PDA

View Full Version : US may send more heavy armor to Iraq: Myers



seruriermarshal
04-27-2004, 11:59 PM
US may send more heavy armor to Iraq: Myers


Politics - AFP


US may send more heavy armor to Iraq: Myers

Tue Apr 27, 6:13 PM ET Add Politics - AFP to My Yahoo!



WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US military may send more heavy armor to Iraq (news - web sites), the top US general said, amid concerns that even new armored Humvees do not offer enough protection as attacks on coalition troops intensify.



General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said commanders have indicated they were going to ask for heavier equipment although he had not yet seen a formal request.


"Some of these units, you know, left a lot of their heavy equipment back because the task was not suited to M-1s and Bradleys as much as it is to other means of conveyance and other ways of doing the job," he said.


"So some of them may have changed," he said. "As the situation changes, they'll adapt to them."


The 1st Cavalry Division, which took over responsibility for Baghdad earlier this month, deployed to Iraq without most of its heavy armor because the mission appeared at the time to call for more mobile, light infantry forces.


The 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, now fighting in the insurgent-held city of Fallujah, deployed with only about 16 tanks, a marine spokesman said. It has enough light armored reconnaissance vehicles to equip a battalion, and a smaller number of amphibious tracked vehicles.


Both units found themselves thrust into some of the bloodiest fighting in nearly a year soon after arriving in Iraq.


Myers said amounts of heavy equipment being sought were modest and did not represent "a major change in philosophy" on the kind of forces needed to fight the war.


General John Abizaid, the commander of US forces in Iraq, had asked for a lighter force tailored to the kind of simmering low intensity conflict that had characterized the conflict after Baghdad fell to US troops last year.


But the eruption of fighting in Fallujah, followed by a wave of uprisings by Shiites in Baghdad and several southern cities this month, has raised concerns about the vulnerability of US forces facing escalating urban combat.


Newsweek reported this week that an unofficial study by a defense consultant found that of a total of 789 coalition deaths as of April 15, 142 were killed by land mines or improvised explosive devices, while 48 others died in rocket-propelled-grenade attacks.


General Larry Ellis, head of the army's Forces Command, warned in a March 30 memo that armored Humvees have not proven to be the solution that the army had hoped to achieve.


He urged that funding be found immediately to double production of light armored vehicles Stryker vehicles.


But Myers said the protection offered by the Stryker vehicles is about the same as an armored Humvee. Even tanks have been blown over by roadside bombs made with artillery rounds, he said.


"None of these systems provide 100 percent protection. That's the fact," he said.


He said the military has made a big effort to replace thin-skinned Humvees with armored Humvees.


There are now a little over 2,000 of the armored Humvees in Iraq, about half the number required, and production has been ramped up to the limit of the manufacturer's capability, he said.





But Myers admitted, "The requirement continues to go up as the nature of this fight changes, as we adapt to the enemy tactics."

"And what people forget sometimes, that we're actually at war here. And we have adversaries that think, and they adapt to our tactics," he said.

HumanShield
04-28-2004, 12:16 AM
Im not sure about that. Right now my friends step dad who is normally tanker. Is being trained to be infantry to roll around in a humvee, not his abrams

seruriermarshal
04-28-2004, 02:59 AM
Tanks Sought to Protect Soldiers in Iraq
14 minutes ago

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - Changing gears in the face of an emboldened insurgency in Iraq (news - web sites), the Army is asking for additional tanks or other heavy armored vehicles to improve protection for soldiers.



The request reflects a recognition by military commanders that they must adapt as the insurgency evolves. With at least 115 deaths, this has been the deadliest month for U.S. forces since they invaded 13 months ago; troops are killed and maimed daily by improvised bombs and rocket-propelled grenades that can penetrate the relatively thin skin of the jeep-like Humvee.


When the Army rotated fresh units into Iraq this spring, the newly arrived forces left some of their tanks, Bradley infantry vehicles and armored personnel carriers at home, figuring they needed a higher proportion of Humvees to be light and more agile to deal with insurgents.


But as the anti-occupation violence has grown, Army leaders have concluded that the lighter force should be stiffened with more armor. Initially the response was to add armor plates to the Humvees, giving them a measure of extra protection. Now, even that seems too little.


Gen. Larry Ellis, commander of Army Forces Command, recently told his superiors at Army headquarters that Humvees equipped with extra armor are inadequate in the face of insurgent attacks, a senior defense official said.


The matter has become an issue in the presidential race. Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites)'s campaign said Tuesday the Army's call for more armored vehicles is an example of the Bush administration's "disregard for the men and women who put their lives on the line every day in Iraq."


At the Pentagon (news - web sites), Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the request has not reached his office, but he understands U.S. commanders want a "modest" increase in armor for troop protection. He did not specify the type of vehicles that would be added, but presumably it would be a mix of tanks, Bradleys and armored personnel carriers.


"It's not a major change in philosophy" about how to defeat the insurgency, Myers said.


Myers argued that Humvees with extra armor tacked on have been proven lifesavers in Iraq. He also stressed that even the most heavily armored vehicle — the M1A1 Abrams tank — cannot fully protect the soldiers inside when hit with an improvised explosive armed with a 105mm shell.


Gen. Paul Kern, commander of Army Material Command, which supplies the Humvees and the rest of the equipment used in Iraq, said in an Associated Press interview Tuesday that U.S. commanders in Iraq have made "adjustments" that include requesting more heavily armored vehicles.


Kern said he could not discuss the details because it would reveal too much about the military's operations in Iraq, but he said the change has had a ripple effect on the supply of spare parts.


Speaking at his office at Fort Belvoir, Va., Kern also said he disagrees with those who say the heavy strain on the Army since Sept. 11, 2001, is a temporary "spike," and not a longer-term pattern. He sees no reason to expect a dropoff anytime soon in the Iraq or Afghanistan (news - web sites) missions.


"We believe that the tempo of current operations is one which we need to continue to plan for," he said. "There were some suggestions in the past that we were at a peak. We think that this war on terrorism is going to be more of a norm for some period of time."


Kern did not discuss U.S. troop levels in Iraq, but Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday that he was studying options for maintaining the 135,000-strong U.S. force in Iraq beyond this summer. The force was to have been cut to 115,000. Rumsfeld recently scratched that plan, extending the tours of about 20,000 soldiers who otherwise would have left Iraq this month.


Rumsfeld said he also was looking at possibilities for increasing the force beyond 135,000 at some point.


"I should add that we have no requests along that line, either for replacement troops or for troops above the replacement level," he said.


The defense secretary left open the possibility that the administration would have to ask Congress sooner than it had planned for additional billions of dollars to run the Iraq war. So far the administration has said it did not intend to ask for more money until early 2005.





Rumsfeld said his budget specialists are reviewing figures to see if they can make ends meet on the existing budget.

"Is it conceivable that they're not going to be able to manage the additional costs?" he asked without answering, referring to the cost of keeping more troops in Iraq than previously planned and the cost of intensified up fighting.

talib_killa34
04-28-2004, 03:15 AM
Send in a tank, and your problem pretty much is solved.

Somalia, with TF Ranger, needed armor. The Marines from March 2003 in the Nas, sent in M1-A1's out into "Ambush Alley". Afterwards the enemy were killed or retreated. No more resistance.

Again, not always, but at least make the equiptment available and keep it in country.

seruriermarshal
04-28-2004, 03:46 AM
Send in a tank, and your problem pretty much is solved.

Somalia, with TF Ranger, needed armor. The Marines from March 2003 in the Nas, sent in M1-A1's out into "Ambush Alley". Afterwards the enemy were killed or retreated. No more resistance.

Again, not always, but at least make the equiptment available and keep it in country.

You are right . Though guerrilla force is flexible , while meeting the strong heavy armoured force, they always fail.

Javehn
04-28-2004, 03:55 AM
You are right . Though guerrilla force is flexible , while meeting the strong heavy armoured force, they always fail.

Really ??? Excellent analyzis . You read many articles before posting that one , aren't you ?

Brits succeded pretty well in Ireland , without heavy armor . Russian Federation troops action in New years eve in 1994 was succesfull , to your taste ? They used heavy armored force , just the way you like it .

It's about the correct and flexible tactics , that addapts to guerrilla way of operating , and improvises one step ahead .

mustamato
04-28-2004, 04:23 AM
But Myers said the protection offered by the Stryker vehicles is about the same as an armored Humvee.

Yeah right. Sounds like Myers doesn´t like the idea of Strykers in the first place,
it would be hell of a difference if rolling over a anti-tank mine. Not to mention
if coming under RPG attack.

talib_killa34
04-28-2004, 12:23 PM
You are right . Though guerrilla force is flexible , while meeting the strong heavy armoured force, they always fail.

Really ??? Excellent analyzis . You read many articles before posting that one , aren't you ?

Brits succeded pretty well in Ireland , without heavy armor . Russian Federation troops action in New years eve in 1994 was succesfull , to your taste ? They used heavy armored force , just the way you like it .

It's about the correct and flexible tactics , that addapts to guerrilla way of operating , and improvises one step ahead .

That is correct too.

Move away (or try) from having to always use heavy armored divisions in peacekeeping roles but make sure they are there with plenty of them.

Uparmored HMMWV's just won't cut it. Especially in a hostile country with so much old ordnance lying around for insurgents to use.

Iraq is one big ammo dump.

Hellman109
04-28-2004, 07:31 PM
As the article says they have rolled tanks with Mines made from Artillery rounds, presumably 100mm+. I would much rather be sitting in a stryker then a humvee when rolling over one though, same as for being hit by an RPG, roadside bomb (as opposed to mine), even light arms fire (as the 6 wheeler can lose a number of wheels and still operate, a humvee doesnt have that luxury)

seruriermarshal
04-28-2004, 07:45 PM
You are right . Though guerrilla force is flexible , while meeting the strong heavy armoured force, they always fail.

Really ??? Excellent analyzis . You read many articles before posting that one , aren't you ?

Brits succeded pretty well in Ireland , without heavy armor . Russian Federation troops action in New years eve in 1994 was succesfull , to your taste ? They used heavy armored force , just the way you like it .

It's about the correct and flexible tactics , that addapts to guerrilla way of operating , and improvises one step ahead .

You wrong , Now allies troops danger in Iraq , because IED and RPG , 90%The injures and deaths was caused by this kind of way . and think Iraq topography , so must use heavy armoured force .

Brits succeded pretty well in Ireland , yes . but I just say the heavy armoured force and can attack the guerrilla force effectively . This does not mean that guerrilla forces can only be defeated by the heavy armoured force .


Russian troops fighting topography , other Russain tank : Such as T-80 , It's light to M1 . The guerrilla war includes being ambushed. This is unfavorable to relatively light-duty armoured strength.

FallenAngel
04-28-2004, 08:16 PM
As the article says they have rolled tanks with Mines made from Artillery rounds, presumably 100mm+. I would much rather be sitting in a stryker then a humvee when rolling over one though, same as for being hit by an RPG, roadside bomb (as opposed to mine), even light arms fire (as the 6 wheeler can lose a number of wheels and still operate, a humvee doesnt have that luxury)

Humvees have self-inflating tires. They can drive something like 30 miles on a 'flat' tire by keeping some air in it.