Replace the hopeless Humvee, Pentagon chiefs are urged

Interestig article, thanks for finding it!

Archy, Cannoneer, pre-pinglist preview ping.

Read this from Rumsfeld's briefing.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040427-secdef0664.html

Q General Myers, I need to ask you a capability equipment question that's floating around the building here. General Ellis, the FORSCOM commander, wrote a memo that's getting some circulation where -- he's getting reports from the field that all these up-armored Humvees that the military has moved heaven and earth to get into Iraq are not doing the job, or his words, "are not providing the solution the Army hoped to achieve," and they need to build more Strykers and get those into Iraq. This raises -- it feeds the notion that there's a readiness capability problem over there. Can you address this? How should one interpret this memo, and did you hear any of these complaints when you were in the region?

GEN. MYERS: No, it's -- none of those. And I asked those questions, because obviously force protection is a big issue. And improvised explosive devices have injured and maimed a lot of our troops, not to mention RPGs and AK-47s and other things.

I think -- the facts are this, that the up-armored Humvee and the Stryker have a lot of similar capabilities. And I'd have to get my chart out, which I don't have with me, that talks about their capabilities. The capabilities are actually very similar against RPGs and those sorts of things.

It turns out that a large enough weapon -- a 155 millimeter artillery shell -- can do damage to both of them. That was an improvised explosive damage. It doesn't -- that's upended tanks. We've had tanks blown over by these improvised explosive devices. So a thought that you can ever have enough armor to protect you a hundred percent is not the right notion.

We do have evidence, and we're starting to collect evidence, and we've asked the Army to collect evidence, that on the up-armored Humvees, that they provide added protection. They do -- they've been known to -- in combat in Iraq to reduce the injuries, and that's a fact.

Stryker is a good vehicle. It does a good job of doing that as well. And, you know, how fast they're going to be brought in the inventory and everything I think is an interesting point. We'll have to work that. But it's not a shortage that was brought up by the field commanders, and it's not one that's been brought to us by General Schoomaker up to this point.

Q If I could do a follow-up, please.

Q This is a warning, though, it seems --

GEN. MYERS: Well, just a minute. What I'm saying is there is not a lot of difference in the actual capability, if I remember the chart right. And I may have it wrong. So we'll get it and give it to you, if it's unclassified. But they're very similar capabilities in terms of RPGs and small-arms fire between an up-armored Humvee and a Stryker vehicle. There is no vehicle we have, to include the M1 tank, that can withstand a big shell going off next to it, okay? So that's not the right notion. And we do find -- one more time -- we do find that up-armored Humvees do provide much more protection than the thin- skinned Humvees. I mean, it's just more steel and more material between you. So it does.

So I don't --
Q Where are you on the soft-sided Humvees and the up-armored Humvees?

Q And to follow up -- I just had a follow-up question here.

Q Follow-up as well.

Q Just a follow-up, Martha, please, if I may.

What about the APCs [Armored Personnel Carrier] that are in mothballs, that many people consider to be much more protective for the troops inside than the Humvees?

GEN. MYERS: I go back to the same thing. I think if you look at --and we'll have to get the figures on APCs. But, you know, all these systems -- none of these systems provide 100 percent protection, that's the fact. And what it comes down to, what it boils down to in the end is there something technology can help you with, and in this case, more steel is probably better for personal protection, but it's not the 100 percent solution. Your tactics, techniques and procedures are probably the bulk of what's going to protect you. And as the British said in Northern Ireland, you take those two and add a little bit of luck, and then you get the rest of your package. But it's not-- it can't all be done with technology.

So obviously, whatever is required by the Army, we have made a big effort to get up-armored Humvees. The requirement continues to go up as the nature of this fight changes, as we adapt to the enemy tactics. And what people forget sometimes, that we're actually at war here, and we have adversaries that think, and they adapt to our tactics. And part of the requirement was to come up with more up- armored Humvees. We have about a little over half of the requirement as it keeps going up; we have a little over 2,000 in country. Essentially everything in the U.S. inventory, no matter what service, is in country. We've ramped production up as much as the manufacturer can sustain, as I am informed, and we're pushing that way.

Q Can I just ask about a study, an unofficial Army study apparently said of about the 789 coalition deaths, 142 were from roadside bombs, and most of those were in unprotected vehicles.

Does that sound right to you?

GEN. MYERS: I have no idea. I have to look at it. I know we've -- I know that the improvised explosive device is one of the bigger threats, clearly.

Q Do you have a substantial number of unprotected or soft-sided Humvees still in country?

GEN. MYERS: Oh, sure. And -- sure we do.

But the attacks have mounted as Iraq became what Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces, calls "a 360-degree battlefield," with none of safer rear areas of conventional warfare. "They were not intended to be on the front lines," Dempsey said of the unarmored vehicles. "In a linear battlefield, Humvees always operated behind the front lines - in most cases even out of artillery range. Iraq isn't a linear battlefield. As we find ourselves in a low- to mid-intensity conflict, and we have all these vehicles designed for a linear battlefield, they come up short.'' The Army is trying to find every heavily armored Humvee "from every other place in the world," Dempsey told The Associated Press. "I saw an e-mail the other day that said there was one uparmored Humvee in Kosovo and they were tracking it coming here.''

It's just dawned on them that this is nonlinear, asymmetric warfare?

The suthor seems to feel that the M-113 would be a good answer the current needs. I'm not a big-time expert on this, but I'm not so sure. The M-113 doesn't necessairly protect against RPG's or IED's. It's slower and nosier than Humvees, and it takes far more fuel and maintenance --exposing more POL troops and maintenance folks to hostile fire. It also does a lot of damage to roads. I think this writer is just semi-informed -- he knows enough to be dangerous, as the saying goes.

The Hummer was never meant to be armored. It was a replacement for the Jeep. And a mighty fine one at that.

you know how many Freepers flamed me over these last 2 months when I pretty much posted the same thing this article said about their beloved humvee??

The APCs would make good lend-lease stuff for the Iraqis as well!

Old reliable !!!

At least their not driving the iltis like our Canuck soldiers.

Although, that is changing as we phase in the G-wagon ...

Do you own a magic machine that can pump out the ideal vehicle - the article's point is that these vehicles are already in our inventory. Use them until something better comes along - better then the humvee by far.

The M113 remains just about the last vehicle in the Army inventory with an amphibious capability. If we're ever in a theatre of war with rivers, we'd better have a way for line units to cross them without waiting for helicopters or engineer bride companies that may or may not arrive. And even they need security detatchments on the other side of the *blue lines* on the maps.

The Humvee has been a good and useful replacement for the 3/4 and 5/4 ton truck. But now we ought to have something a little smaller, better armored, and amphibious as a direct replacement for the old Jeep without that earlier vehicle's shortcomings.

My old artillery unit used the M1097 and 1098 version of the Humvee, with a few 998 versions thrown in for good measure.
What's interesting is the notion being fostered by a few, some in the press, that there is such a thing as 100% protection against explosions and projectiles.
The General touches on that and states specifically that notion is a fallacy. (Obviously paraphrased but the sentiment is the same. This line isn't for you Destro, but for the nitpickers that seem to like to pick these posts apart.)

During annual training at Drum, we were always told to put sandbags everywhere inside the vehicle, but we knew that the sandbags weren't going to stop much from coming through and dicing us up.
Especially since we had canvasback Humvees.

The 'uparmored' Humvee is a good idea, it does reduce the injuries.
So instead of being dead you're merely pretty badly hurt or mildly shaken depending on what happened.
The quote about teh Humvee never being intended for frontline use is accurate and spot on.
My artillery unit was viewed as a 'rear area occupancy' unit, meaning we weren't ever likely to see the other guy -ever.
(My nephews can see the holes in that idea..)
But Iraq has, as the article says, become a 360 battlefield.
(A surround sound event.)
and teh Humvees are ending up performing tasks under conditions they weren't designed for.
Seems the press doesn't understand this, can't understand this, or refuses to understand this.
And there's those who'd use teh current situation for political gain.
*sigh*

Again, thanks for finding the article!

"Your tactics, techniques and procedures are probably the bulk of what's going to protect you."

bump.

The Hummer was never meant to be armored. It was a replacement for the Jeep. And a mighty fine one at that.

Amen. The guy who wrote this article didn't know this? Sheesh!

The Hummer was never meant to be armored. It was a replacement for the Jeep. And a mighty fine one at that.

Amen. The guy who wrote this article didn't know this? Sheesh!

"I have roughly 700 113-series vehicles sitting pre-positioned in Kuwait,

Sounds like the ticket to me.

we'd better have a way for line units to cross them without waiting for helicopters or engineer bride companies that may or may not arrive...

Typo, of course, *bridge* intended. But you've gotta admit that the image of combat engineers in formal white dresses tossing the bouquet to hopeful grunts is an interesting, if bizarre, one....

still, its a sad testament to the technology in american industry that we cannot have some kind of advancement in lightweight armor or composite materials to make a better military vehicle then this.