NEWSWEEK: Study Suggests 1 in 4 Would Be Alive Today Had They Been in Properly Armored Vehicles

Prnewswire ^ | 4/25/04

[Brian Mosely]

Press Release

Source: Newsweek

NEWSWEEK: Study Suggests One in Four Soldiers Killed in Iraq Would Be Alive Today if They Had Been in Properly Armored Vehicles

Sunday April 25, 10:38 am ET

Light-Skinned Humvees Were 'Never Designed To Do This,' Says General, About Facing Vast Roadside Bombs

# NEW YORK, April 25 /PRNewswire/ -- An unofficial study analyzing the casualty figures in Iraq suggests that many U.S. deaths and wounds simply did not need to occur, Newsweek reports in the current issue. According to the study by a defense consultant, that is now circulating through the Army, of a total of 789 Coalition deaths as of April 15 (686 of them Americans), 142 were killed by land mines or improvised explosive devices, while 48 others died in rocket-propelled grenade attacks. Almost all of those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them, the study suggested. Thousands more who were unprotected have suffered grievous wounds, such as the loss of limbs.(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20040425/NYSU005 )

The military is 1,800 armored Humvees short of its own stated requirement for Iraq. Despite desperate attempts to supply bolt-on armor, many soldiers still ride around in light-skinned Humvees. This is a latter-day jeep that, as Brig. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, assistant division commander of the 1st Armored Division, concedes in an interview, "was never designed to do this...It was never anticipated that we would have things like roadside bombs in the vast number that we've had here."

[Wolfie]

The military is 1,800 armored Humvees short of its own stated requirement for Iraq.

Disgraceful.

[First_Salute]

I am given to understand that the no. 1 reason that there are IED kills of such armored vehicles that you noted, is because the troops leave the doors open/off. They are "more concerned about making a speedy entrance and exit of the vehicle."

[TADSLOS]

It's all Bush's fault and Kerry has the voting record to prove it. /sarc/

[Cannoneer No. 4]

That is not my understanding. The troops strip down the unarmored Humvees. Much effort is made to acquire improvised armored doors so I doubt they are taking them off.

IEDs can take out tanks. No matter what we put our troops in, the enemy can build an IED powerful enough to destroy it.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Army rushing more armored Humvees to Iraq

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Families Mourn 5 Soldiers Killed in Iraq

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Because the light-skinned HMMWVs provided no protection whatsoever, we removed the doors from them and sat side-ways, facing perpendicular to our direction of movement, with weapons oriented outward. We were vigilant and aggressive and always on the lookout for rock piles, any trash bags near the road, burlap bags, wires, etc.

An Up-Armored HMMWV, on the other hand, gives a lot of protection, but it does not allow you to scan your sector, during movement, and only the man in the turret can lay down any kind of well-aimed fire. The windows are tiny and the space inside is cramped, especially when you're wearing an interceptor vest with inserts and you've got ammo pouches, canteens, grenades, your assigned weapon, etc

[Cannoneer No. 4]

This:

or

this?

Both have their uses

[VOA]

The Germans had us completely outclassed in their tanks and armaments, and their soldiers
were, by all accounts, better trained.

During the 50th anniversary commemoration of D-Day, CSPAN carried a panel discussion
arranged by Stephen Ambrose.
One of the panelists was a Panzer commander who was involved in the Germans'
failed attempt to contain the Allied beachead.

IIRC, he said something like "facing 10 Sherman tanks was no problem; the problem
was that there was always an eleventh Sherman.".
I guess that in many ways it was the revved-up assembly lines of America
(along with all the blood, sweat and tear of the Allies) that neutralized any
quality advantage of the Nazi armament and soldiers.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

M998 HMMWV's, modified with steel plates on the floor and sides, may be better than the the M1114 for many tasks.

[mhking]

The cast includes Ken Watanabe, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Rutger Hauer and Liam Neeson; the director did Memento, which was fantastic; from what I understand, the story takes major cues from Frank Miller's acclaimed Batman: Year One storyline/graphic novel, so I've got really great hopes for it.

[King Prout]

ok, that does sound promising.
I just hope they have abandoned the hallucinogenically inflated derivatives of the lunatic original vision of Tim Burton.
Also (something which pissed me right the hell off from the original movie onwards) they had better get back to one of the central truths of the Batman: Batman does NOT kill.

[First_Salute]

Back on April 3rd, I collected a lot of the articles and references that you have posted, of the various models available.

I think that some of the alternative models that you referenced (directly or indirectly) are obviously good alternatives and available, without us having to wait around for armored Humvees --- some of which we are apparently doing because of the "bond" between procurement in the Pentagon and various owners of "pork futures" in the Congress cum UAW (for Kerry, BTW, says the link at the AM General website).

Brits, Danes, Swedes, and that "Dingo" from Cincinnati, all looked good enough, and probably we could scrounge up a hundred, if only ...

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Solving the problem deprives certain people of a club with which to beat the President.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

I remember that post

[Crankbait]

And if my Uncle had boobs, he'd be my Aunt.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

I like these tactics.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

What better way to cripple a war effort than to demoralize the troops and their families by convincing them that it is beyond the call of duty to ride in an unarmored vehicle?

[Ranger]

Solving the problem deprives certain people of a club with which to beat the President.

Postponing a solution does no one but our national enemies any good, The several hundred troopers that will be casualties over coming months because of inexcusable delays which can be rectified. Resolve the matter asap. Don't pretend it doesn't exist. The actions taken last week will move production by July to 300 per month and hold it there until March if funding is approved versus 220 for 5 months and then a decline in production as proposed in the FY-05 budget proposal. A step in the right direction.

Plant capacity without expansion in hiring is 450-500 per month. We need about 12,000 of these things system-wide and the Iraq-Afghanistan count will rise over 5000 and needs are re-emerging in Kosovo, Haiti and elsewhere that have been depleted of any available inventory.

Let's just get on with it. Let's also outsource to private contractors the production of retrofit kits so that the lead time required on that item can be slashed as it was with the body armor delays a few months ago.

This is a resolvable problem so let's resolve it and move on.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

The several hundred troopers that will be casualties over coming months because of inexcusable delays which can be rectified

Does the enemy bear any responsibility for our casualties?