Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Destro
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.
3 posted on 04/28/2004 10:25:14 AM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: finnman69
"Your tactics, techniques and procedures are probably the bulk of what's going to protect you."

bump.

15 posted on 04/28/2004 10:40:58 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: finnman69
Truly scary, Meyers' tap dancing is unworthy of a non-com.
25 posted on 04/28/2004 10:51:51 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly gutless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: finnman69
Realisticly, anything that would be invulnerable to anything the bad guys can throw at it, is going to be extremely heavy, extremely costly, and have very little cargo room.

The only way for the crew to be safe from roadside bombs, is to not be there. Which is why perhaps we should be putting more development effort into remotely operated vehicles, with remotely operated guns.

Let the good guys sit back at base, playing "Halo 2" for real on the streets of Fallujah

112 posted on 12/27/2004 4:55:56 PM PST by SauronOfMordor (We are going to fight until hell freezes over and then we are going to fight on the ice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson