Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
12/22/2004 3:44:35 AM EDT
This letter was printed in the 21 December, 2004, issue of the Charleston, SC, Post & Courier:

******************************************************


I have sat patiently long enough, and I must speak about the National Guardsman who asked the question about armor for his unit’s vehicles to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently.

I am stationed in Kuwait and am at a level at which I know the facts of the up-armor program in Kuwait and Iraq.

This soldier was incorrect concerning the statement he made about looking through landfills for armor plate.

There is no armor plate in landfills over here, and his unit was up-armored to the U.S. standard before it left for Iraq.  The problem was that his unit wanted more armor than the standard set.

This standard was based on units experiencing attacks in Iraq and based on the amount of armored steel available versus the number of vehicles that must be armored before this rotation ends.  I understand the desire to be as safe as possible, but two problems arise if they receive more armor.

One, most of these vehicles would be carrying more weight than they were designed to carry, potentially causing a breakdown at the wrong place (i.e., in an ambush).  We know this from experience.

Second, if we give them all the armor they want then some units will go without.  There is not enough armored steel in the world to meet the demand.

These soldiers only care about themselves and not their fellow soldiers in arms.

These soldiers should be practicing their shooting skills and breaking contact skills (what you do when you are attacked ion an ambush) instead of trying to piece together pieces of armored plate.

All soldiers (including myself) want to do all we can to protect ourselves and our buddies, but we must understand reality.

The fact in that when traveling in a convoy in Iraq your best deterrent to attack is your protective posture (ready to fight or as we call it, guns up).  Armored plate helps, but killing the enemy is the best deterrent.

XXXXXXXXXXXX
U.S. Army
Camp Aris Jan
Kuwait



(The writer's name was printed in the paper.  I just wouldn't feel right posting someone else's name on the internet)
*******************************************************

A couple points in follow-up:

1. The original question was fed to the soldier by a reporter who was fishing for a story.  He got what he was after.

2.  The media is desperate for anything to show the Bush administration in a bad light.  For example, Kerick was dropped as a nominee for Homeland Security Director, but there are still almost daily news stories about him.  Since he is no longer being considered for the post everything else is moot.  Why keep hammering it day after day?

3.  What is the real situation with up-armored Humvees?  All I can say is that I’m not there.  By the nature of the vehicle it will never be as safe as riding inside an Abrams, and if it was you wouldn’t be able to move it.  What would be the result of a group of soldiers getting hammered in an ambush and their vehicles breaking down, then finding out that they did unauthorized mods, adding thousands of pounds to their rides?  There are design limits.  That’s why we don’t hang a Hellfire missile under a Shadow TUAV.

4.  The general news media is determined to paint the whole Iraq situation as a disaster.  They don’t report that the vast majority of the country is stable and quiet.  The focus is on the few trouble spots.  That’s all they feed us.  It’s the same style reporting as during the Vietnam war.

These days we want perfection, zero mistakes, and no casualties.  With that kind of thinking there would have been no Normandy Invasion, no landing on Iwo Jima.  I don’t mean to make light of our losses and the sacrifices made by our folks in uniform.  You guys know me better than that.  

According to the D-Day Museum (http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm#casualities/) these figures represent our losses on June 6, 1944:


The breakdown of US casualties was 1465 dead, 3184 wounded, 1928 missing and 26 captured.


Actually, Eisenhower was expecting far higher casualties, especially among our airborne forces, yet he gave the order to go ahead.  

The problems we have in Iraq are being caused by deposed Baathists and imported terrorists from other countries.  If we got a handle on those guys and things stabilized in those trouble spots we’d still see stories about a guy whose toilet is clogged and it’s all our fault.  It’s naïve to expect anything else from the likes of Dan Rather and Peter Jennings.
12/22/2004 3:53:03 AM EDT
[#1]
quote:
The problems we have in Iraq are being caused by deposed Baathists and imported terrorists from other countries. If we got a handle on those guys and things stabilized in those trouble spots we’d still see stories about a guy whose toilet is clogged and it’s all our fault.


What I find real nauseating is that the Iraqi people refuse to fight in any meaningful way for their own  --- country ---


those pictures of hundreds of Saddam's troops -- surrendering en mass are what those that are loyal to our cause would do also -------- except they just call it quits and go home while coalition troops die  -- trying to do good for them , I wonder how long before that gets so old for the US troops before we start hearing about it --------- in the   liberal   newspapers ???


Sorry behind the news ---------- it already is being reported ------


Bush's less-than-glowing assessment of American-trained Iraqi troops contrasted with his previous evaluations, which stressed progress toward the goal of training 200,000 Iraqi security forces by the end of next year. He's said repeatedly that any hope for a U.S. withdrawal hinges on the ability of Iraqi troops to take over.

"There have been some cases where, when the heat got on, they left the battlefield. That's unacceptable," he said. "Iraq will never fully secure itself if they have troops that, when they heat gets on, they leave the battlefield."


www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/10461703.htm
12/22/2004 4:02:49 AM EDT
[#2]
"...most of these vehicles would be carrying more weight than they were designed to carry"

This is a major problem I see.  While alot of the Humvees can handle the extra weight, there
are alot of specialized Humvee platforms that are already mounted with heavy equipment,
(Avenger air defense systems come to mind) bringing them very close to their maximum
rating before armor is considered.

12/22/2004 4:07:11 AM EDT
[#3]
3" steel covers for ALL hummers- thats what I think....
12/22/2004 4:14:18 AM EDT
[#4]
If we lose this war it will be because of shitstains like those trying to bring down Rummy and those that support him.
What so of these reporters and the ACLU are doing is traitorous.

SGatr15
12/22/2004 4:15:28 AM EDT
[#5]

Quoted:
If we lose this war it will be because of shitstains like those trying to bring down Rummy and those that support him.
What so of these reporters and the ACLU are doing is traitorous.

SGatr15



Amen to that!

12/22/2004 8:53:39 AM EDT
[#6]

Quoted:
If we lose this war it will be because of shitstains like those trying to bring down Rummy and those that support him.
What so of these reporters and the ACLU are doing is traitorous.

SGatr15



You mean poeple like Cyanide, for example?
12/22/2004 10:05:19 PM EDT
[#7]
Everything is relative.

Technically this is one of our 'Level II armoured HMMWVs'

Please not the level of armour available to the majority of these lads. However, it has as much official armour as it is going to get.



NTM