Posted on 06/12/2006 9:01:28 AM PDT by presidio9
Thousands of pounds of armor added to military Humvees, intended to protect U.S. troops, have made the vehicles more likely to roll over, killing and injuring soldiers in Iraq, a newspaper reported.
"I believe the up-armoring has caused more deaths than it has saved," said Scott Badenoch, a former Delphi Corp. vehicle dynamics expert told the Dayton Daily News for Sunday editions.
Since the start of the war, Congress and the Army have spent tens of millions of dollars on armor for the Humvee fleet in Iraq, the newspaper reported Sunday.
That armor much of it installed on the M1114 Humvee built at the Armor Holdings Inc. plant north of Cincinnati has shielded soldiers from harm.
But serious accidents involving the M1114 have increased as the war has progressed, and the accidents were much more likely to be rollovers than those of other Humvee models, the newspaper reported.
An analysis of the Army's ground accident database, which includes records from March 2003 through November 2005, found that 60 of the 85 soldiers who died in Humvee accidents in Iraq or 70 percent were killed when the vehicle rolled, the newspaper reported. Of the 337 injuries, 149 occurred in rollovers.
"The whole thing is a formula for disaster," said Badenoch, who is working with the military to design a lighter-armored vehicle to replace the Humvee.
Army spokesman John Boyce Jr. told The Associated Press on Sunday that the military takes the issue seriously and continues to provide soldiers with added training on the armored Humvee.
The Army also made safety upgrades to the vehicle, including improved seat restraint belts and a fire suppression system for the crew, he said.
There are more than 25,300 armored Humvees in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said.
When Humvees do roll, the most vulnerable passenger is the gunner, the soldier who operates the weapon mounted in the vehicle's top.
Gunners were killed in at least 27 of the 93 fatal Humvee accidents since 2001, according to the newspaper's analysis.
No doubt to be included in AP's weekly list celebration of Iraq combat deaths...
DUH!
You change the center of gravity by raising it and the vehicle rolls over...
Bush's fault
John Kerry is no doubt preparing a speech: "Who demanded armor on these humvees? It wasn't me! I voted against armor! But President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld insisted on armoring these troop transports. I served in Vietnam! If the election had not been stolen from me, we wouldn't be fighting terrorists in Iraq from armored vehicles!"
The need for armor became such a political football that basic questions like that got short-shrift.
He was for the armor before he was against it.
These people completely PISS ME OFF.
They BITCH and SCREAM and MOAN for more armor for the troops, to make it look like they are "for the troops".
They BITCH and SCREAM and MOAN that the armor may be a bad thing, and that it is killing our troops, to make it look like they are "for the troops".
Here's an idea: Ask the troops what they want and give it to them. If they are okay with the decreased speed, maneuverability, mileage and increased COG instability as a trade for increased survivability in a near miss by an IED, fine. If not, don't up armor any more.
Call it "Pelosi weight".
No doubt Algore will state the heavier vehicle plus long deployment is using more fuel and compounding emmissions problems.
Especially since the MSM caused the armour controversy.
The best modification for the HV (said as a HV owner) in the Bagdad theare:
1. Light arms armour for doors -- stop rifle bullets and that's about it.
2. A supercharger, less offroad-focused tires, and changed gearing to make the damn things quicker, especially 0-40. (Fuel is pletiful and good there.)
They're slow --- 0 to 60 in 14 seconds or something. Add about a hundred horses and get that to 7 seconds.
Best armour is not getting shot.
Exactly...it was designed as a replacement for the Jeep.
New headline replacing old headline of "Lack of armor added to military Humvees have made the vehicles highly vulnerable, killing and injuring soldiers in Iraq, a newspaper reported."
Ain't it easy to be a "Journalist" today?
"The need for armor became such a political football that basic questions like that got short-shrift."
Exactly, these are the consequences of acting through emotions and political expediency rather than logic.
Exactly, get some out of work NASCAR guys to design and build war vehicles.
The problem is that IEDs can't be predicted, so you'd have to use Strykers or Bradleys for virtually every task.
call me ignorant but aren't Humvees designed to be fast and lightweight? If you want a protected fighting transport that's why God invented TANKS and Bradley's!
Relevent?
Next thing you know they'll be removing the armor from the tanks because it makes them too slow - sitting ducks man!
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.