Posted on 05/03/2006 10:32:57 AM PDT by jmc1969
A new report says that despite stronger armor on over 50,000 Humvees and other military vehicles throughout Iraq and Afghanistan, roadside bombs have killed more U.S. troops this year based on Pentagon records.
Most are dying in their Humvees, USA Today reports, as insurgents plant more powerful bombs and use different triggering methods to evade U.S. countermeasures, experts tell the newspaper.
According to Pentagon casualty reports, 67 U.S. troops have died this year in roadside bomb attacks on their Humvees, and another 22 troops were killed when IEDs hit other military vehicles, including more heavily armored tanks and troop carriers.
That's up from 27 in Humvees — and an additional 38 deaths involving IED attacks on other vehicles — during the first four months of 2005, USA Today notes, using Pentagon and the newspaper's Iraq war casualty database. Roadside bombs also killed more troops in Afghanistan, USA Today reports, with 10 killed this year, compared with one in the first four months of 2005.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
A Humvee is not a tank, it's not an APC and it should not be used as such.
No freaking doubt. They took the place of Jeeps, not APCs.
Note to the AP:
War is dangerous and people will die.
A little armor on a jeep, does not a tank make.
What you said.
Thank you. The HMMV is not an APC.
Never send a hummer to do a M113's job.
You mean the Bradley, right? 113's are light aluminum boxes on treads. A 7.62 NATO round will go straight through it the long way.
Even the later upgrades with the "spalling pads" aren't too much more resistant, and their floors aren't really armored.
"Sorry but 67 deaths in the cruel mathematics of war is militarily insignificant"
Grim, but true.
It's also irrelevant to journalists who need to report defeat wherever they think they can find it. It's not even a good story; at its core, the story is really "soldiers killed in war zone".
Oh, I dunno...I spent alot of time in '577s. As I recall the '113-family rear ramp/door is pretty thick- weighs several hundred lbs, with engine up front. Side-to-side though...no doubt a burly rifle round'll penetrate. We used to joke that there was more protection from the bank of beefy radios bolted to the wall than from the vehicle hull.
Not that I think they would survive a 152mm-scale IED, mind you...
Exactly, Mega dittos.
What is the top effective speed of an up-armored Humvee compared to a conventional unit?
Sacrificing speed for armor is not always a smart move. Unfortunately, it is politicians making this call, and kids are getting killed as a result.
AP is using rhetorical devices again to cover up the truth...the title to this is misleading.
checking statistics comparable to prior years...combat related deaths, incluing IED's is down, but in regard to the deaths occuring in theater the number of deaths related to IEDs has grown as a percentage of the total.
Akin to this example....200 deaths in the month of march, 20 were IEDS's, which is 10%...now change the facts 50 deaths in theater, 15 related to IEDs, that's 30%...so, AP, writes a misleading article to further their quagmire agenda.
The one truth that is universally ignored is that it's a lot quicker, cheaper, and easier to build a bigger IED than it is to up armour anything to the level that would protect it from all threats.
Bingo!
...but our Legacy Media folks cannot and will not comprehend that fact.
War is about destroying things and killing the enemy. As the most powerful Nation/Military on Earth, we have failed at killing the enemy and destroying things. We should not have a single ground troop in Iraq. Send in the fly-boys/girls with MOAB's and inflict huge collateral damage. Then tell the Iraq's we will do it again each time we see anything remotely like conflict or terrorists. I am sick of seeing our guys die because we fight on their terms. We will never win a war with a street fight.
We're not going to wage "Total War" against an insurgency as you suggest...to do such would defeat the purpose of being liberators.
What you suggest is a mission change. So, if you are advocate of rendering civilian cities to ruin...then you are missing the point.
When we went into Iraq...Iraq was an civilian population held hostage by an insane regime...as opposed to when we invaded Germany, where the insane regime was support by (in material respect) the totality of the German population.
The War we are prosecuting in Iraq is what is, with all its warts, are problem is not expanding the War to the neighboring stats that support the insurgence...whereas one could argue about whether Total War could be waged against Syria and/or Iran.
In Hoc.
The locals in Iraq know who the terrorists and troublemakers are. The locals, with enough incentive, will take upon themselves to kill the terrorists and troublemakers. WE need to provide the incentive. You assume that the majority of the people in Iraq is ignorant of terrorists. I disagree. I believe they know much better than we do and should be given the option of be left with a pile of rubble for a home, or killing the enemy to stop the destruction. War ain't nice, and the guy with the biggest gun that inflicts the most damage, wins.
And you assume that most of the Iraqi's know and are complicit...so...which is it? Kill innocent people or do the right thing, and suffer the losses as a price of war and freedom while being persistent in our goals of ulitmately creating a democratic nation state, which is our ally.
I agree with you, war aint pretty, but we're the good guys so we fight with mercy when we can and mercilessly when left with little choice.
What you advocate is something akin the Russian philosophy of war fighting, and it is worked oh so good for them...hasnt it?
No, devane617, we did not. I am very well aware of our nations vast inventory of smart weapons.
Be honest. Your post was not advocation of the tactical use of smart weapons, which is already being done...but one of a "total war" waged against a civilian population to crush an insurgency.
So, what point are you trying to make? Be clear, be concise, and be relevant.
The humvees aren't the problem. No amount of armor is going to help.
What is needed is a remote controlled "sniffer" pilot vehicle to run ahead of the convoy to identify roadside bombs.
We have the ability to sniff out explosives, and we have the ability to build cheap vehicles (we will go through a lot of them) to put this sniffer equipment in. All it really is is an air sampler. These bombs are often hidden in fake rocks etc along side the roads.
No matter how well they disguize them, the explosives will give off trace particles which these sniffers could detect. The next lead vehilce should have a cannon on it to blast anything the sniffer detects as suspicious.
Just an idea, but something has to be done.
You could probably rewrite that headline to "Because of 'Upgrades,' Humvee Deaths Up"
Once you take away the advantage of speed and manueverability from a Humvee, you make it an easier target.
M1117 ASV-150 Guardian, turret to defend gunner from sniper fire, well designed for defense against IEDs, additional armor kit for protection against RPGs, compact size eliminating dead space for patrol missions, which Stryker APC may have, and cost effecient compared to other armored vehicles such as Strykers and M-2 Bradley.
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.