Body armor, Humvees, and the pundits
This was originally a response to Miguel's response here, but it got so long I thought I'd make it its own post.
Note: I have never been to Iraq, but I was in the Marines from 1997-2001 so I feel I have a better perspective than, say, Bill Maher.
I brought this up because on one hand there are great complaints about troops not having enough armor, but on the other hand we're seeing articles about the rear-area personnel who don't seem to be in as much danger as those who go out and patrol the streets.
Miguel asked if some folks might choose not to wear their protective gear.
It's like 120 degrees over there. I have a feeling the only people wearing flak jackets are people who have to, as in there is a base order for Outpost Boofoo that everyone wears flak and helmet at all times when outside.
In the big camps, like Camp Liberty in that article, with the big-screen TVs, there probably is no such order. So no one's wearing it, or if they are, it might not have the shrapnel-resistant inserts. Those are the things the troops haven't been getting -- the inserts that transform the vests from fashionable vests into actual shrapnel-resistant body armor.
But I'm saying I bet a good portion of the troops aren't required to wear flak jackets most of the time, or, as you brought up, choose not to.
For the grunts on patrol, I'm sure it's required. It's probably not like Hollywood where Sgt. Slick is wearing just a bandana on his head and just a T-shirt. Those guys are wearing that gear -- hating the heat and weight, but aware it can save their life. But again, it's most likely required anyway.
As far as Humvees, the odds of them getting a significant amount of up-armored vehicles over there is nil. I mean, they're increasing the numbers, but not by much.
These things cost $150,000-200,000.
The original Humvees were not meant to be protective in any way, shape or form.
The military was thinking, "Hey, it's the 1980s, we need something to drive around U.S. bases in the U.S., Western Europe, and Japan. Also, it should be able to kick ass in the mud, woods, and sand."
They're bare-minimum. They have hard cotton seats, no heat, etc.
In the "soft-top" versions, each side door is a single sheet of plastic stretched over a couple metal rods. The tarp covering the back, where eight troops might be sitting, is also plastic.
Soft-tops aren't as sexy as the four-door Humvees with a machine gun on top, but they're very common and useful for hauling troops.
Another USMC troop hauler, the "amtrak" or amphibious tracked vehicle, is not bulletproof at all. An AK-47 bullet will go right through it.
It's already incredibly heavy, though, and I can't imagine the cost and slowing-down associated with making one bulletproof or more resistant.
While a handful of up-armored Humvees were originally made, they were for VIPs. Generals, the Secretary of Defense on tour, etc. No one ever planned for every unit to haul their water jugs around in $200,000 bulletproof limos.
I haven't heard about negative effects from up-armored vehicles, such as increased or different fragmentation. I know I'd rather be in the armored one, hands down.
Shrapnel-reducing with bulletproof glass vs. thin metal, normal glass and plastic? I'll take the first one.
Protective vehicles do make a lot of sense in urban or built-up areas, but the U.S. force just isn't built that way.
No one started thinking seriously about urban combat (again) until Somalia. Before that, there had been minor urban combat a few times since the major wars of the 20th century, but up-armoring an old Jeep just wasn't possible.
Today, making the current version of the Jeep essentially bulletproof is possible, so people who want to critize the administration cry out, "We need more armored Humvees in Iraq!"
It's just not going to happen.
I mentioned Bill Maher at the top of this post because I just heard him make a similar statement the other day. I'm sure other people say it all the time, but the economic feasibility just isn't there.
It's easy for people to point that out as something that needs to be "fixed," but good luck.
Back to the individuals, if I may -- if there are individuals who need and would wear a flak jacket, but don't have it or the inserts, that is wrong as hell and needs to be fixed.
I wonder, though, if some of the people in headquarters or administrative units might not be wearing their gear because they're not really in danger like the grunts on patrol.
And as far as up-armoring our Humvees.... don't hold your breath.
Note: I have never been to Iraq, but I was in the Marines from 1997-2001 so I feel I have a better perspective than, say, Bill Maher.
I brought this up because on one hand there are great complaints about troops not having enough armor, but on the other hand we're seeing articles about the rear-area personnel who don't seem to be in as much danger as those who go out and patrol the streets.
Miguel asked if some folks might choose not to wear their protective gear.
It's like 120 degrees over there. I have a feeling the only people wearing flak jackets are people who have to, as in there is a base order for Outpost Boofoo that everyone wears flak and helmet at all times when outside.
In the big camps, like Camp Liberty in that article, with the big-screen TVs, there probably is no such order. So no one's wearing it, or if they are, it might not have the shrapnel-resistant inserts. Those are the things the troops haven't been getting -- the inserts that transform the vests from fashionable vests into actual shrapnel-resistant body armor.
But I'm saying I bet a good portion of the troops aren't required to wear flak jackets most of the time, or, as you brought up, choose not to.
For the grunts on patrol, I'm sure it's required. It's probably not like Hollywood where Sgt. Slick is wearing just a bandana on his head and just a T-shirt. Those guys are wearing that gear -- hating the heat and weight, but aware it can save their life. But again, it's most likely required anyway.
As far as Humvees, the odds of them getting a significant amount of up-armored vehicles over there is nil. I mean, they're increasing the numbers, but not by much.
These things cost $150,000-200,000.
The original Humvees were not meant to be protective in any way, shape or form.
The military was thinking, "Hey, it's the 1980s, we need something to drive around U.S. bases in the U.S., Western Europe, and Japan. Also, it should be able to kick ass in the mud, woods, and sand."
They're bare-minimum. They have hard cotton seats, no heat, etc.
In the "soft-top" versions, each side door is a single sheet of plastic stretched over a couple metal rods. The tarp covering the back, where eight troops might be sitting, is also plastic.
Soft-tops aren't as sexy as the four-door Humvees with a machine gun on top, but they're very common and useful for hauling troops.
Another USMC troop hauler, the "amtrak" or amphibious tracked vehicle, is not bulletproof at all. An AK-47 bullet will go right through it.
It's already incredibly heavy, though, and I can't imagine the cost and slowing-down associated with making one bulletproof or more resistant.
While a handful of up-armored Humvees were originally made, they were for VIPs. Generals, the Secretary of Defense on tour, etc. No one ever planned for every unit to haul their water jugs around in $200,000 bulletproof limos.
I haven't heard about negative effects from up-armored vehicles, such as increased or different fragmentation. I know I'd rather be in the armored one, hands down.
Shrapnel-reducing with bulletproof glass vs. thin metal, normal glass and plastic? I'll take the first one.
Protective vehicles do make a lot of sense in urban or built-up areas, but the U.S. force just isn't built that way.
No one started thinking seriously about urban combat (again) until Somalia. Before that, there had been minor urban combat a few times since the major wars of the 20th century, but up-armoring an old Jeep just wasn't possible.
Today, making the current version of the Jeep essentially bulletproof is possible, so people who want to critize the administration cry out, "We need more armored Humvees in Iraq!"
It's just not going to happen.
I mentioned Bill Maher at the top of this post because I just heard him make a similar statement the other day. I'm sure other people say it all the time, but the economic feasibility just isn't there.
It's easy for people to point that out as something that needs to be "fixed," but good luck.
Back to the individuals, if I may -- if there are individuals who need and would wear a flak jacket, but don't have it or the inserts, that is wrong as hell and needs to be fixed.
I wonder, though, if some of the people in headquarters or administrative units might not be wearing their gear because they're not really in danger like the grunts on patrol.
And as far as up-armoring our Humvees.... don't hold your breath.
posted by bp at
7:11 PM
1 Comments:
Thanks for the update. I often wonder about this, since I've long been aware of two things:
1) soldiers always complain (chow, supplies, etc) and this is historically true across time/war/nations.
2) veteran soldiers seem to not use "proper" equipment in contrast to new soldiers who do
Reading some military bloggers (and from previous friends), I get the impression that veteran (front line) soldiers aren't as concerned w/ things like armor (and perhaps even disdain using them, whether it's for practicality or bravura).
By
Miguel Centellas, at 4:56 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home