Humvees are proving easy prey on the streets of Iraq Posted on 04/28/2004 10:14:41 AM PDT by Destro
Replace the hopeless Humvee, Pentagon chiefs are urged
By David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 28/04/2004)
Humvees are proving easy prey on the streets of Iraq
Armoured cars being sent to Iraq are not up to the job, according to a senior United States army general, prompting calls for Pentagon chiefs to swallow their pride and reactivate thousands of mothballed Vietnam-era armoured personnel carriers.
With improvised bombs, rifle fire and rocket-propelled grenades taking an ever deadlier toll on coalition forces, the Pentagon is spending £225 million to replace thin-skinned versions of the Humvee, the US military's ubiquitous jeep-like transport, with an "up-armoured" model, as fast as they can be churned off the production line.
Commanders have shuddered as troops attached home-made armour plating and even sandbags to ordinary Humvees, whose thin skin, canvas doors and shoulder height windows have made them highly vulnerable to attack.
The new, armour-plated Humvees have been touted by Pentagon chiefs as the best solution to complaints from the field about the standard version of the vehicle.
But Gen Larry Ellis, the commanding general of US army forces, told his superiors that even the armoured Humvee is proving ineffective.
In a memo leaked to CNN television, he wrote: "Commanders in the field are reporting to me that the up-armoured Humvee is not providing the solution the army hoped to achieve."
Reports from the field say that even with armour plating, the Humvee's rubber tyres can be burnt out by a Molotov cocktail, while at two tons, it is light enough to be turned over by a mob.
Gen Ellis said it was "imperative" that the Pentagon instead accelerate production of the newest armoured personnel carrier, the Stryker, which weighs 19 tons and moves at high speed on eight rubber tyres.
But the Stryker has many influential critics who say it is too big to be flown easily on the military's C-130 transport aircraft, and too cumbersome to manoeuvre in narrow streets. Instead, they want the Pentagon to turn back the clock and re-deploy thousands of Vietnam-era M-113 "Gavin" armoured personnel carriers, which are still used by support and engineering units, and are held in huge numbers by reserve units.
Gary Motsek, the deputy director of support operations for US army materiel command, said: "I have roughly 700 113-series vehicles sitting pre-positioned in Kuwait, though some are in need of repairs. I have them available right now, if they want them."
The tracks vs wheels argument has not been completely settled, but it seems the wheels are ahead with most people.
I think the M113 is too slow for convoy escort and MSR security.
I believe for mounted patrol in known hostile neighborhoods I would prefer it to the M1114.
You usually end up riding in what you have, not what you wish you had.
There are plenty of vehicles we could be buying that would be better than the M1114.
My friend, there are no solutions, only trade-offs.
There are purpose-built wheeled armored fighting vehicles. Some are even built in America under license, or built in Canada.
These weren't too bad for clearing stubborn strongpoints.
Cheapo RPGs are effective enough against $100,000 HumVees and the men inside.
Some Vietnam vets used to tell me they'd rather be shot at by .50 cal vs. .30 cal if in an M113. Their reasoning: The .50 cal round goes right through. The .30 cal round goes in and bounces around until it finds something soft.
No. If they squarely HIT anything we can drive down the streets with an RPG, the soldiers inside are going to die (or be seriously wounded). So M113s are not likely to be seriously better...except to the extent that the big hollow area inside allows the blast to disperse a bit. There are a lot of reasons why the M113s would be worse, such as size, slow speed, anti-stealth (noise, mostly), inability to get out anywhere near as quickly, lack of field of view, and increase of targets in one place.
US M1117 ASV
Austrailian Bushmaster
Italian Centauro
Turkish Cobra
US-Spanish Dragoon
Swiss-Canadian Eagle II
German Fuchs
French VBL
British Scarab
The problem wasn't technology, it was doctrine and cost. We didn't set up our military to be static occupying troops - sure we could do a little, and we had some vehicles designed to do so. We further have a problem in that all of the regulations to make sure that there's competitive bidding talk a long time to work through - look at the problem getting weapons and equipment for the Iraqi security forces. For very human reasons, there are times where you just don't want the troops to feel safe within their armored vehicles - many would never look around, much less get out. Turtling inside your APC - which has the illusion of being a tank while not being one - is a sure way to get killed.
What we need are a few Armored cars for specific places and positions within a patrol or convoy, and better tactics for dealing with the IEDs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
