Army could have bought more armored Humvees

May 7, 2004 | Ted Evanoff

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Read this article from AM General's local paper.

Politicians and parents forcing the Army to buy specific vehicles from sole source contractors.

I can't help but wonder what the Army had planned to buy with the money they were forced to spend on unprogrammed Up Armored Humvees. No doubt the Army will be criticized in years to come for not buying whatever it was.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Congratulations.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Up Armored Humvee ping

[Cannoneer No. 4]

ping

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Next rotation of troops will get to Iraq in more heavily armored vehicles

By Lisa Burgess, Stars and Stripes European edition, Thursday, May 6, 2004

ARLINGTON, Va. — As security continues to deteriorate in Iraq, U.S. military commanders have decided that incoming units should bring more heavy armored vehicles, instead of the Humvees.

The third rotation of troops into Iraq, which will begin this fall, “will come in a heavier formation,” Lt. Gen. Richard A. Cody, the Army’s deputy chief of staff for plans, told reporters Tuesday.

And with Operation Iraqi Freedom 3 troops bringing more of their own armored vehicles, the Army will be able to transfer some of the up-armored Humvees from outgoing troops and give them to combat support units, which aren’t typically equipped with the sturdier vehicles, Cody said.

Pentagon officials have yet to say which active Army units will be tapped for Operation Iraqi Freedom 3, but three National Guard brigades have already been alerted for the deployment: the 256th from Louisiana, the 116th from Idaho, and the 278th from Tennessee.

Each of the National Guard brigades has nine combat maneuver companies.

Cody said the new force mix plan is that of those nine companies, five companies will be “motorized,” or equipped with armored Humvees, and the other four companies will be “mechanized,” or equipped with M1-A1 tanks or Bradley Fighting Vehicles.

The mix was different for Operation Iraqi Freedom 2: the 1st Cavalry Division, the 1st Infantry Division, and three National Guard brigades — the 39th from Arkansas, the 30th from North Carolina, and the 81st from Washington — came into Iraq with one-third of their combat forces mechanized, and the other two-thirds motorized, Cody said.

That meant that for each mechanized infantry battalion, one company deployed with Bradleys or tanks; and the other two companies deployed with 12 to 16 up-armored Humvees, Cody said.

The exception was the 2nd Infantry Division’s Stryker Brigade, which deployed with all of its 300 Stryker armored wheeled combat vehicles, he said.

U.S. Central Command leaders settled on Operation Iraqi Freedom 2 force mix earlier this year, because they thought U.S. troops would spend the summer and fall either patrolling Iraq in tandem with Iraq security forces or seeking out insurgents — not fighting.

Accordingly, CENTCOM’s commander, Gen. John Abizaid, and other commanders on the ground decided the Operation Iraqi Freedom 2 troops should have vehicles that would allow them to emphasize “speed and flexibility” over firepower, Marine Maj. Gen. John Sattler, director of Central Command Operations, told reporters from CENTCOM’s Qatar headquarters on April 28.

“There’s a time and place for [armored vehicles], and they send a very valuable message just by pulling one up to the front lines,” Sattler said.

But “counterinsurgency requires you to get up, to actually engage and work with the population,” Sattler said. “And that's tough to do from inside a tank, or a Bradley, or an armored personnel carrier.” [or an Up Armored Humvee--Cannoneer No. 4]

The force mix “was [designed] for patrolling,” Cody said.

But in March, smack in the middle of the rotation of forces between Operation Iraqi Freedom 1 and Operation Iraqi Freedom 2, the security situation in Iraq began to deteriorate.

Last week, U.S. commanders in Iraq asked for and received an emergency shipment of additional armored vehicles, Sattler said.

The shipments included 14 M1-A1 Abrams tanks that were sent to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in western Iraq; and 28 Abrams tanks that were forwarded from Europe to the 1st Infantry Division in north-central Iraq, Sattler said.

[R. Scott]

It’s very possible that the Powers that Be had this silly notion that soldier sometimes are killed or wounded in a war. That is why they are considered “heroes” by most people - they put their lives and bodies on the line for the rest of us. I doubt they foresaw the media push for a 100% invulnerable military force - one in which only the enemy would be killed or wounded and all American Forces would ride in air-conditioned comfort.

As much as I did not enjoy earning my Purple Heart, and as much as I did not enjoy seeing American Soldiers, Marines and Sailors killed or wounded (I never witnessed an American Airman get it) it is almost a necessity. The risk of taking casualties is about the only thing that keeps us out of a war.

With a 100% invulnerable military force there would be little reason not to wage war - except for the fiscal cost.

I am not advocating a return to Napoleonic uniforms and tactics, but the public outrage over how “unsafe” this war has become is starting to grate on my nerves.

[xzins]

Latest word from the field is that the armored hummers are not effective against the RPGs and bombs that are killing them.

We need bradleys, tanks, strykers, and old apcs.

And more of the ied finding buffalos.

the argument about armored hummers is moot, so far as I'm concerned.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Gets on my nerves, too. We got into very bad habits in the Balkans. There, force protection was the primary mission, and whatever else we tried to accomplish, we dared not lose anybody doing it, because everybody recognized that there was nothing in Kosovo worth dying for. We made prisoners of our troops in fortified base camps and only let them out to patrol in full battle rattle. The Brits laughed at us and called us ninja turtles.

Force protection is not the mission in Iraq or Afghanistan. We have an enemy who must be closed with and destroyed. We have a Three Block War to fight on Urban Terrain. Our soldiers and Marines have to be able to transition from passing out candy to kids and smiling at their mothers to reacting to an IED explosion and engaging insurgents in a millisecond. . . . urban warfare is like a knife fight-chaotic, close range, and extremely bloody.

I don't think the troops can accomplish all their missions mounted in armored vehicles. I don't think we are doing the troops any favors if we encourage any of them to think they are entitled to an armored vehicle. Only 19K's and 1812's ought to be entitled to armored vehicles, and a lot of them are patrolling in humvees now. It is not above and beyond the call of duty to ride in an unarmored vehicle, and if we let that notion take hold we can't fight wars anymore. I think that is what some people have in mind.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Should I quit pinging you to Up Armored Humvee threads?

[R. Scott]

American casualties are the only thing our “esteemed” media can effectively use to bring public opinion against our war - and against Mr. Bush. It is so effective that even people who should be able to see through it are being taken in.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Buffalo: EOD’s Best Friend, New Vehicle Helps Soldiers Sweep for IEDs

[Cannoneer No. 4]

The Casualty-Aversion Myth

Congressional leaders and their agreement with the administration, or lack of it, have an important effect on the public's sensitivity to casualties.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Deadly Terrain

ABC (al Jazeera Broadcasting Corporation) story.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Would you buy a used SUV from this man?

[Spirited]

We can afford any amount for all kinds of aids to all kinds of nations, friendly and not but we cannot afford to send our children out in safety? Perhaps this is being frugal.

If this is a Rummy imposed frugality I AM in favor of ditching him as untrustworthy. One wonders whether an Army
can be run like a Corporation when lives are at stake. Course if the lives do not include your own progeny or those of your friends who is to care?

[xzins]

Not at all, Cannoneer. I really appreciate your posts....all of them.

My point is simply that the uparmored hummer isn't the answer. The israelis sent the correct answer. Use real armor first, and then bring in the hummers.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Wars are not fought by children in safety.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

The Up Armored Humvee most definitely is not the answer, but it is being rammed down the Army's throat none the less, because so many think they are qualified to tell the Army how to organize and equip itself.

Not so many people take it upon themselves to tell the Navy what kind of ships to buy or tell the Air Force what kind of planes to buy.

Such has it always been in this Republic. Perhaps President Bush try a variation of President Polk's idea and commission some prominent Democrat politicians as generals and send them to Iraq.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

It was linked properly. Scroll up to Read this article from AM General's local paper and click on that.