• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Troops In Iraq Still Don't Have Humvee Armor (Pics & Video)

remove

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed


Here at home, the now familiar three letter abbreviation ricochets around the television and print news nearly every day- but for U.S. troops stuck in Iraq, they're facts of life.


I.E.D.

"Gary W. Walters Jr., 31, of Victoria, Texas, died April 24 in Baghdad, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his HMMWV. Walters was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 9th Field Artillery Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Ga."
He was the only American soldier to die that day, so they promoted him to Corporal a week later. And that was all the Pentagon had to say.

Exclusive from The Daily Background.com comes the story and photos of one soldier- and how his life could easily have been saved.

"Dad I can't believe this happend to such a good man and a great dad. I wish that what happend to you wasn't true and your still here but I know that whats done is done. Dad you are a hero and very FAMOUS just like you said you always wanted to be only I wish not in this way. Dad I want you to know that I will always have you in my heart and prayers and untill the day we will reunite I will cry until I get to see the hansome look in your eyes. Dad I love you and your the dad I always wanted."
That was the first thing Walters' daughter Kelsey wrote after he died, on an internet message board dedicated to her father. She has faith that he reads her messages, and months after his death still writes to him every now and then.



Her father didn't have to die. He was sent off to war and accepted his calling in good faith that the cause was just. He was paid wages lower than those working stateside in fast food restaurant. His job was one of the most dangerous in the world. But he didn't have to die.

Gary was in Iraq, driving driving a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle- commonly known as a Humvee on the morning of April 24th, 2005. It was a Sunday.

Gary's Humvee happened- like so many others before him to drive near enough to a makeshift land-mine- called an "Improvised Explosive Device" to detonate it.

In the larger context of the war, this is an unusual story. Sadly, things like this happen on a practically daily basis to American troops. Thousands of U.S. men and women have been killed in Iraq, and tens of thousands wounded (though the Pentagon refuses to admit it, their efforts to cover up the numbers of those wounded in the Iraq War were recently exposed).

Operation Truth writes:
Estimates indicate that anywhere between one-fifth to one-half of the 1,320 troops killed and 9,000 troops wounded in Iraq were victims of hidden roadside bombs that penetrated poorly armored Humvees or trucks ambushed on military convoys.
In fact, after Rumsfeld was publicly shamed about hillbilly armor (the type of armor soldiers make out of scrap metal on their own, because the humvees the pentagon gave them were too lightly armored), troops still didn't get the armor they needed.

You can watch a video of rumsfeld being hammered by a soldier (to thunderous troop applause) in a press conference, along with an interview with an OPTRUTH leader here.



A USA Today reporter notes that the pentagon knew about the humvee armor shortage since 2003 here.

And Newsweek first reported on the issue more than a year ago.

NYT News Service reported that the Pentagon promised to have humvee armor kits that troops could attach themselves ready and available in iraq by March of 2005.

The kits to add extra protection to vehicles already in Iraq are being produced by the U.S. Army Materiel Command, where officials said yesterday they were scrambling to speed up the work and complete the most recent order from Iraq before the previously stated goal of March 2005.
Gary Walters died April 24, still with no armor kit.

And things are still not fixed. The troops still don't have the armor they need, and when two embedded journalists recently took photographs of humvees, documenting holes in their thin armor, they were actually kicked out of the embed system on Dec. 15.

The following is the most recent message Kelsey has written to her father this year:
"WELL YESTERDAY WAS THANKSGIVING AND I WAS UPSET BECAUSE YOU WERNT THERE TO SHARE THE LAUGH OR THE JOY. THINKING OF YOU I WROTE THIS POEM.

I THANK YOU FOR BEING THE BEST DAD
THE MEMORIES OF YOU WILL ALWAYS LAST
I WILL COUNT EACH DAY AS IT PAST.
UNTIL OUR FAMILY IS IN HEAVEN I WILL KEEP YOU IN MY PRAYERS.
I LOVE YOU YOUR IN MY THOUGHTS
AND I MISS YOU WITH ALL MY HEART."

Story reprinted with full permission from The Daily Background.com has compiled the most comprehensive online collection of photographs documenting the destruction upon "thin-skinned humvees" in Iraq.

You can find the gallery of humvees here.

You can also find an extensive collection of photographs taken of Walters' destroyed humvee here.

You can read Kelsey's writings to her father, as well as others written by those who knew Walters here.
 

remove

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
two broken links, fixed:


You can find the gallery of humvees here.

You can also find an extensive collection of photographs taken of Walters' destroyed humvee here.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Soldier in truck driving though war zone.
Truck drives over landmine.
Landmine explodes.
Soldier in truck dies.

Only the anti-war, anti-Bush liberal left would politicize this.

One can only imagine where we'd be now if these people were around during WW2:

Midway Island Demolished. Yorktown, destroyer sunk.
Many US planes lost
June 7, 1942
The United States Navy suffered another blow in its attempt to stem the Japanese juggernaut ravaging the Pacific Ocean. Midway Island, perhaps the most vital U.S. outpost, was pummeled by Japanese Naval aviators. The defending U.S. forces, consisting primarily of antique Buffalo fighters, were competely wiped out while the Japanese attackers suffered few, if any, losses.
In a nearby naval confrontation, the Japanese successfully attacked the Yorktown which was later sunk by a Japanese submarine. A destroyer lashed to the Yorktown was also sunk.

American forces claim to have sunk four Japanese carriers and the cruiser Mogami but those claims were vehemently denied by the Emporer's spokeman.

The American carriers lost an entire squadron of torpedo planes when they failed to link up with fighter escorts. The dive bombers had fighter escort even though they weren't engaged by enemy fighters. The War Dept. refused to answer when asked why the fighters were assigned to the wrong attack groups. The Hornet lost a large number of planes when they couldn't locate the enemy task force. Despite this cavalcade of errors, Admirals Fletcher and Spruance have not been removed.

Code Broken
The failure at Midway is even more disheartening because the U.S. Navy knew the Japanese were coming. Secret documents provided to the NY Times showed that "Magic" intercepts showed the Japanese planned to attack Midway, which they called "AF".

Obsolete Equipment
Some critics blamed the failure at Midway on the use of obsolete aircraft. The inappropriately named Devastator torpedo planes proved no match for the Japanese fighters. Even the Avengers, its schedule replacements, were riddled with bullets and rendered unflyable. Secretary of War Stimson dodged the question saying simply: "You go to war with the Navy you have, not the Navy you want or would like to have". Critics immediately called for his resignation.

http://www.strategypage.com/humor/articles/military_jokes_200510220.asp
 

remove

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
M14 Shooter said:
Soldier in truck driving though war zone.
Truck drives over landmine.
Landmine explodes.
Soldier in truck dies.

Only the anti-war, anti-Bush liberal left would politicize this.

let's try this again:

Soldier in Humvee driving through war zone.

The pentagon and the white house DON'T allocate the proper amount of funds to humvee armor.

The pentagon and the white house DON'T fulfill their promise to provide aditional armor after they're embarrassed by the lack of it.

Humvee drives near I.E.D.
I.E.D. explodes.
Soldier in lighly armored Humvee dies.

The pentagon and the white house STILL (more than 1 year later, and months after their promised self-made deadlinie) haven't provided adequate armor for Humvees.



i don't call that supporting troops. maybe you do?
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Clearly, you dont understand the issue.

The Humvee is a truck, not a vehicle whose intended role is combat.

As such, most -- the VAST majority -- of Humvees are equpped to haul things, not fight.

As such, the VAST majority of humvees were not equpiied with armor, as armor cuts down on payload and/or adds uneeded wear and tear on the mechanicals.

So, that the -- vast majority -- of Humvees in Iraq were not armored when they arrived in Iraq is NOT a sign that Rumsfeld or Bush or anyon else screwed up. You dont armor vehicles that are not likely to see combat because if you do you are needlessly spending a lot of time and effort and money when its not needed.

Your Honda isn't armored. Why?

But, once in Iraq, it was determined that support and HQ units were likely to see some combat and that their vehicles -- the Humvees -- were given armor.

There are a LOT of Humvees in Iraq. You cannot armor them all overnight. Anyone that is apalled by the fact that not all of them are armored yet is:
- Completely ignorant of how military logistics works
- proceeding from unreasonable expectations.

Now, while the humvees (and 5-tons and HETs and...) were waiting for armor, what did the troops do? What they ALWAYS do -- they inprovised. There is a LONG history of this, especually in the US military, and anyone that thinks our troops doing this is a sign of bad planning or imcompetence doesnt have a CLUE.


In short -- your lament only exposes your ignorance.
Lament away.
 

remove

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
M14 Shooter said:
Clearly, you dont understand the issue.

The Humvee is a truck, not a vehicle whose intended role is combat.

As such, most -- the VAST majority -- of Humvees are equpped to haul things, not fight.

But, once in Iraq, it was determined that support and HQ units were likely to see some combat and that their vehicles -- the Humvees -- were given armor.

....

There are a LOT of Humvees in Iraq. You cannot armor them all overnight. Anyone that is apalled by the fact that not all of them are armored yet is:
- Completely ignorant of how military logistics works
- proceeding from unreasonable expectations.

so basically, you agree with me that:

1. there was inadequate pre-war planning and a deadly lack of foresight

2. the pentagon is using vehicles that are inappropriate for combat

3. the white house and the pentagon had unreasonable expectations when they promised and expected that they would have the armoring done by march- something they failed to do, and still fail to do.



seems like we agree on these three points, based on what you just said.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
remove said:
so basically, you agree with me that:

1. there was inadequate pre-war planning and a deadly lack of foresight

2. the pentagon is using vehicles that are inappropriate for combat

3. the white house and the pentagon had unreasonable expectations when they promised and expected that they would have the armoring done by march- something they failed to do, and still fail to do.



seems like we agree on these three points, based on what you just said.
Far from it...

Your accusation is that the enemy has changed the rules of combat and placed charges in civilian locations, and we haven't been able to use our apparent government approved crystal balls to foresee this...

Military equipment changes due to the reaction of curent equipment...That change is not immediate...We could put 15 tons of armor on everything from food trays to combat boots, and someone will still find a way to harm our troops...then you would still decry our stupidity and lack of foresight...

How dare we, in this day and age, not conduct a perfect war that appeases all crowds...:roll:
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
remove said:
so basically, you agree with me that:

1. there was inadequate pre-war planning and a deadly lack of foresight
False. There was adequete planning, and plenty of foresight.
Remember, chum, you're arguing with the benifit of hindsight -- there were a zillion different scenarios for what would happen in Iraq; what actually happened was no more likely than any of the other zillion.

You're arguing that because of one of the zillions of scenarios played out, the military should have planned for it. Thats an unreasonable expectation.

See, if the military HAD armored all its trucks, counting on an extended insurgency, and said insurgency never materialized, you'd be whining about all the money spent for no reason.

Fact of the matter is, in your eyes, no matter what the Bush administration does, it is wrong. Thats what happens when you start wih "I hate Bush" and work backwards from there.

2. the pentagon is using vehicles that are inappropriate for combat
You use what you have -- you dont hold up combat operations until you have absolutely everything the way you want it to be. "My humveee isn't armored" is not a valid argument for not using that humvee when there is a mission thats needs to be undertaken.

One wonders what you would have said when you found out about all the TBDs and F2As lost at Midway. Given that FDR was a democrat, and a personal god to the liberal Democrats, I'd guess: not much.

Whiole we're at it - why don't you tell us what you thought of the Clinton administration deciding to not send armor - tanks, APCs OR Humvees - to Somalia. Oh - thats different. Never mind.

3. the white house and the pentagon had unreasonable expectations when they promised and expected that they would have the armoring done by march- something they failed to do, and still fail to do.
As I said: You are completely ignorant as to how military logistics works.
The SECDEF doesnt just say "give them this" and 30 minutes later everyone that was to get it, gets it.
 
Last edited:

remove

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
you really didn't dismiss ANY of my points as being wrong.

you defended the lack of prewar planning which would have saved lives by saying it was unreasonable to have too much planning.

i don't think clinton should have ****ed around in somalia. beleive me, clinton is not one of my heroes.

you just admitted my second point, but seemed to claim it was no big deal.


as for the third, you forget that the BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE PENGATON MADE THOSE PROJECTIONS OF WHEN THEY COULD HAVE ARMOR SUPPLIED.

not me. i'm not the one who's ignorant of how the military works.


frankly, i would think that the richest country in the world with the best financed army in the world could deliver humvee armor kits to troops in 4 months. i guess not. and they STILL haven't done it. a YEAR later. is that an unreasonable expectation? they obviously thought the ******* 4 MONTH expectation wasn't unreasonable since that was THEIR PROMISE of when they could get it done. it's not ME that had that expectation in the first place.


and a year later they STILL don't have the armor they need.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
remove,

Look, you're preaching to the choir here.

> None of us, I feel safe in saying, want to see any of our people hurt in any way, shape, form or fashion, whether from an IED or stepping on a misplaced banna peel in the mess hall.

> Rumsfeld, despite his many and glaringly apparent faults, was correct when he said that you "you go to war with the army you've got, not necessarily the army that you wish you had".

> The insurgents took great advantage of the very plentiful munitions stockpiles in Iraq (thanks in great part to Saddam's spending of Oil-for-Food money on such instead of its intended humanitarian uses - but thats another thread) by converting aerial bombs into what we now refer to as IEDs. These have been used to great effect against our lightly armored vehicles. You can think of this in this way: these are aerial bombs in the 250lb up to 1000lb range, that were intended to dropped Saddam's air force (the one that he no longer has). The successful adaption of these bombs means that our lightly armored vehicles are bearing the brunt of explosive devices that they were never expected to have to withstand.

> The armoring of our vehicles and especially our HMMVs will never make them capable of totally withstanding such an IED. But they do give our people a hugely improved chance of survival in the event.

> Do we all wish it could happen faster? Overnite, even? You betcha. Do we all wish it could be done in 4 months, or 6 months. Hell yes.

Here is where you're preaching to the choir...if there has been some delay that we, the public, have not been told about, if there is some reason that our vehicles are not being up-armored as we've been told they would be, then we need to know about it. If you have more and better information about the status of the process other than allegations you've posted here, many of us would like to hear about it.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
remove said:
you really didn't dismiss ANY of my points as being wrong.
Yes. I did.

you defended the lack of prewar planning which would have saved lives by saying it was unreasonable to have too much planning.
No.
I said there were a zillion different things that could have happened.
Your argument is that they should have planned for this one.
You havent explained why this one should have taken precedence over the other zillion, supprted by something other than hindsight.

you just admitted my second point, but seemed to claim it was no big deal.
Thats right. You're arguing a non-issue.

as for the third, you forget that the BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE PENGATON MADE THOSE PROJECTIONS OF WHEN THEY COULD HAVE ARMOR SUPPLIED.
Whats your point?
They havent met their projection?
And?

not me. i'm not the one who's ignorant of how the military works.
We agree on that.

frankly, i would think that the richest country in the world with the best financed army in the world could deliver humvee armor kits to troops in 4 months. i guess not.
Thats because you harbor unrealistic expectations, based on your ignorance of the subject matter.
 

DivineComedy

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
remove said:
let's try this again:

Soldier in Humvee driving through war zone.

The pentagon and the white house DON'T allocate the proper amount of funds to humvee armor.

The pentagon and the white house DON'T fulfill their promise to provide aditional armor after they're embarrassed by the lack of it.

Humvee drives near I.E.D.
I.E.D. explodes.
Soldier in lighly armored Humvee dies.

The pentagon and the white house STILL (more than 1 year later, and months after their promised self-made deadlinie) haven't provided adequate armor for Humvees.



i don't call that supporting troops. maybe you do?
Let's try this again:

Ordinary civilian with a purple finger, in car, driving through his own country.

The newly elected Iraqi government DOESN'T allocate the proper amount of funds for armored cars for all of its citizens.

The newly elected Iraqi government DOESN’T fulfill their promise to provide protection against the terrorists that “liberals” claimed the invasion of Iraq created.

Car drives near I.E.D.
I.E.D. explodes.
Civilian with purple finger in lightly armored car dies.

Intelligent relatives finally realize that it was the tyrannical terrorist that killed him and not the lack of armor on his car, they go out in droves to dip their finger in the ink too.

I call that a start to civilians policing their own country, which can only be more effective than a foreign force.
 

remove

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
M14 Shooter said:
Yes. I did.


No.
I said there were a zillion different things that could have happened.
Your argument is that they should have planned for this one.
You havent explained why this one should have taken precedence over the other zillion, supprted by something other than hindsight.
frankly, i think that they should have anticipated an active insurgency. i don't think that this is an unreasonable think to anticipate- if you are about to invade a country whose population has been taught to hate you for dozens of years. and if you believe bush's prewar intel- iraq was also supposedly a hotbed of terrorist training grounds and terrorist activity. if you overthrow a government which is supporting terrorists, and has a lot of terrorists in it, (which it wasn't, but the bushies thought it was), with a population that already hates america, what do you expect? an active insurgency MAYBE? NO? that ISN'T what you expect?

M14 Shooter said:
Whats your point?
They havent met their projection?
And?
and what's so much more important over this past 1 year than giving our troops the equiptment and supplemental armor promised to them publicly? maybe the star wars defense system? (billions down the drain, failed). maybe millions of dollars towards encouraging the american public that medicare was in a crisis? (failed). what else was there that was so much more important?


M14 Shooter said:
Thats because you harbor unrealistic expectations, based on your ignorance of the subject matter.

again. they weren't MY expectations. if i WAS a soldier on the field, and 1 YEAR AGO, the pentagon and the secretary of defense publicly came out and promised that i would have supplemental humvee armor that i needed by march, and i STILL didn't have it, what do you think i'd think? that they'd forgotten? that they'd broken their promise? keep in mind, my buddies by my side are dying very frequently- because of I.E.D.s hitting their humvees.

am i supposed to- as a soldier- suck it up, and say "oh well. i guess their 'projection' they set for themselves was unreasonable"?





according to you, it's "unreasonable" that the best equipped army in the world can provide for its troops supplemental humvee armor in 4 months, let alone an entire year.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
remove said:
frankly, i think that they should have anticipated an active insurgency. i don't think that this is an unreasonable think to anticipate
Why should the 'insurgency model' have taken precedence over all the other models?

and what's so much more important over this past 1 year than giving our troops the equiptment and supplemental armor promised to them publicly?
Sometimes, things dont go as quickly as one might like.
So...?

maybe the star wars defense system? (billions down the drain, failed).
Star Wars died in 1987. The Humvee hasd been in service for about 3 years. I doubt Star Wars had anything to do with the fact that most Humvees in Iraq were not armored, and that armor kits are slower in getting there than anticipated.

maybe millions of dollars towards encouraging the american public that medicare was in a crisis? (failed). what else was there that was so much more important?
What are you talking about?

again. they weren't MY expectations. if i WAS a soldier on the field, and 1 YEAR AGO, the pentagon and the secretary of defense publicly came out and promised that i would have supplemental humvee armor that i needed by march, and i STILL didn't have it, what do you think i'd think?
You;d think things are as they always are, and you'd improvise - like soldiers everywhere always do. You think slow procurement is something new to a soldier?

that they'd forgotten? that they'd broken their promise? keep in mind, my buddies by my side are dying very frequently- because of I.E.D.s hitting their humvees.
Yes - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld -- they've all "forgotten" the man on the front line.
:rofl

am i supposed to- as a soldier- suck it up, and say "oh well. i guess their 'projection' they set for themselves was unreasonable"?
If you were a soldier, you'd think things are as they always are, and you'd improvise - like soldiers everywhere always do. You think slow procurement is something new to a soldier?

according to you, it's "unreasonable" that the best equipped army in the world can provide for its troops supplemental humvee armor in 4 months, let alone an entire year.
Tell me:
What, exactly, does it take for a armor kit to get to a Humvee in Iraq?

Some things you need to read:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20051026.aspx
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20051024.aspx
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20051007.aspx
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20050831.aspx
(VERY topical)
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20050815.aspx
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20050723.aspx
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20050716.aspx

There are a lot more articles like this.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Okay... lets think about this for a second.

A "Armored HMMV" seats about 5 soldiers... Four Seats and One in the Turret.
This HMMV weights about the same as a 5 ton truck.... if I remember correctly (I don't feel like looking it up).
It also costs well over a million... I can't remember exactly how much it costs.
So, with this said, It is not logical for the primary transportation vehicle for an infantry company which typically has around 150 troops (plus attatchments)
Also, it would be VERY ineffective for cost and logistical for infantry soldiers to move around in this manner.

Cargo Vehicles are hard to armor effectively. They have tried to armor vehicles using armor plates, but it does not protect entirely.
If you were to try to put a sort of armored "topper" on a carvo HMMV, LMTV, or 5-ton.. it would restrict the ability to provide security for the convoy.

Now, for larger vehicles, the 5-Ton (which they still use the 1980s models), The LMTV... these are also difficult to make Armored. The Military has already gone out of thier way to make a new version of the LMTV that has an armored cab, which did not exist (to my knowledge) prior to the problems we face in Iraq. (someone else with military knowledge please correct me if Im wrong on that one).

With that said, I believe that the Pentagon, Cheny, Bush, Rumsfeld, whoever, and the DOD are doing thier best to provide armor protection for as many vehicles as possible.

But this is difficult to do logistically and financially, because of the large amount of military vehicles necessary to conduct operations in Iraq.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Also, I forgot to mention that units fill and place sandbags on the floors of these vehicles, including lining the back of the Cargo vehicles (Cargo HMMV, LMTV, 5-Ton, etc), and place the sandbags inside the cab of the vehicles as well (as well as lifting the seats and placing sandbags underneath the seat area of the cab). This is probably the best option until newer HMMV models are created that have this sort of protection built in.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If I was in Iraq the only thing that I'd feel relatively safe in is a Abrahams tank. Not a humvee.

Problem is that using a tank for patrols is not really that efficient of usefull. Even though I am against this war, id do agree with M14 Shooter, that there is very little you can do againt a bomb attack on a vehicle like the humvee.

Even if you put armour plating on these vehicles the insurgents would probably just build bigger road side bombs.

My only suggestion is that patrols in high risk areas should be done in armoured troop carriers, not humvees.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Australianlibertarian said:
My only suggestion is that patrols in high risk areas should be done in armoured troop carriers, not humvees.
In the begining, they did not have these restrictions, nor had they defined a "high risk area" from a low risk area.

However, in the last year and a half (I assume at least, since my return in Dec 05 greeted me with certain changes), they have identified areas such as you described, and they have made restrictions on the number and type of vehicles in a patrol. For example, 'Haifa' Street required 4 vehicles.. Two Bradleys were required, the other two could be as small as "up-armoed" HMMV (meaning the actual armoed HMMV identified by NSN, not the "ghetto armored" HMMV).

But, sometimes, some people fail to go by these restrictions.
 

remove

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
M14 Shooter said:
Why should the 'insurgency model' have taken precedence over all the other models?


Sometimes, things dont go as quickly as one might like.
So...?


Star Wars died in 1987. The Humvee hasd been in service for about 3 years. I doubt Star Wars had anything to do with the fact that most Humvees in Iraq were not armored, and that armor kits are slower in getting there than anticipated.
re: starwars, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0530-02.htm

headline: "The Real Star Wars: Bush Revives Missile Defense Plan"




re: insurgency, i think i explained fully why an insurgency was to be expected. vast antiamerican presence, according to bush a hotbed of terorrist precence, weaponwry all over the place, etc, etc etc. you just ignored this when i pointed it out in the first place.


besides insurgency, i'd love to hear you name 10, heck 5 of the major different possibilities out of the "ZILLIONS" (your word) of contingency plans planned for post war iraq.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
remove said:
re: starwars, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0530-02.htm
headline: "The Real Star Wars: Bush Revives Missile Defense Plan"
Commondreams.org?
:rofl

re: insurgency, i think i explained fully why an insurgency was to be expected. vast antiamerican presence, according to bush a hotbed of terorrist precence, weaponwry all over the place, etc, etc etc. you just ignored this when i pointed it out in the first place.
You have explained it to yourself, which doesnt mean much.
 

remove

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
M14 Shooter said:
Commondreams.org?
:rofl

okay, that's just ****ing obnoxious.

a simple click on the url would have shown you that it was an article archived at commondreams- originally printed by the British paper, The Independant. now go back and ****ing read the article.



have another source, btw: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1139193.stm
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
remove said:
okay, that's just ****ing obnoxious.

a simple click on the url would have shown you that it was an article archived at commondreams- originally printed by the British paper, The Independant. now go back and ****ing read the article.
Oh... The Independant!
Thats MUCH better.

The NMD program began in 1996. It has nothng in common with SDI/"Star Wars" except for the concept of shooting down nuclear warheads before they can detonate over US cities.
 

remove

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
M14 Shooter said:
Oh... The Independant!
Thats MUCH better.

The NMD program began in 1996. It has nothng in common with SDI/"Star Wars" except for the concept of shooting down nuclear warheads before they can detonate over US cities.


i added a bbc article which notes how the president is dedicated to this totally unfeasible plan as well.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
remove said:
i added a bbc article which notes how the president is dedicated to this totally unfeasible plan as well.
Pssst...
Its not "Star Wars".
And there's absolutely no support for the argument that it's unfeasible.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
24,917
Reaction score
10,100
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Oh my God. Stop your ****ing whining.

Fact 1....UpArmour did not exist for our HMMWVs prior to the war. SAPI Plates did not exist prior to the war. Much of our equipment was vintage "Vietnam" prior to the war. The M16A4 was introduced to the fleet in 2004. These were all concerns just before and during operations circa 2002/2003.

Fact 2....Some vehicles do not have UpArmor, because it hinders the personnel in the vehicle.

Fact 3....UpArmor is very heavy and damages the axles of the HMMWVs.

Fact 4....Our HMMWVs have been outdated for years. This isn't a Bush design and the funds for any kind of upgrade for any system was not available pre-Bush.

Fact 5....Thousands of the new Body Armor was recalled because it did not meet ballistics testing. (Mine was one of them and I deployed twice with it.) However, during the transition of the old jacket that did not provide for the SAPI plates, the Pentagon was left with a decision...send them into war without the Plates or send them into war with Plates. The Body Armor was irrelevent because without the Plates..it is still just a fragmentation vest.

Under President Bush, we have seen better boots, new weapons, updated weapons, better uniforms, better flak Jackets with bullet proof SAPI plates, updated equipment to match our technology, the regular force has been issued weaponry and gear that reflects our special forces, our ancient helicopters have been updated finally, the Osprey was kicked into over drive to take the place of our 'Vietnam vintage' helicopters, Our Humvees have been made stronger, UpArmor has been created for our humvees (although, bad for the axles), practical SL-3 items, ACOG sights, GLINT tape, etc.,....the list goes on. Because of tax breaks and the raise of pay in the war zone (which includes Kuwait, though don't agree with it), we feel like we are being somewhat rewarded personally for our efforts and through this money, we are able to create and pick up our lives easier after combat.

There is a plethora of support we have gotten under President Bush. No time in history has the military felt so appreciated in such a short period of time. While I'm sure you could remind me of something we got from the Clinton administration, I remember drastic cutbacks and barely enough money to train and repair broken gear. Our great stock pile of money after Clinton was finished doing good things for our economy came with a price. Memories also take me back to Marine deaths in Embassies in Africa and a U.S. Naval ship being attacked where we did nothing in retaliation. Our Democratic representation didn't seem to care and neither did our people. Sadly, many Americans didn't even realize. These attacks were just headlines mixed in with their local news.

To those of us who know better than to listen to political masters....we know what President Bush has done. Of course, I'm a well traveled and experienced Marine and a part of the Varsity, so I'm not used to the bitching and complainings of hardships that we all hear from sister branches.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom