Posted on 12/09/2004 2:05:26 PM PST by mrsmith
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Randy Harris
08 December 2004 615.313.0662 (office)
04-61 615.517.0984 (CELL)
Maj. Gen. Gus L. Hargett, Adjutant General of Tennessee
Statement on questions by 278th Soldier to Secretary Rumsfeld
Now that is an honest press release... as long as the vehicles w/o armor really are NOT occupied when they move north.
Improvise --- Adapt
And Bless your heart for your service to our Nation!
Most of the troops are going to fly in, and they will use the armored vehicles left behind by the relieved unit (as the reporter knew before he had the soldier ask the question).
http://www.greene.xtn.net/index.php?table=news&template=news.view.subscriber&newsid=117612
"scrap medal" Isn't that what sKerry did???
Or was it "scrap ribbon" ???
LOL
August 2004
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2004/Aug/Humvee_Armor.htm
Humvee Armor Suppliers Working Around the Clock
by Joe Pappalardo
The now familiar sight of Humvees struck by mines and roadside bombs in Iraq are driving the industry to pursue short-term fixes and long-range changes in the way they produce vehicles.
The attacks prompted a frantic effort to send armor kits to Iraq and purchase up-armored versions of the Humvees, which were not designed for frontline combat. They were introduced in the 1980s as a replacement for Jeeps.
In April 2004, Maj. Gen. John Sattler, Director of Operations for CENTCOM, said that their initial request for up-armored Humvees hovered at 1,000 vehicles. “As the enemy changed his tactics and techniques, we upped that number where we have now in theater about 2,500 up-armored Humvees,” he said during a press conference. “There are additional up-armored Humvees on contract that will flow in, approximately another 2,000 that will flow in between now and in December. So at that point, we’ll have approximately 4,500.”
He added that commanders on the ground asked for more help, quicker, so the production rate has increased. In addition, the Pentagon purchased and installed 8,000 up-armored kits to protect windshields and doors.
“It’s not a matter of resources, it’s a matter of how fast can we build these things and get them over here,” Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs, said during a May visit to Iraq.
The Army’s sole contractor for putting the armor plating on the standard Humvee chassis, Armor Holdings Inc., established a new group to respond to military requests.
In May, Armor Holdings received a $16.6 million contract to supply additional up-armored Humvees through 2004 and into 2005. The company will increase its vehicle production rates to 350 units per month. The award also includes up-armored Humvees for the United States Air Force for delivery in early 2005.
Another firm, ArmorWorks LLC, is also producing add-on armor kits for Humvees. In 2003, the company sent two engineers on a pilot program to Iraq to train soldiers on how to install armor kits.
In February one of the trucks with the ArmorWorks kit was struck by a roadside bomb, blasting the driver’s side. The Kevlar plates stopped the shrapnel, according to information released by the company, although one soldier went deaf in one ear. That sort of battle testing has increased confidence of commanders and soldiers alike in the up-armored kits, the company said.
ArmorWorks additionally is pursuing energy absorbing technology that can mitigate blast effects from bombs, mines and artillery. These systems are being designed for the U.S. Army Stryker light armored troop carrier and the Marine Corps’ new Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.
The Army, meanwhile, is producing new crew protection kits that augment medium and heavy vehicle seats with ceramic armor plates. The system, designed by Army engineers, is called vehicle class body armor support systems (V-BASS). Mounted on the truck seat, the V-BASS wraps passengers in body armor, but the 60 pounds of weight rest on the seat instead of the soldier. The $1,800 kit already is being used in combat. More than 110 V-BASS systems were shipped to Balad, Iraq, in December 2003 for field evaluation. No further production is expected, according to manufacturer STS International Inc., although the company said it is ready to produce them on a wide scale if asked.
Add-on kits may help save lives in the short term, but more needs to be done in the future to make armor and vehicle designs that are compatible, said industry experts.
Researchers and engineers from armor companies and vehicle manufacturers increasingly are collaborating, said Lori Wagner, manager of Honeywell’s advanced fibers and composites technology division.
“We’re working directly with vehicle manufacturers so that our armoring capabilities will be in concert with the skin and frames of the vehicle,” she said.
“Most armor systems are either add-ons or supplements,” Wagner said. “We’re looking at being able to incorporate the two in order to mold the two together into one system.”
By fusing armor, skin and frame during production, the weight and toughness requirements could be achieved, she said. Although this level of integration is a future goal, the current collaboration with vehicle engineers and scientists has aided armor suppliers seeking to meet the needs of specific vehicles.
“Beyond that we are looking at how to we’re advancing the fiber itself,” Wagner said. Researchers are reconfiguring the fiber alignment and developing new resins to enhance the energy absorption and pliability of the armor. Honeywell’s Spectra Shield is currently being evaluated for several different applications including the Expeditionary Force Vehicle, Stryker vehicle, Humvees and other trucks.
To protect against rocket-propelled grenades, researchers at Battelle are investigating electromagnetic armor.
This topic is sensitive to many ...the issue is as Rumsfield stated, the problem is known, resources are being used to address this serious issue, the problem pre-existed which is why he stated that we went into Iraq with the Army existing at that time an Army seriously gutted by Clintonian rule.
The soldiers cheered because the question was definitely bold to bring up in front of their "boss"...the soldier went against necessary military protocol to address such an issue thru public means. The hazards have been expressed, the media has parlayed this into sentiment against Rumsfield. The sad thing is how the reporter convinced the soldier to go against established rules and "air dirty laundry" using public resources. This is open contempt of authority and a breakdown in personnel discipline. THAT THE MEDIA HAS PLAYED ON THIS MISTAKE just exaggerates the sensitivity of the problem.
This attempt at devisiveness between the Secretary and the men he supports has the potential to demoralize troops while aiding the enemy in intel they no doubt already suspected but now feel more assured of...THIS is the UNJUSTICE done by the MSM imho.
Are the trucks that are going to carry them armored or not?
So this is a "known known" and not a "known unknown"? Or is it an "unknown known"?
Hubby's unit drove un-armored vehicles from Kuwait to Iraq...15mos later their vehicles were trucked back down and the troops flown....that was 6mos ago...so they have been doing this for awhile....
Although the US army does have an "open door" policy permitting troops to take their concerns up the chain of command, they are required to proceed up the chain of command until the issue is closed. This guy bypassed about a dozen levels in the chain.
Thanksf for posting this responsible/sane assessment.
Here is a link to another thread that complements your thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1298029/posts
Survival in Combat Zones Requires 'Layers' of Protection [demand for armor, few mills supply DoD]
National Defense Magazine ^ | Dec 2004 | Sandra I. Erwin
"Just 24 months ago, the Army had no plans to up-armor trucks and did not foresee such a requirement. Today, armor is a mandatory feature for any new military truck. The value of the equipment being protected traditionally has factored into decisions on how much to spend on armor. For so-called "high value" assets such as helicopters, ceramics have long been the armor of choice for survivability applications, King said.
"But the Iraq conflict reversed the conventional wisdom, as logistics forces are as exposed to attacks as front-line fighters were in the past.
"Increasing demands for silicon carbide have led companies to ramp up their manufacturing capacity, which could help lower the cost, said King. Other market forces, such as rising prices for armored steel, he added, have worked to close the gap in the cost differential between steel and ceramic products.
"The sudden rise of the U.S. government's demand for armored steel has had significant impact on the supply chain, King said. "The government gets first shot at the steel that is available," but it may still encounter problems obtaining enough steel because only a limited number of mills have been qualified as Defense Department suppliers. "There is enormous pressure on the mills to produce at max capacity, but they can't keep up with the demand," King wrote in an email. Further, these mills may be reluctant to expand capacity, given the uncertainty of the military market. "What do you do with the excess capacity if the situation changes and the demand suddenly drops?" King asked.
I think what we actually learned is that the troops didn't understand well enough how the move was going to be made. Apparently they thought they were going to convoy north in unarmored vehicles.
I expect a flock of posters with sign up dates of today and other useful idiots who hang out on FR to be descending on this thread within seconds to inform us all as to how the Bush administration and Rumsfeld have known about this all along, ignored it, don't care about the troops, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Five, four, three, two.....
I don't buy it. This isn't a bridge club or home owners association. At a minimum it was disrespectful of his chain of command. If I or anyone in my command had committed this breach of protocol and professional etiquette there would be hell to pay.
Rummy and Bush knew all about this and they did noth......lol
That depends on the circumstances.
Aboard my ship, we had "Captain's Call" where the lowliest "deck ape" could, in front of the assembled ship's crew, ask and/or gripe directly to the CO about whatever problem was on his mind skipping his Petty Officer, his Chief, his Division Officer, his Department Head and the XO.
One question I remember was why the CO was allowed to do such and such with his wife when the ship was in port but E-Zeros were not. He replied that when he was at the bottom of the pecking order, he could not do that either but that there was nothing stopping any junior enlisted from putting in the work required to someday command their own ship at which time they would have similar privileges.
The CO had no obligation to hold Captain's Call and put himself in positions that even had him explaining why he could do such and such with his own wife. However, the CO voluntarily put himself in that position and he accepted the consequences.
Likewise, Rumsfeld voluntarily put himself in that position.
If a superior is not willing to get smacked with tough questions that did not march up their way up the chain of command, then they should not hold such events.
It was a question and answer period. If soldiers cannot ask the questions that matter, then why have a "question and answer" period?
Are you suggesting the entire event was a photo op for Rumsfeld and the soldier did not follow the script?
If that is the case, the only honest course of action is to end the question and answer photo ops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.