More Armored Protection Urged for U.S. Troops

Lightly protected vehicles in Iraq such as the Humvee and the U.S. Army's new wheeled Stryker are providing far too little protection for troops and should be replaced with heartier substitutes, senior military commanders have warned. Roadside bombs, rocket-propelled grenades and heavy automatic weapons are taking their toll on lightly-armored U.S. military vehicles and, worse, on the troops riding in them – despite Pentagon efforts to beef up protection.

Currently the Defense Department is hurrying to replace the thin-skinned Humvees with "up-armored" models as quickly as possible. According to the London Daily Telegraph, U.S. forces have added scrap armor plating, sandbags, flak jackets and anything else they could find to Humvees in the meantime, in an effort to afford themselves more protection.

Nevertheless, in spite of the millions spent to improve troop protection, Gen. Larry Ellis, commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq, told superiors the beefed-up Humvee was still inadequate, the Telegraph reported.

In a memo, which was leaked to CNN, Ellis warned, "Commanders in the field are reporting to me that the up-armored Humvee is not providing the solution the army hoped to achieve."

Also, the paper said, commanders tell Ellis despite the armor upgrade, the Humvee's rubber tires are still vulnerable to weapons like Molotov cocktails. And, even at two tons, the vehicle is still light enough it can be overturned by a mob.

Ellis wants the Defense Department to speed the manufacture and deployment of the Army's newest armored combat vehicle, the Stryker Light Armored Vehicle, but it still has shortcomings, warn military specialists – including, they point out, the rubber tires.

Amazingly, as NewsMax.com has reported, the Stryker is too large to be transported combat-ready in C-130 transport planes – the Air Force's most numerous transport.

Former U.S. Treasury fraud investigator Lonnie Shoultz, a multiple Purple Heart winner with the 101st Airborne Division and a former Green Beret, tells NewsMax.com: “The Stryker rolls off the assembly line weighing 18 tons. When they add an eleven man crew, 300 gallons of fuel, ammunition for the vehicle’s weapon and reloads for the infantry, water for all and MREs to sustain them, the weight pops up to 20 tons. There is nothing in the Air Force that will fly them except the C-17 and we only have 120 of those. We have 600 C-130s.”

Also, say critics, the eight-wheeled Stryker is plagued with problems and fraught with dangers for crewmen, say military watchdogs and other organizations who have examined the wheeled vehicle's performance record.

During a press conference Tuesday in Washington, D.C., Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, said some "evidence" gathered by commanders in Iraq suggested the up-armored Humvees "provide added protection."

"They do – they've been known to – in combat in Iraq to reduce the injuries, and that's a fact," he said, adding the Stryker was also "a good vehicle."

But, he said, "none of these systems provide 100 percent protection" for crews, including an M1 Abrams main battle tank. [While that’s technically true, NewsMax has learned that the only Abrams known to have been incapacitated by an improvised explosive device ran over a mine trap that had three anti-tank mines “stacked” in a tank trap. Even then, it only blew a running track off the tank; the crew was not hurt.]

". . . 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," added Myers.

Some critics of the Strykers and the up-armored Humvees want the Pentagon to deploy thousands of Vietnam-era M-113 tracked armored personnel carriers, thousands of which were built for the Defense Department and hundreds of which are currently stationed right across the Iraqi border in Kuwait.

"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," Gary Motsek, the deputy director of support operations for the U.S. Army Materiel Command, told the Telegraph.

The M-113s are much slower than the wheeled Strykers but some military experts have argued they are much less prone to the kinds of small arms and rocket fire debilitating Strykers and Humvees alike.

Also, experts say the M-113, despite the Army's Stryker public relations effort, is more maneuverable than its newer, more expensive cousin, has thicker skin and is more capable of convoy escort in Iraq, many of which have come under fire by insurgents in recent weeks.

Shoultz, one of the Stryker's most vocal critics, tells NewsMax “It’s a lemon.” Other government watchdog groups have voiced concern as well.

"We've got mixed emotions about this vehicle, as I'm sure a lot of people do," said Eric Miller, senior defense investigator for the Project on Government Oversight. "I understand the argument that it's better to have a Stryker than a Humvee, but the question we have is, does the Stryker do what it's supposed to?"

The Pentagon has committed to outfitting six Stryker brigades, each with about 310 vehicles. One brigade is currently operating in Iraq and a second is being outfitted at Fort Lewis, Washington, for Iraq duty.

The number of Humvees being destroyed in Iraq has drawn the attention of some in Congress, and lawmakers are planning to find out what's going on.

One critic told NewsMax: “The Army bought almost 90,000 ‘light trucks’ with a capacity for 2,000 pounds. If you add 2,000 pounds of armor to the vehicle and then use it for convoy runs, the drive train and the undercarriage will fail in short order from making it carry too much weight.

“We already have several hundred Humvees deadlined in Iraq that will not even run either from engine, transmission, rear end, wheel hubs and everything else that is forced to overload when you put 2,000 pounds of armor on a vehicle carefully designed to carry 2,000 pounds, and then add another 2,000 of cargo.”

The Senate Armed Services Committee has said it will review the deployment of the Humvee, following Ellis' warning memo.

"I'm going to have a hearing on this armored Humvee situation right away," said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the panel. He said he was concerned funding shortfalls may be affecting the kind and quality of equipment reaching Iraqi commanders and their men on the battlefield.

Currently there are 2,750 fortified Humvees in Iraq, with a goal to reach 4,402 by October, Army officials have indicated to Congress.

humvees are a death trap,

Humvees have their place, but not in forward combat zones carrying troops. I thought that the Bradleys were our troop transporters. If we don't have enough, then let's build some more. If the M113s will do the job, then lets use them: they are available in theatre. If not, then we need to design a new troop transport vehicle that can withstand RPGs and .50 calibre shells. Why are we even having this debate? We rule the air. Why can we not apply technology in the same way to rule the ground?

Lightly protected vehicles in Iraq such as the Humvee and the U.S. Army's new wheeled Stryker are providing far too little protection for troops and should be replaced with heartier substitutes, senior military commanders have warned. ==

It was known long time. Anyone knows that those cars cann't withstand anti-tank RPG. Even Abrams isn't invulnerable against RPG.

There are 700 M113A2-3s in Kuwait less than a 30 minute drive from the Iraqi border. The only reason we have not put them into action to convoy and patrol violent areas is that our general officers in the Army cowed down to General Eric Shinseki when he wanted all wheeled armor. If they now put the tracked M113s in service, they are admitting they were wrong to back his selection of the Stryker. It's all arrogance and it is killing our soldiers to salve some general's ego.

The families of the service personnel in Iraq must get involved and MAKE the Pentagon protect their men and women with armor. Otherwise, the generals will just "rope-a-dope" until the whole thing blows over. Then we'll all be at the funerals of the murdered soldiers.

When generals sit on a vehivle that can save our soldiers they should be tried for manslaught. That may deflate some egos and stop this stupid "up-armoring" of humvees and put true armor around our men and women for less money.

Get what works! The M113 has been upgraded three times since its intodsuction in 1960 and is used in all American Armored and Mechanized infantry divisions to carry troops not in the Bradleys. So, we have drivers, mechanics, parts and everything necessary to put these vehicles back to work protecting our soldiers.

The Abrams they are dancing around about rolled over a tank trap that had three anti-tanks mines stacked in one hole. It was heavy enough not to turn over and the crew was protected by the armor. It knocked the tread off and did other superficial damage to the tank but to the best of my knowledge it is back in service.

The same protection can be had from the M113s that are in Kuwait. When we run out of those our Army owns 11,000 more M113 chassis that can be upgraded and on the ground in Iraq before those stupid "up-armored" humvees make it there. When they get there, the only one happy is the company that charged us $100,000 per humvee to bolt on the thin armor.

Would someone tell these guys that the HUMVEE is NOT an AFV? It is a utility truck, a replacement for the Jeep.

I was a tank commander in "Nam with the 1st Bde of the 5th Mech Inf. After initial skepticism the brass found out that heavy armor, such as 53 ton M48A3 medium tanks and light armor like M113 ACAV's could operate quite effectively in Vietnam, due in large measure to the ingenuity and innovation of the ordinary G.I. and his leaders.

The kind of fighting going on in Fallujah cries out for coordinated tank-infantry teams that can reduce the sniper nests with relatively little risk for the ground pounding grunts. High explosive rounds from 120MM tank main guns provide on station pin point immediate direct fire artillery support under the direction of the accompanying and protecting infantry. At present there is not even much rubble to impede AFV movement.
WE did a pretty good job with tank infantry teams in Hue in '68.

I personally have been on a mission to tell the arrogant occupiers of the Pentagon exactly that since 1993. I fought the same battle over the Stryker. The "Stryker" and "up-armored" humvees are both "lollypop" armor. Like the old Tootsie pops they have a brittle outer coat but they are soft and mushy on the inside - like human bodies.

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.