THE FACTS ON HUMVEE ARMOR

[Tom]

"You and yours are looking for failure."


I'm not looking for failure. I'm looking for improvements in how the DOD and the administration work/don't work.

I see 3 possibilities.

1. I'm just wrong.
2. the admin/DOD is blind to their problems.
3. the admin/DOD knows there are problems but wants to minimize public discourse about them by putting things in the best light they can.

I think number 2 is most likely what is happening. Deliberately or not, I think Bush and Rumsfeld give the people under them the impression they don't like bad news. And soldiers will put up with a lot, I just think they are having to deal with some stuff that isn't necessary, along with a lot that can't be helped.

 

[CQuinn]

quote: SarcasticDwarf

WRONG. The first Gulf war was not a war of occupation. This is a different type of war.

Irrelevant, the point made was on a failure of preparation. We did not prepare this as
a war of occupation. As a "different type of war", that should have been taken into account
along with the lessons and intelligence we had gained since the first Gulf War, and our more
recent invasion and holdover in Afganistan. BTW: I thought the administration didn't like
to refer to this as an "occupation".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also entered both wars as latecomers. And supposedly had learned the lessons from that war
in preparing for future conflicts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right, and we didn't enter this was as a latecomer, and therefore did not have the knowlege gained from other nations.

Wait a minute, we had enough knowledge to claim Iraq had WMDs, and further evidence that they
were in material breach of UN Sanctions (a basic catalog of thier weapons capability).
We had been the primary force carrying out those sanctions with the 10-year plus enforcement of the
no-fly zones and the Kurdish free zone.
We had the assistance of British Intelligence, the reports of UN and US Weapons inspectors, feedback from Iragi ex-patriates and defectors, and input of offensive and defensive combat tactics from our Israeli (and African) counterparts.
Plus, we had recent combat experience in the desert regions of Afganistan against much the same
type of insurgency we now face in Iraq.

We had knowledge seeping out of our pores. We were forewarned, and given ample opportunities to
become better forearmed prior to crossing the first border.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There should have been some? (Granted, Rumsfeld did an impressive job of proving that a modern
war can be sucessfully executed with limited resources and a reliance on greater technology and
tactics. But that thinking was carried over to the occupation as well, which has a far greater need
for both active and standby personnel and resources to also be carried thru without mistakes).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was simply stating that I don't know what was going on in the planning sessions, nor does anyone else here.

But we do have people here who understand that such strategic planning could not have taken
place without at least considering the logistical requirements of preparing for an urban resistance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that we have to point out such a significant increase in production now to fix a problem
that should have been noted in the initial planning stages of the war.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What? Where is this coming from? This was has lasted longer than the first Gulf war. Every war of significant duration has people that complain about one issue or another, especially when some disagree with the war in the first place. With a war being fought on this scale, there are bound to be things screwed up.

Have you been reading this thread? It doesn't matter how long this has lasted. This isn't an
issue of the duration of combat. Encountering IEDs has been a possibility for many years.
It was already pointed out earlier in this thread that countries in the region routinely prepare
thier personnel and vehicles for such a contingency. Our military planners have understood the
potential of urban warfare and middle east combat scenarios since the end of the Cold War.
We have had the ability to "mod" our vehicles with additional forms of armor and protective materials
since the early 90s (if not earlier). We have been at the forefront of the development of
anti-personnel and anti-vehicle equipment for decades.

But it doesn't appear that any this knowledge was applied, because the very idea that combat
operations would continue at this scale beyond the day of "mission accomplished" was simply
not considered. Which, considering the liberation of Iraq as part of the larger war on Terrorism,
is not just a screwup.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: CQuinn

Irrelevant, the point made was on a failure of preparation. We did not prepare this as
a war of occupation. As a "different type of war", that should have been taken into account
along with the lessons and intelligence we had gained since the first Gulf War, and our more
recent invasion and holdover in Afganistan. BTW: I thought the administration didn't like
to refer to this as an "occupation".

I'm not a member of the administration, I can call it whatever I want.

Wait a minute, we had enough knowledge to claim Iraq had WMDs, and further evidence that they
were in material breach of UN Sanctions (a basic catalog of thier weapons capability).
We had been the primary force carrying out those sanctions with the 10-year plus enforcement of the
no-fly zones and the Kurdish free zone.
We had the assistance of British Intelligence, the reports of UN and US Weapons inspectors, feedback from Iragi ex-patriates and defectors, and input of offensive and defensive combat tactics from our Israeli (and African) counterparts.
Plus, we had recent combat experience in the desert regions of Afganistan against much the same
type of insurgency we now face in Iraq.

We had knowledge seeping out of our pores. We were forewarned, and given ample opportunities to
become better forearmed prior to crossing the first border.

That is a different type of knowledge. I'm talking about knowledge of how they have fought in sustained combat for the previous couple years. THAT is what we have always had before. Iraq had not been in sustained combat with another country when we arrived.

But we do have people here who understand that such strategic planning could not have taken
place without at least considering the logistical requirements of preparing for an urban resistance.

Right, and they did consider it and plan for it. So what if it didn't work out as predicted? Nothing ever does.

It doesn't matter how long this has lasted. This isn't an issue of the duration of combat.

Certain aspects of it are. To say that the duration of combat is not an issue is ignorant.

Encountering IEDs has been a possibility for many years.
It was already pointed out earlier in this thread that countries in the region routinely prepare
thier personnel and vehicles for such a contingency. Our military planners have understood the
potential of urban warfare and middle east combat scenarios since the end of the Cold War.

Right, they have had a basic understanding of the potential. How does understanding their potential mean that we will be able to fully prepare for anything? IEDs in large numbers were only one of hundreds of possibilities. No other 1st world nation has done anything on this scale since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s, and they never even got through the occupation stage. To hint that you know better than military planners is just pathetic.

We have had the ability to "mod" our vehicles with additional forms of armor and protective materials
since the early 90s (if not earlier). We have been at the forefront of the development of
anti-personnel and anti-vehicle equipment for decades.

A couple of notes on this. First, Humvees were not designed to be urban warfare vehicles. They were designed as a replacement for Jeeps. Now, if we were to be using vehicles designed for this type of action in the streets (M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles?), and they were not being armored, that would be a different story. Second, it is still a matter of mobolizing industries for war. The situation changed where it required armored Humvees that were never before required, and so now we are producing those. Just because we can add armor onto almost anything, doesn't mean we should.

But it doesn't appear that any this knowledge was applied, because the very idea that combat
operations would continue at this scale beyond the day of "mission accomplished" was simply
not considered.

Once again, neither of us know what went on in those planning sessions. To say that those options were not considered is again ignorant.

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: Caminetto

Originally posted by: Forsythe
What's up with you lately? Whats with the need to prove yourself so tremendously?

The porn & drug prescriptions ran out.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Tom
So, is that good enough ? I don't think so.

If we weren't ready to fight this war, why did we start it when we did ? failure one.

Why didn't we plan for the situation we are now in ? failure two.

Why has it taken 2 or 3 times longer than it should have to correct this ? failure three.


The answer is we are being led by an administration that has never made a mistake. Everything is going along perfectly, according to God's plans.


Anyone who questions this is a traitor and/or a blasphemer.

"failure one"
We were as ready as any force ever is. All wars START with limited resources. As time goes on, industries are altered to produce wartime goods. Over time, output increases. Look at WWI and WWII. We didn't start with near the number of men and equipment than we ended with.

"failure two"
I can't say anything for planning.

"failure three"
What makes you think it has taken 2 or3 times longer? Please provide a source for those numbers.

Nothing in war is ever planned

 

[Taejin]

So now we have Rip trying to tell us that the soldiers in iraq who are bitching are all liars, right Rip?

Because we know those guys are moles placed by the Dem to undermine the Administration's credibility, right Rip?

Hey Rip, get a reality check and go to Iraq.

 

[burnedout]

Army ramped up quickly to provide armored Humvees - Report (not commentary) by Joseph L. Galloway, the only civilian awarded a Bronze Star with V device for service during the Vietnam War (for details see this and this), Knight Ridder via The Tennessean.

[Hat tip: MAJ Donald Sensing, US Army, Retired]

[...]

The requests for Humvees built with armor at the factory, and for add-on armor kits, grew from a few for Special Operations forces at the end of summer 2003 to 400 in November 2003 and more in months following. The total request, scheduled to be met in March, is for about 22,000.

Retired Col. Gary Motsek, a senior civilian official for the Army Materiel Command, said that, given early shortages of a critical high-tensile steel and continuing shortages of the ballistic glass for windshields and door windows, it was little short of a miracle that escalating demand had been met within about a year.

[...]

A year ago, the special high-tensile steel needed for the armor kits wasn't manufactured anywhere in the United States, and the output of the single plant making bulletproof glass was 15 windshields a month.

Today there are several American sources for the special steel, and the plant making ballistic glass has ramped up production from 15 to 500 windshields a month. A second plant also capable of making 500 windshields a month will join it in February.

[...]

A fully armored Humvee is designed to withstand 8 pounds of explosive under the engine or 4 pounds of explosive under the crew cab.

 

[40Hands]

The troops are liars. They have the armor they need, just read the reports in this thread. If the troops really had a shortage of armor then the higher powers that are not actually in combat would tell us the truth and not some BS political media statement. Right? As we all know the administration has alwasy been straight with their facts and numbers. Any general of the US Army would just step right up and say "Rumsfeld is not doing his job, we do not have adequate supplies".

 

[charrison]

linkage

NOt sure about the source, but names are named and should be easily enough to verify.

Senior Army officials told a wire service reporter Wednesday that within 24 hours of a soldier's complaint to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about shortages of vehicle armor in Iraq, protective armor had been installed on every vehicle in the soldier's unit.

According to a Hearst Newspaper report Thursday, Army Maj. Gen. Stephen Speakes and Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, senior members of the Army's combat systems development and acquisition team at the Pentagon, said routine pre-deployment preparations before proceeding to Iraq included adding protective armor plates to the last 20 vehicles of the Tennessee-based 278th Regimental Combat Team's 830 vehicles.

``When the question was asked, 20 vehicles remained to be up-armored at that point,'' Hearst reporter Stewart M. Powell quoted Speakes as saying at a Pentagon briefing. '``We completed those 20 vehicles in the next day. ... In other words, we completed all the armoring within 24 hours of the time the question was asked.''

 

[charrison]

linkage

The first point is that you'll recollect that one of the questions was the status of the 278 ACR; in other words, the date that we had the visit by the secretary of Defense, we had a question about their up-armoring status. When the question was asked, 20 vehicles remained to be up-armored at that point. We completed those 20 vehicles in the next day. And so over 800 vehicles from the 278 ACR were up-armored, and they are a part now of their total force that is operating up in Iraq.

Q On the 278th, can you repeat this?At the time the question was asked, the planted question, the unit had 784 of its 804 vehicles armored?

GEN. SPEAKES: Here is the overall solution that you see. And what we've had to do is -- the theater had to take care of 830 total vehicles. So this shows you the calculus that was used. Up north in Iraq, they drew 119 up-armored humvees from what we call stay-behind equipment. That is equipment from a force that was already up there. We went ahead and applied 38 add-on armor kits to piece of equipment they deployed over on a ship. They also had down in Kuwait 214 stay- behind equipment pieces that were add-on armor kits. And then over here they had 459 pieces of equipment that were given level-three protection. And so when you put all this together, that comes up with 830.

This reporter that set this up should be fired.