I have no problem with any of those suggestions provided maintenance can be maintained. No doubt certain of these vehicles have benefits over the humvee and cost a heck of a lot less than a Stryker. I'd also suggest putting some more tanks back into Iraq.
I dunno. We ran uparmoreds with doors shut, lost one to an IED, crew of five survived, all injured.
The vehicle was blown to junk though.
My impression is that the IED would have been sufficient to blow a Stryker or Bradley to junk as well, and would have been a solid mobility kill on an M1 Abrams requiring recovery and substantial repair. We did observe another IED that did not completely detonate and in plain English it was bad news for any vehicle made.
The enthusiasm some have for the obsolete M113 puzzles me, unless it's simple old-soldiers' nostalgia, like those guys 100 years ago who sniffed at the newfangled 03 Springfield and clung to their trapdoors.
Track vehicles always are less reliable, less economical, and shorter-ranged than wheeled. An M113 would have been logistical nightmare to fuel that far from friendly lines, and would not have had much durability (the tracks wear rapidly). Plus, it is much harder to get out of in a hurry, and the troops are blind in the back. It was a fine machine in its day, which was forty years ago. And it was a significant improvement over its predecessor, the White halftrack. (Yeah, I know about the interim M59). But it's scrap on the roll in 2004.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Had they done studies like this in World War II. We had terrible tanks in the beginning of WWII and many died because of it and nobody tried to do a study like this and create a political issue put of it. Amazing!
If that same attack had been on an armored Hummer, you wouldn't have seen soldiers flying through the air like the BTR. The whole thing and anyone in it would be in tiny pieces whereas the BTR in the picture looks pretty much intact after hitting the land mine.
I would bet that noone got out alive from that BTR. 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.
