Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PAJAMAHADEEN ALERT: Facts on Humvee Armor Big Media Ignores

Posted on 12/10/2004 7:04:48 PM PST by Doctor Raoul

See the following articles:

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_10.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/203200_armor10.html

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m998.htm

From those articles and webpages, here's some facts:

19,400 Humvees in Iraq
5,900 were shipped from factory with armor
9,000 upgraded with kits in theater
TODAY 77% of Humvees in Iraq are armored


Unarmored Humvees aren't supposeed to go off base.
Unarmored Humvees travel between bases on a flatbed truck.

Of 9,386 armor kits shipped to Iraq, 9,143 have been installed.
That's 97% installed, only 3% to go.

There are at least 16 varients of the Humvee:

M998 cargo/troop carrier without winch
M1038 cargo/troop carrier with winch
M966 TOW missile carrier, basic armor, without winch
M1036 TOW missile carrier, basic armor, with winch
M1045 TOW missile carrier, supplemental armor, without winch
M1046 TOW missile carrier, supplemental armor, with winch
M1025 armament carrier, basic armor, without winch
M1026 armament carrier, basic armor, with winch
M1043 armament carrier, supplemental armor, without winch
M1044 armament carrier, supplemental armor, with winch
M996 mini-ambulance, 2-litter, basic armor
M997 maxi-ambulance, 4-litter, basic armor
M1035 soft-top ambulance, 2-litter
M1037 S-250 shelter carrier, without winch
M1042 S-250 shelter carrier, with winch
M1069 tractor for M119 105-mm light gun

FROM THE SEATTLE TIMES ARTICLE:

The Humvees to be factory-armored by O'Gara-Hess have some different specifications than the models shipped without armor, Woodward said. So increasing production requires careful planning.

"It's not like making a Big Mac," he said. "There are so many configurations. ... You can't just whip them through like a big grill in a McDonald's."

Today on Rush's show, he had a caller that swears she knows people that are buying steel locally there in the Pacific Northwest and sending it by UPS to soldiers in Iraq.

I called UPS. They will ship to Iraq, but you have to pick up your shippment at their offices in Baghdad or Basra. They don't deliver to anyone's door.

Also, length, width and height can't total more than 165 inches.

The weight limit on packages to Iraq, 150 lbs.

Yeah, ship armor plate by UPS, that'll work.

Here's the phone number 1-800-782-7892 - Intl. Export / Import Services, press "0" to get a person.

A caller to Dom Giordano's show last night had three very good observations. The handwringing liberals posture this as "if you only cared enough, people wouldn't die" even in a war.

He also said it depended on believing that people in the Pentagon would put $$$ before a soldier's life.

Last, he noted that the HMMWV replced the jeep and that no one would expect even an armored jeep to do what we have armored HMMWVs doing.

Rock Island Arsenal has a piece of this according to the caller and LTC Scott Rutter USA(Ret) and that Durbin's backyard. Obviously those take more time to reach the soldiers than those modified in theater.

Is Durbin a hypocrite for saying anything while he protects the pork at home?


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: armor; armorflap; deceit; humvee; iraq; pj; uparmoredhumvee; wheeledarmor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-134 last
To: Doctor Raoul



101 posted on 12/13/2004 1:50:37 AM PST by Critical Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56

"How many of our troops were killed while riding in regular HumVees?"

The main problem is that people are griping about an amazingly low casualty rate, saying it's too high. It's like your child coming home with all "A"s and one "B", and then kicking your kid out of the house for not getting straight "A"s.

Would you replace Rumsfeld with Ike? Remember D-Day? Would you replace Rumsfeld with Grant? Remember the high casualties there? Would you replace Rumsfeld with George Washington? Remember his bloody battles? I grant, perhaps Weinburger would do a better job, but he wasn't exactly war tested, other than Grenada. I would choose someone with two major campaigns under his belt: both amazing successes.


102 posted on 12/13/2004 1:56:02 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (I'll take Rumsfeld's failures over any other S-of-Ds' wartime successes any day of the week.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul

Just had the county Republican Christmas party at my house yesterday. Congressman Ron Paul was here. It was VERY interesting asking him questions about hot issues. He is just brilliant!


103 posted on 12/13/2004 5:52:13 AM PST by buffyt (Long before you were little, you were loved, by God. It is s CHILD - and NOT a choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul

bump


104 posted on 12/13/2004 2:53:26 PM PST by Outraged (specter (n.) - 1. A ghostly apparition; a phantom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffyt

Boy t ohave Ron Paul represent you. The best we've had was Dr. Campbell (former Stanford professor).

Now we have the hue & cry team of Anna Eshoo and Bab's Boxer.


105 posted on 12/13/2004 3:20:55 PM PST by SFC Chromey (Did 13 months in Iraq and of COURSE I voted for BUSH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth

The Grant and Lee tanks were actually superior! They had 75mm guns, and the germans were fielding 50mm guns.

Any tank can be penetrated. Any gun can cause a casualty.

The key is tactics to use your strengths, and focus your effort on the enemy's weaknesses. A master of armored warfare, LTC (later General, and CoS of the army) C. Abrams briefed the 2nd Bde of the 12th Armored that the US tanks had inferior guns and armor. The key to success was to go fast, and get through weak points, to shoot at the German tanks from the side and rear- because the German tanks had hand cranked turrents, and smaller gas tanks, compared to the US tanks with large gas tanks, long range, and power traversed turrets. Once the US tanks got through, the German supply system was vulnerable, and the tanks stuck forward would run out of fuel.

The US doctrine at that time put the best guns on the Tank Destroyers, which had open tops, light weight, and high speeds. That sought to destroy the enemy using assymetrical means (like a game of rock-scissors-paper).

The alternative- to demand that our armor must always be better than enemy guns, that our guns must always be better than enemy armor- that assures that we will not have what it takes to win. The better is the enemy of the good enough.

Our magnificant soldiers win because of their courage and skill. If we traded weapons with the Iraqi forces, our boys would still win.


106 posted on 12/13/2004 5:53:19 PM PST by donmeaker (Why did the Romans cross the road? To keep the slaves from revolting again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56

No Humvee armor is proof against the RPG, or against a close detonation of mortar or IED.


Our enemy prefers to use IEDs and RPGs. It is a non-issue.


107 posted on 12/13/2004 5:54:46 PM PST by donmeaker (Why did the Romans cross the road? To keep the slaves from revolting again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: sully777

The shermans could kill tigers, but could only do it from up close. If you were dumb, and went right at the tigers, you got to lose a lot before you got the Tiger. If you went around, attacking to the spongy ground where the 60 ton Tiger couldn't go, you got to live. Shermans had a fast power traverse. Panthers, Tigers, and Pz4Js had manual traverse turrets- slow slow slow.

The Germans only made 1500 or so Tigers during WWII. The US made around 50,000 Shermans, and 1600 Pershings. The Soviets made about 10,000 T-34s, and rather fewer JS-1s.

Doesn't pay to be dumb in combat, no matter what your equipment.


108 posted on 12/13/2004 6:00:59 PM PST by donmeaker (Why did the Romans cross the road? To keep the slaves from revolting again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: H.Akston

The point that a tank can be blown up is not senseless, it is concise and to the point.

Distance is the best armor. "Give me a fast ship, for I mean to go in harm's way." JP Jones.


Armor detracts from fast. Yes, you can supercharge the engine, but that leads to overheating. There is no free lunch.


109 posted on 12/13/2004 6:09:29 PM PST by donmeaker (Why did the Romans cross the road? To keep the slaves from revolting again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott

Oh just rubbing it in....ops, that a Clinton phrase, I mean rubbing Dan's nose in his hatred of Nixon. I'm not the first to make the Nixon jab at Danno.


110 posted on 12/13/2004 6:42:06 PM PST by Doctor Raoul ( ----- HERTZ: We're #1 ----- AVIS: We're #2 We Try Harder ----- CBS: We're #3 We LIE Harder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Which reminds me of an officer's meeting recently. An officer was wondering, if we aren't supposed to fraternize with the enlisted troops, but we are supposed to be friendly and show that we care, where do we draw the line? How long before caring becomes fraternization?

After Claudia Kennedy and her "COO", you'd think that you'd see "Plays Well With Others" as an addition to the evaluation form.

111 posted on 12/13/2004 6:43:53 PM PST by Doctor Raoul ( ----- HERTZ: We're #1 ----- AVIS: We're #2 We Try Harder ----- CBS: We're #3 We LIE Harder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
If the rat/media continues to call for more armor, then we call to cut domestic spending to get the armor.

I like your thinking. Believe you're the first to propose that. I'd love to see Sean put that in front of Colmes who would then blast off for Mars.

112 posted on 12/13/2004 6:46:50 PM PST by Doctor Raoul ( ----- HERTZ: We're #1 ----- AVIS: We're #2 We Try Harder ----- CBS: We're #3 We LIE Harder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul

bump


113 posted on 12/13/2004 8:31:25 PM PST by kimosabe31
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TADSLOS

I don't think it really matters how mobile you are in combat.

I think what really matters is how quickly you can target your enemy and kill him.

If you can move at 80 MPH but cannot target your enemy; your enemy will eventually kill you.

But if you can only move 8 MPH but can locate and kill your enemy in .08 seconds; then your enemy must react quicker than you to even survive.


114 posted on 12/14/2004 3:32:54 AM PST by gogogodzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul

Thanks for the post.


115 posted on 12/14/2004 9:15:07 AM PST by Jaded ((Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. - Mark Twain))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul

My daughter is with the 1st Cav currently engaged in Falluja.

When her unit deployed in January, they had been authorized funds to purchase armor kits from a local TX supplyer. Aberdeen wouldn't take the time to approve them before deployment, and without approval they could not be purchased (politics? Pork protection?).

To date, she is still driving the same vehicle (which left TX with a bad tranny), and it has not been upgraded. In anyway. I sent her excerpts from the appropriate FMs on field improvised armoring, but the design of the humvee is not condusive to the use of sandbags and the like.

Her driving has not been restricted to base.

Unlike the traitor journalist, though, I do not blame President Bush. I blame Clinton and Shittake who felt that having black berets was more important than up-armored vehicles. I also blame whatever pencil-necked geek at Aberdeen denied the 1st Cav's bid to armor their vehicles before leaving for Iraq. If I had my way, he'd be making daily supply runs from Falluja to Sadr City in the piece of crap vehicle my dauughter has been nursing for the last year, alone, with no one to ride shotgun.

But that's just me.

As for the journalists, send everyone that does not have a solid military background home.


116 posted on 12/14/2004 2:36:44 PM PST by PsyOp (The commonwealth is theirs who hold the arms.... - Aristotle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

Good info on the Sherman, with over 50,000 produced but your numbers are off on the Russian production, which was far greater than 10,000 T-34s...


Russian Tank Production:



T-34-76mm = 33,805 units
T-34-85mm = 22,609 units

KV-1-76mm = 3,486 units
KV 2-152.4mm = 225 units
KV-85-85mm = 143 units

JS-1-85mm = 214 units
JS-2-122mm = 3,385 units


Russian Self Propelled guns:


SU-76 = 579 units
SU-76M = 13,932 units
SU-85 = 2,329 units
SU-85M = 315 units
SU-100 = 2,495 units
SU-122 = 638 units
SU-152 = 671 units
ISU-152 = 2,574 units


Lend-Lease:


M3A1 Stuart = 1,676 units
M5 Stuart = 5 units
M24 Chaffee = 2 units
M2A3/M3A5 Lee/Grant = 1,386 units
M4A2-75mm Sherman = 2,007 units
M4A2-76mm Sherman = 2,095 units
M10 Wolverine = 52 units
M18 Hellcat = 5 units
M26 Pershing = 1 unit
M31 ARV = 115 units
M15A1 MGMC = 100 units
M17 MGMC = 1,000 units
M2 Halftrack = 342 units
M3 Halftrack = 2 units
M5 Halftrack = 421 units
M9 Halftrack = 413 units


Probably the T-34 and M4 Sherman were produced in roughly equal numbers, but the overall advantage in ths Soviet armored vehicle production over the US was due to the nature of Eastern Front armored combat and the fact that the United States produced the majority of trucks for the Soviet Army, allowing their industry t concentrate its resouces on armored vehicles. Both nations armored vehicle industries greatly outproduced the Germans in WWII...


dvwjr


117 posted on 12/14/2004 5:00:17 PM PST by dvwjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

The point that a tank can be blown up is not senseless, it is concise and to the point. Distance is the best armor. "Give me a fast ship, for I mean to go in harm's way." JP Jones.

Or as my brother (Maj. US Army) puts it, speed is life.

***

Armor detracts from fast. Yes, you can supercharge the engine, but that leads to overheating. There is no free lunch.

EVERYTHING'S a trade-off, there is no do-it-all vehicle, plane, ship or weapon.

If these knuckleheads were around in 1942, they would be telling us the F4F Wildcat needs to LOSE its armor so it can maneuver better with the Zero. Problem is that though the Zero could out-turn and out-climb the Wildcat, you only had to breathe on it to knock it out of the sky, and it couldn't dive worth a crap. It also did not have self-sealing fuel tanks so it would burn like a comet from a dirty look. In fact if it got in a dive much over 360 mph, the stabilizers became useless. Wildcat pilots could often just go into a steep dive to escape.

Say again, everything is a trade-off...


118 posted on 12/14/2004 5:25:28 PM PST by Zhangliqun (What are intellectuals for but to complexify the obvious?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

There are other disadvantages the Tiger had. It was also pretty slow. Shermans had an advantage in a wooded environment because the long Tiger gun often meant that a trees would block the turret traverse that the much shorter Sherman gun could easily clear. Maneuver quickly into the woods to the slower Tiger's side or rear and hit him in the thin side or even thinner rear armor. Instant flaming Tiger. The Panther was the better tank of the two -- Big gun, great speed and mobility and well-armored. It and the T34 were the best.


119 posted on 12/14/2004 5:52:53 PM PST by Zhangliqun (What are intellectuals for but to complexify the obvious?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Zhangliqun

Or at least 'til that brief shining moment when the M26 came along. 90mm gun and designed to be a tank killer...


120 posted on 12/14/2004 5:53:43 PM PST by Zhangliqun (What are intellectuals for but to complexify the obvious?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

Rummy's comment that an armored vehicle can still be blown up was quite obtuse, not consise and to the point.

"And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up. And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on."-Rumsfeld

And the point is ??? Forget about wanting the armor?

Conservatives should have an anti-BS mindset.


121 posted on 12/14/2004 6:46:10 PM PST by H.Akston (It's all about property rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: All

BS costs lives, in war.


122 posted on 12/14/2004 6:48:15 PM PST by H.Akston (It's all about property rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Zhangliqun

The T-34 had great mobility. Kind of a loud squeaking when it moved because the track pins were not held in with bolts, but rather pressed back in by rubbing against the side of the chassis.

The T-34 was also cramped, the loader had to load left handed, and if you fired the gun at the wrong time you got the "wound of wounds".

The commander had rotten visibility and an absurd work load. The driver would quickly be exhausted from shifting through the gears. The Pzkw-4 H with the long barrel 75 was much its superior. Pzkw4 were used until 1972.


123 posted on 12/15/2004 10:00:24 AM PST by donmeaker (Why did the Romans cross the road? To keep the slaves from revolting again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Zhangliqun

yes, but no M-26 ever killed a Tiger.

The M-36 (90mm) and M36Bs and M-10s got a few.


124 posted on 12/15/2004 12:43:19 PM PST by donmeaker (Why did the Romans cross the road? To keep the slaves from revolting again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

But they got a few Panthers.


125 posted on 12/15/2004 12:46:17 PM PST by Zhangliqun (What are intellectuals for but to complexify the obvious?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: x1stcav
I know things have changed and believe me, I would dearly love to be part of the current military. My hat is off to you currently serving who have to deal with all of the PC.

Why, thank you. I don't actually come across too much PC stuff--except for, possibly, some of the mandatory training--and I have no complaints so far. As far as having to deal with troops--I'm not in a command position, so I probably don't see the best or worst of them, but I think we have a pretty good bunch of soldiers here. And I have learned to be very careful, because they will follow my example. Wish I could get son and hubby (retired Navy chief) to do the same!

126 posted on 12/15/2004 6:20:53 PM PST by exDemMom (Hooah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Zhangliqun

I agree that it is a trade.

The other important thing is TACTICS, so that you can use your strengths, and cover your weaknesses. Our soldiers and marines are very good at that, as shown by the loss ratios.

Our soldier's body armor helps, the armored vehicles help, but no Hummer is going to shrug off an RPG hit. The good news is that our soldiers use automatic fire, and the RPG is single shot. Our tactics encourage the enemy to take a shot at the limit of his range with a single shot weapon that is most likely to miss, and we answer with mass fires either by several automatic weapons, or by large caliber rounds. We also look carefully for changes, knowing that each additional piece of garbage can be cover for an IED.

Next: small robotic sensor-gun packages that can manipulate battlefield debris, but are armed, so the enemy can not ignore them. Just the thing to investigate the new pieces of garbage before our guys get within the casualty radius.


127 posted on 12/16/2004 11:35:36 AM PST by donmeaker (Why did the Romans cross the road? To keep the slaves from revolting again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: mattdono

You got it. The Hummvees were not designed to act as armored vehicles. They are a jury-rigged solution to a situation we find ourselves in. Sens. Kerry and McCain have been in the Congress since 1986 and have greater responsibility for the state of our Armed Forces than Secretary Rumsfeld.


128 posted on 12/16/2004 4:48:16 PM PST by thegreatbeast (Quid lucrum istic mihi est?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub

A good friend told me that certain F4 pilots in 'Nam removed armor so that they could ditch SAMs.


129 posted on 12/16/2004 6:00:11 PM PST by sasquatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sully777

Those "lightly armored" tanks had gasoline engines that exploded. That's why they were simply iron coffins.


130 posted on 12/19/2004 12:48:45 AM PST by Vetvoice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Vetvoice

Our tanks weren't designed to fight German armor. That was the job of anti tank weapons, artillery, air power and these;

http://www.britannica.com/normandy/articles/tank_destroyer.html


131 posted on 12/19/2004 12:57:27 AM PST by Hillarys Gate Cult (This space for rant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul

www.gopusa.com/activist/petitions

Online Activist -- Rumsfeld Petition



Support Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

President Bush has reaffirmed his faith in Donald Rumsfeld by asking him to remain in his cabinet for his second term. We stand with our president and the leadership of the Republican Party who have expressed their confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld.

We express our steadfast support for Sec. Rumsfeld, and we urge President Bush to reject any efforts by the media, liberal detractors, or disloyal Republicans to push for Rumsfeld's resignation or ouster. In times of war, there is no place for playing politics with the Department of Defense.

>> Sign the Petition!



132 posted on 12/22/2004 8:43:51 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

Then they should not have taken the field against German armor. The Germans only produced about 5,500 Panzers. It appears that we should have depended on our tank destroyers to knock out their Panzers and saved our armor for infantry/armor joint operations.


133 posted on 12/23/2004 11:50:42 AM PST by Vetvoice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul

Hidden truth ping.


134 posted on 12/27/2004 8:19:16 PM PST by Angry Republican (Screw the Sun! Ehrlich in '06!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-134 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson