Posted on 12/27/2004 10:17:58 AM PST by HMFIC
The Pentagon has assured us that it will be spending $4 billion (that's right, billion) to "armor up" virtually all military vehicles in Iraq.
It won't be enough.
There will never be enough armor to "protect" all our troops.
The armor "kits" being placed on, Humvees and trucks will compromise their performance and mobility (2000 pounds or more added weight), complicate their maintenance, shorten their service life and provide only relative protection.
(Excerpt) Read more at techcentralstation.com ...
HM said, "Think of the Marines going ashore with only a khaki shirt as armor."
The Admiral shut up.
I personally think that anyone who "needs" body armor is a pathetic coward, at best, and a bed-wetting liberal, at worst.</sarcasm>
You big brave man! It is odd that most of the police officers in the nation are wearing body armor on duty. In your books they are all cowards. By the way, what duty are you doing that requires such a macho, fearless, exposure to danger? Stupid is as stupid does. If body armor will save a few lives, surely that is a plus.
I'm guessing that you imply HMFIC or the author of the article are making that point. If you are, I think you miss the point. If not, I misinterpreted your sarcasm tag, and extend an apology.
The point the author of the article makes is that if someone is determined to kill you, you can encase yourself in armor, but there will always be more some chink in the armor, more explosives, higher impact speed, etc. Someone will always find a way around armored defenses.
As the body of the article states (and I assume you read the entire article), the best available defense against an attack is intelligence, training, organization, teamwork and individual responsibility for keeping your head on a swivel.
Once the attack is underway, all the things listed above will maximize the effect of your physical armor and give you the best chance to survive. But armor alone in a combat situation will never, ever be enough.
Umm, I was being sarcastic, as was clearly noted.
I think you missed gradient_salient's sarcasm tag. I think he was making a sarcastic rebuttal of the author or the person who thought it was important to post it.
I don't think the author of the article, the original poster, or anyone else is denouncing the use of personal armor.
I could be wrong, I don't want to put words in anyones mouth, but that is the way it appears to me.
Yes, I was a wheeled vehicle operator in the Army, and I am very familiar with the issues surrounding the armoring of vehicles. I am quite aware that any armored vehicle can be destroyed. However, I do feel that soldiers, and their vehicles, should be afforded the ability to withstand shrapnel and bullets, to whatever degree is reasonably possible, especially in an environment when MSR's are the targets of frequent ambushes. The wear and tear issue is not especially relevant, as these vehicles will be used up anyway.
Let us refer back in history to the days of the armored Knights, shall we.
Question: Why did armor first come into use, and then why did it go out of use again?
THe answer to the first part is protection. THe answer to the second part is lack of mobility.
If your protection becomes so cumbersome as to create a situation where you loose mobility, you effectively become a fixed target. With todays weaponry, the last thing you want to become is a fixed target.
Personally, as a soldier, I would not want anything to do with armor.
Read Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers. One of the characters, a SGT Zim, goes into a discussion of dropping someone into a hot area naked, armed with naught but a sharp knife. That passage is very accurate indeed.
Just my 2 cents.
Good point that a lot of people miss.
We had a bunker building contest aboard Camp Lejeune back in the late 80's. It was funny to see the grunts had their bunker BARELY above ground (smart), service support (like me) had ours a few inches higher, and the BASE weenies had their bunker about five feet high, complete with a door, screens, etc. Talk about a fixed target.
Got that right!
We have a saying here abouts - If the enemy can't see you, he can't kill you. Thems words to live by.
Or, as my Sensei used to say, "Don't be there".
The mobility issue surrounding knights became a problem only after infantry developed tactics and weapons that could dismount knights from their horses. Therefore, heavy armor would be an impediment to infantrymen trying maneuver. Kevlar-based armor, though, is not that heavy.
As for vehicles, the mobility problem is irrelevant. Wheeled vehicles with added-on armor that are the crux of this controversy are essentially road-bound, in that they're transporting supplies along main supply routes (MSR's). The internal combustion engine will move them along at reasonable speeds. But nothing's going to outrun a bullet or a shell. Given the fact that these trucks are confined to a strip of road, they are easily targeted. The drivers and passengers, I can assure you, will ake all the protection they can get, considering their relative vulnerability and inability to maneuver.
This all goes back to becoming a fixed target whether or not they are up-armored.
They are running over well established supply routes.
That's the real problem.
We are conducting our operations in a predictable fashion, thereby creating an essentially fixed target - one which is easy to kill.
Given the fact our military is operating in a hostile country, away from its base of supply, this is unavoidable.
Holy mackeral, $4 BILLION is equal to 4,000 million dollars. Do we have 4,000 vechicles over there where each will cost $1 million dollars to armor-up?
There are something like 20,000 Humvees alone in Iraq. There are a lot more - a lot more - heavy trucks and tractor-trailer rigs.
Not unavoidable.
If the traffic planners actually did their jobs and exercised good force protection measures like changeing routes and times, the drivers would be much better off.
However, the planners get lazy and the troops get whacked. After all, the planners aren't doing the driving. The planners are back in HQ.
Umm, do you know for a fact that the G-4 guys are not varying routes and times as much as possible? I think that's an unreasonable accusation to cast.
We could probably save a lot of money on Kevlar helmets if we put you in charge.
Seriously, it is impractical to armor every single vehicle. The Army has armored Divisions and presumably the other Divisions are not "armored" and there are reasons for that.
The 4 (Either G-4 or S-4) tends to be a rather lazy bunch.
I've worked in the 3 for most of my career and we in the 3 shop have had nothing but distain for the 4. In most organizations I ever worked in, the 4 was invariably
"broke" and was always in need of a good , swift kick in the A@@.
I don't know how many ops you've planned or went on but I've got a good number under my belt. As a planner, I not only worked 12-16 hours a day making the plan, getting the info in and out, writing orders, annexs, and SOP's, but I WENT on those ops. I do not know how the Army does it, but in the Corps ALL HANDS go to the field. I've seen Marines with CASTS on a limb go to the field to be a watch stander to free an able body up. But then again, the old Marine Corps saying is:
"I've done so much, for so long, with so little, that I can do anything, anywhere, with nothing, forever."
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.