAM! Too bad we didn't have these badboys in Somalia...:beer:

 

[Rogue]

We probably would have cut the casualty list in half or more had we had them, that's for sure.

 

[wpenhall]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yeah it does kinda suck that money seems to be more of an issue than life...

I think there's more to it than that. They may be using their funds to protect life, just not in this reguard. If we can put $XXX,XXX,XXX,XXX into the development and upkeep of high tech aircraft and missles, we can take out 90% of an armies forces without loosing hardly a single life.

VS. putting that same money into redesigning a utility vehicle that comes in AFTER most combat has been completed and loosing a few lives here and there.

This is the military. People die. It's part of the job.

That's probably true. But if we can save one more life... you can't put a dollar sign on it.

Roomie - I'm surprised at you Of course you can put a dollar sign on life. We do it all the time. Do you drive a Volvo? (And since you're my roomie I know you do not ;-) They are generally regarded as the safest cars on the road; however, they are very expensive. Why doesn't everyone have them? Because at some point, many people calculated that the reduced risk to our lives is not worth paying an additional $20k for a vehicle. How about this - would you be willing to double or triple your taxes to put a cop and two firestations on every block? If it can save just one more life... is it worth it?

We live in a world of limited resources. Putting dollars in one area means not putting them somewhere else. Optimizing one area may suboptimize the whole. So the arguement must be about priorities and what will, in the end, result in the overall least loss of life.