PDA

View Full Version : Humvee Snafu: Our Troops Deserve Better!



XASA
06-25-2005, 03:42 PM
New York Times
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 26, 2005
Safer Vehicles for Soldiers: A Tale of Delays and Glitches
By MICHAEL MOSS
When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld visited Iraq last year to tour the Abu Ghraib prison camp, military officials did not rely on a government-issued Humvee to transport him safely on the ground. Instead, they turned to Halliburton, the oil services contractor, which lent the Pentagon a rolling fortress of steel called the Rhino Runner.

State Department officials traveling in Iraq use armored vehicles that are built with V-shaped hulls to better deflect bullets and bombs. Members of Congress favor another model, called the M1117, which can endure 12-pound explosives and .50-caliber armor-piercing rounds.

Unlike the Humvee, the Pentagon's vehicle of choice for American troops, the others were designed specifically to withstand bigger attacks in battlefields like Iraq with no safe zones. Last fall, for instance, a Rhino traveling the treacherous airport road in Baghdad endured a bomb that left a six-foot-wide crater. The passengers walked away unscathed. "I have no doubt should I have been in any other vehicle," wrote an Army captain, the lone military passenger, "the results would have been catastrophically different."

Yet more than two years into the war, efforts by United States military units to obtain large numbers of these stronger vehicles for soldiers have faltered - even as the Pentagon's program to armor Humvees continues to be plagued by delays, an examination by The New York Times has found.

Many of the problems stem from a 40-year-old procurement system that cannot acquire new equipment quickly enough to adapt to the changing demands of a modern insurgency, interviews and records show.

Among other setbacks, the M1117 lost its Pentagon money just before the invasion, and the manufacturer is now scrambling to fill rush orders from the military. The company making one of the V-shaped vehicles, the Cougar, said it had to lay off highly skilled welders last year as it waited for the contract to be completed. Even then it was paid only enough to fill half the order.

And the manufacturer of the Rhino could not get through the Army's testing regime because the company declined to have one of its $250,000 vehicles blown up. The company said it provided the Army with testing data that demonstrate the Rhino's viability, and is using the defense secretary's visit as a seal of approval in its contract pitches to the Defense Department.

Many officials in the military and government say the demands of war sometimes require the easing of procurement requirements like testing, and express frustration at the slow process for getting equipment.

"When you have troops in the field in a dynamic environment, where the tactics of the opposition are changing on a regular basis, you have to be nimble and quick," said Representative Rob Simmons, a Connecticut Republican on the Armed Services Committee. "If you're not nimble and quick and adaptable, people will die."

Nearly a decade ago, the Pentagon was warned by its own experts that superior vehicles would be needed to protect American troops. The Army's vehicle-program manager urged the Pentagon in 1996 to move beyond the Humvee, interviews and Army records show, saying it was built for the cold war. Its flat-bottomed chassis is 25 years old, never intended for combat, and the added armor at best protects only the front end from the heftier insurgent bombs, military officials concede.

But as the procurement system stumbled and the Defense Department resisted allocating money for more expensive vehicles, interviews and records show, the military ended up largely dependent on the Humvee - a vast majority of which did not yet have any armor - in both combat and noncombat operations in the war.

Today, commuting from post to post in Iraq is one of the deadliest duties for soldiers. At least 73 American military personnel were killed on the roads of Iraq in May and June as insurgent attacks spiked. In May alone, there were 700 bombings against American forces, the most since the invasion in March 2003. Late Thursday, a suicide car bomber killed five marines and a sailor in a convoy of mostly female marines who were returning to camp in Falluja. Thirteen others were injured. Officials said the vehicles most likely included a seven-ton truck.

Last winter, 135 convoys were attacked on the Baghdad airport road alone, and even the most fully armored Humvee is no longer safe from the increasingly powerful insurgency bombs.

Marine Corps generals last week disclosed in a footnote to their remarks to Congress that two of their best-armored Humvees were destroyed, while a Marine spokeswoman in Iraq said five marines riding in one such Humvee were killed this month in a roadside bomb attack.

Still, thousands of Humvees in Iraq do not have this much protection.

The Pentagon has repeatedly said that no vehicle leaves camp without armor. But according to military records and interviews with officials, about half of the Army's 20,000 Humvees have improvised shielding that typically leaves the underside unprotected, while only one in six Humvees used by the Marines is armored at the highest level of protection.

The Defense Department continues to rely on just one small company in Ohio to armor Humvees. And the company, O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt, has waged an aggressive campaign to hold onto its exclusive deal even as soaring rush orders from Iraq have been plagued by delays. The Marine Corps, for example, is still awaiting the 498 armored Humvees it sought last fall, officials told The Times.

In January, when military officials tried to speed production by buying the legal rights to the armor design so they could enlist other venders to help, O'Gara demurred, calling the inquiry a threat to its "current and future competitive position," according to e-mail records obtained from the Army.

Defense Department officials defended their efforts in supplying troops with armored vehicles, saying they have managed to convert a largely unarmored fleet into one in which every vehicle in combat has some level of shielding.

"We are constantly assessing and making the necessary adjustments to make sure they have the best possible protection this country can provide," said a Pentagon spokesman, Bryan G. Whitman, adding that no amount of armor would defeat the insurgency's biggest bombs. He said Mr. Rumsfeld had ridden in many types of vehicles, including Humvees, and "travels in whatever vehicle the commander feels is appropriate."

The Defense Department created a task force last winter that is charged with revamping its entire fleet of light vehicles, including the Humvee.

Some say these efforts, however resolute, will suffer if the Pentagon also does not overhaul its underlying procurement system.

"There's been a confluence of factors that colluded to keep this system hidebound," said Dov S. Zakheim, the Pentagon's comptroller until May 2004. "It's going to take a joint effort by Congress and the executive branch working in good faith, and I underline good faith, to bring about a change."

Old Problems, New Details

By the time an Army National Guard member complained to Mr. Rumsfeld in December that troops were still scrounging for steel to fortify their Humvees, the Pentagon's troubles with armoring vehicles had been years in the making.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of insurgencies more than a decade earlier had changed the dynamics of war for American troops. The problem came into bloody relief in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993 when militia members cornered and killed 18 American soldiers who were trying to capture a warlord's top assistants using Black Hawk helicopters and unarmored Humvees.

At an Army command center in Warren, Mich., John D. Weaver saw the events unfold and set out to revamp the light-vehicle program that he managed.

One option came from executives at O'Gara, who proposed adding the extra steel shielding to Humvees. Mr. Weaver praised the effort but foresaw some flaws, he said in interviews.

Because the Humvee's hull is flat, its underbelly absorbs the force of blasts more readily than combat vehicles with angled bodies.

Moreover, the chassis can carry only so much armor, leaving the rear more exposed.

And while land mines were the biggest threat at the time, Mr. Weaver said his group began worrying about a more insidious one: a fragmentation mine called the M-18 Claymore.

Developed by the United States for the Vietnam War, the device can be remotely detonated to hurl its 700 steel spheres at any part of a passing vehicle - much like the improvised devices that insurgents are using in Iraq.

That means the armored Humvee is vulnerable to a timed attack that focuses on its underbelly or rear, Mr. Weaver said. Its box shape also makes it less able to deflect low-flying bullets.

"We need to invest more in the details of the design, to integrate state-of-the-art material, which, while costing more, weighs less and provides greater levels of protection," Mr. Weaver wrote in a paper presented to the Army's 1996 armor conference at Fort Knox, Ky. "Finally, we must overcome the paradigm that wheels are cheap and 'throw away.' The vehicle may be, but the occupants are not."

By 1997, when Mr. Weaver left his post, he was helping draft an Army mandate requiring new vehicles like the M1117. "I'm not sure anybody got their arms around what was needed," he said.

By 1999, the Army began buying a limited number of M1117's. Three years later, it canceled the program.

At roughly $700,000 each, the M1117 is considerably more expensive than the current $140,000 price for an armored Humvee.

"This decision is based upon budget priorities," Claude M. Bolton Jr., an assistant Army secretary, wrote to Congress in 2002. Existing vehicles, he added, can be used instead "without exposing our soldiers to an unacceptable level of risk."

Yet the military was reluctant to mass-produce the armored Humvee, with many in the Army agreeing that the vehicle made little tactical sense.

By the time the Iraq war started, the Army had been ordering only 360 armored Humvees a year.

"We never intended to up-armor all the Humvees," says Les Brownlee, who was the acting Army secretary from 2001 until late last year. "The Humvee is a carrier and derives its advantage from having cross-country mobility, and when you load it down with armor plating, you lose that."

But just months into the war in Iraq, it was lives the Pentagon was losing, and it reached for the quickest solution.

Clinging to a Contract

What the Defense Department thought would be the easiest option turned out otherwise.

The Humvee chassis is rapidly made on a vast assembly line near South Bend, Ind., by AM General. But before its vehicles can be rushed to Iraq, they are trucked four and a half hours to O'Gara's shop in Fairfield, in southern Ohio - which had 94 people armoring one Humvee a day when the war began. There, the Humvees are partly dismantled so the armor can be added.

"Clearly, if you could have started from scratch you wouldn't be doing it that way," Mr. Brownlee said in a recent interview.

In February 2004, Mr. Brownlee visited the O'Gara plant and asked the company to increase production, gradually pushing its monthly output to 450 from 220 vehicles. The Defense Department also wanted to contract with other companies to make armor.

Determined to hold onto its exclusive contract, O'Gara began lobbying Capitol Hill. Among those it drew to its side was Brian T. Hart, an outspoken father of a soldier who was killed in October 2003 while riding in a Humvee. Early last year, as a guest on a national radio show, Mr. Hart urged the Pentagon to involve more armor makers. Two weeks later a lobbyist for O'Gara approached him.

"He informed me that the company had more than enough capacity," Mr. Hart says. "There was no need to second-source."

Mr. Hart then redirected his efforts to help the company push Congress into forcing the Pentagon to buy more armored Humvees. With support from both parties, the company has received more than $1 billion in the past 18 months in military armoring contracts.

Meanwhile, the Army did not give up on trying to speed production by involving more armor makers. Brig. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly said several armor companies were eager to be part of a plan to produce armored Humvees entirely on AM General's assembly line.

In January, when it asked O'Gara to name its price for the design rights for the armor, the company balked and suggested instead that the rights be placed in escrow for the Army to grab should the company ever fail to perform.

"Let's try this again," an Army major replied to the company in an e-mail message. "The question concerned the cost, not a request for an opinion."

The Army has dropped the matter for now, General O'Reilly said, adding that he hoped to have other companies making armor by next April.

Robert F. Mecredy, president of the aerospace and defense group at Armor Holdings, the parent company of O'Gara, acknowledged that the company was protecting its commercial interests. But, he said, the company has proved it can do the Humvee work and he blamed the Defense Department for delays. Military officials concede that it sometimes took months for requests made in Iraq to filter through the Defense Department. O'Gara says it has armored nearly 7,200 Humvees since the war began, and while there is a persistent need for more in Iraq, the company stresses that the Pentagon keeps changing its orders: from 3,600 in the fall of 2003 to 8,105 last year to more than 10,000 today.

Asked why the Marine Corps is still waiting for the 498 Humvees it ordered last year, O'Gara acknowledged that it told the Marines it was backed up with Army orders, and has only begun filling the Marines' request this month. But the company says the Marine Corps never asked it to rush.

The Marine Corps denies this, but acknowledges that it did not get the money to actually place the order until this February. Officials now say they need to buy 2,600 to replace their Humvees in Iraq that still have only improvised armor.

Beyond the Humvee

With insurgents using increasingly powerful bombs and bullets, American troops in Iraq have been looking beyond the Humvee.

When the Marine Corps returned to Iraq last year, it settled on the Cougar as a superior vehicle to perform one of its main jobs: searching the roads for improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.'s. The Cougar can take more than twice the explosive punch as the armored Humvee and deflect .50-caliber armor piercing bullets. British troops had used the vehicle during the invasion.

The Marines used a new ordering method called the Urgent Universal Need Statement - which allows it to skip competitive bidding - to speed the process, officials said.

Even at that, the Marines Corps took two months to complete a product study, its records show. The contract took two more months to prepare. By then, one of its units in Iraq, Company E, was suffering the highest casualty rate of the war; more than half of its 21 troops who were killed were riding in Humvees with improvised armor or none at all.

When the Cougar order was completed in April 2004, the Marine Corps got only enough money from the Iraq war fund to buy 15 of the 27 Cougars it wanted. "This start-stop game is driving everybody nuts," says Michael Aldrich, an executive with the Cougar maker, Force Protection.

Marine Corps officials, who have high praise for the Cougars they have, said they needed to move cautiously for fear of overwhelming the company, which had only 39 workers. It now has 250 and is racing to fill a new order for 122 Cougars, at $630,000 apiece, by next February.

"I think we are moving about as fast as we could move," Mr. Aldrich said. "It's the chicken and egg. If you don't have the order you can't make the investment, and there are extremely long lead times" on the components.

Wars are always tricky affairs for defense contractors who are asked to ramp up overnight. But for this and other makers of armored vehicles, the Iraq war has been especially challenging.

To get Congress's attention last year, Mr. Aldrich compiled a set of maps showing the home states of soldiers whose deaths were more likely attributable to insufficient armor.

"I got some very open pupils and a couple of gasps and a couple of questions on who I had showed this to," said Mr. Aldrich, who presented his finding during the fall election campaign. "The Republicans wanted to know if I showed it to the Democrats, and the Democrats wanted to know if I showed it to the Republicans."

The M1117, made by Textron in Louisiana, had advocates in that state's senators, who told Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, in a September 2003 letter that the vehicle was superior to the armored Humvee in blast and bullet protection.

Still, the M1117 did not shake off its 2002 cancellation until last summer, when the Army began placing a series of orders totaling 290. The company, which will make 16 vehicles this month, has been asked to more than triple that pace by next March, Textron officials said.

Labock Technologies, which makes the Rhino Runner in Israel, thought it had the best advertising ever. Besides posting photographs of Mr. Rumsfeld aboard the Rhino at Abu Ghraib, the company has pictures of a shackled Saddam Hussein going to court last summer, with the headline: "So safe. ... some V.I.P. won't ride anything else."

Complete story here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/international/middleeast/26armor.html?ei=5094&en=4f357fbcefdcb074&hp=&ex=1119758400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top

mudbunny
06-25-2005, 03:50 PM
I have a question, instead of rolling out in hummers to respond to an incident why don't all units use Bradleys? I don't know anything about the Bradley, but it would seem with the cannon on top and the capacity to carry troops, it would be a better vehicle than the hummer. I'm sure right now that they don't have enough Bradley's over there to do that, but has this idea ever been tossed around?

American Patriot
06-25-2005, 04:11 PM
Why not an armored mine truck like the Cougar? Marines in Iraq have had them since fall 2004 and have requested 1,200 more.

FallenAngel
06-25-2005, 04:33 PM
I have a question, instead of rolling out in hummers to respond to an incident why don't all units use Bradleys? I don't know anything about the Bradley, but it would seem with the cannon on top and the capacity to carry troops, it would be a better vehicle than the hummer. I'm sure right now that they don't have enough Bradley's over there to do that, but has this idea ever been tossed around?

The Bradley costs just a little bit more than a hummer.

The problem is that the hummer was designed to be nothing than a glorified utility truck. It wasn't designed as an psuedo-urban warfare APC.

Course there's thousands of old M113 sitting in national guard armories in the US too.

Hoplite_V
06-25-2005, 04:37 PM
At roughly $700,000 each, the M1117 is considerably more expensive than the current $140,000 price for an armored Humvee.

Might be a surprise to some but the military tends to lean towards the lowest bidder.

140 Gs for a vehicle or 700.

5 vehicles or 1. Yes that one vehicle resists bombs better but how effective is it when it comes to patrolling and fighting the enemy compared to the rhino vehicle?
More armor typically means less room inside, less speed and manuverability, less fields of fire, less weapons.

Need to find a balance. If it was solely about protection we'd be patrolling in M1A2s and never dismounting.

dutch508
06-25-2005, 05:31 PM
You ****ing people are bitching about the cost of a vehicle? You'll complain about the cost of the war and in the same breath quote thi9s crap?
I've have three IEDs hit my M1114 in the last three weeks and the worst they've done is knock out the AC.
Pla- LEEZE...when I got here we were running patrols out of the back of Patrols...


dutch
Senior Advisor

1st Iraqi MECH BDE

Thor
06-25-2005, 11:16 PM
Interestingly enough my country have just procured new specialist patrol veichles. Needless to say what's been going on in Iraq have affected their choice. The south african Alvis OMC RG-32M mine-hardened patrol vehicle (MHPV) came out on top in the tests.

Apparently the US have bought some too.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1010234&highlight=rg32#1010234

http://upl.silentwhisper.net/uplfolders/upload0/Galten.jpg
http://www.aftonbladet.se/bil/0506/24/NYHETER-24s12-galtenNY-665_368.jpg

bugkill
06-25-2005, 11:41 PM
it's pretty damn sad when our enemy wears nothing but the clothes on his back and fights his ass off, while we cry about armor. i rolled around iraq with no armor on our vehicles and i did'nt hear nobody cry about it. now, everyone wants to have more armor on their trucks because they fear the ied, HELLO! THEY ARE BLOWING UP BRADLEYS AND OTHER ARMORED VEHICLES!!! all this talk about armor for light wheeled vehicles is completely overblown. can some of the armored trucks save lives? yes, but it is the luck of the draw and sometimes it's just your time to die. if the NCO's and CO's get a brain and not make it easy for the insurgents when you drive the same damn route at the same time of day, you may not have to worry as much. we are not thinking outside the box and our daily operations are leading us right into the insurgents hands. why don't most convoys conduct business during night or early dawn hours? why has nobody identified certain roads that are being used for the MSR and post snipers in the outlining buildings or homes to have constant "eye's on" along some of these routes and have a "shoot to kill" policy on anyone setting up ied's? it is not a good sign when we bitch more about surviving and not enough about winning, and winning is the one thing that will get you home faster.

ElHombre
06-26-2005, 04:48 PM
yes, but it is the luck of the draw and sometimes it's just your time to die.

would you care to repeat that to the face of a grieving family whose child was killed by an IED?

you might find yourself with a new orfice to s*** out of. if you're lucky...

ibstolidude
06-26-2005, 05:04 PM
duh, everyone knows true soldeirs don't attempt to address survivability issues or improve their equipment.

Hoplite_V
06-26-2005, 05:08 PM
duh, everyone knows true soldeirs don't attempt to address survivability issues or improve their equipment.

Well said!

I'd want the most armor, high tech raidos best training and accurate weapons possible.

Call me a pussy - all the snake eaters who want to die in a hail of gunfire can go first, i'll even use any armor they don't want.

Seiyuuki
06-26-2005, 05:16 PM
*sigh* All the time some of the same people that been complaining about how the Pentagon are not "up-armor" the Humvee and forced DoD hand, they could have spent that time and money toward the purchase of a lot of Rhino and other such vehicles. Now the increase in explosive yields to make any armor Humvee still look like mince meat is coming back to bite them in the ass.

Para
06-26-2005, 06:43 PM
With out being rude to our American friends it has been a while since you have been involved in conflict like this, and the planning and material required has not quite caught up with the requirements from the front. A Humvee is a good vehicles but if it so good for the forces then why are so many being sold as road vehicles in the States for general use. Can it be both things at once, I don't think so, then why not go for the more specialised requirements that you require for this sort work. The British forces for quite had what was known as the Saxon Vehicle which was a sort of armoured truck, it is not pretty but it will take a hell of a lot of fire before it can be stopped.

ElHombre
06-26-2005, 06:50 PM
*sigh* All the time some of the same people that been complaining about how the Pentagon are not "up-armor" the Humvee and forced DoD hand, they could have spent that time and money toward the purchase of a lot of Rhino and other such vehicles.

you're saying that the responsibility for properly equipping our troops now lies with people other than the ones given the job by the law? if that's the case, why in the hell have a department of defense at all?


Now the increase in explosive yields to make any armor Humvee still look like mince meat is coming back to bite them in the ass.

so your answer is to remove any armor whatsoever? what would you say when the death toll starts to increase? 'tough s***'?

FallenAngel
06-26-2005, 06:53 PM
With out being rude to our American friends it has been a while since you have been involved in conflict like this, and the planning and material required has not quite caught up with the requirements from the front. A Humvee is a good vehicles but if it so good for the forces then why are so many being sold as road vehicles in the States for general use. Can it be both things at once, I don't think so, then why not go for the more specialised requirements that you require for this sort work. The British forces for quite had what was known as the Saxon Vehicle which was a sort of armoured truck, it is not pretty but it will take a hell of a lot of fire before it can be stopped.

It goes back to my point posted above. The Humvee was designed as a utility truck. They are sold in the states as something like 'the ultimate SUV', which is close to it's original design intentions. It wasnt designed for urban guerilla warfare.

Burncycle
06-26-2005, 06:54 PM
Cobra is an armored car based on a hummer chassis...

Parts commonality makes the logistics of adding something like that a bit easier :)

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cobra/

SavikLion
06-26-2005, 08:56 PM
Definately think this is more of what we need over there the force protection line of IED vehicles. This is an interesting read about them. They are designed with a V shaped hull to deflect the blast of a IED or mine. they also put gun ports in the widows so the soldiers do not have to exit the vehicle to engage. There are some cool clips on the company's website. Though the Marines seem to have purchased the bulk of them. Seems Army EOD has been using them as part of operation Iron Claw. The first clip, one of the army EOD guys give Wolf a chunk or metal that would have other wise killed him if he was in a humvee. The EOD guys are using the bigger version called the buffalo Worth every penny for our guys. ( I am not expert on these vehicles just what I read)

Marine Article:

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/main5/E4885590CF8E34DB8525702A007DAB4F?opendocument

Video clips

http://www.forceprotection.net/news/video.html?video=cnn_late_edition

SavikLion
06-26-2005, 09:01 PM
Interestingly enough my country have just procured new specialist patrol veichles. Needless to say what's been going on in Iraq have affected their choice. The south african Alvis OMC RG-32M mine-hardened patrol vehicle (MHPV) came out on top in the tests.

Apparently the US have bought some too.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1010234&highlight=rg32#1010234

http://upl.silentwhisper.net/uplfolders/upload0/Galten.jpg
http://www.aftonbladet.se/bil/0506/24/NYHETER-24s12-galtenNY-665_368.jpg

Those might be very good choices as well, from reading the article I posted above it is the south african military that originally devised the idea of these IED/ mine proof vehicles back in 1968 and they have been using and improving them for over 30 years.

gaijinsamurai
06-26-2005, 10:00 PM
A question for the Brits: Does your army still use Saracens? I know they saw a lot of service in Northern Ireland. How did they perform? Are they obsolete?

ibstolidude
06-26-2005, 11:16 PM
With out being rude to our American friends it has been a while since you have been involved in conflict like this, and the planning and material required has not quite caught up with the requirements from the front. A Humvee is a good vehicles but if it so good for the forces then why are so many being sold as road vehicles in the States for general use. Can it be both things at once, I don't think so, then why not go for the more specialised requirements that you require for this sort work. The British forces for quite had what was known as the Saxon Vehicle which was a sort of armoured truck, it is not pretty but it will take a hell of a lot of fire before it can be stopped.
no offense taken.

They are sold for the same reason a landie is sold in the UK. However it would appear that our soccer moms require the need to show off their income more than their taste.

The HMMWV is a great vehicle, unfortunately it is used in a capacity never intended.

bugkill
06-27-2005, 12:33 AM
ElHombre,

i'm not gonna call you any names, but i will tell you this. i've lost soldiers in this goddamn war and i don't know if you are a soldier or not, but you can kiss my ass with the grieving family statement. i know how it feels to lose men on the battlefield and i know first hand how it crushes families to lose a loved one. my statement is about cry-babies like yourself who thinks that "up-armor" trucks is such a mission essential piece of equipment and not realizing that our enemies are using ordnance that can destroy or severly damage tanks. in war, dying is a reality and every soldier must face up to it. the army can sit there and draw up as many plans as they want in order to save more soldiers lives, but the reality is that more soldiers will die anyway because it is combat. the enemy will adapt and increase it's weaponary to kill more troops and that will never stop.

i'm not saying that up-armor trucks are not needed because it is an asset, and any asset is a good asset. what i'm saying is that this type of discussion should be dealt with behind closed doors and soldiers need to shut their mouths and do the best with what they got until the new equipment gets there because you never let the enemy see you sweat. it gives the impression of weakness and don't think for one second that our enemies don't recognize it. they like nothing better than to see their foe have more concern for surviving, than making him fear for his own survival. i only rode in an up-armor truck ONCE during my whole tour in iraq and it did not make me feel any safer because i accepted my fate. i knew that i could lose my life at any given moment because i'm rolling in baghdad, not mutha****in' chicago or new york city. the people in baghdad that want to kill you use rigged 500 pound bombs and automatic rifles, while the typically punk in the US use pistols or knives to jack your car. this enemy will use every cheat in the book to kill us and you people need to face reality and get out your little tiny box.

Seiyuuki
06-27-2005, 01:28 AM
bugkill does it very nicely, but right now, I do not have his patience...ElHombre, you are a dumbass. Frankly, If I do get shot in Iraq, God forbid on both counts when it is my time, then it is TOUGH ****. I am certainly not going to bitch, "Oh damn, my Interceptor is not 'up armor' for this ****...oh why, oh why couldn't it stop something it was never intended for in the first place."

Paracaidista
06-27-2005, 01:40 AM
The 'Rhino Runner' after the mentioned attack
http://truckseries.com/cgi-script/csArticles/uploads/6093/labrock220.jpg

Not bad.

link (http://truckseries.com/cgi-script/csArticles/articles/000060/006093.htm)

Vorster
06-27-2005, 02:01 AM
Something about the rg31. It is derived from the Casspir used by koevoet on the border. It is a monocoque design and will lose an axle which can be relaced within 6 hours in a detonation.

The Casspir was able to take the blast of 4 TM55 landmines. There is two instances of which I know in which a casspir took such a boosted mine. Two below the front axle and two below the body. The vehicle was tossed into the air and fell about 20 meters away on its roof. It was a total wreck but the guys in it stepped away with only a few broken bones and bruises.

The real draw back is the armor plating on the side. It will only withstand small arms and shell splinters. With the amount of rpgs availble I will think twice about going out in one of those. Ask any koevoet member what a rpg does to a casspir. There are numerous stories of guys losing arms or legs because of the explosive jet.

Now just one question. Our mine protection technology has been around for a while and isn't a real secret. Why has the american army not build one of its own. Why are they still strugeling to convert humvees when whe know it doesn't work. Why don't they just build there own vehicle and use ours untill they get theirs running?