Humwees - The Death Wagons of Iraq

[2RHPZ]

In Iraq, a Humvee – the modern military's jeep – is involved in an enemy action or a serious fender bender or rollover almost daily. Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz's command has experienced 13 Humvee rollovers, resulting in 17 of his soldiers dying. "Nine of the deaths occurred in the last 90 days," he says.

Gen. Metz says that most rollovers occur when "the driver has lost control of the vehicle." In a letter to his unit, he summed up other causes, such as "aggressive driving, lack of situational awareness, rough terrain, poor/limited visibility, adverse traffic conditions, improvised configurations and failure to wear seat belts."

Amen on the aggressive driving. If bad guys are firing rockets and automatic weapons and blowing off mines left, right and center, no one in his or her right mind would drive on the most dangerous roads in the world the way we oh-so-carefully drive by a parked police car on the freeway. As longtime guerrilla-war veteran Lt. Col. Ben Willis (retired) puts it, "The MO would be to put the pedal to the metal."

The problem is that the soft-skinned Humvee was conceived as a light utility truck – not a close combat vehicle. "The Humvee is horribly thin-skinned and underpowered," says Army veteran Scott Schreiber, who drove one for six years. "It should be used in roles that don’t call for armor. If the role calls for armor, it’s simple: use armor."

At the end of World War II, I was in a recon company in Italy. We started with armored cars – M-8s – but as Terrible Tito’s terrorists started using roadside mines and staging ambushes similar to the mean stuff going down in Iraq, our leaders quickly got rid of those thin-skinned suckers and put us in light tanks – M-24s. Within a year, as the guerrilla war with Yugoslavia heated up, we were given Sherman tanks – M-4s – with their even-thicker armor protection. And when a blown mine or ambush slapped shrapnel or slugs against the sides of our 36-ton tanks, we sat safely inside those steel walls, with our weapons turned full-bore on the enemy. Our armor protection gave us the critical edge our troopers should have today.

But here we are in Iraq after 15 bloody months still welding steel plate onto Humvees. Sure, our soldiers gain a tad more protection, but it also turns the vehicles into rollover queens because it shifts their center of gravity.

Meanwhile, we have the Pentagon spending billions of dollars on irrelevant gold-plated fighter aircraft and on the lightly armored Stryker – a vehicle that is not battle-tried and that the Army has placed in relatively safe northern Iraq. Not to mention the thousands of potentially lifesaving armored personnel carriers – M-113s – left over from the Cold War gathering dust in depots.

What's further wrong with this picture is that Iraq has excellent steelworkers and first-class machine shops that could be put to good use upgrading captured Iraqi equipment into armored vehicles capable of protecting our warriors while also securing our long, exposed supply lines.

Our modern generals might give a lot of lip service to protecting the force, but any way you cut it, what’s going on in Iraq is criminal. Clearly there’s a disconnect. The brass need to spend less time in their luxurious lakefront palaces and get down on the ground with the troops.

Maybe then they'll develop a greater sense of urgency about what's really needed on those killer roads the same way the 88th Division commanding general, Maj. Gen. Bryant E. Moore, did with us back in Italy and then again in Korea – where he was eventually killed as a corps commander leading from the front.

And maybe our lawmakers should stop by Walter Reed hospital and get some firsthand skinny from the terribly wounded being treated there about what a death wagon the Humvee has become from the way it's presently being used.

"How many soldiers and Marines need to be maimed or killed by roadside bombs before Congress will get off their tails?" Mary Martino rightfully asks. "My son is serving his country with honor and pride in Iraq ... and has the right to expect that his country will do whatever it takes to protect him in his duties."

[Sayeret]

I think its more of a problem of people not using the humvees correctly. The vehicle itself is a good vehicle but not for combat situations. I'm surprised more hasn't been done since the Battle of the Black Sea in Somalia, 1993.


Meanwhile, we have the Pentagon spending billions of dollars on irrelevant gold-plated fighter aircraft and on the lightly armored Stryker – a vehicle that is not battle-tried and that the Army has placed in relatively safe northern Iraq. Not to mention the thousands of potentially lifesaving armored personnel carriers – M-113s – left over from the Cold War gathering dust in depots.

I'm not sure what aircraft the author is talking about I'm assuming the F-22 but it would be able to greatly help the United States. Often a lot of the attacks against terrorists has been done by airpower and that is why the F-22 could help with this. Also the fact that its stealth would help if the United States were to invade another rogue nation like Iraq. Not to mention they have spent so much money on it before. Regarding the Stryker I can't say too much about. It doesn't sound too good but I bet its probably better than I think it is.

[flickme]

The vehicle itself is a good vehicle but not for combat situations.
What the hell r u talking about. The hummer was made for combat situations. Why else are the doors and windows bulletproof, and it can take a hit from a mine and still be intact. But your probably right about it not being used right.

[gilgoul]

Not to mention the thousands of potentially lifesaving armored personnel carriers – M-113s – left over from the Cold War gathering dust in depots.

"

Excuse me, but qualifying the M113 of life saver is a kind of joke, it`s aluminium frame, even upgraded, does not withstand an RPG, and te regular one is pierced easily by 762 and even by the ss109 5.56, at least on the sides. Secondly, the HUmmer when armoured constitutes still a pretty good tool for patrolling, please don`t forget that the m113 does`nt enter a lot of narrows streets, isn`t discreet and demands high maintenance.
As for overturning a Hummer, that`s news for me.

[OB Kenobi]

Not to mention the thousands of potentially lifesaving armored personnel carriers – M-113s – left over from the Cold War gathering dust in depots.

"

Excuse me, but qualifying the M113 of life saver is a kind of joke, it`s aluminium frame, even upgraded, does not withstand an RPG, and te regular one is pierced easily by 762 and even by the ss109 5.56, at least on the sides. Secondly, the HUmmer when armoured constitutes still a pretty good tool for patrolling, please don`t forget that the m113 does`nt enter a lot of narrows streets, isn`t discreet and demands high maintenance.
As for overturning a Hummer, that`s news for me.

Why are you doubting a Lt. General who was there?

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_humvee_050504,00.html
http://www.showmenews.com/2004/May/20040530News011.asp
http://www.knotmag.com/?article=980
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04140/318504.stm

[csqnsas]

Gilgoul

The 113 series is no good?

Well yes you are correct if your talking about the 1970 Vietnam version and use of at that time...The last time the US was getting a beating from some insurgents...

Take a look at any Israeli incursion into any town( that means small streets and any other stupid comments people make) , not only will you see their own VERY heavy Apc the Achzarit but also on of their very own 113 versions the Nagmash/Bardelass. These rock and given the chance I be you as much as you want that EVERY last US soldier in Iraq would sooner be in one of those that a Hummer.

[csqnsas]

Gilgoul

The 113 series is no good?

Well yes you are correct if your talking about the 1970 Vietnam version and use of at that time...The last time the US was getting a beating from some insurgents...

Take a look at any Israeli incursion into any town( that means small streets and any other stupid comments people make) , not only will you see their own VERY heavy Apc the Achzarit but also on of their very own 113 versions the Nagmash/Bardelass. These rock and given the chance I be you as much as you want that EVERY last US soldier in Iraq would sooner be in one of those that a Hummer.

[Royal]

The vehicle itself is a good vehicle but not for combat situations.
What the hell r u talking about. The hummer was made for combat situations. Why else are the doors and windows bulletproof, and it can take a hit from a mine and still be intact. But your probably right about it not being used right.

Bullet proof against 12.7mm??????

What kind of mine is that? a butterfly mine maybe, an AT mine, f**k all chance.

[csqnsas]

Gilgoul

The 113 series is no good?

Well yes you are correct if your talking about the 1970 Vietnam version and use of at that time...The last time the US was getting a beating from some insurgents...

Take a look at any Israeli incursion into any town( that means small streets and any other stupid comments people make) , not only will you see their own VERY heavy Apc the Achzarit but also on of their very own 113 versions the Nagmash/Bardelass. These rock and given the chance I be you as much as you want that EVERY last US soldier in Iraq would sooner be in one of those that a Hummer.

[mattnwnc03]

Gilgoul

The 113 series is no good?

Well yes you are correct if your talking about the 1970 Vietnam version and use of at that time...The last time the US was getting a beating from some insurgents...

Take a look at any Israeli incursion into any town( that means small streets and any other stupid comments people make) , not only will you see their own VERY heavy Apc the Achzarit but also on of their very own 113 versions the Nagmash/Bardelass. These rock and given the chance I be you as much as you want that EVERY last US soldier in Iraq would sooner be in one of those that a Hummer. hell all i know is we need somthin better.the hummer is not a apc and putting armor kits on it is not helping.its like ww2 the sherman tank, we got caught with our pants down again.

[Sayeret]

Flickme wrote:


What the hell r u talking about. The hummer was made for combat situations. Why else are the doors and windows bulletproof, and it can take a hit from a mine and still be intact. But your probably right about it not being used right.

Okay, technically the hummer is a combat vehicle but its very vulnerable and thats why I said it wasn't. Also the doors aern't bullet proof to 7.62x39mm bullets, the same fired by Ak-47s. It talks about it in Black Hawk Down. Also like someone said before me the humvee isn't going to be surviving any mines unless its an anti-personnel mine. A lot of the IEDs are constructed with mines.

gilgoul wrote:

Excuse me, but qualifying the M113 of life saver is a kind of joke, it`s aluminium frame, even upgraded, does not withstand an RPG, and te regular one is pierced easily by 762 and even by the ss109 5.56, at least on the sides. Secondly, the HUmmer when armoured constitutes still a pretty good tool for patrolling, please don`t forget that the m113 does`nt enter a lot of narrows streets, isn`t discreet and demands high maintenance.
As for overturning a Hummer, that`s news for me.

The M113 has many flaws but its still safer than a humvee. I'm pretty sure M113s or APCs like the M113 were sent into Mogadishu to resuce the Rangers and Delta operators. They succeeded in pulling the troops out besides the fact that the Somalis had tons of AK-47s and RPG-7s.

mattnwnc03 wrote:

the hummer is not a apc and putting armor kits on it is not helping.its like ww2 the sherman tank, we got caught with our pants down again.

Adding more armor to the hummer isn't meant to make it into an APC, its just to make it a little safer, which it is doing. The Israelis armored a lot of thier humvees and had a lot of success with it.

[flickme]

Wasnt the hummer tested to suvive a mine hit with the personell compartment still in tact. Ive seen videos of it myself.

[mattnwnc03]

Flickme wrote:


What the hell r u talking about. The hummer was made for combat situations. Why else are the doors and windows bulletproof, and it can take a hit from a mine and still be intact. But your probably right about it not being used right.

Okay, technically the hummer is a combat vehicle but its very vulnerable and thats why I said it wasn't. Also the doors aern't bullet proof to 7.62x39mm bullets, the same fired by Ak-47s. It talks about it in Black Hawk Down. Also like someone said before me the humvee isn't going to be surviving any mines unless its an anti-personnel mine. A lot of the IEDs are constructed with mines.

gilgoul wrote:

Excuse me, but qualifying the M113 of life saver is a kind of joke, it`s aluminium frame, even upgraded, does not withstand an RPG, and te regular one is pierced easily by 762 and even by the ss109 5.56, at least on the sides. Secondly, the HUmmer when armoured constitutes still a pretty good tool for patrolling, please don`t forget that the m113 does`nt enter a lot of narrows streets, isn`t discreet and demands high maintenance.
As for overturning a Hummer, that`s news for me.

The M113 has many flaws but its still safer than a humvee. I'm pretty sure M113s or APCs like the M113 were sent into Mogadishu to resuce the Rangers and Delta operators. They succeeded in pulling the troops out besides the fact that the Somalis had tons of AK-47s and RPG-7s.

mattnwnc03 wrote:

the hummer is not a apc and putting armor kits on it is not helping.its like ww2 the sherman tank, we got caught with our pants down again.

Adding more armor to the hummer isn't meant to make it into an APC, its just to make it a little safer, which it is doing. The Israelis armored a lot of thier humvees and had a lot of success with it. well thats what they are doing knuckle head well when your driving it along a road and a bomb goes off which one would you wanna be in , an apc or a hummer.id take a apc any day

[Sayeret]

well thats what they are doing knuckle head well when your driving it along a road and a bomb goes off which one would you wanna be in , an apc or a hummer.id take a apc any day

Yeah but what would you want to be in an unarmored humvee or an armored humvee, if you didn't have the choice of an APC.

[maw]

m113's. no comment.
imho we need more M1117's (asv to you and me):
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/xm1117-001.jpg
http://www.systems.textron.com/pdf/products/asv_datasheet.pdf
we've got a bunch of them in iraq already, but i think they're just for the mp's as they always seem to appear after an ambush . supposedly they can take 12.7 from all sides and with the ceramic/composite applique upgrade they can handle 14.5 from the front and from beyond 600 from the sides.

[maw]

found this:
"Where the Soldiers in the first rotation in Iraq were perhaps unprepared for dealing with deadly roadside bombs and ambushes by plainclothes civilians, the Soldiers who took over were able to prepare with the benefit of lessons learned by their comrades in Iraq. Readying for its yearlong tour in Iraq, in early 2004 the 984th Military Police Company spent more time than usual familiarizing itself with its weapons, vehicles and tactics. Armed with the latest addition to the MP’s arsenal of vehicles, the M1117 Guardian Armored Security Vehicle, each team in the 984th carries more firepower than an entire infantry squad. The 984th was the first MP company on Fort Carson to get the new ASVs, each armed with an MK-19 grenade launcher, a .50-caliber machine gun and a squad automatic weapon. The Guardian is designed to be able to take a direct hit from an RPG and keep its crew alive. Whether the vehicle will make it through the hit is another story. In Iraq, one was hit from behind by an RPG and it pretty much took out the entire engine casing, but there were no deaths, no injuries. With better preparation than their predecessors and a dozen new ASVs, the 984th was better outfitted to take over the task of keeping the peace in Iraq than their compatriot MPs who were already there."

[Merik]

Sayeret, the Humvees you read about in BHD are not the same ones in Iraq.

[2RHPZ]

The latest news on this topic:


Pentagon Contract Announcement


(Source: US Department of Defense; issued June 23, 2004)


O’Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Co., Fairfield, Ohio, was awarded on June 22, 2004, a $55,950,173 modification to a firm-fixed-price contract for:

-- 2,983 M1114 Up-Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) for the Army,
-- 89 M1145 Up-Armored HMMWVs and 37 M1116 Up-Armored HMMWVs for the Air Force;
-- five M1116 Up-Armored HMMWVs for the Navy,
-- five M1114 Up-Armored HMMWVs for the Defense Intelligence Agency, and
-- 700 Overlay Kits to be applied to the production of the M1114 Up-Armored HMMWVs for the Army.

Work will be performed in Fairfield, Ohio, and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2004. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This was a sole source contract initiated on April 10, 2000.

The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity.

[cold0]

I think its more of a problem of people not using the humvees correctly. The vehicle itself is a good vehicle but not for combat situations. I'm surprised more hasn't been done since the Battle of the Black Sea in Somalia, 1993.

Quote:
Meanwhile, we have the Pentagon spending billions of dollars on irrelevant gold-plated fighter aircraft and on the lightly armored Stryker – a vehicle that is not battle-tried and that the Army has placed in relatively safe northern Iraq. Not to mention the thousands of potentially lifesaving armored personnel carriers – M-113s – left over from the Cold War gathering dust in depots.


I'm not sure what aircraft the author is talking about I'm assuming the F-22 but it would be able to greatly help the United States. Often a lot of the attacks against terrorists has been done by airpower and that is why the F-22 could help with this. Also the fact that its stealth would help if the United States were to invade another rogue nation like Iraq. Not to mention they have spent so much money on it before. Regarding the Stryker I can't say too much about. It doesn't sound too good but I bet its probably better than I think it is.

It's the same, old attacks by pro-Army editorialist/opinion makers/soldiers against the "others" Pentagon Program. The Army has litterally wasted billions of $ in the Comanche and Crusade programs and now blame the USAF new fighter program. Surprising, the F/A-22 is starting the low rate prodution while all the Army programs are cancelled; so now they want to kill the Raptor to buy more Stryker and are sending soldiers in battle in light skinned Humvees. What the american soldiers really need in Iraq are best armoured vehicles, and the US Army have hundreds of Abrams and Bradley that can bring in the theatre of operation. The main reason of Stryker, the strategic mobility isn't a issue, 'cause the US can trasport everything in Iraq.

Another point is the USAF really need the Raptor: the answer is cleary ayes. Today many Air Forcr (including "potential" US enemies) are buying the SU-xx derivates and the Russian "double digit" SAMs; until today the USAF and US Navy have fighted only enemy with '60 Soviet SAMs and first generation MIG-29s (model 9.12), over the Iraq ('91) and owr Yugoslavia ('99). The threat for future is different and the USAF has demostated all its limits in the recent COPE INDIA exercise.
The Raptor is a quantuum leap in air combat but it could use even more efficiently as deep strike platform (using the new, cheap, SD bombs) even in high threats envoirment.

The firm conviction that future wars should be fought the same way as the last one is a recepient for a disaster for the next war...

[caleb]

The problem with the humvees is that Rummy wanted quick and mobile units in Iraq, that worked well in the actual war but is bad in the current guerilla-warfare scenario.

I suggest the Army buys this: p-)


http://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/in_detail/dingo/Bild029g.jpg

http://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/in_detail/dingo/Bild254g.jpg

http://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/in_detail/dingo/Bild034g.jpg

Ugly? Yes, but especially designed for warplaces with lotsa mines, RPGs and AK 47s


[/i]

[maw]

caleb - i respectfully disagree. the dingo provides better mine protection to an uparmored hmmv. that's about it. but it's still essentially a softskinned vehicle. i'd take a mamba over a dingo because of the external storage bins which provide a moderate level of protection against certain types of rpg. a dingo can't take a well placed rpg. plus it's a huge target.

tactics in iraq have changed, the antes have been upped. there have been some threads about chechen and uzbek contractors getting involved operationally. those boys love heavy belt feds. they learnt years ago that a 12.7 will take out light armor from the sides. if 12.7 can take out a btr it would mess up a dingo real fast.

i'll go back to asking for more M1117's. aren't the brit's and the belgians going to be deploying scarabs at the company level real soon now?

[Merik]

The Army has litterally wasted billions of $ in the Comanche and Crusade programs and now blame the USAF new fighter program



The Commanche was by far no waste of money so I do not know why you even said that.

[thatguy96]

That was the comment the Joint Cheifs made when they canceled the project, that they had essentially been spending money on the RAH-66 program when it filled a non-existant capability gap. The Army essentially said for the types of engagements there were going to be seeing that the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior and the next generations of UAVs could do the job just as effectively, on the cheap, and with a similar degree of protection. With the appearance of low cost UAVs, and steath recon specific helictoper that offers little in the way of an offensive package without becoming essentially just another Apache, did not seem worthwhile, especially with the Predator armed drones coming onto the scene.

[gilgoul]

Gilgoul

The 113 series is no good?

Well yes you are correct if your talking about the 1970 Vietnam version and use of at that time...The last time the US was getting a beating from some insurgents...

Take a look at any Israeli incursion into any town( that means small streets and any other stupid comments people make) , not only will you see their own VERY heavy Apc the Achzarit but also on of their very own 113 versions the Nagmash/Bardelass. These rock and given the chance I be you as much as you want that EVERY last US soldier in Iraq would sooner be in one of those that a Hummer.

If yoou take a closer look at my avatar, you`ll see my poor ass on one of those aluminium boxes, a non upgraded one, and i can tell you that a lot of things are going thru it`s flanks and roof.
I didn`t want to be apologetic of the hummer, but just cut the crap about the m113, wich it better than nothing but still very very far from the panacea, considering it`s volume, lack of protection, lack of speed.
And to remind us the context of this contribution, lets not forget that the hummers being deployed in Irak don`t seem to be heavily armoured like most of the hummers we use here, and i`d like to remind us that for patrols and regular jobs we don`t use the nagmash or whatever tracked vehicules, but armoured jeeps (sufa) and hummers.
As for the achzarit, till last year it was the sle prerogative of the golani brigade, it`s"secret toy", and if providing a better protection, it`s not avaible on the market.
Cause let`s not forget about it, what is availble now that can improve the life of coalition soldiers in the field in Irak?
What can be shipped to them now, quiclkly, and will proove to be reliable and relatively safer than the common fiber glassed hummer?

A last thing, sitting in a hummer even bullet proofed maybe not that nice, but sitting in a nagmash has really not any sexy aspect , and te volume of the ****er makes it a perfect and easy target for rpgs, that cut thru without any problem.

[Mongrel]

http://www.vibrahost.com/imagehost/uploads/h2lookstough.jpg

I like that 'Iguana' that someone post pics of a few weeks back.
I'd like to know more about that vehickle.

Cheers!
M.

[Yard Ape]

The problem is that the soft-skinned Humvee was conceived as a light utility truck – not a close combat vehicle. "The Humvee is horribly thin-skinned and underpowered," says Army veteran Scott Schreiber, who drove one for six years. "It should be used in roles that don’t call for armor. If the role calls for armor, it’s simple: use armor."

…

But here we are in Iraq after 15 bloody months still welding steel plate onto Humvees. Sure, our soldiers gain a tad more protection, but it also turns the vehicles into rollover queens because it shifts their center of gravity. Damn straight. The vast majority of HMMWV are unarmoured and have no place in a fighting role (this is not to say that they should not have machine guns for self defence though). Even the up-armoured versions lack survivability against heavy machine guns, IEDDs, and anti-tank weapons (mines, missiles, rockets, etc). They do offer some improvements, but I would still not want one as a fighting platform. Use the up-armoured models for non-fighting personnel that are otherwise exposed to more risk through frequent travel.


Meanwhile, we have the Pentagon spending billions of dollars on irrelevant gold-plated fighter aircraft and on the lightly armored Stryker – a vehicle that is not battle-tried and that the Army has placed in relatively safe northern Iraq. Not to mention the thousands of potentially lifesaving armored personnel carriers – M-113s – left over from the Cold War gathering dust in depots. I cannot agree with this. Both the F-22 and JSF are needed for the USAF and USN to maintain the superior edge that they have required to set the winning conditions in all the US military conflicts of the last half century.

The Stryker is exactly what is needed in Iraq. It has better mine & IEDD survivability than an M113. It has strategic mobility greater than the HMMWV. It is certainly not a waste of money as it is ideally suited to stability & counter-insurgency operations.



The vehicle itself is a good vehicle but not for combat situations.
What the hell r u talking about. The hummer was made for combat situations. Why else are the doors and windows bulletproof, and it can take a hit from a mine and still be intact. But your probably right about it not being used right.An anti-tank mine will rip a HMMWV apart. The wheels are well forward and this may offer some protection to the crew, however you can expect they will be in serious condition from blast, shrapnel, and spalling. Even anit-personel bounding mines will shred the occupants of an unarmoured HMMWV.


imho we need more M1117's (asv to you and me):I could buy into this. It looks like an ideal HMMVW replacement for fighting roles. It is armoured, it carries roughly the same as an HMMWV. It has better firepower & can shoot from under armour. I also like the French VBL which is a little smaller.

I think the M1117 & Stryker should be employed together. Security patrols, police, and observers could move around in the M1117 while infantry sections intended to dismount & fight would use the Stryker. One could make arguments that the M1117 would be more appropriate reconnaissance or TOW platform than a Stryker.


It's the same, old attacks by pro-Army editorialist/opinion makers/soldiers against the "others" Pentagon Program. The Army has litterally wasted billions of $ in the Comanche and Crusade programs and now blame the USAF new fighter program.Don’t forget the Grizzly, that was another big price-tag project that has nothing to show for itself.


What the american soldiers really need in Iraq are best armoured vehicles, and the US Army have hundreds of Abrams and Bradley that can bring in the theatre of operation. The main reason of Stryker, the strategic mobility isn't a issue, 'cause the US can trasport everything in Iraq.Yes, there are Bradley & M113 that could be brought into theatre (and that may be the only short-term solution). However, unless you expect these vehicles to fight & operate while on a lowbed being pulled by an unarmoured tractor, they will not have the strategic mobility required. Yes, the US can move tracked vehicles around the country but it has limitations. If a Stryker battalion on one side of the country is immediately needed on the other side, it can mount up and race off at 120 Km/h, arrive mounted & secure an assembly point and launch right into operations. A tracked battalion will have to load everything on trucks, deploy an advanced party in unarmoured vehicles to secure an unloading point, move everything up the highway, unload everything from trucks, send the trucks back to get the tracks that could not fit on the available trucks, begin the ponderous 60 km/h move to a near by marshalling area, await return of trucks with remainder (hopefully) of battalion . . .

Also consider response time to ambushes in a large area of operations. Strykers will have a very good response time compared to M113 or Bradley. It may be the difference in arriving before all friendly have been killed or before all attackers have escaped to kill again. Would you accept your local police force using the slowest vehicle on the market?

The Stryker & M1117 can escort logistics & VIP convoys at their road speed. The Bradley or M113 would require these convoys to slow down significantly & this would increase the time to which they are exposed to danger. The other option is to continue using soft-skin vehicles with machine guns to protect vital road bound assets.

One Stryker holds more dismountable infantry than two Bradley. These are the guys that will make the difference in complex terrain (like a city or town).

[Sayeret]

Sayeret, the Humvees you read about in BHD are not the same ones in Iraq.

Theres different types of Humvees but the ones used in BHD are being used in Iraq.

[2RHPZ]

NEWSWEEK: Study Suggests One in Four Soldiers Killed in Iraq Would Be Alive Today if They Had Been in Properly Armored Vehicles

Newsweek; issued April 25, 2004

NEW YORK --- An unofficial study analyzing the casualty figures in Iraq suggests that many U.S. deaths and wounds simply did not need to occur, Newsweek reports in the current issue.

According to the study by a defense consultant, that is now circulating through the Army, of a total of 789 Coalition deaths as of April 15 (686 of them Americans), 142 were killed by land mines or improvised explosive devices, while 48 others died in rocket-propelled grenade attacks. Almost all of those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them, the study suggested. Thousands more who were unprotected have suffered grievous wounds, such as the loss of limbs.

The military is 1,800 armored Humvees short of its own stated requirement for Iraq. Despite desperate attempts to supply bolt-on armor, many soldiers still ride around in light-skinned Humvees. This is a latter-day jeep that, as Brig. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, assistant division commander of the 1st Armored Division, concedes in an interview, "was never designed to do this...It was never anticipated that we would have things like roadside bombs in the vast number that we've had here."

According to internal Pentagon e-mails obtained by Newsweek, the Humvee situation is so bad that the head of the U.S. Army Forces Command, Gen. Larry Ellis, has urged that more of the new Stryker combat vehicles be put into the field. Sources say that the Army brass back in Washington have not yet concurred with that. The problem: the rubber-tire Strykers are thin-skinned and don't maneuver through dangerous streets as well as the fast-pivoting, treaded Bradley.

According to a well-placed Defense Department source, the Army is so worried about the Stryker's vulnerability that most of the 300-vehicle brigade currently in Iraq has been deployed up in the safer Kurdish region around Mosul. "Any further south, and the Army was afraid the Arabs would light them up," he says.

Other quick fixes are being rushed in. In Ohio, O'Gara-Hess and Eisenhardt Armoring Co. says it is flush with new orders to crank out 300 "up-armored" Humvees per month. And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has just approved a quiet plan to fly 28 M1A1 tanks from Germany into Iraq by April 27, Newsweek reports. The move comes as the military is planning for a final assault on the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.

Meanwhile, soldiers are rushing to jury-rig their Humvees with anything hard they can find: bolt-on armor, sandbags, even plywood panels, creating what one senior officer calls "Mad Max-mobiles." But Pentagon sources say many of the retrofitted Humvees cannot take the extra weight, and their transmission or suspension systems fail. Another method is to spray shock- absorbing polyurethane foam -- one popular brand name is called Rhino -- to the inside or outside of unarmored vehicles, Newsweek reports.

As Iraq's liberation has turned into a daily grind of low-intensity combat-and Rumsfeld grudgingly raises troop levels-many soldiers who are there say the Pentagon is failing to protect them with the best technology America has to offer, Newsweek reports. Soldiers in Iraq complain that Washington has been too slow to acknowledge that the Iraqi insurgency consists of more than a few "deadenders." And even at the Pentagon many officers say Rumsfeld and his brass have been too reluctant to modify their long-term plans for a lighter military. On the battlefield, that has translated into a lack of armor. Perhaps the most telling example: a year ago, the Pentagon had more than 400 main battle tanks in Iraq; as of recently, a senior Defense official tells Newsweek, there was barely a brigade's worth of operational tanks still there. (A brigade usually has about 70 tanks).

The 1st Cavalry's 2d Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, has first-hand knowledge about Humvee troubles. Newsweek reports that during the unit's inaugural mission in Sadr City, a 19-man patrol from the battalion, traveling in four Humvees, had just finished escorting three Iraqi "honey wagons" on their rounds in the grim slum. Suddenly the street became "a 300-meter-long- kill zone," recalls platoon leader Sgt. Shane Aguero, courtesy of gunmen from the Mahdi militia of Shiite rebel Moqtada al-Sadr. The Humvees swerved and ran onto sidewalks, rolling on the rims of flat tires, as gunmen kept up the barrage of bullets. Sgt. Yihjyh (Eddie) Chen, gunner in the lead vehicle, was shot dead. Another soldier was hit and began bleeding from the mouth, Newsweek reports.

Then, two of the Humvees became disabled. Aguero yelled at one driver to gun the engine to get his Humvee moving. The engine fell out. As they'd been drilled to do, the soldiers set out to strip the disabled vehicles of sensitive items and to "zee off the radio" -- to see that codes and equipment don't fall into enemy hands. When another group got ambushed nearby, an enemy round came through the Humvee's right rear door -- through retrofitted panels that the soldiers had been told would repel AK-47 rounds. Miraculously, none of the three people inside were hit. Then a third Humvee sputtered to a halt: debris had pierced the fuel tank. "It just wouldn't start, we coasted the last 50 yards out of the kill zone," said its driver, Spc. Dee Foster. At last an armored Bradley fighting vehicle arrived, and its steel ramp opened to scoop him and his buddies to safety.

[Some Guy]

If yoou take a closer look at my avatar, you`ll see my poor ass on one of those aluminium boxes, a non upgraded one, and i can tell you that a lot of things are going thru it`s flanks and roof.
I didn`t want to be apologetic of the hummer, but just cut the crap about the m113, wich it better than nothing but still very very far from the panacea, considering it`s volume, lack of protection, lack of speed.
....

A last thing, sitting in a hummer even bullet proofed maybe not that nice, but sitting in a nagmash has really not any sexy aspect , and te volume of the f*** makes it a perfect and easy target for rpgs, that cut thru without any problem.

Y'all should listen to this guy- Also- take a look at a life magazine from the 60s or google search for Vietnam pics- When you find a pic of a M113, you won't find GIs _inside_- they'll be on top- Why? Are they stupid? Can't the M113 offer protection against 7.62x39 blah blah.. yup- but Its too hot to ride inside for any real amount of time.. If you do get in some **** and you're on the inside, you're a sitting duck for an RPG /recoiless round AND if you want to get out in a hurry you'd better hope the APC stopped with the door facing a safe direction- you can't pick your egress direction...

Listen- speed is life- On the internet its easy to talk about armor plate, penetrators, shaped-charge warheads, reactive armor etc.. etc.. Its a lot harder to quantify what a lifesaver a hard turn and a lead foot can be. I think up-armoring the Hummers is a great idea but people who suggest resurrecting the M113 don't get it- You'll never put enough protection on an APc to let it wade into a fight- you're a lot better off giving it the speed to get out of one.

[cold0]

The Commanche was by far no waste of money so I do not know why you even said that.

It's a joke, isn't it? rofl

[Durandal]

Well this has been an interesting thread...

A) M113..regardless of the Mod...NO.

B) The Stryker has been tested and so far is doing what it is supposed to do...high mobility, crew survivability.

C) The Commanche was indeed a MASSIVE waste of taxpayer's money. Having known both a senior project engineer at Sikorsky and the designer of the original gun that it would use, I can without a doubt, tell you that program was a cluster f*ck form the beginning.

D) Now all we need to do is get rid of the Osprey and a dopt a scaleable STOL/VTOL program that ALL the branches can use and we will be good to go.

E) The Humvee is one of the reasons why I think there should be some commanding generals and a certain sec def out on their asses. Why the hell would a an Armored division trade in a portion of their thanks for utility vehicles? Good lord...

On a side note: They certainly suit the purpose they were designed for, however, they are NOT be used for that purpose. Super high cost to build and maintain and one of the reasons why the U.S. Army (the last time I checked) is going with the F-250 as the cornerstone utility vehicle.

[martinexsquaddie]

humvee is what you get when you throw a commitee at a problem
compare and contrast
most of the EU armys use something similar to a landrover in the utility mode basically a civi 4X4 painted green

[2RHPZ]

One of my friend got familiar previously with that brand new vehicle. He sais that is an excellent solution to replace HUMWEE in US Army and to be issued to any EU Army.


The MOWAG EAGLE IV is ideally suited as a plattform for various tactical
mission roles such as reconnaissance, surveillance, command or military
police tasks. It is based on the advanced MOWAG DURO II chassis technology
with its patented roll stabilizer and proven De-Dion axle system. This
gives the vehicle an extremely high off- and on-road mobility.

http://10.5.4.54/www.ludd.luth.see/users/antenna/m2k/veh/rest-light/eagleiv.jpg

http://www.ludd.luth.se/users/antenna/m2k/veh/rest-light/eagleiv.htm
http://www.mowag.ch/PDF/Factsheets/EAGLE_IV4x4_en.pdf

BTW, he had some kind of experinces with HUMWEE also, so he could compare.

[Durandal]

humvee is what you get when you throw a commitee at a problem
compare and contrast
most of the EU armys use something similar to a landrover in the utility mode basically a civi 4X4 painted green

And these would suffer just the same, and probably more...

The Humvee is a great Utility vehicle, hands down and great for those folks that need something with a little bit more kick to it than a Checy Blazer or a F250.

That being said, the General's cook does NOT need one.

[2RHPZ]

The Killer Ride

Tracks or Treads on the Mean Streets of Iraq?

By John Higgs
Soldier of Fortune Magazine

March 2nd 2004, Baghdad. A U.S. soldier was killed and another wounded when Islamist terrorists attacked a convoy and threw an incendiary device into their armored M1114 High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV- ****ounced "Humvee").

March 25th 2004, Fallujah. A Humvee was burned and destroyed by a rioting mob after a shootout between Islamist terrorists and a U.S. Army convoy.

March 28th 2004, Mosul. Islamist terrorists fired two Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG) at a U.S. Army Stryker armored vehicle as it patrolled a side street. Despite the Stryker's additional anti-RPG slat-armor, one RPG ignited the external 5-gallon fuel cans. The resulting fire and ammunition cook-off destroyed the vehicle, without injury to the occupants.

March 31st 2004, North of Fallujah. An armored Humvee was up-ended by a powerful explosion, killing the five U.S. soldiers inside.

Is the Army's newest armored vehicle -- STRYKER -- sufficiently well protected for duty in the dangerous neighborhoods of Iraq's cities? Or should U.S. troops be riding in Vietnam-era Armored Personnel Carriers (APC)? Our troops are being killed and wounded as they patrol the streets of Baghdad, Mosul, and Fallujah, in soft-skinned unarmored or under-armored Humvees, trucks, and up-armored M1114 Humvees.

Terrorists in Iraq have adopted the tactic of throwing grenades through the windows of cars, SUVs and Humvees to kill the occupants before dousing them with fuel and setting them on fire. In an attempt to mitigate such a serious problem, the Army is beginning to up-armor Humvees, and medium and heavy trucks, by bolting or welding on armor plate and bullet resistant glass kits, at costs of up to $150,000 per vehicle (The Humvee itself costs around $62,000).

But the program will not be complete until 2005 at the earliest. In the spring of 2004, another part of the Army's solution was to deploy to Iraq the first of six Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCT). The Stryker, a version of the General Motors Canada manufactured LAV III 8x8 Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) is an eight-wheeled armored vehicle designed to carry nine troopers in addition to a crew of two.

It certainly sounds like an improvement over the four-wheeled Humvee, so why is it mired in controversy, and why do the Stryker's opponents - who range from Vietnam vets to some members of Congress - champion the forty-something-year-old M113 "Gavin" APC instead? First, we have to understand the Army's plan to revamp our forces to fight a three-dimensional war instead of the traditional two-dimensional format.

Shock and Maneuver

This requires rapid aerial deployment of mechanized armor to support ground troops. This Rapid Deployment concept of combining Infantry, Aviation, and Armor for shock and maneuver originated in Russia before WWII and was later championed by US General James M. Gavin.

Jump forward thirty-four years and we come to [then] U.S. Army Chief of Staff (CSA) General Eric K. Shinseki's 1999 vision: "The Army will develop the capability to put combat forces in Brigade Combat Teams anywhere in the world ninety-six hours after liftoff for both stability and support operations, and for warfighting. We will build that capability into a momentum that generates a warfighting Division on the ground in 120 hours and five Divisions in thirty days."

For the Shinseki Initiative to become a reality the Army must be able to transport a large number of armored vehicles and their troops and support infrastructure rapidly by air to almost any location in the world. This requires a fleet of U.S. Air Force C-130 tactical airlift aircraft. It also requires fighting vehicles that are armored heavily enough to survive on the battlefields of the world, be it jungle, desert, temperate forests, or urban settings, and that the vehicle must be able to roll into combat directly from the aircraft. This last requirement means that the vehicle has to fit into a C-130 without having to be partially disassembled.

Back to Iraq. Who is our enemy and how do they fight? In places like Fallujah, our enemy seems to be largely a mix of Iraqi and non-Iraqi, anti-coalition Islamist militants, former regime holdouts, and common criminals. Followers of Shiite Muslim Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr have attacked occupying troops in Baghdad and Najaf. Other enemies include politically motivated insurgents from countries like Syria and Iran.

As Mao said: "A terrorist is a fish in a sea of humanity." In Iraq, Islamist terrorists organize crowds of supporters to surround an army or civilian vehicle, and then attack it with grenades or incendiary devices, sometimes turning it over. The ubiquitous RPG-7 is often used to fire on Army and coalition patrols as they drive through narrow streets and similar choke points.

Since it first appeared in 1962, the Soviet designed hand held RPG-7V (Ruchnoi Protivotankovy Granatomyot) Rocket-propelled Anti-Tank Grenade Launcher has appeared in almost every war zone in the world from Vietnam in the 1960's, to Afghanistan in the 1980's, to Iraq in 2004. The launcher is simplicity itself, comprising a tube with forward mounted pistol grip and trigger assembly, second handgrip, and a stadiametric optical sight.

The rocket or booster motor section of the Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) fits inside the launcher tube while the warhead protrudes from the muzzle of the weapon. This feature allows warheads with various diameters greater than the bore size of the launcher to be used.

To load and fire the RPG typically takes a two-man team comprising the operator and his Assistant Gunner (AG). After firing, the team will quickly relocate to another firing position before the heavy cloud of smoke from the launch gives away their position. Teams who fail to shoot 'n scoot often don't live long enough to regret it. The RPG is simple enough for almost anyone to use, and for its size and portability packs a huge wallop. And thanks to Saddam there are lots of them in Iraq.

The "Gavin"

Unofficially known as the "Gavin" after WWII General James M. Gavin, a longtime proponent of Airborne Warfare, the M113 Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) is a tracked vehicle designed in the late '50s to carry troops and supplies cross-country over rough terrain, along highways at higher speeds, and on amphibious operations in lakes and rivers. The latest version of the M113 Family Of Vehicles (FOV) is the A3, equipped with the RISE (Reliability Improvements for Selected Equipment) package.

This features an improved drive train with 275 HP turbocharged Detroit Diesel 6V53T, upgraded electrics, new power brakes, and conventional steering controls which allow the vehicle to turn in its own length by making one track turn forward while the other track turns in reverse (neutral steer).

The M113A3's fuel tanks have been relocated externally to the rear of the vehicle giving an additional sixteen cubic feet of space inside while also reducing the risk of fire in the crew compartment. Composite Spall suppression liners for additional crew protection are fitted inside the lightweight aircraft aluminum armored hull.

An additional (14.5mm thick) bolt-on armor kit is available.

This is not your father's M113. The M113 cannot be driven if it breaks a track. Emerging Band Track technology would replace the segmented metal tracks with a continuous steel reinforced rubber band - think of it as a single steel belted radial tire stretched over the sprockets.

The Band track is only 50% the weight of a traditional steel segmented track, which translates to better acceleration and braking, lasts about 4000 miles, reduces noise and vibration, and creates less wear and tear on roads. There is little or no maintenance, although changing the band in the field takes longer than the standard track. One drawback to rubber, however, is that it burns just like tires. The Gavin's original manufacturer, United Defense Corp (formally United Defense Limited Partnership), has prototypes of modernized hybrid (electro-mechanical) M113A4 Gavins that are even more capable than the A3.

The current Gavin is small and light enough to be transported in a Hercules C-130 transport aircraft; it is also amphibious, and can be air-dropped onto the battlefield. The Army's Modernization Plan requires computerized communications and data transfer systems to enable battle command on the move. The current M113A3 digitization program will apply installation kits for hardware and software into the A3's by 2006 to bring them in line with other vehicles.

There are approximately 13,000 Gavins in the Army's Operational Inventory, of which about 3-4000 are A3s. The M113 is much cheaper than the Stryker, which means the Army can put more of them in country quickly. Some strategists advocate more technologically complex vehicles like the Stryker, with advanced electronic communications packages even if the high cost dictates that fewer of these vehicles will be available to go into battle.

But in the Normandy campaign of WWII, the technically superior German Panzer V Panther and Tiger tanks were overwhelmed by the large numbers of less capable U.S. Sherman tanks. On the other hand, Operation Desert Storm demonstrated how well a technically superior tank, the M1 Abrams, could do against massed groups of Iraqi T62 and T72 tanks.

Stryker

The U.S. Army defines the Stryker's mission as: "[To] fulfill an immediate requirement in the Army's current transformation process to equip a strategically deployable (C-17/C-5) and operationally deployable (C-130) brigade capable of rapid movement anywhere on the globe in a combat ready configuration. The armored wheeled vehicle is designed to enable the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) to maneuver more easily in close and urban terrain while providing protection in open terrain."

Modeled after the Light Armored Vehicle-3 (LAV), the Stryker comes in two main variants: Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) and Mobile Gun System (MGS). All vehicles are equipped with a central tire inflation system. The ICV has a Kongsberg Remote Weapon Station with four M6 smoke grenade launchers and a universal soft mount cradle for either a MK240 7.62mm belt-fed machine gun, .50 caliber Browning M2 heavy machine gun, or a MK19 40mm Grenade Launcher.

A digital communications system - the FBCB2 (Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below) allows vehicle commanders to communicate with each other and with the Battalion using text messaging and a video map system where commanders can mark enemy positions on the map for the other commanders to see. This "tactical internet" utilizes a Raytheon AN/TSQ-158 Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS).

The commander can also access seven M45 periscopes and a combination video camera and thermal imaging display screen. The driver has access to a Raytheon AN/VAS-5 Driver's Vision Enhancer (DVE) and three M17 periscopes. In Iraq the Strykers are being fitted with add-on slat-armor for protection against RPG attack.

The slats are designed to detonate an incoming warhead before it contacts the vehicle's half-inch thick steel hull. But there is a limit to how much weight (armor) can be added to a wheeled vehicle before it begins to sink into soft terrain such as sand or mud. At 38,000LBS the Stryker is 11,000LBS heavier than the M113A3. This is due in part to the basic design of the armored vehicle, which requires wheels, axles, suspension, and a transmission.

The hull is fabricated from steel instead of aircraft aluminum - as used in the M113 - and this also adds to the weight. Space must be provided for the front wheels to turn in order to steer, and for all the wheels to travel up and down on the independent suspension. This prevents the use of armored skirts to protect the wheels from incoming ordnance, which means that the areas of the hull behind the wheels are vulnerable.

Oddly enough, while the South Africans fielded various armored vehicles in the '70s and '80s such as the Casspir and Wolf, both of which had a v-shaped armored hull to deflect the blast from driving over a land mine, the floor of the Stryker's hull is flat. Critics charge that the Stryker's additional weight also prevents it from meeting the Army's requirement of being transportable by C-130 where it can be immediately driven off the aircraft in a battle-ready condition, including its full complement of crew and troops.

Lightly Armored

Although faster than the M113 APC, the Stryker has been criticized by some as being too lightly armored, unable to cope with tough terrain, and too expensive. Contrast that opinion with the vehicle's performance in Summer of 2002 at The National Training Center, Ft. Irwin, California, during the Millennium Challenge. Four Strykers with their infantry detachments deployed to Ft. Irwin by C-130. Each vehicle was unloaded and prepared for action in less than twenty minutes.

In this exercise, and others like it at the National Training Center, various army units are pitted against other army units known as Opposing Force (OPFOR) that have been specially trained and equipped to simulate the battle tactics of some of our potential enemies. This is what the OPFOR force had to say about the Strykers: "The Stryker went places at greater speeds, quieter, with more agility than any vehicle the OPFOR has ever encountered. We had to adjust our tactics."

Speed and Stealth are two of the Stryker's strengths. It is best suited to fast travel on open highways and unrestricted terrain. In restricted terrain and the urban setting of buildings, narrow streets and alleys it loses its advantage. It's overall length and turning radius can often require many forwards and backwards movements in order to negotiate a ninety-degree turn in a narrow street.

Even the M1 Abrams Main battle tank is somewhat vulnerable to attack in such an environment. Unlike the M113, the Stryker's remote weapons station and camera system does allow the gunner to fire from within the vehicle rather than having to expose himself to incoming rounds. But the remote weapon station is handicapped by its narrow field of view and slow slew rate (the camera takes up to 60 seconds to rotate through 360 degrees) to scope the area in all directions. Multiple RPG shooters in a concerted attack from different directions could get off several rounds before the camera can pick up the first attacker. In its APC configuration, the Stryker is really a lightly armored bus or taxi to take troops to the front line. But on a non-linear battlefield like Iraq there is no front line and every building or alley may be hiding a tango with an RPG. Is the Stryker better than an up armored Humvee? Probably. It doesn't have open windows through which grenades or Molotov Cocktails can be thrown or dropped. It may be equipped with slat armor for some level of protection against RPGs.

It has twice the number of wheels that a Humvee has, and it is less likely to be tipped over by a crowd. In order to provide some safety in numbers, Humvees typically patrol in groups of four or more, a wise precaution for any lightly armored vehicle in an Iraqi city.

Is the M113 APC the answer? Not entirely. An Improvised Explosive Device (IED) can, if it is big enough, and placed appropriately (particularly directly underneath) blow off a wheel or a track, leaving the crew immobilized in their vehicle. However, in at least one instance in Iraq, a Stryker has continued to maneuver on the remaining seven wheels. We are talking here about increasing the odds of surviving, not eliminating the risk altogether. So where should the Army spend $3.3 million? Buy one Stryker, convert eight M113A2 Gavins to M113A3, or up armor twenty-two Humvees?

The Stryker does have an obvious reconnaissance or support role on hard roads and trails, and where the terrain is fairly open and not too extreme. In fact, the Marine Corps limits its LAVs to a reconnaissance role. Incidentally, due to unforeseen transmission problems, Strykers will eventually undergo a planned $111 million refurbishment.

With its sophisticated communications systems and high speed, the Stryker can transmit battlefield intel rapidly and haul ass out of hotspots. But its armor has been criticized as being too thin, and any additions will just add to the problem of trying to deploy it by C-130, which was the original requirement stipulated by General Shinseki.

So is the Stryker better than the M113 in Iraq? Or has it been deployed to a theater of operations that may become increasingly unforgiving, in a peacekeeping role to which it may be unsuited?

John Higgs is a graduate of Gunsite, DTI and Yavapai firarms schools and is an NRA firearms instructor.

[gilgoul]

Wel, considering the number of angry reactions to my post.
For the same jobe, that is, bringing small patrols around discretely without shakingall the neigbouhood (the tnak people will understand me), the comon hummer, non bullet proof or very lightly armoured aren`t enough.
I know that in Israel we have diffrent tactics, like going around in armoured hummers or jeep storm in any potentially hot area, and taking in uparmored m113 and achzariot in confirmed hot jobs.
Still, for what concerns US troops on the ground in Irak, they face much more RPG`s and IED`s than we do, and it seems that most of their patrols in hot areas are welcomed by serious fire. So, if in between you can put some uparmoured m113 in the field, very good, but it is by far a solution, and serious thinking should be done about that, because the number of KIA by IED`s is way too far, and the M113gatling is just a joke of an answer.
For illustration, I had some time as a MG on a support M113, not uparmoured during reserve duty, without going in, we would provide fire support and "deterrence" on our ground, and I can tell you that out of the 10 rounds fired at my apc (AK47), 7 went thru, wich is nominally more than what would have come throught a uparmourd hummer.

LAst thing, unless driving 90 tons armoured vehicles (and it dosen`t protect them from serious mines), you can`t be safe, but promoting the aluminium framed M113 family is a joke, The west bank and Gaza are not Irak, fortunately we face way less RPG`s than in Irak, especially in the west bank, and where the TOGA shield works more or less against RPG`s, it`s doesn`t mean that an ATGM wouldn`t come trhought.
An other thingt to finish, an army doesn`t design all of it`s equipement according to the level of protection (you would see only 300 tons tanks then) but also according to the required level of mobility , signature and cross country capacity.
Promoters of the M113 have now idea how an arab city is built, the Hummer barely come`s through the narrow streets of the casbah, even less the M113, and for that we in israel kept the STORM M240 jeep in armoured version, and the brits use the land rover armoured in their sector, because most of the time you patrol, you`d rather do it in an armoured vehicle )at least aginst small arm fire) and take the odd with a RPG.
Understand me, I have nothing against the M113, It`s a good cross country vehicle, not an IFV, therefore, there`s no sence in deploying it in it`s regu;ar version.

[Durandal]

[quote]The Killer Ride

Tracks or Treads on the Mean Streets of Iraq?

By John Higgs
Soldier of Fortune Magazine

March 2nd 2004, Baghdad. A U.S. soldier was killed and another wounded when Islamist terrorists attacked a convoy and threw an incendiary device into their armored M1114 High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV- ****ounced "Humvee").

March 25th 2004, Fallujah. A Humvee was burned and destroyed by a rioting mob after a shootout between Islamist terrorists and a U.S. Army convoy.

March 28th 2004, Mosul. Islamist terrorists fired two Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG) at a U.S. Army Stryker armored vehicle as it patrolled a side street. Despite the Stryker's additional anti-RPG slat-armor, one RPG ignited the external 5-gallon fuel cans. The resulting fire and ammunition cook-off destroyed the vehicle, without injury to the occupants.

March 31st 2004, North of Fallujah. An armored Humvee was up-ended by a powerful explosion, killing the five U.S. soldiers inside.

Is the Army's newest armored vehicle -- STRYKER -- sufficiently well protected for duty in the dangerous neighborhoods of Iraq's cities? Or should U.S. troops be riding in Vietnam-era Armored Personnel Carriers (APC)? Our troops are being killed and wounded as they patrol the streets of Baghdad, Mosul, and Fallujah, in soft-skinned unarmored or under-armored Humvees, trucks, and up-armored M1114 Humvees.

Terrorists in Iraq have adopted the tactic of throwing grenades through the windows of cars, SUVs and Humvees to kill the occupants before dousing them with fuel and setting them on fire. In an attempt to mitigate such a serious problem, the Army is beginning to up-armor Humvees, and medium and heavy trucks, by bolting or welding on armor plate and bullet resistant glass kits, at costs of up to $150,000 per vehicle (The Humvee itself costs around $62,000).

But the program will not be complete until 2005 at the earliest. In the spring of 2004, another part of the Army's solution was to deploy to Iraq the first of six Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCT). The Stryker, a version of the General Motors Canada manufactured LAV III 8x8 Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) is an eight-wheeled armored vehicle designed to carry nine troopers in addition to a crew of two.

And there is the relevant part of this article.