Unarmored Humvee Death Toll Continues to Climb

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6217.shtml

As the deadline for "hardened" Humvees arrives Tuesday in Iraq, the U.S. death toll tied to the workhorse vehicles is nearing 400.
By top Pentagon order, from now on only Humvees that carry some degree of armored protection will be allowed to leave secure U.S. encampments for patrols and convoys on the often-mean streets of Iraq.

The new edict comes as a Scripps Howard News Service analysis has found that more than 1 in 4 of the 1,450 deaths of American troops in the war have been associated with Humvees. Hundreds more soldiers have been wounded in them.

No other piece of war equipment _ including helicopters, planes, trucks and other combat transport _ carries such a deadly record. The casualty count of at least 387 includes 75 troops who died in Humvee accidents; that is more than the 67 GIs who have perished in aircraft crashes in the Iraq war.

<snip>

In all, about 19,000 Humvees are in use now in Iraq. The Pentagon says 75 percent are armored in some way, although critics charge that as many as half are equipped only with the "Mad Max"-like protection that troops are attaching themselves.

[Alpharetta]

1. $9 Billion US reconstruction money missing in Iraq

but still not enough money for armor.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. Bread crumbs.

Rummy misplaced $2,000,000,000,000 not so long ago.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. And where is Rumsfeld these days?

[leftofcool]

3. Unfortunately.............

still breathing.

left of cool

[BrklynLiberal]

7. He is another one I nominate for Lee Atwater's disease...

along with Norquist, Rove, DeLay, and even the Moran in the White House just to teach them what it really means to be helpless.

[cliss]

4. What's wrong with the Hum-vees?

Is there something wrong with them that they tip over if a troop makes a sharp turn at a corner? Or is it just that they are seen as easy targets for bombs planted under the dirt on the roadway.

By the way, helicopters have a really bad record in this war. Far too many have died in accidents, being shot down.

Someone should print statistics on which are the deadliest.

[physioex]

8. No nothing wrong with the Hummers....

The problem comes from the fact that they are not armored. Most of the ones sent intially were the thin skinned versions. Armouring a vechicle adds to the weight and cost. The troops are using the thin skinned hummers to escort convoys, something they were probably not meant for....

[AlCzervik]

14. the humvees that are there are not built for an urban war

they need armor plating-they're known this for almost 2 years now. Humvees replaced Jeeps.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

20. Maybe

Car and Driver needs to do an IED test.


:shrug:

[DemoTex]

5. Rummy orders ... "some degree of armored protection."

What a blatant CYA! What an ambiguous equivocation! What a classic Rummy edict!

[TahitiNut]

6. I've heard 'non-order' orders like that before.

It's classic Pentagon CYA.

[NYC]

11. Indeed. What is "some degree"?

If one headlight is armored, that meets the requirement of armoring to "some degree", even though it is useless. (Adhere to the letter of the law, while violating the spirit of the law.)

...By top Pentagon order, from now on only Humvees that carry some degree of armored protection will be allowed to leave secure U.S. encampments for patrols and convoys on the often-mean streets of Iraq...

[Owl]

9. Hardened Humvee....

Just what is a "hardened Humvee"?

Wasn't the original issue Humvee a (over-priced) macho version of a simple Jeep?

I've seen some from the National Guard that have cloth doors.

Beyond the obvious door problem, what can reasonably be done to "harden" a vehicle whose design intent is far beyond what is asked?

- Owl

[Canuckistanian]

10. Good point.

Whatever happened to APC's? Can't they partol in them?

[radar]

13. "...lighter, faster and cheaper..."

Gotta make some money out of this....

Army to send older armored personnel carriers to Iraq after upgrading armor
By Joseph L. Galloway, ©Knight Ridder
European edition, Wednesday, January 5, 2005
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=25453&archive=true



WASHINGTON — The Army, beset with complaints that its troops are going into combat in inadequately armored Humvees, will send an older and less used class of armored personnel carriers to Iraq after spending $84 million to add armor to them.

These vehicles, both veteran warhorses, are the M113/A3 armored personnel carrier and the M577 command post carrier. Both will be tougher and safer than newly armored Humvees.

...One serving officer, who asked not to be identified, said Rumsfeld "didn't even let us go to war with the Army we had; he made us leave half our armored vehicles at home in pursuit of lighter, faster and cheaper."

[SlavesandBulldozers]

12. excellent post

the design intent was transportation, not an armored vehicle.

certainly part of the problem is that the humvees arent designed/manufactured to be armored vehicles. but i'd say most of the problem is that they are there. if they weren't there they wouldn't need armor.

[hack89]

15. Here's your answer

The M1109 and M1114 HMMWVs are an Up-Armored Armament Carrier configuration of the HMMWV family. The vehicles are equipped with additional armor both on the sides and underneath to protect the crew from small arms ammunition and mines. The weapon mount, located on the roof of the vehicle, is adaptable to mount either the M60, 7.62mm machine gun; M2 .50 caliber machine gun; or the MK 19 Grenade Launcher. The weapons platform can be traversed 360 degrees. This configuration of the HMMWV is equipped with the self-recovery winch.

The Up-Armored HMMWV is designed to conduct reconnaissance and security operations as its primary function. Up-Armored HMMWVs are organic to the scout platoons of the armored, infantry, and mechanized infantry battalions. Up-Armored HMMWV-mounted scouts enhance the capability of scout platoons to provide accurate and timely information about the enemy and the area of operations.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

16. How much armor would 40 million dollars have bought?

If it would have saved the life of just one person, Bush is a murderer (more of a murderer).

[Sgent]

17. Until 10 years ago

the entire army was built on the idea of massive ground attacks with superarmor -- bradley's and Abrams.

Where the hell are these????? Get them out of the damn mothballs and to Iraq.

The HMVVV is strictly for behind the line transport (think Jeep), not for combat patrols.

[hack89]

18. Not quite right...

The Up-Armored HMMWV is designed to conduct reconnaissance and security operations as its primary function. Up-Armored HMMWVs are organic to the scout platoons of the armored, infantry, and mechanized infantry battalions. The vehicles are equipped with additional armor both on the sides and underneath to protect the crew from small arms ammunition and mines.

[tabasco]

21. Not quite right.

The humvee is not the preferred vehicle for combat ops.

The statement you quote (I'm guessing this is from the manufacturer) limits the use of the humvee to scout platoons in recon and security operations. If you've spent any time in the infantry, you know that scouts are not supposed to get into big gunfights.

The humvees you see in combat in Iraq are not all scout platoons....not even close. Humvees are being used for combat patrols by infantry battalions throughout Iraq and it's not smart. Even the armored humvees are a poor choice for urban combat patrols.

A previous poster had it correct. The M113A3 is what we should be using for these combat missions in Iraq. But it would cost money to take them out of mothballs. I guess just too much money for the oil barons to part with.

[hack89]

22. I was addressing his comment that...

"The HMVVV is strictly for behind the line transport (think Jeep), not for combat patrols".

Secondly, the armored Humvee is the vehicle of choice in some urban settings as it can maneuver easier in tight streets and it is quieter than tracked vehicles, giving a tactical advantage when sneaking up on bad guys. There is a role for armored Humvees in Iraq.

The bigger issue is not the HMVVVs - it is all the non-armored trucks in the convoys the Humvees are guarding. Those are the guys that are sitting ducks.

[tabasco]

25. Just a couple points of difference:

#1: You don't sneak up on anybody in a humvee.

#2: If you think a humvee is good for maneuvering in tight streets... you've never driven a humvee.

I was in the infantry for 12 years, mech, light,two combat tours,and I agree the hummer should not be used as a combat vehicle. Good for transporting a squad point to point not in contact, or delivering MREs, but not as a fighting vehicle.

Sure, there is a use for humvees in Iraq - - as an extra large Jeep. Sending soldiers to fight from those things is a crime.

[hack89]

27. OK - we disagree

[proudbluestater]

23. "JUST SAY NO!" to the 80 billion for the war effort. NOW!

Not a single stinking DIME should be given to this war of choice by this regime. Not one more. If they will not use the money to keep our troops safe instead of enriching the sick MOFOs at Halliburton, screw 'em.

[Rose Siding]

24. At the LEAST, total imcompetence

The ENTIRE Senate should sit in at the Pentagon- camp outside the office of whoever HAS responsibility, until they KNOW that not one more life be lost in such a preventable way.

[happyslug]

26. Wheeled vs Track vehicles.

The M113 is a tracked Aluminum hall Vehicle designed in 1959 for use by Mechanized Infantry. IT was replaced by the M2 Bradly.

The Humvee was a transport/communication/cargo vehicle design to replace the M151 Jeep, the M35 series of 2 1/2 ton trucks and the Various trucks between those two vehicles (The US Army in WWII had used Jeeps and 2 1/2 tons trucks since WWII. US Jeeps and 2 1/2 ton trucks were the best in their class. On the other hand America never did come up with a good 3/4 to 1 ton Vehicle until the Humvee).

Anyway the Jeep had to go for it was Gasoline (Mo-gas for you people still in the military, Petrol for the English readers of DU). The US Army since the 1970s adopted a policy of using only one fuel, Diesel. While Diesel has better fuel economy than Gasoline engines, Gasoline engines have better low range acceleration (You can peel out with a gasoline engine, you can NOT with a Diesel). In off road use this was important for the small Gasoline engine in the Jeeps could keep it out of mud that a diesel of the same size would not have enough power to pull the Jeep out of. Thus decision of the Army to go to Diesel forced the Army to up size its smallest Vehicle to an engine size (a V-8) that could pull it out of mud even if it was a diesel. Thus the Humvee was born.

The Humvee was intended to be a cargo/communication/troops transport. It was NOT to be used in direct combat missions. When you are in combat in such a Vehicle you are to abandon the Vehicle to fight on foot. Hopefully only the lead Vehicles would be attacked, the rest would be dismounted before the attack hit that part of the Convey. The early WWII 2 1/2 trucks had solid steel tops over the cabs, these were removed as the war progressed not only to save steel for other uses but to permit easier exit if the truck was attacked. Cargo vehicles were NOT intended nor design to be used in actual combat.

Now if that is the case why do we have Humvee and 2 1/2 ton trucks in the Army? The reasons are as follows:

1. Rubber tires last 50,000 miles Tracks last 2000 miles
2. Humvee get 10 miles to the Gallon Gasoline (350 miles on a 35 gallon gas tank), M113 gets 3 miles per gallon (300 mile range on a 95 gallon gas tank).
3. Maintenance of the track must be done daily (Including greasing the track). Other than bleeding the air brakes and bleeding the fuel filters, Humvee do not need "maintenance" more often than your car.
4. The Humvee can be towed by another Humvee or the Standard US 5 ton Wrecker. The M113 has to be repaired on site or hauled by another M113 or a tracked 15 ton capable wrecker (which means you have to transform the entire maintenance section to be able to handle the switch to M113s, the increased weight of the Humvee do to the add on armor did not put them beyond the 5 ton limit of the standard Army 5 ton wrecker).
5. Humvee cost the US Army $50,000 a piece. The latest M113 purchased cost $1 Million a piece (The M113 already in stock are the one's the Military plans to use so actual cost were much less but still much more than the Army spent on Humvee).
6. The main enemy of the US forces today is the RPG and roadside bombs, the Aluminum armor of the M113 was design to stop 50 caliber bullets NOT RPGs. Worse since RPG use "Heat" antitank rounds, such rounds have a tendency to catch the Aluminum Armor on Fire destroying the M113 and killing its Crew. If the Roadside Bomb is a HEAT Round the same effect (Through most Road side bombs are NOT HEAT rounds).

Thus the Cost to convert from Humvee to M113 will be on the order of 10 (i.e. if the cost today is 1M, when the M113 are introduced it will be 10M for the same level of patrols). Thus just to stay EVEN the US army will have to increase our cost of occupying Iraq by 10. This war is getting costlier and costlier.


More on the M-113 (and where I obtain 300 miles range on 95 gallon gas tank):
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm

More on the Humvee:
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m998.htm

Prices for Military Vehicles:
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/price_database/ground.asp

[lebkuchen]

28. Unarmored humvees---one of Rummy;s many "knowable unknowables"

what a crime he's still has a job.