PDA

View Full Version : The Humvee’s Fatal Design



thedrifter
12-16-04, 06:29 AM
12-15-2004

Guest Column: The Humvee’s Fatal Design



By Jim Elders



Here’s the story thus far: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld got bushwhacked in Iraq by a couple of soldiers who challenged him about Humvees not being sufficiently armor plated. Several flabbergasted but not-so-alert generals and other senior officers stood by as the Secretary stumbled for answers.



The news media ate it up and the generals began to back-pedal, with DoD announcing by week’s end that up-armoring production would be significantly increased. But that “solution” will not solve the Humvee’s fatal flaw.



Some background: The first Humvees hit the dusty trail in the mid-1980’s, with the formal designation of the M998 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV). They replaced the M151 (1/4 ton Jeep), M-274 (1/4 ton Mule), M561 (1-1/2 ton Gamma Goat, and M880 (1-1/4 ton truck). All of those vehicles were light cargo or administrative vehicles that were not designed to withstand the rigors of a combat environment. Neither was the Humvee.



That is the problem.



Taking a piece of equipment that was designed for light duty and trying to turn it into a combat machine is an exercise in programmed failure. It’s like giving a 100-pound female a rifle, basic load of ammunition, seventy-pound backpack, combat boots, flak jacket, helmet, a vest full of rations and other gear, and calling her a combat soldier. It only increases her already high probability of becoming a casualty. The same goes for armor plating Humvees.



The later model Humvee, the M1097A2, is powered by a 6.5-liter V-8 diesel engine, weighs 5,900 lbs., and has a payload of 4,400 lbs. Hanging up to 4,000 pounds of armor plating on it doesn’t leave many pounds for weapons systems, ammunition, troops, personal gear, radios, fuel and other battle-essential equipment.



Troops are being killed, but armor plating Humvees is not the Holy Grail. Reduced maneuverability, mobility, speed, and failures of transmissions, brakes, and suspensions will continue to be the Humvee’s Achilles’ heel: Move slowly, break down, and BANG, you’re dead.



The Department of Defense’s answer is to beef-up suspensions and add air-conditioning to the Humvee fleet. It’s comforting to know that our soldiers will die in comfort while riding around in their air-conditioned coffins.



A gussied-up cargo vehicle is no substitute for a combat vehicle. Furthermore, the Defense Department reports that armor plating cargo vehicles has already cost over $1.2 billion over the past year. Humvees should be put back in support and administrative units where they belong. Vehicles that have been designed and tested for combat should be in combat units.



Those Perfumed Princes (to use Hack’s term) who call themselves senior officers can help by acting like real combat leaders. They should get out of their china-decorated dining facilities and air-conditioned living quarters and go talk with their troops before the Secretary of Defense beats them to it.



And they need to do it where their soldiers work, not at specially arranged functions where they are safe from the realities of war. That was just one of the Army’s many problems when Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski commanded the troops that presided over the Abu Garhib prison abuse incident.



There are only two ways to clear buildings in a combat environment; reduce them to rubble or put troops on foot going street-to-street and room-to-room. It can’t be done from the imagined safety of improvised cargo vehicles.



Gen. George Patton said it best: “Any officer who comes back from a failed combat mission and isn’t dead or severely wounded hasn’t done his job.”



Patton must be rolling over in his grave.



Jim Elders is a criminologist and a retired Army officer. While serving in Vietnam, he survived having two jeeps blown from under him, a 122mm-rocket hit on his bunker, a Viet Cong ambush, sapper assaults and an attempted assassination. He never got a Purple Heart and is proud of it. He can be reached at ocse@earthlink.net. Send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.

Ellie

thedrifter
12-16-04, 06:32 AM
12-15-2004

Guest Column: Pentagon Still Spins on Humvee Armor



From: Brian T. Hart





On balance, the articles are excellent. I am relaying these points of comment to you and your readers:

):


The first public hearing on the topic was the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing of Nov. 19, 2003. Senators Kennedy and Warner raised the issues of body armor and vehicular armor and referenced PFC John Hart and our meeting with Sen. Kennedy at Arlington National Cemetery on Nov. 4 to discuss this issue.
Regarding Woodson’s comment about reporters, I was told by a Newsday reporter in April that he only toured with generals because that way he could be assured of getting a M1114 armored Humvee. The irony of this was not lost on him.
Woodson mentions M113s, I have yet to get a straight answer and have heard no one ask Rumsfeld or Myers why the hundreds of M113s in storage in Kuwait aren’t put into service in Iraq as a stopgap measure.


Regarding the Jim Simpson article (“Humvee Flap Is Not the Real Iraq Problem,” DefenseWatch Special Report, Dec. 11, 2004):


The 450 per month production rate was only set in October 2004 and never before. Approximately 2,000 M1114s were made in calendar 2004. Of the 8,105 referenced as the current Iraqi requirement, the Pentagon led the press and perhaps Simpson into believing that approximately 5,000 were made this year. In fact, 4,000 were made in all years prior to 2004 combined. These were re-deployed by mid-2004 stripping such places as Korea, Kosovo and Afghanistan of nearly all their M1114 vehicles. The Pentagon’s news releases tricked the media into thinking that we made 5,000 in 2004.
Rumsfeld requested production of only 818 M1114 armored Humvees for FY-05 and no retrofit armor back in March 04. For him to imply “physics” is the issue is bogus.
Army Sec. Brownlee flew to the O’Gara plant in Feb. 13, 2004 to confirm that the plant was nowhere near capacity (1/3rd). This followed a scathing House Armed Services Committee challenge to him to confirm the plants were not working 3 shifts 24 hours a day. Rep. Simmons from Connecticut flew there around Feb. 2 to confirm this himself and reported extensive unused capacity despite army statements to the contrary before the Senate and House Armed Services Committees from Nov. 2003 to April 2004. Brownlee reported to Sen. Kennedy, the day Brownlee canceled the Comanche program that he was going to request funds from Rumsfeld and Zackheim to push the Humvee line to full production capacity. Zackheim did not release the money for him to do so.
Friday’s press release that production would go to 550 in six weeks is clever PR trickery. In fact, no additional units have been ordered as the press release implies. Production actually drops beginning in April 05. Bloomberg News got confirmation from the Army that no additional armored Humvees were ordered last week and Bloomberg’s Edmund Lococo reported this on Monday. The Pentagon merely shuffled delivery in February-March by one month.
At no point has the O’Gara plant been at capacity; same goes for American General.
I can confirm that Armor Holdings ordered steel anticipating orders and stockpiled three months’ worth. At no time was it steel constrained in 2004.
In February, AM General and O’Gara both issued a joint letter to the Pentagon telling them that they would produce as much equipment as the Army requested with 3 months lead time. The Army simply did not issue the purchase orders to ever push the plant to capacity.


Regarding the Nathaniel R. Helms article (“Armor Priority? What Priority?” DefenseWatch Special Report, Dec. 13, 2004):


On January 2, 2004 on the O’Reilly Factor Radio show, I mistakenly called for dual sourcing to eliminate a perceived bottleneck at O’Gara-Hess. This and congressional calls for similar action in December hearings caused the company to send a representative to contact me on January 14, 2004 and tell me in no uncertain terms that the plant could produce multiples of the purchases requested by the DoD, so second sourcing was unneeded. It was a procurement problem and not a production problem. In short, the Pentagon did not issue the purchase orders.
Rumsfeld knew of the plants’ underutilization especially when he requested early this year only 818 M1114s for FY-05.
Oddly, even as late as May 2004 after both armed services committees aggressively discussed the production capacities with various members of the joint chiefs, I heard JCS Chairman Gen. Richard Myers telling troops in a press covered Q&A session that the plants were working “24x7” even though he knew by at least April 20, 2004 from senators that the plants could produce at least 450 vehicles per month.


*Guest Contributor Brian Hart is the father of the late Pfc. John Hart, who was killed in Iraq while serving in the 173rd Airborne Brigade. He can be reached at Brian.Hart02@comcast.net. *Send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.

Rumsfeld Should Have Known – and Acted
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Defensewatch%20Special.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=3&rnd=136.18226728638922
Regarding the Michael Woodson article (“Rumsfeld Should Have Known – and Acted,” DefenseWatch Special Report, Dec. 9, 2004

Ellie

TRLewis
12-16-04, 07:07 AM
Armor hummers are not the problem. Sending them into combat is, just like the one author said.

deanajan911
12-16-04, 07:39 AM
Since not every Marine is going to have the protection of a tank in Iraq, an armored Humvee is probably better than nothing, & I venture to say that a beefed up Humvee is probably safer than the old Jeeps. If my son has to travel from point A to point B in a war zone, I'd prefer that he be in an armored Humvee rather than one without this protection. Just like if he were to travel on foot in a war zone, I hope he'd be wearing his flak jacket. It may not save his life, but I think the odds would be better if he did have the added protection.

TRLewis
12-16-04, 07:54 AM
I do not believe you are understanding the point. Its not the Armored humvee, they need to be pulled from the field and taken back to admin duties.

deanajan911
12-16-04, 08:13 AM
I'm just curious--how else would they get around?

rockhopper
12-16-04, 08:38 AM
These...

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2.htm


The vehicle's reliability, survivability and lethality has surpassed initial expectations. Of the 2,200 Bradleys involved in Operation Desert Storm, only three were disabled. In fact, more enemy armored vehicles were destroyed by Bradleys than by the Abrams Main Battle Tanks!

deanajan911
12-16-04, 08:50 AM
So are there enough Bradleys to facilitate all of the troops? And if that's not feasible, wouldn't the armored humvees be better than being afoot? I'm just a mom trying to understand this thing.

rockhopper
12-16-04, 09:39 AM
No, there is never enough Bradleys, lol. There is never enough of anything to wage a war with. :p

The Humvees were never designed to ever be used in combat, that is the point. They were intended for getting around in the rear areas of Western Europe while fighting against a Soviet threat.

We are now shoe-horning armor onto them, and calling them fighting vehicles. This is what IFV's were supposed to be for.

It's a problem of logistics... and of doctrine making up for the problems in logistics. Humvees are hella cheaper then IFV's. And we were simply unprepared to be fighting this way.

Hummvees weren't used by the spearheads when the initial invasion was going down...

TRLewis
12-16-04, 12:24 PM
Even if there were plenty of bradleys or amtracs for everyone there is still another huge problem. Someone still has to stand on that corner, or in that bunker playing policeman until the Iraqis get in gear and start standing up for themselves.