Defense spin sure is fast .
Acquaint yourself with the difference between past tense and present tense. GHW Bush didn’t armor all HUMMVs. Bill Clinton had 8 years to armor all HUMMVs but didn’t. You mean they didn’t concieve of a time they might need it? You mean that when Bill Clinton was bombing Iraqi targets he didn’t make contingency plans to invade Iraq? What he did and he still didn’t armor them? No I am not blaming Bill Clinton but it would make just as much sense. You try to plan for what might happen and then you adjust to the situation. It would be better if every vehicle was armored. It would be better if troop strength was at pre-Clinton levels. They are not. You make the fight with what you have.
Damn 29 Oct, that is fast.
From that link:
Shit, we send our guys to the desert and their rides don’t even have AC? I bet they have to buy aftermarket CD adapters to plug into the tape deck and cigarette lighter so they can play Wagner.
It’s not just the humvees, either. My roomate told me about going to a dump and harvesting metal from a busted air conditioner because his armor vest didn’t have the plates it was supposed to.
You’re right, dude, I mistook today’s date at the top for the article date. D’oh.
No it’s not. It’s dated, and incorrect in any event. Among the more glaring errors I encountered before concluding it wasn’t worth the time to finish is that AM General does not uparmor its own HMMWVs. Whether it’s done at original production or in the aftermarket, up-armoring is done by O’Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt, a subsidiary of Armor Holdings (NYSE: AH). They do the field kits, too.
Armor announced in September that they had received a contract which will allow them to increase production of up-armored HMMWVs to 450/month. (cite)
Because of increased production, they’ve lowered the price – less overhead per vehicle and all that.
O’Gara was chosen because they had expertise in up-armoring regular cars. In the military, it used to be either a truck or not a truck – say, a Bradley. The changeover to HMMWVs for regular combat purposes is new. O’Gara had a long history of up-armoring limos and SUVs for various muckety-mucks around the world and the expertise transferred nicely.
I first read that as Winger.
If these guys were listening to Winger, would they deserve armor? 
You remember incorrectly. The Armored HMMWV M1109 M1114 have an armored body. It is not velcroed on, it is the entire vehicle. You may be thinking of after market kits they are providing to the non-armored variants.
Those are the ones being used for transport in “safe” areas. The only HMMWVs I have seen on patrol duty are the full up ones. It would be nice to have the improved version for everyone but that isn’t going to happen right away. Previous doctrine had the M1114 being used in a scout role. The doctrine has changed. Just like doctrine changes with every conflict. Unfortunately the MRK1 Cyrstal Ball has never worked properly.
Damn. Look at the two year price history of Armor Holdings. Remind me why I didn’t put my retirement savings into defense contractors at the start of this damnfool idealistic crusade?
Of course, by the time they beat Germany they were arguably the best supplied army in the history of the world, supported by an armed services where logistics officers were considered the peers of combat officers and a wartime economy producing more vehcicles and gear than Germany could possibly dream of. There was a direct correlation between their skill at supplying the troops and the results in the field.
Now, having said that, you don’t just drive down to the local Target and buy vehicle armor. It’s hard stuff to make, and you can’t do a slapdash effort or it won’t work and people will die.
I’ve never heard of an army with the doctrine that EVERY vehicle should be armored. Armored vehicles are for use in combat, not just driving around. They’re expensive and armor weight is directly proportional to the likelihood of the vehicle breaking down, so if you don’t need it you should not have it. If the US Army is in a position in Iraq where every jeep and hummer is at serious risk of coming under fire, that speaks to problems with the strategy, not the equipment.
The absolute face is this: there is usually no amount of gear that a soldier will consider sufficient. If you give a general 100 tanks, he’ll want 200. If you give him 200, he’ll say he really needed 400. More is always better. Unless the soldier is personally responsible for budgeting, it’s a free resource to him.
Dja see the clip of McCain commenting on Rumsfeld’s continuing stint as Sec’y of Defense? He said something like, “He’s the guy, so we’ll work with him, of course.” The interviewer said, “That doesn’t sound like a vote of confidence.” And McCain said, “No, it’s not.”
Might as well just come right out with it: “What do you want me to say? We all know, the man’s incompetent.”
And he is.
(There was also the clip of Wolfowitz saying before Congress in 1993, something like, “I can’t imagine it’d take more troops to occupy and secure Iraq than it would to overthrow it…” More gross incompetence. I can’t believe people are still defending these chuckleheads.)
It would be better if Bush, Rumsfield, etc al, came up with a strategy for the war that didn’t involve needing more armored vehicles than they had. Or realized that this was going to be an occupation, and that the army wasn’t equipped to occupy a foreign country, so they better not do it unless they can get help from allies who are properly equipped.
See the differect between Bush and Clinton now?
The problem is that there are more explosive devices being deployed than anybody with any authority expected. We know that incompetence resulted in 380 tons of high explosive being taken from under our noses. It’s a combination of incompetence – failure to provide for a worst case scenario, plus devastating strategic errors.
Sorry forgot to answer that. From the article cited earlier, the one dated 29 OCT 04:
Does that count?
Not my point. I have problems with the overall stragedy. That’s not the point. I am not trying to make Clinton the boogeyman (because I don’t think he was) but you asked. Clinton bombed Iraqi targets multiple times. Clinton deployed troops to Kuwait several times as a show of force and to back down Saddam. Clinton understood that Saddam was a problem that he *may * have had to deal with in a premanent way. So do you think he made contingency plans? Of course. Did some of these plans involve the invasion of Iraq? Of course. Did he armor all the HMMWVs in case invasion became necessary? No. His crystal ball wasn’t working either. Even after Somalia he didn’t have the HMMWVs armored. Yes I see a difference but they both (or the generals under them) came to the same conclusion about armored HMMWVs. Now the doctrine has changed and the problem is being fixed as fast as possible.
Not my point, either. Did his plans involve using unarmored vehicles in situations that called for armored vehicles? You have no freaken clue if “his crystal ball wasn’t working properly” or if “his strategy didn’t require as many US armored vehicles”. The only fact is that Bush and Rumsfield’s plan DOES require more armored vehicles than we currently have.
-lv
Dude? Bear or not, you’re getting your card punched for that.
Sure though, again, the impression that I had from the original post to which I replied was that there was a specific story on the front page of CNN dealing with the manufacture of armor and the like. Not that it was mentioned in another story.
[quote]
The IDF only seems more entrenched since then. Armored Humvees and tanks lined the roads…
[quote]