U.S. soldiers survive attacks thanks to Humvee armor

[Paul]

Maybe all the negative talk about our soldiers not having adaquate supplies is not as accurate anymore.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5878170p-5211532c.html

“We’d be dead right now if it wasn’t for the armor,” said Staff Sgt. Justin Larson, 24, of Othello, Adams County, who helped splint Kirk’s leg after the blast in late March hit their Humvee. They are with the 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division.

A military investigation team that surveyed the scene in eastern Paktika province said the Humvee was blown 6 feet into the air, said Cpl. Jose Cruz, a 22-year-old from Brooklyn who was riding in the back seat.

“We trust our lives with them,” Cruz said. “They’re damn good vehicles.”

 

[::Major_Baker::]

I sure hope it is innacurate, 3.5 years on.

 

[Iriemon]

I sure hope it is innacurate, 3.5 years on.

3.5 years and 1/2 a trillion dollars on.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Maybe all the negative talk about our soldiers not having adaquate supplies is not as accurate anymore.

Was the talk negative, or was the lack of armor negative?

This is indeed good news, and I would hope the soldiers do indeed have adequate armor/supplies.

 

[Deegan]

The soldiers are underfunded, sometimes having to spend their own money on extra body armor, it's a disgrace really. I am glad they are building up now, and realizing we left it in poor shape for a long while.

 

[Iriemon]

The soldiers are underfunded, sometimes having to spend their own money on extra body armor, it's a disgrace really. I am glad they are building up now, and realizing we left it in poor shape for a long while.

If the soldiers are poorly equipped, it is because the military brass has been spending hundreds of billions on new toys instead of gear for the soldiers. Not the first time in history that has been the case.

 

[Deegan]

If the soldiers are poorly equipped, it is because the military brass has been spending hundreds of billions on new toys instead of gear for the soldiers. Not the first time in history that has been the case.

No it is not, but it wasn't satisfactory then, nor is it today. That said, there's never really any excuse for sending our men in without the best money can buy, especially with the wealth this country enjoys.

 

[Jay R]

:roll: Poorly equipped is relative. The British army still scrounges off the Americans due to inadequate personal equipment, they've been buying extra body armour plating and American made boots out of their own money, and I'm pretty sure those camel hump water carriers aren't standard issue, if you see a Brit wearing one that's his own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee
The problem with the Hummvee is the way it's being deployed, it's a utility vehicle, a runabout, designed for recon work at most on the front line, it's not an APC. But they are being used as the primary transport in even the most dangerous areas, and it's no good for that. Even the up-armoured ones provide limited protection from intense small arms fire and they can be wasted by RPG's, armoured or not. The factory assembled armoured version was originally a specialty derivative and most production was of the unarmoured version, this has now apparantly shifted and up-armoured versions are the main product now. For reasons that would be better explained by a US military member (GySgt perhaps?) the US military cuurently favours wheeled transport over tracked (see also the Striker armoured car), I'd wager due to the ease of transportation by aircraft. You'll notice that the Brits are patrolling in Warrior APC's, as our LandRovers are even worse than the Hummvee, being made out of chicken wire and Kit-Kat wrappers. As you'll find in the wikipedia page the proposals for a Hummvee replacement may be wheeled also, though with increased armour protection, that however will compromise it's ability as a general purpose vehicle and also it's off road performance. And the prototype they have a picture of looks s**t.:smile:

 

[Stinger]

The problem with the Hummvee is the way it's being deployed, it's a utility vehicle, a runabout, designed for recon work at most on the front line, it's not an APC.

Yep, a fact the bash-bushers seem to ignore. In fact a recent report cited the marked increase in deaths caused by roll-overs because the armour makes them top heavy. So troops don't want to ride in them because of the roll-over danger. There was a reason they went in unarmoured, not because someone was derilict, they weren't designed to be armoured. We have improvised and adapted as all good militarys do. And quite frankly within a remarkable timeframe. But there is the other side of the coin, some have been killed BECAUSE they are no armoured.

ASSOCIATED PRESS
DAYTON, Ohio (AP) - 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. ...........


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1647526/posts

Perhaps had the left shut up and let the military do it on their own there might have been more testing and developement. But I most certainly believe the left pushed this for political reasons and that may have caused this to be rushed and these are the results.

 

[Stace]

No it is not, but it wasn't satisfactory then, nor is it today. That said, there's never really any excuse for sending our men in without the best money can buy, especially with the wealth this country enjoys.

You don't think the military brass is spending money on things less important than armor for the troops? Perhaps you'd be interested in talking to the commanders from the 82nd ABN DIV that were "asked" to retire because they were spending government funds on private trailers for themselves. Granted, the funds they spent weren't allocated for armor, that money is allocated before they even deploy, but it certainly wasn't allocated to let the officers be all nice and comfy, either.

And the sad part isn't even that the troops are then forced to spend their own money to try and keep themselves adequately protected. The sad part is that they're then not allowed to even USE that equipment.

 

[Stace]

Perhaps had the left shut up and let the military do it on their own there might have been more testing and developement. But I most certainly believe the left pushed this for political reasons and that may have caused this to be rushed and these are the results.

I'm sorry, but I'd rather have them in armored vehicles that "may" roll over than to have had them NOT have that protection at all. Hmmm.....sit around and wait to find something that may or may not work, and have no armor at all, or have armor WHILE they test out other viable options......seems like a no brainer to me.

 

[aps]

Maybe all the negative talk about our soldiers not having adaquate supplies is not as accurate anymore.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5878170p-5211532c.html

“We’d be dead right now if it wasn’t for the armor,” said Staff Sgt. Justin Larson, 24, of Othello, Adams County, who helped splint Kirk’s leg after the blast in late March hit their Humvee. They are with the 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division.

A military investigation team that surveyed the scene in eastern Paktika province said the Humvee was blown 6 feet into the air, said Cpl. Jose Cruz, a 22-year-old from Brooklyn who was riding in the back seat.

“We trust our lives with them,” Cruz said. “They’re damn good vehicles.”

LOL Three years after the war and we may have now gotten it right? Wow. I am so proud. NOT.

 

[scottyz]

Do the new factory armored humvees also received upgraded axles or is the armors weight not an issue with the new stuff?

 

[Jay R]

Do the new factory armored humvees also received upgraded axles or is the armors weight not an issue with the new stuff?

Yes, the wikipedia link details such revisions throughout the vehicles life, particularly in relation to up-armouring. Older units that the soldiers have jury-rigged extra armour to don't though, thus their performance is compromised. The article also suggests that extra armour added in the field can cause problems when hit by explosive penetrating weapons like RPG's as the additional components can get blown off increasing risks of injury from shrapnel. Again, you'd need to ask somone in the know about that.

Soldiers tend to be pretty good at adapting their eqipment when needs must. There's a recent piece on this in GySgt's 'US Military' thread.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-terror/11103-u-s-military-3.html

It's post #29.

 

[Goobieman]

One can only wonder what todays liberals would have said back in the 40s when they found out just how crappy our tanks were and how many men died because of it.

And then when they found out that it was a --conscious decision-- to build them that way...

 

[Stace]

One can only wonder what todays liberals would have said back in the 40s when they found out just how crappy our tanks were and how many men died because of it.

And then when they found out that it was a --conscious decision-- to build them that way...

One can only wonder how absolutely everything seems to turn into a partisan issue. :roll:

 

[Goobieman]

One can only wonder how absolutely everything seems to turn into a partisan issue. :roll:

Ask the people that made political hay by blaming the Bush administration for not making sure every wheeled vehicle sent to Iraq was sufficiently armored for combat.

People such as yourself, perhaps.

 

[Stinger]

I'm sorry, but I'd rather have them in armored vehicles that "may" roll over than to have had them NOT have that protection at all. Hmmm.....sit around and wait to find something that may or may not work, and have no armor at all, or have armor WHILE they test out other viable options......seems like a no brainer to me.

It's not "may". Read the entire article. They'll get it worked out as they would have without all the needless fingerpointing from the anti-war crowd.

 

[aps]

Ask the people that made political hay by blaming the Bush administration for not making sure every wheeled vehicle sent to Iraq was sufficiently armored for combat.

People such as yourself, perhaps.

Just because someone did it in the past doesn't make it okay to do it NOW. I would expect more NOW than I did back in World War II.

 

[Goobieman]

Just because someone did it in the past doesn't make it okay to do it NOW. I would expect more NOW than I did back in World War II.

Why do you expect more from GWB than from FDR?

And what -do- you think of FDR, intentionally sending all those boys to fight the Germans in woefully under-armored and under-gunned tanks?

 

[aps]

Why do you expect more from GWB than from FDR?

And what -do- you think of FDR, intentionally sending all those boys to fight the Germans in woefully under-armored and under-gunned tanks?

Goobieman, I would ahve to read up on that--I know nothing about that.

Technology and $$$--that's why I would expect more out of GWB. Plus, aren't we supposed to learn from our mistakes?

 

[Goobieman]

Goobieman, I would ahve to read up on that--I know nothing about that.

And yet you commented...

Technology and $$$--that's why I would expect more out of GWB. Plus, aren't we supposed to learn from our mistakes?

Technology? For armor plate?
Money? FDR had a FAR larger defense budget to work with...
Learn from our mistakes? When have we ever been in a war where we needed armor for all of our transport vehicles?

FDR deliberately condemned thousands of GIs to death by issuing them tanks with armor far too thin and guns far too weak -- why want he held politically liable as GWB was?

 

[Iriemon]

And yet you commented...

Technology? For armor plate?
Money? FDR had a FAR larger defense budget to work with...
Learn from our mistakes? When have we ever been in a war where we needed armor for all of our transport vehicles?

FDR deliberately condemned thousands of GIs to death by issuing them tanks with armor far too thin and guns far too weak -- why want he held politically liable as GWB was?

You've said this three times now, baiting for a challenge, so I'll ask it -- show us your proof that "FDR deliberately condemned thousands of GIs to death" by issuing them tanks with armor far too thin and guns far too weak.

I assume you are talking about the Sherman tank, which was a good medium battle tank when designed in '42 but I agree not up to snuff against later model Panthers and Tigers in 44-45. But I wasn't aware FDR was responsible for tank design and haven't read anything about FDR deliberately causing deaths.

What is your source for this claim? Or is it your usual BS?

 

[Iriemon]

Ask the people that made political hay by blaming the Bush administration for not making sure every wheeled vehicle sent to Iraq was sufficiently armored for combat.

People such as yourself, perhaps.

I hadn't seen anyone on this thread blame the Bush administration for the unarmored Humvees. Except you, to bolster your own claim that FDR deliberately killed GIs, I suppose.

 

[Iriemon]

Perhaps had the left shut up and let the military do it on their own there might have been more testing and developement. But I most certainly believe the left pushed this for political reasons and that may have caused this to be rushed and these are the results.

That's a kick. It's the "left's" fault that the Humvees used in Iraq are not proper for the job or that the Army doesn't have a decent APC.