• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why wasn't armor an issue when Aspin and Cohen were SecDefs?

XMan

XMan

Lifer
http://swanblog.blogspot.com/

For what it's worth, I was involved in the training of troops for missions in the former Yugoslavia from 1997 to 1999. I also served six months in the Balkans during that time. Conventional wisdom was that there were 6 million unexploded landmines in the former Yugoslavia, as they were the manufacturer of landmines for all of the Warsaw Pact nations.

The first battalion we sent from Fort Riley had every soldier equipped with a special non-magnetic mine probe in case they were caught in a mine field. They must have determined that to be overkill, because they stopped attaching the probes to their body armor at some point during the mission. All of the Humvees were required to be the type with kevlar composite doors and polycarbonite windows. Sandbags were also placed under the seats and on the floorboards, if possible, to protect against landmines. I am not aware that any of the "up armored" Humvees we talk about today were used in Bosnia during the late 1990s.

I did see a Special Forces guy on a transport plane to Germany who seemed to have a more advanced set of body armor than I did. It looked more comfortable, even if it covered less of the neck and shoulders.

My point is that troops were sent into a country that was believed to contain 6 million landmines. The trucks and Humvees did not have armor that could protect against an explosion from underneath. They had to pile sandbags on the floorboards. The troops did not have the most advanced body armor. Where were the MSM investigative reports on force protection back in 1997?
Click to expand...

Another angle to the armor production issue . . .

http://beefalwayswins.blogspot.com/

One of my readers has first hand knowledge of the armor production process, and he informed me:
The ability and capacity to assemble armored vehicles does NOT mean that the upstream suppliers also have the capacity to produce more Ceramic armor plating. I agree -- there probably is no shortage of assembly capacity of vehicles -- whatever the configuration.

But I do believe there is a shortage of ceramic armor production capacity (Ceradyne is opening a new plant -- I understand there was over an 18 mo lead time to manufacture and deliver the furnaces needed for the production -- and they are not sourced in the US).

The MSM will mislead by discussing the assembly of vehicles -- but that is not where the bottleneck is...I had the opportunity to talk to some of the people at Ceradyne -- from what was related during the visit, the bonus potential and contracts are set up to run capacity at 100% 24/7. I just do not buy that if capacity existed along the entire supply chain -- we would be artificially limiting production.

Apparently, the furnaces are the hold-up, and there is some serious lag time since the furnaces take 18 months to manufacture. I'm still researching the specifics of the process, and I've put some more info in a post on my blog, but your large readership would probably make this much easier if you're interested...
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Remind me that when I screw up to blame some other guy. That obviouly lets me off the hook.
Click to expand...
Further, several (at least two) manufacturers have come forward to say they offered DOD more production but were given the Heisman.

Call a spade a spade. Bushistas decided to "take the fight to the enemy" but didn't come prepared.

PS I don't recall Les or Bill sending US troops to fight insurgents or being attacked daily with IEDs.

 
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Nearly all the midfeild in bosnia have been marked off. Stupid comparision.
Click to expand...

It's not stupid, it's a blatant ignoring of reality. Why didn't people need armor in some other war situations? Well I don't know, how many people were killed by IEDs that (arguably) could have been stopped by better armor in those other situations?
 
Please tell us why the company claimed they told Rummy and Company approximately 30 days ago that they were ready and could start immediately producing more NECESSARY ARMOR.. but nobody gave them the go ahead?? 🙁
 
I'm not defending the administration for not getting the armor out to the troops. I am just questioning the outcome of such armor.

Aren't most of these vehicles attacked by roadside bombs? If so, how can armor possibly save their life when we have tanks being destroyed by these very bombs?
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
I'm not defending the administration for not getting the armor out to the troops. I am just questioning the outcome of such armor.

Aren't most of these vehicles attacked by roadside bombs? If so, how can armor possibly save their life when we have tanks being destroyed by these very bombs?
Click to expand...


Better armor means a better chance. It doesn't mean no soldier will die, but it would mean we are doing everything we can.

There is something wrong somewhere. My own suspicion is that the administration either deliberately, or by the message it sends about it's own perfection, is making it difficult for mid-level officers to stick their necks out and suggest everything isn't going according to plan.

 
Originally posted by: ELP
Come on X-Man...

Where's the come back. I know you have a good excuse for your man, Rummy.

Where is it?

Huh?

Huh?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I was actually out doing something last night. I wasn't hanging around watching for your snappy comeback.

The fact remains that there were millions of unexploded landmines in Bosnia. I don't know the numbers of casualties we had off the top of my head, so I can't compare, and admittedly there was no insurgency in Bosnia on the scale of in Iraq. I simply think that this entire armor issue has been concocted to some extent - now reports are coming out that the only unarmored Humvees left are only allowed in secure zones.

Oh, and another question - why weren't unarmored Humvees an issue when our guys were getting butchered in Somalia? The unit there requested the use of armored vehicles for that mission, but were denied by the Clinton administration. Why wasn't there an outcry then? The answer is - there was, but the mainstream press wasn't bandying it about like they are now.

Rumsfeld is most certainly not "my man." I think he's still stuck too much in the past, and doesn't seem too willing too support the use of the technology we've got. This extends to another issue I have with Rumsefeld is his psuedo penny-penching ways. How, you might ask? Why in the world are we using glorified Jeeps with armor plating welded on? They're most assuredly better than the Jeeps in use during WW2 and beyond, but hell - use Bradleys. They carry more men than a Humvee and have a heck of a lot more firepower.
 
This isnt the first time we have come to a fight unprepared. Luckily for us the enemy is not a large organized force like the German army in WWII.

Sherman was vastly outclasses in firepower and armor by its German counterparts. Commanders used to say it would take 4 shermans to a single Panther. Reports of a single Jagdtiger with supporting infantry holding off an entire division because it would simply blow Shermans off their tracks while the return shots would deflect harmlessly off its thick armor.

The lessons learned from WWII did not push the army into action either. It wasnt until the develpment and deployment of the M1A1 that we actually had a superior main battle tank on the field. That was nearly 35 years after the end of WWII.

It is a sad state of affairs and needs to be fixed by this administration. Our military should be prepared for anything and protected under any circumstances.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
This isnt the first time we have come to a fight unprepared. Luckily for us the enemy is not a large organized force like the German army in WWII.

Sherman was vastly outclasses in firepower and armor by its German counterparts. Commanders used to say it would take 4 shermans to a single Panther. Reports of a single Jagdtiger with supporting infantry holding off an entire division because it would simply blow Shermans off their tracks while the return shots would deflect harmlessly off its thick armor.

The lessons learned from WWII did not push the army into action either. It wasnt until the develpment and deployment of the M1A1 that we actually had a superior main battle tank on the field. That was nearly 35 years after the end of WWII.

It is a sad state of affairs and needs to be fixed by this administration. Our military should be prepared for anything and protected under any circumstances.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I didn't know that. Off hand, do you have any recommendations on a book for a layman's introduction to the topic?
 
Unfortunately I dont. Most of the stuff I have read came from posted links, released comminucations from the commanders in the field including Eisenhower complaining to Marshall and FDR about the quality of the armor our boys are going into the fight with, and msgboard talk.

One of the more famous incidents took place shortly after D-Day when Walter Wittman the famous Tiger driver from the eastern front destroyed 28 British AFVs by himself in the Marshes of France with his single Tiger.

When you look at the armor of the Sherman it fairs pretty good with the PZ IV but lacks the gun of the PZ IV. The PZ IV is a 1941-42 era tank. The Sherman was fighting in Normany in 1944 when the Germans had Tigers and Panthers at their disposal.

We however had superios manufacturing capabilities and the Sherman is a much more simple design than their German counterparts. So while we may have lost 3 Shermans to each Panther. We were producing 500 of them a month to the Germans 50.

 
Originally posted by: Genx87
This isnt the first time we have come to a fight unprepared. Luckily for us the enemy is not a large organized force like the German army in WWII.

Sherman was vastly outclasses in firepower and armor by its German counterparts. Commanders used to say it would take 4 shermans to a single Panther. Reports of a single Jagdtiger with supporting infantry holding off an entire division because it would simply blow Shermans off their tracks while the return shots would deflect harmlessly off its thick armor.

The lessons learned from WWII did not push the army into action either. It wasnt until the develpment and deployment of the M1A1 that we actually had a superior main battle tank on the field. That was nearly 35 years after the end of WWII.

It is a sad state of affairs and needs to be fixed by this administration. Our military should be prepared for anything and protected under any circumstances.
Click to expand...




Sherman was nicknamed "Ronson" because it would "Light the first time".

Actually none of the allied tanks were very good at the beginning, except maybe the Russian (T-34?).

 
"Oh, and another question - why weren't unarmored Humvees an issue when our guys were getting butchered in Somalia? The unit there requested the use of armored vehicles for that mission, but were denied by the Clinton administration. Why wasn't there an outcry then? The answer is - there was, but the mainstream press wasn't bandying it about like they are now. "


you're just wrong. the issue of troop safety in Somalia was a huge news story.

The difference is the Clinton administration didn't pretend that nothing was wrong.



 
Originally posted by: Tom
"Oh, and another question - why weren't unarmored Humvees an issue when our guys were getting butchered in Somalia? The unit there requested the use of armored vehicles for that mission, but were denied by the Clinton administration. Why wasn't there an outcry then? The answer is - there was, but the mainstream press wasn't bandying it about like they are now. "


you're just wrong. the issue of troop safety in Somalia was a huge news story.

The difference is the Clinton administration didn't pretend that nothing was wrong.
Click to expand...

Show me a news article attacking the Clinton administration for denying the Airborne the use of armored vehicles when they requested them, then.
 
The big difference is that now, the state-of-the-art body armor is no longer Kevlar. It's a new composite called Sparkla, if memory serves. It hasn't been available very long and the manufacturing technology isn't perfected yet (or at least wasn't yet while I was working with it in the labs two years ago). Processing composite materials is hardly a trivial task, and instantly ramping up production to meet the demand of hundreds of thousands of pieces in almost zero time is equally non-trivial. The military develops the technology then farms it out to contractors who do the actual production. This technology transfer takes a lot of time.
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
I'm not defending the administration for not getting the armor out to the troops. I am just questioning the outcome of such armor.

Aren't most of these vehicles attacked by roadside bombs? If so, how can armor possibly save their life when we have tanks being destroyed by these very bombs?
Click to expand...

How many IEDs are capable of destroying a tank? I was under the impression that the VAST majority of vehicles destroying in Iraq are either Hummers or trucks, not tanks.
 
Originally posted by: X-Man
Originally posted by: Tom
"Oh, and another question - why weren't unarmored Humvees an issue when our guys were getting butchered in Somalia? The unit there requested the use of armored vehicles for that mission, but were denied by the Clinton administration. Why wasn't there an outcry then? The answer is - there was, but the mainstream press wasn't bandying it about like they are now. "


you're just wrong. the issue of troop safety in Somalia was a huge news story.

The difference is the Clinton administration didn't pretend that nothing was wrong.
Click to expand...

Show me a news article attacking the Clinton administration for denying the Airborne the use of armored vehicles when they requested them, then.
Click to expand...


"Aspin's decision on tanks was political ; Report says he gave in to U.N.
Bill Gertz; THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Defense Secretary Les Aspin and his deputies rejected sending needed tanks and armored vehicles to Somalia because they feared a political backlash would undermine their pro-United Nations policy, says a Senate Armed Services Committee report."

http://www.netnomad.com/powell.html


 
Originally posted by: Tom
Originally posted by: X-Man
Originally posted by: Tom
"Oh, and another question - why weren't unarmored Humvees an issue when our guys were getting butchered in Somalia? The unit there requested the use of armored vehicles for that mission, but were denied by the Clinton administration. Why wasn't there an outcry then? The answer is - there was, but the mainstream press wasn't bandying it about like they are now. "


you're just wrong. the issue of troop safety in Somalia was a huge news story.

The difference is the Clinton administration didn't pretend that nothing was wrong.
Click to expand...

Show me a news article attacking the Clinton administration for denying the Airborne the use of armored vehicles when they requested them, then.
Click to expand...


"Aspin's decision on tanks was political ; Report says he gave in to U.N.
Bill Gertz; THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Defense Secretary Les Aspin and his deputies rejected sending needed tanks and armored vehicles to Somalia because they feared a political backlash would undermine their pro-United Nations policy, says a Senate Armed Services Committee report."

http://www.netnomad.com/powell.html
Click to expand...

I've been repeatedly told that the Washington Times isn't a valid source because of it's right-wing bias. How ironic that you're using it. 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top