Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Armor not so great (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Armor not so great
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and it can [still] be blown up."

article

quote:
"I believe the up-armoring has caused more deaths than it has saved," said Scott Badenoch, a former Delphi Corp. vehicle dynamics expert told the Dayton Daily News for Sunday editions.

An analysis of the Army's ground accident database, which includes records from March 2003 through November 2005, found that 60 of the 85 soldiers who died in Humvee accidents in Iraq -- or 70 percent -- were killed when the vehicle rolled, the newspaper reported. Of the 337 injuries, 149 occurred in rollovers.

I had written previously on this topic, but can't find it, as the search engine here works about as well as the armor on those humvees.

You can't turn a humvee into an APC by bolting metal to the sides.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fel2.0
Member
Member # 2836

 - posted      Profile for Fel2.0   Email Fel2.0   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have also seen a lot of reports and interviews where soldiers are taking out much of there body armor because it is too heavy and slows them down. With all the armor on they can't move that fast and are sitting ducks for insurgents.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When there is a known, visible, transparent enemy that you are fighting constantly then it is good to be very mobile and not get bogged down. However, the resistance is operating extremely loosely and most of the time the attacks come in the form of hidden explosives and ambush attacks where manuvering and quick reactions don't matter more than being heavily armored against the explosion.
Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Original Thread
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Liberal:
When there is a known, visible, transparent enemy that you are fighting constantly then it is good to be very mobile and not get bogged down. However, the resistance is operating extremely loosely and most of the time the attacks come in the form of hidden explosives and ambush attacks where manuvering and quick reactions don't matter more than being heavily armored against the explosion.

Actually, no. Sorry, but you are wrong. The article directly contradicts this viewpoint - you know, the alpha post in this thread? Try again [Smile]
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Armor has always lagged against weapons. How much body armor will be necessary to protect a troop from a pound of C-4? Have you seen the armor that UXO troops wear?

Picture

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Drake:
quote:
You can't turn a humvee into an APC by bolting metal to the sides.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is very true. The problem isn't just "Not enough armor!". It's that some of our main battle vehicles were never really designed to be up-armored in the first place.

I'd honestly like to see a thorough, integrative redesign to a lot of our equipment makeup.

Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
flydye:
quote:
Armor has always lagged against weapons. How much body armor will be necessary to protect a troop from a pound of C-4? Have you seen the armor that UXO troops wear?

And even if you don't get blown apart because of the armor, your insides become mush.
Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Liberal:
When there is a known, visible, transparent enemy that you are fighting constantly then it is good to be very mobile and not get bogged down. However, the resistance is operating extremely loosely and most of the time the attacks come in the form of hidden explosives and ambush attacks where manuvering and quick reactions don't matter more than being heavily armored against the explosion.

Actually, no. Sorry, but you are wrong. The article directly contradicts this viewpoint - you know, the alpha post in this thread? Try again [Smile]
Not in Iraq. The explosives there are cheaply made. Newsweek did an interesting article a while back detailing from the inside some of the methods the resistance uses. They gather unexploded artillery shells and take the various contents out then create a concrete and shrapnel bomb. Against these kinds of weapons armor IS effective in protecting against the shrapnel effect. [Smile]
Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Liberal - again - this is about Iraq. I was playing around at first, but now, seriously - unless you can dispute the percentages in the actual article that heads this thread, give it up. Anecdotal evidence and theory cannot trump reality.

[ June 12, 2006, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
all your tanks in iraq, are about to be equiped with a special anti - anti - tank rocket system. that is currently installed on the Merkava Mk IV.
according to videos. it is VERY good.

made by israel.

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" the shrapnel effect." - ?

Yes, against the shrapnel affect. But I'm pretty sure these humvees aren't being rolled by the wind.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But the article only lists accidents:

quote:
An analysis of the Army's ground accident database, which includes records from March 2003 through November 2005, found that 60 of the 85 soldiers who died in Humvee accidents in Iraq -- or 70 percent -- were killed when the vehicle rolled, the newspaper reported. Of the 337 injuries, 149 occurred in rollovers.
I assume that Humvees hit by explosives are not classified as "accidents." So this article is not comparing deaths from rollovers vs. lives saved by armor.

Sure, the Humvees will roll over more easily. But how much more vunerable are they with less armor?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, WS - they are included. I'll probably need to source that, which I don't have time to do, but these include "road side bombs".
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's your 7000th post, jav? Weak.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From a scientific perspective, the article is almost worthless. It makes a claim, then uses an indirect statistic to make an unsupported conclusion.

quote:
An analysis of the Army's ground accident database, which includes records from March 2003 through November 2005, found that 60 of the 85 soldiers who died in Humvee accidents in Iraq -- or 70 percent -- were killed when the vehicle rolled, the newspaper reported. Of the 337 injuries, 149 occurred in rollovers.
It does not say what actually happens, ie: the most plausible reason is that if the Humvee is rolling over then the strength of the explosion most likely adds significantly to or directly causes the fatalities in a way that would be worse without the armor. Armor usually works and when it doesn't, NOT having the armor would have worse consequences, especially considering the armor probably helps the structural integrity of the vehicle in the event of a roll over. The armor is probably responsible for preventing more deaths than have been occuring in roll overs.

The article relies on anecdotal evidence to attempt to tie its main claim to an indirect statistic, it's easy to take it apart anecdotaly. [Wink]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by WarrsawPact:
That's your 7000th post, jav? Weak.

[Big Grin] Wait until my 10000th! We'll have to add a definition for "weak" to the ornery dictionary!

[ June 12, 2006, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Actually, WS - they are included. I'll probably need to source that, which I don't have time to do, but these include "road side bombs".
Please do, jav, because that would indicate that, at the most, only 85 soldiers have died throughout the course of the war from road-side bombs while in Humvees--including any who died from actual accidents! (Hitting a brick wall, even in a Humvee, still hurts.)

That makes it sound like Humvees are extremely safe with the armor. [Wink]

[ June 12, 2006, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, Liberal - thank you for finally addressing the original argument. However, I don't think that it's an indirect statistic. The only missing piece of information is the percentage of vehicles that were armored. Of course, it may not need to since the armor is added only to the sides of the humvee, and it's unlikely that the explosions are hitting the side of the vehicle and pushing it over, with the armor taking the brunt of the explosion - though I suppose it's possible.

I'll give you this - more information is needed to be sure, and that'd be a good conclusion to come up with. However, your assertions up to this point have been ignoring these statistics, and that WAS annoying me. [Smile]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We all make sense in our own minds...
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jav, I think you missed my other main point, the statistics used are bad not only because they are statistics about Humvees in general, but also because
-it is a stated fact that many, if not the majority, of humvees still need to receive and install armor
-the entire focal point of the article rests on this claim at the beginning which attempts to link the statistic to the unsupported claim:
quote:
"I believe the up-armoring has caused more deaths than it has saved," said Scott Badenoch, a former Delphi Corp. vehicle dynamics expert told the Dayton Daily News for Sunday editions.
which is an anecdotal statement. Maybe if he cared to explain WHY and HOW it were true and then list empirical examples, this article would have some meaning. As it is right now there is absolutely nothing constructive in it, especially since arguments like this can inappropriately be used to defend the slow effort and process to armor the rest of our troops' transpotation.

[ June 12, 2006, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
it is a stated fact that many, if not the majority, of humvees still need to receive and install armor
Can you source that?

quote:
the entire focal point of the article rests on this claim at the beginning which attempts to link the statistic to the unsupported claim
And then it uses statistics to try to prove the point. You brought up a peice of important information that is lacking, but it really doesn't matter what the premise is - it matters whether it's proven or not. I could care less if the premise is grabbed from an anecdote - only whether there is non-anecdotal evidence presented on the issue. See what I mean?

My conclusion? Your reasons for the statistics being "bad" aren't good ones.

quote:
As it is right now there is absolutely nothing constructive in it
If it's dangerous to up-armor these suckers - more dangerous then not doing so, then it's hardly "non-productive" - it's crucial. Keep the troops safe, I say.

Some additional information:

Source
quote:
The Pentagon says it does not keep figures on how many soldiers have died or suffered serious wounds in unarmored Humvees. But at least 275 troops were killed in Humvees in 2003 and 2004 — one of every four American troops killed by hostile action during that period — according to news accounts, Pentagon records and figures compiled by the staff of the members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees.

It could not be determined whether those troops were in unarmored or armored Humvees, boxy-looking trucks that replaced the Jeep as the military's all-purpose utility vehicle. Armored Humvees, however, are reinforced to protect against the roadside bombs, rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons used by insurgents. In the summer of 2003, most Humvees had little armor, which made them much more vulnerable to attacks than the heavier Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Abrams tanks.

quote:
In August 2003, the Army officially increased the number of reinforced Humvees it said it needed for Iraq. Military officials in Iraq increased the requirement for factory-built armored Humvees twice that month, first to 1,233 and then to 1,407 in late August, according to a February 2004 Pentagon "information paper" and other documents.

Sorenson says the initial attacks on unarmored Humvees could have been "random" events. When attacks multiplied in the summer of 2003, senior officials asked field commanders whether they needed more armored vehicles, and the commanders at first "said they did not want them,"Sorenson says.

Source

quote:
The first point is that you'll recollect that one of the questions was the status of the 278 ACR; in other words, the date that we had the visit by the secretary of Defense, we had a question about their up-armoring status. When the question was asked, 20 vehicles remained to be up-armored at that point. We completed those 20 vehicles in the next day. And so over 800 vehicles from the 278 ACR were up-armored, and they are a part now of their total force that is operating up in Iraq.

Q On the 278th, can you repeat this? At the time the question was asked, the planted question, the unit had 784 of its 804 vehicles armored?

GEN. SPEAKES: Here is the overall solution that you see. And what we've had to do is -- the theater had to take care of 830 total vehicles. So this shows you the calculus that was used. Up north in Iraq, they drew 119 up-armored humvees from what we call stay-behind equipment. That is equipment from a force that was already up there. We went ahead and applied 38 add-on armor kits to piece of equipment they deployed over on a ship. They also had down in Kuwait 214 stay- behind equipment pieces that were add-on armor kits. And then over here they had 459 pieces of equipment that were given level-three protection. And so when you put all this together, that comes up with 830.

Q At the time of the question -- summarize this, now -- that unit that the kid was complaining about was mostly armored?

GEN. SPEAKES: Yes. In other words, we completed all the armoring within 24 hours of the time the question was asked.

Q If he hadn't asked that question, would the up-armoring have been accomplished within 24 hours?

GEN. SPEAKES: Yes. This was already an existing program.

Source

quote:
Although the Pentagon has strengthened the armor on more than 50,000 Humvees and other military vehicles throughout Iraq and Afghanistan, roadside bombs have killed more U.S. troops this year, Pentagon records show.

Most are dying in their Humvees, the workhorse vehicles the military scrambled to armor as the use of improvised explosive devices grew over the past three years.

Pentagon casualty reports say 67 U.S. troops have died this year in attacks on their Humvees involving the so-called IEDs. An additional 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, according to Pentagon reports and USA TODAY's Iraq war casualty database.

quote:
Insurgents are changing their tactics, planting more powerful bombs and using different triggering methods to evade U.S. countermeasures, say experts. Newer IEDs are powerful enough to blow apart a 22-ton Bradley Fighting Vehicle or an M1A1 Abrams tank.
Based on these numbers, it seems quite reasonable that the numbers in the original article are not just accidents, WS - I'm having trouble coming up with better numbers, since they aren't officially recorded by the military - only by the news media - and the news reports are very, well, selective with their data - it depends on the premise they are trying to push. Frickin' media.

[ June 12, 2006, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not inclined to believe our troops are idiots.

They up-armored their vehicles from scrap heaps, and they have more than once spoken out loudly about the desire to have up-armored vehicles in combat zones.

I'm going to have to see actual data from roll-over tests conducted objectively before I second-guess their judgement. I'm not saying that it's impossible that they're wrong, but our troops have a long history of knowing better than their commanders what they need. Retrofitting B-25s as ground attack aircraft on their own initiative, rigging the Phantom with Gun Pods on their own initiative, up-armoring their Shermans, ect.

If I was hearing stories about soldiers stripping armor from Humvees, well, my mind would much easier to change [Smile]

Roll-over accidents are deadly. So are gun-men spraying your vehicle from alleys. If no evidence is provided to tell us how many bullets and how much shrapnel have been stopped by armor, how are to say that "Armor costs more lives than it saves"?

You're right, by the way, Drake. You can't turn a Humvee into a Bradley by slapping on armor. But you can stop small-arms fire, and reduce the odds of having the engine knocked out leaving the men inside of it vulnerable.

[ June 12, 2006, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More information

Not sure how good this information is, but it's sourced:

quote:

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

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


Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So Jesse, ya changed your mind?

quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
Seems pretty basic that you need the tools for the job at hand.

Cops don't wear riot gear all the time.

Even by the Crusades, those who could afford it armored themselves differently depending on the type of combat they expected to engage in.

A "one size fits all approach" is a bad one, since it isn't as if all of our combat troops are doing exactly the same job.

In some situations, the availability of heavy armor may save lives, and in others, the lack of lighter equipment may cost lives.


Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Absolutely not.

I did not present any argument that ALL Humvees should be up-armored.

I did not claim that a "one size fits all" approach to armor was a good one. I have no doubt that different armor packages are needed for different situations.

I stick my guns in the claim that the men actually facing those situations should have every option available to them that we can provide, and that barring overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, their opinions on what tools they use should be respected.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I stick my guns in the claim that the men actually facing those situations should have every option available to them that we can provide, and that barring overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, their opinions on what tools they use should be respected.
I agree with this statement. I have trouble seeing it in opposition to the original post on this thread, or even in what I've said. I don't see policy being changed, or even a change requested - I see an article making a supposition that this "armor them all" approach is flawed - not that the uparmoring should be stopped. I see the original article as saying "Sometimes this is a bad idea." not "This is always a bad idea, so we better change our mind - let's not use any armor!"

So, doesn't this article seem to follow the initial statement of yours that I quoted? Doesn't it really just suggest we need to pay attention, instead of insisting that "one size fits all"?

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
maybe you should study how we israelis place armour on our vehicles?

we drive the same dangerous streets with the same people who want us dead, with the same rockets and road bombs. and still we manage to lose alot less lives.

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
I'm not inclined to believe our troops are idiots.

They aren't idiots, but they also aren't trained to design combat equipment. They wouldn't be the first to do something that made them feel safer - even if the net result was to do the opposite.

Consider the soldiers in Mogadishu who left their standard issue body armor at home because it was too heavy, and they didn't expect to need it.

quote:
I'm going to have to see actual data from roll-over tests conducted objectively before I second-guess their judgement.
I'm not sure of the answer, and we're unlikely to have access to enough data to judge objectively.

How many attacks involved a stuck vehicle?

How many soldiers were shot inside a rolled-over humvee?

How many fewer patrols took place, because humvees lacked range or mobility?

We have to remember that military equipment isn't just judged on its ability to keep soldiers safe. Otherwise, concrete bunkers with .50 cal machine guns would do nicely.

quote:
You're right, by the way, Drake. You can't turn a Humvee into a Bradley by slapping on armor. But you can stop small-arms fire, and reduce the odds of having the engine knocked out leaving the men inside of it vulnerable.
Thanks. My point in starting this thread was only to point out that there actually is a tradeoff involved, when so many people considered it some kind of brain damage on the part of the military commanders - or Donald Rumsfeld personally.

With respect to small arms fire, the humvee isn't built as an armored vehicle. The dude up top with the main gun is not going to benefit from all the armor below him. And those are the guys getting most consistently killed by roadside bombs and ambushes.

Sadly, that's also the dude getting crushed under the rolling humvee. Can't we get some popemobiles for our troops, with a slot cut for the machine gun to swing around?

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Javelin, I just point out the claim that "armor costs more lives than it saves" isn't proven by the evidence presented.

That doesn't mean that I take it for granted that armor always saves lives. Ask the French how well that outlook worked for them at Agincourt [Smile]

It's entirely possible that lives have been lost due to the roll-over of armored humvees, which would not have rolled over had they not been armored. I would even say that it is likely.

I also think we need to investigate the possibility of designing a new, highly mobile, armored combat vehicle, lighter cheaper faster and more manuverable than a Bradly and probably without the heavy weapons, but more robust than the Humvee.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jav your links are really bad. The 3 links from the large post all basically admit there is no data at all to discern between the armored and unarmored humvees. The freerepublic is not a reputable news source, and here is another example from it. The link you cited from freerepublic claimed that 77% of humvees are already armored, however if you follow the links they posted, they did not accurately repost the stats they were making claims based off. Go to the three links on the freerepublic page and read the actual information there taken in full context.

[ June 12, 2006, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Drake, I don't disagree that investigation is warranted.

The dude up top actually does gain some benefit from the armor, since 75% cover is nothing to scoff at. I still understand what you're saying.

We both agree that there are men alive today who would not be had their vehicles not been up-armored (I think) and we both agree that men have died, been injured, and been captured as a result of roll-overs, each of which is statistically less likely in an un-armored vehicle with a lower center of gravity.

Since we just don't have the data to prove otherwise, I default to "Give them what they ask for, whenever we have the ability to do so".

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Liberal:
Jav your links are really bad. The 3 links from the large post all basically admit there is no data at all to discern between the armored and unarmored humvees. The freerepublic is not a reputable news source, and here is another example from it. The link you cited from freerepublic claimed that 77% of humvees are already armored, however if you follow the links they posted, they did not accurately repost the stats they were making claims based off. Go to the three links on the freerepublic page and read the actual information there taken in full context.

Well, dang, Liberal - first of all, saying "not a reputable newsource" is crap. Secondly, I said, in my original post, that I hadn't followed to the source. I'll check it when I get the chance - you may very well be right.

Lastly, and most importantly - what's the problem with the links I gave? They are clear media sources, I pointed out what I thought was important, and then said what I thought they proved, if anything. Can you point out how my links and quotes are bad? I mean, good for you on the Free Republic one (I don't like them either) - but the others? "all basically admit there is no data at all to discern between the armored and unarmored humvees" - what's your point? Why does that make them "bad"?

Come on man, hit me with something here. [Smile]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Liberal:
Jav your links are really bad. The 3 links from the large post all basically admit there is no data at all to discern between the armored and unarmored humvees. The freerepublic is not a reputable news source, and here is another example from it. The link you cited from freerepublic claimed that 77% of humvees are already armored, however if you follow the links they posted, they did not accurately repost the stats they were making claims based off. Go to the three links on the freerepublic page and read the actual information there taken in full context.

Well, dang, Liberal - first of all, saying "not a reputable newsource" is crap. Secondly, I said, in my original post, that I hadn't followed to the source. I'll check it when I get the chance - you may very well be right.

Lastly, and most importantly - what's the problem with the links I gave? They are clear media sources, I pointed out what I thought was important, and then said what I thought they proved, if anything. Can you point out how my links and quotes are bad? I mean, good for you on the Free Republic one (I don't like them either) - but the others? "all basically admit there is no data at all to discern between the armored and unarmored humvees" - what's your point? Why does that make them "bad"?

Come on man, hit me with something here. [Smile]

They are bad for you because they don't support your point...?
Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ivan
Member
Member # 1467

 - posted      Profile for Ivan   Email Ivan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Can't we get some popemobiles for our troops, with a slot cut for the machine gun to swing around?
Great bit from Arrested Developement. Roughly quoting the narrator:

George Senior [who was trying to escape from the police] found a humvee and a popemobile. He chose to flee in the one that was bullet-proof. [George Sr. drives off in the popemobile].

Seriously, though, it is important to note that a tradeoff occurs, but it does seem somewhat obvious that we would be facing a lot of small-arms fire and roadside bombs in Iraq, and that more heavily-armoured vehicles would be better suited for dealing with this kind of thing, even if they do result in more accidents. Unforutnately, there's really no way to measure it either way. Perhaps the best we could do would be to see the proportion of individuals dying in humvee accidents vs. bullet/sharplnal wounds from the vehicles. But even that doesn't give us the whole picture....

Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's a source from an unbiased actual soldier:

Lessons Learned, IEDs in Iraq (6/22/05)

quote:
IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) are the #1 killer of troops.

The #2 killer is TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS!!! Everyone must keep this in mind. The up-armored HUMVEES turn and brake way differently, and are prone to tipping. "COMBAT DRIVING" means know your vehicle, use it as a weapons platform AND a weapon as needed, and be able move and communicate at all times... it does NOT mean "drive like the Dukes of Hazzard". As the CSM of the Army said, "Drive like NASCAR"... know you vehicle, keep the distances and speeds YOU need to be safe, and if needed, get under the opposition and put them into the wall. NOTE TO ALL: It is a * bad* idea to put your most junior people in as drivers and gunners, at least to do it all the time. Train them. We all need to be proficient with driving AND being a gunner AND using all the comms available AND navigating using * MAPS* and GPS

continuing:

quote:
There are units that have spent their ENTIRE tour with soft-sided HUMVEES and have had far less IED hits that those in Up-Armored or fully armored vehicles. In fact, they had their doors off. Even today, Rangers and SF run around in bare vehicles and don't get attacked. The reason - the entire convoy was sharp, at the ready, and was able to visually detect IEDS, use aggressive driving to throw off timing of IEDs, and were obviously ready to return fire. They were NOT worth hitting. An up-armored conmoy with everyone's head down and hiding is a much better target. ALL ARMOR CAN BE DEFEATED!!! There have been tanks as well as Strykers and Up-Armored HUMVEES (the M1114's) that have been hit and destroyed. Often (not always), its because they were complacent, they established patterns, they trusted their armor to save them, and otherwise they gave the enemy the means to predict their movements and the comfort (based on lack of alertness) to target them. LESSON LEARNED: If everyone is alert and in th right mindset, you're far less likely to targeted, regardless of armor. Armor has often led to false sense of security.
At least in one soldier's judgement, it seems that he doesn't think that uparmoring is so hot.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Humvees aren't really my main focus. I wonder about the efficacy of the body armor the troopers carry and sometimes wear.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They are bad for you because they don't support your point...?
And what do you think my point is? Perhaps that's where the confusion lies?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sure Drake, but you could say helmets lead to a false sense of security.

Rangers and Special Forces don't generally patrol or man check points. The go in hard and fast to kill or capture known targets. Exactly the people I would expect NOT to use up-armored vehicles.

It's granted that up-armored vehicles are less manuverable. However, if you have to go through alleys in Sadr City......you're not going to evade a darn thing anyway.

I don't think anyone is suggesting (I'm certainly not) that up-armoring a Humvee makes it immune to damage or provides complete protection to it's occupants. However, if you have to deal with @holes taking pot-shots at you, armor isn't always a bad thing.

flydye45-90% survival rate of injuries requiring medical evacuation. Remember, that's not a percentage inflated by splinters and minor burns. Would fewer guys get hit without it? Possibly. But comparisons between police departments who mandated body armor in the 90's and the ones that didn't say you're better off with it, at least under those conditions, though I admit the circumstances are different.

Anybody think this one would slow anyone down?

http://operation-helmet.org/faq.html

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The A10 and the F16 are nearly invulnerable to small arms fire and never roll over unintentionally - and can be quickly rolled back upright. Sometimes I think the problem is asking soldiers to fight on the front lines in glorified jeeps in the first place.

Fallujah comes to mind.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1