Iraq Vehicle Force Mix

[Marauders]

When reading reports and talking with personnel returning from Iraq, I hear of problems with equipment and vehicles. I have to ask if the ground troops are riding in the correct vehicles.

Is there the correct mix of Humvee, uparmored Humvee, Cougar, Stryker, Bradley, and Abrams?

The uparmored Humvee is unstable and underpowered. It was not designed as an AFV or IFV.

Should the Humvee have been replaced by a new vehicle? Maybe a smaller version of the Cougar?

Should slat armor have be added to Humvee vehicles with lighter armor on the shell?

Should a vehicle like the Merkava, a tank that can carry ground forces, be in the force mix?

What are your thoughts on this?

[Twotribes]

No matter what a force does its enemies will find ways to counter it. Tanks are not safe, why would anyone think any smaller vehicle would be?

The Hummer was never designed to be heavily armored, nor are the trucks used to haul the supplies. The smaller APC and IFV would initially provide protection, but the end result would be bigger road side bombs designed to take them out. resulting in more collateral damage as the blast gets bigger and sends shrapnel farther out.

Detection is the key.

[Marauders]

The Hummer was never designed to be heavily armored, nor are the trucks used to haul the supplies.

That is correct.  The troops are doing a police action in vehicles not designed for it.  There have been many soldiers killed by flipping armored HUMVEEs.  It is not stable as an armored platform.

The smaller APC and IFV would initially provide protection, but the end result would be bigger road side bombs designed to take them out. resulting in more collateral damage as the blast gets bigger and sends shrapnel farther out.

I have seen a Bradley flipped on its back from an IED.  All vehicles can take damage and be destroyed.

In my opinion, more Stryker and Cougar vehicles are needed, and they should have been ordered rather than so many less capable armored HUMVEEs.

[Doggie]

Right-O.  Every individual should have his very own private M-1A1 Abrams tank.  The M-1A1 should be the only vehicle deployed in a combat zone.  It should serve as weapons carrier, fire support, troop transport, fuel hauler, and convoy cargo hauler.  The very idea that any soldier should have anything less than the most heavily armored vehicle imaginable is an indication of just how uncaring the evil American military establishment is.
 
That is what you're trying to say, isn't it?
 
If there's bridges and roads in Afghanistan and Iraq that won't support 60 ton vehicles, then engineers should be dispatched in M-1A1 tanks to upgrade every goat path in the hemisphere so we don't have to needlessly risk lives by sending troops out in Humvees, or God forbid, ordinary five ton trucks.

[pasternakski]

Shoot. We ain't even got the right mix of "regular," "reserve," and "national guard," let alone "rock," "scissors," and "paper."

Oh, well. President Obama will fix all that...

[Terminus]

Deleted...

[rogueusmc]

This is war people...when folks are shooting at ya, sometimes, the guy knows how to shoot...damn.

Here we are on a forum made up primarily of WARgamers and folks still don't get it. A new lock is produced tomorrow and the day after, a pick will be made to open it. New armor is made tomorrow, the next day will see a round that will punch through it.

We have General officers over there...these guys were approved for their rank by congress...now we say they don't know what they are doing and need some congressmen over there to tell them how to fight a war....damn again.

Don't get me started y'all.

Semper Fi,
Lee

[SemperAugustus]

The Afghan experience with the Mil Hind is pretty typical, if the AA or small arms fire doesn't bring down the helicopter and you don't have access to SAMs, you can use anti-tank weapons. There are no technical solutions unless you count sealing the borders and disarming the civilians.

[Marauders]

Right-O.  Every individual should have his very own private M-1A1 Abrams tank.   The very idea that any soldier should have anything less than the most heavily armored vehicle imaginable is an indication of just how uncaring the evil American military establishment is.

That is what you're trying to say, isn't it?

 
Thank you for the standard Fox News reply, but no, that wasn't what I was trying to say.
 
When did Stryker and Cougar vehicles become Abrams tanks in your mind?
 
 

[Terminus]

More armour isn't the solution. When the insurgents are using aircraft bombs and 152mm artillery shells as IED's, they can take out everything from tanks on down...

[Twotribes]

The military has X number of vehicles per type, with procurement and replacement planned based on force structure. The US Military may be one of the largest in the world but it doesnt have a money tree in the back room.

Buying more armored personnel carriers isnt going to happen because in the end they are no more safe than the Hummer. And after Iraq the military then would have all these vehicles they simply had no need for.

Will we now be asked why our soldiers arent wearing body suits of reinforced kevlar covering every part of their body? In fact on that matter there are kevlar protection items that the soldiers absolutely despise, because of weight, restriction of movement and dubious worth.

There is only so much one can do. Short of just giving up and allowing our enemies to do as they please, since, hey soldiers are gonna die.

This "war" has seen the least casualties ever on both sides. Like it or not the stark reality is 3200 or so dead soldiers in over 4 years is barely more than die in training accidents in that time. While every death is sad and a tragic event for family and friends, EVERY soldier signed up of their own free will, and if one ignores the press spin you will find they are reenlisting and new recruits are joining in more than enough numbers to maintain our military and even add some end troop strength.

[Paul Vebber]

"We made a great mistake, Mr.Hill, in the beginning og our struggle, and I Fear, in spite of all we can do it will prove to be a fatal mistake," he said to me, after General Bragg ceased to command the Army of Tennesee, an event he deplored.

"What mistake is that, general?"

"Why, sir, in the beginning we appointed all our worst generals to command the armies, and all of our best generals to edit newspapers. As you know, I have planned some campaings, and quites a number of battles. I have given the work all the care and thought that I could, and sometimes, when my plans were completed, as far as I could see, they seemed to be perfect. But when I have fought them through, I have discovered defects and occasionally wondered why I did not see some of the defects in advance. When it was all over, I found by reading a newspaper that these best editor generals saw all the defects plainly from the start. Unfortunately, they did not communicate their knowledge to me until it was to late."

Then, after a pause, he added, with a beautiful, grave expression I can never forget: "I have no ambition but to serve the Confederacy, and do all I can to win our independance. I am willing to serve in any capacity to which the authorities may assign me. I have done the best I could in the field, and have not succeeded as I could wish. I am willing to yield my place to these best generals, and I will do my best for the cause editing newspapers."

In the same strain he once remarked to one of his generals: "Even as pooor a soldier as I am can generally discover mistakes after it is all over. But if I could only induce these wise gentlemen who see them so clearly beforehand to communicate with me inadvance, instead of waiting until the evil has come upon us, to let me know that they knew all the time, it would be far better for my reputation, and (what is of more consequence) far better for the cause."

An anecdote puported to be from Robert E. Lee from a speech by B.H.Hill:

[Marauders]

The military has X number of vehicles per type, with procurement and replacement planned based on force structure.

 
In my opinion, that force structure was developed incorrectly.
 

The military has X number of vehicles per type, with procurement and replacement planned based on force structure. The US Military may be one of the largest in the world but it doesnt have a money tree in the back room.

 
Well, yes it does.  The money being spent in IRAQ is almost written on a blank check.
 
The money going to armored HUMVEES at three times the cost of HUMVEES before the Iraq war could have been going to more Stryker and Cougar vehicles.
 

Will we now be asked why our soldiers arent wearing body suits of reinforced kevlar covering every part of their body? In fact on that matter there are kevlar protection items that the soldiers absolutely despise, because of weight, restriction of movement and dubious worth.

 
Is poor body armor going to be the straw man?  The problem with body armor is actually similar; there is body armor, but the soldiers want lighter and tougher Dragon Skin armor and are prohibited from procuring it.  The soldiers on the ground don't have the best equipment that is available.  You can bet the merc forces in Iraq have Dragon Skin body armor paid for by the United States government.
 

This "war" has seen the least casualties ever on both sides. Like it or not the stark reality is 3200 or so dead soldiers in over 4 years is barely more than die in training accidents in that time.

 
Can you site this "stark reality" - that there have been 3200 lethal and 21,800 non-lethal casualties in training accidents in one zone of operation of this size in any 4 year period since the Viet Nam War? 
 

There is only so much one can do. Short of just giving up and allowing our enemies to do as they please, since, hey soldiers are gonna die.

 
Are you Donald Rumsfeld?   I suspect you wouldn't be saying that if you were on the ground in Iraq.
 

In the same strain he once remarked to one of his generals: "Even as pooor a soldier as I am can generally discover mistakes after it is all over. But if I could only induce these wise gentlemen who see them so clearly beforehand to communicate with me inadvance, instead of waiting until the evil has come upon us, to let me know that they knew all the time, it would be far better for my reputation, and (what is of more consequence) far better for the cause."

 
Paul, the hindsight card is a Red Herring.  There are many military and civilian personnel who had stated prior to the conflict that the United States military did not have the correct force structure for a nation building police action.  That is a moot issue.
 
Are the troops just supposed to say, "Well, somebody gave us this FUBAR situation, and because they didn't think it out at the start, no changes can be made"?  That doesn't make sense.
 
This thread is about force mix and not politics.  If you guys would rather talk politics than force structure and operational effectiveness, then please start a new thread.
 

[Paul Vebber]

Paul, the hindsight card is a Red Herring.

No, the "Why didn't we completely overhaul our military organizatio to do nation building?" is the Red herring.

The force mix is based on organizational decision made decades ago that take at least 5 yrs (the timeframe of the FYDP) to even START to change, meaning that any attempt to change this stuff is typically working on an 8-12 year timeline.

That's "reality".

In my opinion, that force structure was developed incorrectly.

Based on hindsight. What evidence would make you think there was anything wrong with the force structure in 1994 or 1996? (When the froce structure we had in 2003 was developed.)

Well, yes it does. The money being spent in IRAQ is almost written on a blank check.

The money going to armored HUMVEES at three times the cost of HUMVEES before the Iraq war could have been going to more Stryker and Cougar vehicles.

MOney is not the issue. It is TIME. All teh money in the world can't make the beaurocracy in DoD (and CONGRESS) move faster. THe decision to abandon HUMVEES in favor of Strykers had to be made back in 1997-98 when the stryker requirement was written and the money flow to fund the desired numbers began. OH and you would have to get it past the COngressional district where HUMVEES are made and have top cover to cancel the HUMVEE program. Which oh by the way you couldn't do becasue the Stryker can't do all the missions of a HUMVEE.

The problem with body armor is actually similar; there is body armor, but the soldiers want lighter and tougher Dragon Skin armor and are prohibited from procuring it. The soldiers on the ground don't have the best equipment that is available. You can bet the merc forces in Iraq have Dragon Skin body armor paid for by the United States government.

And why is that? Becasue we have this thing called "CONGRESS" that has this thing we call "power of the purse" - the Army can't just take money from one approprited weapon system funding line and give it to another. THere is some limited capability to do this in R&D to take advantage of research going better in one program than another, but you can't just take money appropriated for HUMVEES or M-1 tanks and buy body armor with it. That is one reason the flexibility of supporting military forces with contractors allows at least SOME ability to be agile in the procurement domain.

They are prohibited from procuring it BY LAW COURTESY OF CONGRESS to prevent the very sort of "fraud waste and abuse" that would be called if some Colonel reprogrammed 100 million dollars becasue one of his retired buddies showed him how great Dragon Skin was and he decided it was better for teh troops to buy it instead of Bradley spare parts, or MREs. The very thing you are dcrying not happening is SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDEN becasue it looks like FW&A at worst (or implied like when it can legally result in things like sole source contratcs to Haliburton, whose ties to the VP trump the fact it is has been running logisitcs in the CENTCOM AOR since Gulf War I and any other company would have 3 years of start costs to get up to speed...)

Can you site this "stark reality" - that there have been 3200 lethal and 21,800 non-lethal casualties in training accidents in one zone of operation of this size in any 4 year period since the Viet Nam War?

Total deaths in the miltary per year:

http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/C ... Rates1.pdf

1980 = 2392
1981 = 2380
1982 = 2319
1983 = 2465 total = 9556

2003 = 1228
2004 = 1874
2005 = 1942
2006 = 1858 total = 6902

2654 MORE MILITARY MEMBER DIED during the four year period of the "height of the Cold War" than in the 4 years of this war that is "bleeding us dry". By comparison of GDP we would have to be spending another 300billion a year (conservtively) to be sending the same % of GDP as we did then. Yet this war is "bankrupting us".

Occasionally a bit of historical perspective is needed. And we should indeed remember not to confuse newspaper editors with generals. JUst like in the day of Gen Lee.

[Doggie]

This thread is about force mix and not politics.  If you guys would rather talk politics than force structure and operational effectiveness, then please start a new thread.

It is you who would rather talk politics, as it's obvious you know nothing about force structure and operational effectiveness.  You're merely parroting unsubstantiated talking points from left wing blogs.


Paul Vebber is a naval officer whose job it is to understand topics such as these.  His take on military subjects is always concise, logical, and to the point, except when he disagrees with me about bringing back Wisconsin, Iowa and New Jersey; then he's a wanker.[:'(]

(edited to spell my name right and add the best BB, that will do fine as a museum in Norfolk - veb [:-])

[Marauders]

Total deaths in the miltary per year:

http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/C ... Rates1.pdf

1980 = 2392
1981 = 2380
1982 = 2319
1983 = 2465 total = 9556

2003 = 1228
2004 = 1874
2005 = 1942
2006 = 1858 total = 6902

2654 MORE MILITARY MEMBER DIED during the four year period of the "height of the Cold War" than in the 4 years of this war that is "bleeding us dry".

Paul, you know as well as I that we are talking about difference size active forces in those time periods. If one interpolates the current numbers to the old force pool size, then the numbers today would be higher. One should note that the United States military in the 1990s did not have numbers close to the death rates in the early 1980s. Your numbers are selective, but I did say any time since Viet Nam, so that is fair enough. Even with your selective numbers, the average death rate is now higher.

Year = ACC + HOS = TOTAL/100,000 Serving

1980 = 72.0 + 00.0 = 72.0
1981 = 69.1 + 00.0 = 69.1
1982 = 66.4 + 00.0 = 66.4
1983 = 62.2 + 00.8 = 63.0 (63.1 if we include terrorist attack deaths in Beirut and Kuwait)

67.6 Average deaths per 100,000 serving in accidents and hostile action (4 year period)
69.1 Average deaths per 100,000 serving in accidents and hostile action (highest 3 year period)

2003 = 25.4 + 19.9 = 45.3
2004 = 35.3 + 43.2 = 78.5
2005 = 38.0 + 44.4 = 82.4
2006 = 27.9 + 45.3 = 73.2

69.9 Average deaths per 100,000 serving in accidents and hostile action (4 year period)
78.0 Average deaths per 100,000 serving in accidents and hostile action (highest 3 year period)

This does not take into account the WIA casualty rates which are important to my premise. These rates are not listed. It would benifit this conversation to have comparable results from wounds and trauma. Note that the summary tables and graphs end in the year 1999 while the data above goes to 2006. What don't they want to show us on those graphs?

The force mix is based on organizational decision made decades ago that take at least 5 yrs (the timeframe of the FYDP) to even START to change, meaning that any attempt to change this stuff is typically working on an 8-12 year timeline. That's "reality".

That's not the "reality". The emergency supplemental military appropriations have taken care of that.

The the uparmored HUMVEEs were not in the budget. They were not ordered in 1996 or even in 2001. In May of 2004, Congress approved $618 million funding for the production of 300 M1114s uparmored HUMVEEsper month from May through October, and 450 per month, from October 2004 till March 2006. $610 million were also allocated for armor kits for existing tactical vehicles.

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber
4 years of this war that is "bleeding us dry".

Not the 3200+ military personal is the problem (and add the approx the twice in PMC losses who are mostly US citizen also), but the number of civilian casualties, which forced the even notoriously neutral Red Cross/Red Crescent to make a statement.

Against all the sacrifice of the armed forces' members the politicians managed to create a Vietnam v2 by sending the troops into a war which they are not prepared to fight. In a year from now Obama will start to evacuate US troops from the sandpit and after the last marine have left Iraq Saudi Arabia will intervene to protect the sunnis from the shiites. The wahabites have already more weapon (planes etc) than they can man, of course Iran will react and the US wont have anything to do but lay back and see how his two great adversaries bleed each other dry.

As simple as that.

[Marauders]

These are the numbers for the four years previous to 2003.

1999 796
2000 758
2001 891
2002 999

Total deaths = 3444

1999 28.6 + 0.0 = 28.6
2000 26.0 + 0.0 = 26.0
2001 28.2 + 0.2 = 28.4
2002 33.6 + 1.1 = 34.7

29.4 Average deaths per 100,000 serving in accidents and hostile action (4 year period)

One can see that the statement "Like it or not, the stark reality is 3200 or so dead soldiers in over 4 years is barely more than die in training accidents in that time," is misleading, as it does not indicate that the death rate is 238% of what it was prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. These are deaths over and above the accidental deaths in the entire military.

What is worse is that Army and Marine forces account for 96.7% of the KIA in Iraq. That bodes poorly for their increased morbidity rates.

Paul Vebber is a naval officer whose job it is to understand topics such as these. His take on military subjects is always concise, logical, and to the point, ....

I respect Paul's opinion, but this statement above is no less than an appeal to authority. It is faulty logic in itself.

Nevertheless, this all digresses from the question of whether the force pool is correct or not. I was not asking whom is to blame or why. I was asking if "there the correct mix of Humvee, uparmored Humvee, Cougar, Stryker, Bradley, and Abrams?"

[Fredk]

I'm glad the matrix forums have produced some folks capable of resolving these issues. It is certainly only a matter of time until victory is ours.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: Marauders

These are the numbers for the four years previous to 2003.

1999 796
2000 758
2001 891
2002 999

Total deaths = 3444

1999 28.6 + 0.0 = 28.6
2000 26.0 + 0.0 = 26.0
2001 28.2 + 0.2 = 28.4
2002 33.6 + 1.1 = 34.7

29.4 Average deaths per 100,000 serving in accidents and hostile action (4 year period)

One can see that the statement "Like it or not, the stark reality is 3200 or so dead soldiers in over 4 years is barely more than die in training accidents in that time," is misleading, as it does not indicate that the death rate is 238% of what it was prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. These are deaths over and above the accidental deaths in the entire military.

What is worse is that Army and Marine forces account for 96.7% of the KIA in Iraq. That bodes poorly for their increased morbidity rates.

Paul Vebber is a naval officer whose job it is to understand topics such as these. His take on military subjects is always concise, logical, and to the point, ....

I respect Paul's opinion, but this statement above is no less than an appeal to authority. It is faulty logic in itself.

Nevertheless, this all digresses from the question of whether the force pool is correct or not. I was not asking whom is to blame or why. I was asking if "there the correct mix of Humvee, uparmored Humvee, Cougar, Stryker, Bradley, and Abrams?"

Your own numbers support exactly what I said. Now go back and show us where I said accidental deaths in training dont occur anymore?

The reality being we are fighting a war ( you know, that event where 2 or more sides TRY to kill each other?) and the personnel killed in that on going war are less or equal to the numbers killed in peacetime training accidents.

Lets refresh everyone, in 2003 when we invaded the Main Stream press announced and continued to claim , we would see thousands of dead American troops and we would lose. Even after the Invasion was over the press tried to paint it in a negative light.

Forward a bit and you have a false and misleading lancet report claiming several hundred thousand Iraq civilians had been ( essentially) murdered , all by or because of the US military. A report that has been since shown to be the joke it was.

Follow that up a couple years later by another "report" rushed to print claiming 600k dead, another "scientific" report shown to be nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of people trying to force the US to quit.

All the press and the anti war crowd have is body count, it isnt very big statistically speaking and historically it is miniscule, but they repeat it ad infinitium inj the hopes they can upset enough of the "correct" people to force us out.

Now back to your Force mix.

The military does NOT believe they need more strikers , more cougars or more true armored Infantry or personnel carriers , except as replacements for those wearing out or being destroyed. As someone else pointed out ( someone you say you respect) those vehicles do not have the ability to the mission that Hummers are used for. ( or rather to be precise, they cant do all the missions a Hummer can)

Add to that, even IF you are right and the miltary agreed and made Congress fork over the dough and somehow made some Company make 10/20 thousand striker/cougars in like 6 months, all that would happen is the terrorists would make BIGGER road side bombs. Bombs that would destroy the armored vehicles AND probably cause MORE collateral damage amongst the supply vehicles because of a bigger force and bigger blast radius.

Granted it may slow casualties for a month or two while the terrorists figure out how to plant the bombs, but they have no lack of explosives and the borders are not sealed so even if they did, more can come from Iran and Syria.

The end story is that the experts will decide force mix and up till now have not made any requests that we know of for thousands or even hundreds of the vehicles you suggest we may need.

Thus the answer is NO, the military does not appear to feel its vehicle force mix is wrong in regards the role and use of Hummers. They are much more likely to know what they need, then you or I or some Congressman or Senator.

If the Military decides they need better armored vehicles for convoy work, then I would be right beside you asking Congress to fund it and buy it.