Hunter's Gun Truck - One reason for the Iraq armor shortage:

opinionjournal.com ^ | Tuesday, December 14, 2004 | BRENDAN MINITER

[crushelits]

One reason for the Iraq armor shortage: The military is too thorough.

A few weeks ago Rep. Duncan Hunter handed me a reason that has largely escaped media attention on why our troops in Iraq don't have all the armor protection they need. It was a piece of ballistic glass, roughly the size of a small dinner plate. But as it was four sheets of glass glued together, it was also very thick and extremely heavy. But I peered through it, and it was as transparent as a normal windshield. In Iraq, this glass is saving lives because it can stop bullets and shrapnel from roadside bombs.

The problem, the House Armed Services Committee chairman explained, is that a ballistic windshield is too heavy for some of the military's vehicles. The window frames simply cannot support it without being reinforced. In many instances that means the soldiers are driving vehicles with regular windshields as the bureaucracy works out the logistics of sending over vehicles that can handle ballistic windshields or finds a way to retrofit the vehicles now in theater. It's this waiting that has unnerved Mr. Hunter.

While the troops wait, he complained, the military could install two-inch-thick ballistic glass--half as thick as is optimal. Nearly every vehicle could support the weight of this slimmed-down ballistic glass, and it would likely stop 80% of the shrapnel that penetrates ordinary windshields. But the military is loath to adopt an interim, if imperfect, remedy. It prefers to wait for the "100% solution," Mr. Hunter said. In other words, in military procurement, the perfect has become the enemy of the good. More...

[stuartcr]

You go to war and ysa fight with what ya got...whether you're ready or not.

[xzins]

perfect has become the enemy of the good.

I've always loved that line.

[animoveritas]

If only it were as easy as a political soundbite. Sure wanting a "perfect solution" is a cultural factor, but so is limited resources competing for system improvements, operations tempo, soldier pay, infrastructure, logistics, etc. I think the Army is doing pretty damned good with what Congress has given them. For some congressman to second guess professionals who live this stuff, and the media to fuel sparks into pretend infernos is where the true problem lies.

Check out the Future Years Defense Program online. It lists everything DoD spends and where it spends it. I challenge the congressman or the MSM to find a better way...cut troop pay? defer future force upgrades? close a militray base in the congressman's district?

I think its time we stopped second guessing the experts, and give them the resources they need to finish their job.

[L98Fiero]

I'm by no means a HumVee expert but don't they seem a little light to be loaded down with armor? I mean, a HumVee is not an armored vehicle, per se. How about we just design a vehicle that suits our troops needs instead of "up-armoring" a new fangled Jeep?

[blanknoone]

See my post #2 on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1300281/posts

The armored humvee is a bad vehicle, and we could give our troops something much better, and probably for lesss money.

[L98Fiero]

Wow, good informative article. Thanks.

[FRMAG]

I was still active duty when the Hummer first came into issue. I had my reservations but after the usual shake down period with the troops (hardest testers in the world) the vehicle proved to be robust and reliable.

The fact of the matter is, was, and will be that the chassis was designed to carry a specific amount of weight plus a factor for crew/cargo.

Up armoring the Hummer overloads the design specs by a large margin. With armor they have to be air conditioned or the troops suffer heatstroke and that leads to other add ons like a bigger aternator.

Pushing the design specs by up armoring results in a much slower vehicle which will never reach as built lifetime due to the severe weight load. Newer Hummers that have factory added armor and such are beefed up to handle the increased load.

The original Hummer was designed as a replacement for the M151 jeep nothing more nothing less. Protection in a jeep was based on speed and manuverability. The up armored older Hummers have neither.

[stuartcr]

That would probably be the smart thing, but by the time the contractors bid on it, designed it, and actually started production....it would be obsolete. Basically, I don't think anyone ever planned on fighting anything other than a conventional type war, and no one thought about using RPGs as much as we see them being used now.

[skimbell]

Or the most logical solution to the demands of all of the "know it all's" is to scrap everthing in country and just make everybody that goes anywhere go in a tank.

The hand-wringers can't understand why the hummers aren't completely bullet proof. Well why can't the hummers fly too? The MSM keeps yelling that "the troops aren't equiped properly" and the Dems could do a better job. Who in the he11 was in charge when the Armed Forces were dismantled during the 90's.

I think that that is what Rumsfeld was trying to say last week and that he wasn't being a smart a$$, as the MSM maintains, when he said that you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the one you want.

America went to war with the Army that the Clinton administration left us.

[L98Fiero]

Good points. Speaking about Rummy, when I heard him say that I looked at my wife and said, "That's not the answer he was looking for but it is accurate." It was a loaded question intended to make the Secretary look bad.

We have gone to war with the army and equipment we had at the time in every conflict in history. I know of no bullet-proof personell carriers. I know of no IED-proof transports. I do know that due to the armor our troops do have, the death-per-casualty ratio is far lower than any armed conflict in history.

[Blumtoon]

Well said!

[blanknoone]

Hummers that have factory added armor and such are beefed up to handle the increased load.

You are correct that the factory modified M1114's are 'beefed up', but not nearly enough. They still have all sorts of problems associated with weight. For instance, tie rods. When turning a vehicle that heavy, especially under speed, the tie rods buckle. The original M998 tie rods didn't stand a chance. So they are 'beefed up' but still far less reliable than the orginal M998.

[Nowhere Man]

How about sending over some Brinks styled armored cars like they use for banks. As to the Hummers, basically they were suppoesed to be Jeeps on steroids and really not meant to be armored although IIRC they did have kevlar inserts for the doors and such for some protection against shrapnel as well as maybe against some handgun and small caliber rounds. The queation is, can the body frame handle it? How about the chassis, engine and transmission? Then there is the question of fuel economy and performance too. I know Adolph Hitler had his Mercedes armored, got like 3 miles per gallon and it took so long to get from 0 to 60.

[Bryan]

I'm by no means a HumVee expert but don't they seem a little light to be loaded down with armor? I mean, a HumVee is not an armored vehicle, per se. How about we just design a vehicle that suits our troops needs instead of "up-armoring" a new fangled Jeep?

A fully-armored Humvee has heavy-duty shocks and other reinforcements to the frame and suspension. It's a slow pig compared to a standard Humvee, but it can handle its own weight. The problem is retrofitting the thousands of standard Humvees. Reinforcing an existing suspension and frame essentially means taking the entire vehicle apart.

With 4" ballistic glass and 1" armor plating, armored Humvees can withstand close-range hits from AK-47 bullets and from IED shrapnel. However, an RPG round will still do a number on it; and so will a land mine or IED explosion directly underneath the vehicle.

Unless everyone starts driving around in M1A1 Abrams tanks, there's no way to completely eliminate casualties. However, the South Africans responded to similar insurgent problems with a V-shaped armored hull.

The force of the blast is diverted away from the crew compartment. This is the way to go with second generation Humvee design.

[SFC Chromey]

You are correct that the factory modified M1114's are 'beefed up', but not nearly enough.

---

I don't know about you, but I drove both the M-1025/1026 and the M-1114's. I'd take the 1114's any day over the standard 1025, mainly because the supercharged engine is FASTER than the 1025, even though it weighs more. The 1114 offers a LOT more protection as well.

IMO, either of these should only be considered a partial solution, until they come up with an appropriate armored car/truck.

BTW: I drove the 1025's for 10 months in Bosnia/Croatia, and 6 months in Iraq. I also drove the 1114 for 7 months in Iraq. I will say it again, all of the soldiers in my company CAME HOME in one piece because of these armored Humvees.

[Wiz]

Not bad Mr. Duncan Hunter, why not add a Kevlar cover for the roof, and maybe a slate armor and/or sand bag for extra strength.

Hummers are hummers and have limits. What the US Armed Force need is ASV-150 Commando for the next generations of hummers. These should be rolling in Iraq more and more fast as possible. Soldiers using this vehicle in Iraq thanked the vendor for its survivability.

[blanknoone]

My personal experience is about 18 months with 1025/1026, several years M998, 6 months with two different 'add on' armor packages, and 6 months with the XM1114 (when it was still experimental) and 6 months with the M1114.

IMO, either of these should only be considered a partial solution, until they come up with an appropriate armored car/truck.

This is the real point I was going after....a real solution to the need at hand is not, or at least does not have to be, years away. We understand our needs, and if we can skip all of the political BS in the procurement system and congress, we could meet that need quite promptly. We could even get the right vehicle into the field faster than the M1114.

I will say it again, all of the soldiers in my company CAME HOME in one piece because of these armored Humvees.

I'm glad to hear that. But just because they made it home, doesn't mean they had the right vehicle. The M1114 is much better than driving around with no protection, but as armored vehicles go it is weak. Think about the guys standing in the hatch, exactly how much armor did they have? And if they weren't up there, how much situational awareness and firepower did you have?

I have never made the case that the M1114 is inferior to the M998/1025, only that it is not the right vehicle for the task at hand. We are cramming a square peg into a round hole...and we are paying for it blood. We have a new need, something we have never really faced before, for an armored peacekeeping vehicle. We should build one. And just because the M1114 is what we have doesn't mean it is all we could have.

The M1114's you had were almost definitely less than 5 years old, and most likely less than a year old. How do you think they'll be in 5 years never mind 15? I can tell you...they will become a maintenance nightmares. Because they were not designed to have that weight. The most likely failure points have been 'beefed up' but that just means that they will fail later, and other non-beefed up pieces will be the thing that fails sooner.

Did you read my post on the thread I linked? I would appreciate your insight into the COTS point I was making.

Thanks for your service.

[Elsie]

Hummers are JEEP replacements!!!!


It AIN'T an APC!!!!

[FRMAG]

My point entirely. The vehicle is being pushed past its original design peramaters as it is. If the hand wringers are at full speed now just think how long it would take to develop and field a better armored simular vehicle with all the size and weight constraints placed on the Hummer.