Despite armor, more Iraq troops dying in Humvees

[bemildred]

It is probably worth pointing out that they mean US troops.
---

The vulnerability of the vehicle - used for transporting troops, protecting convoys, evacuating the wounded, and patrols - has been the focus of sustained criticism from Capitol Hill and family members of deployed troops.

The Pentagon has gone into overdrive to "harden" the Humvees and now says every one of the vehicles that leaves the protection of U.S. bases or camps is equipped with enhanced armor. Even so, their protection is no match for the more powerful ordnance.

And the armored versions may inadvertently be contributing to an uptick in Humvee accidents. An increase in rollover mishaps, many of them fatal, has coincided with the increase in hardened Humvees hitting the street, leading to theories that the vehicles may be rendered less stable by the added weight.

That development only emphasizes the fact that Humvees are being shoehorned into a role they never were envisioned to play, Pike said. They were designed to provide transportation behind enemy lines; but there is no front line in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where guerrilla fighting prevails.

ABC

[oneighty]

1. Humvees

"The great American rip off." A 'Jeep' for our times over hyped dangerous vehicles, unsafe.

180

[happyslug]

3. I have to disagree, the Humvee is a good 1 ton utility Vehicle

It is NOT a Jeep, it is NOT a 2 1/2 ton Truck and it is not a M113 APC, or a M2 Bradly or a M1 Tank.

The Humvee was adopted to be a pickup truck for the Army. Haul people is needed but real purpose was to run between the unit and the supply depot to pick up items to small for a 2 1/2 ton truck. To minimize vehicle types the Army wanted it to replace not only the various 1 and 1 1/2 ton trucks in the Army, but the Jeep and the 2 1/2 ton truck. The Humvee was a complete success replacing the 1 and 1/2 ton trucks but an absolute failure replacing the 2 1/2 ton truck (Which force the Army to adopt a new 2 1/2 ton truck in the early 1990s). The Humvee was a failure for the 2 1/2 ton truck could haul a squad of soldiers (12 men) and their equipment or haul a 105mm Howitzer with its crew and ammunition. The Humvee was to small and underpowered to do either mission and thus failed.

AS to the Jeep, since the 1970 the US ARmy has wanted to phase out Mo-Gas (As Gasoline is called in the US Army). When it comes to small Diesels engines, such engines do not provide enough power to pull a vehicle out of the mud, thus the Army Jeeps were all Gasoline power for the Gasoline better power range in smaller engines. It was decided to replace the Jeep with the Humvee for the Humvee was the smallest you an go and get the power from a Diesel engine to be able to pull out of the mud. They were some people who opposed this change, who were willing to accept the use of two fuels (Gasoline and Diesel) but the Army wanted one fuel and that fuel was going to be Diesel and thus the Jeep was replaced but a vehicle twice as large, twice as heavy and do to those increase has worse fuel economy than the Jeeps.

Now several times the replacement of the Jeep by the Humvee has been shown to be a mistake. For Example In Macedonia in the mid 1990s the US Army and Marines patrolling the border between Macedonia and Serbia had to revert back to Jeeps for the Roads were to narrow for Humvees. In Afghanistan diesel power "Gator" vehicles were deployed to carry supplies for the troops operating in the Mountains. Roughly the same size as the old Jeeps they are NOT capable of being operated as road speeds like the old Jeeps (Speeds had to be kept down to maintain off road capability of the Diesel powered engine). The Jeep may be a better vehicle for such operations given its ability to operate off road AND still operate on highways (Unlike the Gator). This is the difference between Diesel and Gasoline Engines, Gasoline Engine can provide power over a wider range of RPMs and as such be comfortable off road and on road (unlike small Diesel engines as in the Gators).

Now a few years back the marines were experimenting with a Hybrid Jeep. It was about the Size of a WWII era Jeep (Today's Wranglers are almost twice the size of the WWII era Jeeps and the Vietnam Era Jeeps). The Vehicle had a gas turbine engine and batteries. Given that it was electric Drive (as are all Hybrids) power went to all four wheels independent of each other (i.e. each wheel has an electric Motor that drove that wheel). Bush came into office and I never heard of it again but provided several advantages over the Humvee:
1. Could use Gasoline or Diesel Fuels (As can all gas Turbines)
2. The Gas Turbine could be cut off and the vehicle could be propel quietly by the electric batteries
3. The Batteries (or fuel Cells, which was proposed if the vehicle went into production) could act as armor behind the front wheels if the wheels hit a mine (Saving the riders in the Jeep).
4. Huge increase in fuel economy given the use of Hybrid technology.

To my knowledge never fielded but a true replacement for the Jeep which the Army and Marines really need. The Humvee was NEVER a good replacement for the Jeep and the sooner the Army fields a proper replacement the better the Army will be.

As to the lack of Armor on the Humvees, it is a pickup it should NOT be in any area where it can not be abandoned upon the first contact with the enemy. If the enemy shoots a sling shot at a Humvee the Humvee should be abandoned and its riders to fight on foot. If contact with the enemy is high you should NOT use a Humvee. In such situation you should use Armor, but we do NOT have the Armor needed in Iraq to do the job. This has been the problem for over a year and we have M113s in storage. THAT IS THE PROBLEM NOT THE HUMVEE. The Humvee has done what it was design to to, be a 1 ton pickup.

[oneighty]

6. Humvees

The only ones I have seen close up look flimsy and top heavy. We hear often in the news about our military men and women being killed in vehicle "accidents". Are they speaking of the Humvee? I think so. Perhaps they work best on paved roads?

The Jeep. During WW2 (I was ten years old that year) a local farmer/army vet had a 'Jeep'. He was using it unsuccessfully as a farm tractor. He too believed the hype.

Two of my brothers-in-law had a jeep as a toy. The rolled it over. A young Army Lt.friend of mine was killed in a Jeep roll over during his two week reserve duty. My son has a Jeep. Worries the heck outa me-transmission locked up at highway speeds. He was lucky to escape that one.

Sure these are "Just stories" but it is strange all the Jeeps I have knowledge of had serious problems.

Of course being an Navy man I had no experience with jeeps at all. We were more concerned with ships rolling over.

180

[happyslug]

7. The Vietnam Era Jeeps were unsafe at highway speeds.

And under a Department of Transportation Ruling illegal to be sold except as scape. The reason is it had a rear end much like the old Corvair and suffered the same problem as the first Corvairs ie. if you made a hard turn they would flip (Happened to many a officer over the years).

The WWII era Jeeps did NOT have that reputation (Through did have a problem with engine leaking oil). The Civilian Jeeps came out the Willy's WWII Jeeps NOT the Ford Vietnam Era Jeeps. Now the WWII Jeeps like any TRUCK is more top heavy than a car thus will tip over when a car would not but that is characteristic of any off road vehicle. As to the farmer using a Jeep as a Tractor, what was he thinking??? The Jeep is a off road compact car intended to be used to get people from one place to another. The Jeep was NEVER design to do more than haul 2-3 people and than to meetings, or to acts as scouts, it replaced the Officer's horse. Any attempts to use it for more than a means to get to meetings or scouting failed for it was to small, but kept within its limitation a great vehicle.

[oneighty]

8. I think my son's

is a WW2 era jeep.

I was moved by this tread to Google Humvee roll over accidents. Everything there suggests driving one could be an unfortunate adventure.

One thing that bothers me with the Jeep/Humvee is the commercial hype used to 'Sell' them to the public.

Of course I realize all moving equipment is hazardous. Even horses.

180

[midnight armadillo]

9. The wrangler is inherently unstable

It's tall and narrow, on a short wheelbase. The wheels stick out past the fenders to try to make it stable enough to be somewhat rollover-resistant.

Check out the book 'High & Mighty' which explains the vast shortcomings of the Jeep and why WWII nostalgia for it led to the SUV craze. Fascinating stuff.

[oneighty]

11. Thank you midnight armadillo

'WW2 nostalgia'; Yes there was plenty of that. A great word nostalgia. Another book for my growing reading list. It is good we have an outstanding library system here.

Thanks. 180

[happyslug]

12. I have driven a Wrangler for ten years

I needed a four wheel drive Vehicle and did not want to spend much money on gasoline or payments, thus I opt for the Wrangler.

I have NOT had any problems with it, but when I travel on the Interstate I tend to stay below 60 mph. Yes it has a short wheel base which permits it to turn around on most streets, but I never try to make such a turn without coming to a complete stop first. As to the wheels sticking out from the fenders, not as they come from the factory (Through my did come with extensions on the Fenders to keep the wheel under the fenders and plastic extensions).

Now a lot of Jeeps have been "rebuilt" with lift kits to fit larger wheels under the body. The three inch lift kits is considered "safe" in that it does NOT radically change the characteristics of the Jeep, but most people opt for larger lift kits that makes the Wrangler unsafe for highway use (To a lesser degree Pickup and other SUV drivers do the same). As I once told someone, during WWII the US Army decided Small narrow tires were the best for Jeeps (Such "Mud" Tires are still among the best tires for muddy conditions) so why use larger tires than it is design for? Various reasons are given but it come down to power and the ability to be the biggest. I just shake my head when I see these monsters.

The Lift kits force the Engine and Transmissions higher above the ground and makes these vehicles extremely top heavy. This is to provide clearance for the big tires installed on such Vehicles.

Now the Wrangler itself was designed to improve its highway travel over the older CJ7s. What AMC did in 1986 (When AMC switched to the Wrangler) was re-do the whole front end to make it stiffer so that at highway speed the Vehicle will be less likely to tip over.

This is the main problem with the Wrangler (and other SUVs) these are design as off-road Vehicles but used 90% of the time on highways. The Big Three Auto Makers have had to balance off-road-ability with high speed highway use. The trend has been to make the SUV more and more car-like, for cars have been designed for use on high speed Highways for decades. At the same time the designers have to keep the "Image" of off road-ability. With the Wrangler the trend has been to retain much of its off road-ability while the rest of the SUVs (Including the Hummers) the trend has been to cut back on off road-ability in exchange for high speed usability. The problem has been people want the image of safety provided by something looking like a SUV and thus SUVs design provides that illusion of Safety.

Back to the Wrangler, it is a good four wheel drive car with adequate off road ability and adequate highway usability. DO NOT TREAT IT AS A CAR FOR IT IS NOT, and that is the biggest mistake when people buy a Wrangler or any SUV (i.e. they treat it as a car instead of the truck it is).

As to why the SUV craze started I blame it on the deteriorating working conditions in the is Country. Prior to 1980 if the Road conditions were bad people would call in sick feeling fairly confidant that their employer would NOT fire them for NOT getting to work. After 1980 working conditions deteriorated in that people feel less and less secure in their Job. Thus they feel uneasily about calling off work do to weather conditions. Once this feeling became common, people wanted more confidence to be able to get to work no matter the weather conditions, and thus the demand for four wheel drive and the image of being able to get to work no matter how bad are the conditions. I believe this had more to do with the SUV craze than WWII nostalgia. Closely related is the Mini-van replacing the Stations Wagon. People who needed more room in the 1960s opt for a Station Wagon, in the 1980s for the Minivan. What did the the SUV replace? Pickups are still being sold in roughly the same numbers (given the increase in population) in the 1960s and today, so SUVs did NOT replace the Pickup. The larger SUV replaced the both the large Cadillacs of the 1960s AND the Sports cars of the 1960 (People who use to by Trans-Ams now buy Suburbans). Large SUV became status symbols but the mid-size and small SUV basically replaced the family Car. Time and time Again I saw people replacing their family car with a SUV. The SUV became the family car, the car used to haul the family AND the main bread winner to work. The switch to Mid-size SUV (Explorers/ Durangos/Blazers) is different than the growth of large SUVs (Suburbans and Expeditions), in that the nature was less status as allowing the Driver to feel confident he or she can get to work.

[midnight armadillo]

13. I wasn't trying to rag on the Wrangler

Back to the Wrangler, it is a good four wheel drive car with adequate
off road ability and adequate highway usability. DO NOT TREAT IT AS A
CAR FOR IT IS NOT, and that is the biggest mistake when people buy a
Wrangler or any SUV (i.e. they treat it as a car instead of the truck
it is).

I think the Wrangler is really an off-road niche car that people insist on using for everyday driving. I can dig the off-road part but would never, ever want one for all-around driving.

As you pointed out, the short wheelbase combined with a tall engine is trouble. This is especially true in emergency maneuvers at highway speed, and I think a Wrangler is amongst the worst cars to rollover in...esp. if you're the type to drive it sans roof and doors!

[happyslug]

14. Wrangler have a sign inside the cab "Doors and Roof will NOT protect you"

You can ONLY survive a roll over in a Wrangler if you are wearing your seat belts. This is why the roll bar was installed in The Wrangler (and generally retrofitted to most older Jeeps). In fact if I was in a Roll over I would prefer the Door and Roof be off, both will crumble and who knows what part will hit a riders body.

About 20 years ago I was in a National Guard Convoy on west on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and my First Sargent's M151 Jeep blew its front tire and rolled. The year before the Army had installed roll bars and seat belts on the M151s and he and his drivers had them on. Both escaped with just some bruises (and the Jeep rolled about three times). The key is the Roll bar, it saved both of their lives.

Now Cars are required by Federal Law to be able to retain interior structure in a roll over. This is one of the reason most cars today are Sedans not coupes, for it is easier to design a Sedan to retain structure than a Coupe (Basically cars today have a "Roll bar" type structure built into its roof and through were the front and rear doors meet, this provides a hidden "Roll Bar" that in a roll over keeps the Cars structure intact).

SUVs come under the rules covering Pickup Trucks, no such roll over protection is required EVEN THROUGH PICKUP ARE MORE LIKELY TO ROLL OVER THAN CARS. Now my sister's Dakota Pickup has a roll bar type structure between the seat and the Extended cab part of her cab. It is the only SUV I know that has that feature (The Dodge Dakota and Jeep Grand Cherokee is based on the same platform so should also have that feature).

Thus with the possible exception of the Dakota/Durango/Grand Cherokee/Liberty SUVs the Wrangler even without doors and roof is among the safest SUVs on the road (If you wear your seat-belts). The reason is that people in a Wrangler will survive a roll over that would kill most people in other SUVs (Through Car riders would survive the same type of roll over if they have their seat belts on AND are less likely to roll over and thus avoid the whole accident in the first place).

Just pointing out that the Wrangler is one of the safer SUVs even with its short wheel base.

[KeepItReal]

2. A Humvee is not a Bradley Fighting Vehicle nor is it an M1 Tank

It is a just a utility vechicle originally designed to move troops from point A to B.

There are pictures out there of our best MAIN BATTLE TANKS knocked out in Iraq. If they can kill a tank...

This is Rumsfeld's trying-to-do-more-with-less strategy f*cking up in front of our very eyes.

[dbt]

4. Kick for Cindy Sheehan.

Here's what this dangerous woman is trying to get into bu$hler's pointy little head.

[Tesha]

5. It's always easier to pack in more explosives...

It's always easier to pack in more explosives into a hole in the
ground than it is to attach more armor to all the vehicles that
must move be able to move around; in the end, the guy with the
explosives *ALWAYS* wins in this sort of escalation.

And remember, they have hundreds of tons of explosives.

Tesha

[DS1]

10. Humvees were unstable from version one

Great care is taken in 'Motor-T' training to hammer into the heads of new drivers that taking turns at high speeds in anything but perfectly flat ground could be lethal - because if the outer wheels hit a rut or rock it would easily put the vehicle in a roll.

That being said, they're still fun as hell to catch some air in :D

[jayfish]

15. They Cannot Put Enough Armor On A Hummer To Negate...

the effects of blast acceleration/deceleration injuries. The things wouldn't be able to move.

Jay