It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Humvee Fiasco? (America)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 03:42 AM
link   
The Humvee manufacturer, AM General of Indiana, USA disputed remarks by United States Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. At a recent news briefing that went into questions regarding lack or armor for Humvee (modern Jeep replacement) vehicles the Secretary of Defense basically provided that all that could be done was being done. The manufacturer of the vehicles disagrees and states that not only is more possible but that as early as April or 2004 the American adminstration was aware that increased production was possible.
 



seattlepi.nwsource.com
COX NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON -- The manufacturer of Humvees for the U.S. military and the company that adds armor to the utility vehicles are not running near production capacity and are making all that the Pentagon has requested, spokesmen for both companies said.
"If they call and say, 'You know, we really want more,' we'll get it done," said Lee Woodward, a spokesman for AM General, the Indiana company that makes Humvees and the civilian Hummer versions.
-further in the story-
Blaming the shortage on a lack of production capacity, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did Wednesday, is "just not true," said Bayh. He said he had told the Pentagon as early as April that more armored Humvees could be built.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The lack of armor plating and defensive glass is quickly becoming a scandal inside and out of Washington, DC. During a briefing to US Army Reservists Defense secretary Rumsfeld was asked pointed questions that now appear to have been planted by a reporter. Even as that point of this unfolding story is attacjed and defended the responses that Rumsfeld gave are attacked and defended. Some calling his responses 'callous.'

American Democratic party leaders are once again calling for Rumsfelds departure,

No CEO in America would retain a manager with so clear a record of failure and neither should President Bush" - Nancy Pelosi


Yet another public relations gaff by America's Secretary of Defense (Rumsfeld) has propelled their President in to a malestorm of controversy. Questions regarding armor, supplies and the adminstrations policies supporting its troops in war zones seem to have become political fodder at a time President Bush has need of domestic support for other programs such as a over haul of the American social security (retirement) system.


Related News Links:
www.miami.com
www.itv.com
www.boston.com




posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Excuse my asking, but WHY isn't anybody celebrating the ingenuity of our soldiers who took a vehicle primarily designed to replace the jeep (remember how bullet-proof THEY were?) and making them as safe as possible? When our soldiers did the same thing with construction equipment in previous wars, (welding steelplating around the operator's cages of bulldozers and such) they were heralded as geniuses!

This is nothing more than Liberal spin to discount our acheivments and concentrate on our weaknesses.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Sounds to me more like a government that is trying to spend as little money as possible and troops safety (they're just bullet catchers after all)
comes at the bottom of the spending list.

BTW toelint, our solders wouldn't have to do those things if their government gave a damn. Should soldiers be expected provide their own equipment to do their "job"?
This problem is more than liberal spin as you call it, do some research it's been an ongoing issue for awhile now.
Rumsfeld basicaly swept the problem under the persian rug.
More lies upon lies.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Toelint I could agree with you easily. Just not the this case, however.

American soldiers were sent to war with 'the very best' and Humvees are used and issued to be used as everything from a utility vehicle to a lite-armored car.

The American administration started the entire equipment imbroglio by bragging about things that are not proven to be true, such as protected convoys, body armor, etc. (Humvees).

It is not that anyone denigrates field ingenuity it is that it should be admitted as what it is- making do for deficiencies. During every war the filed forces create new ways of using equipment (not just Americans).
During WW II for example:

    the Imperial Japanese stationed on islands in the South Pacific created a way to utilize native coral instead of cement to build bunkers. As coral is largely calcium as is limestone (basis for cement) the Japanese made-do (created) not only suitable bunkers but ones that were virtually indestructible.

    the Russians surrounded by Fascist forces at Leningrad developed a method to utilize parts of pine trees as a food. This in itself was stupendous and greatly aided their ability to withstand a siege.

    Duct-tape, originally designed for air duct work quickly became a temporary fix-all for everything from holes in aircraft to holding broken parts in place.

I'm sorry that you perceive this story as some type of liberal attack or spin- it isn't. It is the facts. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld clearly was 'shotting from the hip' like he has done many times in the past. This Iraq war is serious, it is not something the leader of a nations military should use for a stump speech, which in this case backfired.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Toelint I could agree with you easily. Just not the this case, however.

American soldiers were sent to war with 'the very best' and Humvees are used and issued to be used as everything from a utility vehicle to a lite-armored car.

The American administration started the entire equipment imbroglio by bragging about things that are not proven to be true, such as protected convoys, body armor, etc. (Humvees).

It is not that anyone denigrates field ingenuity it is that it should be admitted as what it is- making do for deficiencies. During every war the filed forces create new ways of using equipment (not just Americans).
During WW II for example:

    the Imperial Japanese stationed on islands in the South Pacific created a way to utilize native coral instead of cement to build bunkers. As coral is largely calcium as is limestone (basis for cement) the Japanese made-do (created) not only suitable bunkers but ones that were virtually indestructible.

    the Russians surrounded by Fascist forces at Leningrad developed a method to utilize parts of pine trees as a food. This in itself was stupendous and greatly aided their ability to withstand a siege.

    Duct-tape, originally designed for air duct work quickly became a temporary fix-all for everything from holes in aircraft to holding broken parts in place.

I'm sorry that you perceive this story as some type of liberal attack or spin- it isn't. It is the facts. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld clearly was 'shotting from the hip' like he has done many times in the past. This Iraq war is serious, it is not something the leader of a nations military should use for a stump speech, which in this case backfired.


EXCELLENT RESEARCH! Props to you for that. Joe, our Military has had it's "bouts" with equipment since the invention of gun powder. Didn't we have a ship in WWII called the "floating coffin" by it's crew? Of course, in Vietnam, we had two pieces of equipment that got a lot of press, good and bad...mostly bad! The HEUY Helicopter, and the M16 rifle. Well, guess what? We still use BOTH, yet when first introduced, both fell short when it came to actually getting shot

As cras as it may sound, somebody should ask how much it costs to armour one of theses vehicles. I'd like to know.



[edit on 10-12-2004 by Toelint]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   
the fact this this became a highlight of the trip is PR 101 for you. Any middle level manager should be aware of this. People aren't going to grill you on grand strategy etc, but on something that's really close to them, and in that case it just happens to be their skin.

Shortage of armor plates for the vests was a long standing issue. IMHO it should have been resolved in no time and trumpeted as an achievement of the DOD. That's PR for you. It has not been done until much later. In case of humvees, the mgt should have foreseen that they need more protection in the urban warfare conditions. I just read an article in CNN about 9,000+ maimed US soldiers, and I'm pretty sure a lot of injuries could have been prevented by bombproofing the humvees. AND it would have been a lot cheaper in the end, than caring about the disabled.

There have been numerous management screw ups, and we never hear a straight answer from Rumsfeld.

Get the point?


[edit on 10-12-2004 by Aelita]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 12:27 PM
link   
The Humvee is soo much more superior than the Jeep it replaced.

Keep in mind also, that our superiority comes from the air.
We always start from the air, and then work in on the ground if we are going in.

But the war usually ends when the air strikes end.

As for being safe while in Iraq in a Humvee?
To get any safer, you might as well assign tanks to everyone that drives there. But I really dont think any country could afford that.

It is a different war than we are used to. The tactics are changed. It's gorrilla warefare there, and we have already claimed the war over so it's just complex mop-up.

The armor on the Humvees is applied by Armor Holdings Inc.'s O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt subsidiary in Fairfield. O'Gara-Hess currently is installing armor on 300 vehicles a month, according to the Bloomberg report, and the company has told the Army and analysts that it will be able to increase that production to 450 a month by October.

The extra armored vehicles would be in addition to 4,400 "up-armored" Humvees that the Army already has said are required in Iraq. Nearly a year ago, only 235 armored Humvees were in use in Iraq, but the need for the vehicles has grown as attacks from snipers and roadside bombs have increased

O'Gara-Hess officials told the trade journal Defense Week that the Humvees can stop armor-piercing 7.62-millimeter rounds, provide protection from overhead shell blasts and handle a 12-pound mine detonation under the front axle.


Sooo,... do you still want something else to drive instead of a Hummer?

Jeep Specs
(the official life expectancy of a jeep was 3 months in the combat arena)

Which would you rather be in combat in?...

This?...



Or This!...




posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   
The Humvee is so much better then the Jeep its not even a comparison. It is also the best military truck on the planet why do you think China is making a copy of the Humvee and not any other countries truck. It was never designed to be a tank its a truck and a very good one.




Hmm I can see the family resemblance



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
The Humvee is so much better then the Jeep its not even a comparison. It is also the best military truck on the planet



Then again, there is the Mercedes-Benz G-Wagen!



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Now I have another reason to smurk at all the idiots in my town who drive their huge ass H2s and have their little W04 bumper stickers on them....If they only could see the irony....



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Wow the Mercedes symbol on the grill of a military truck just don't look right to me. The G wagon has a much smaller stance then the Humvee I can also tell from the picture that the Humvee has better ground clearance.

"83.5 HP or a 2.5 naturally aspirated diesel with 75 HP. " Man thats a weak engine I had a 4 banger with over twice as much horse power. Not sure about the Torque numbers I assume they are much higher.

Give me a Humvee anyday even in the civilian world I like BMW better then Mercedes



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Wow the Mercedes symbol on the grill of a military truck just don't look right to me.


I may be partial, as my first car was a Mercedes, but a Mercedes symbol on anything is a mark of quality. Being anal goes a long mile when you are an engineer, and the Germans are just that. I'm not bashing the BMW, it's a fantastic vehicle with great hadnling, but Mercedes just has a different feel and I happen to like it.

The G-class, derived from the Wagen, is a huge success in Europe.

I agree it is a smaller vehicle, but if you read the story, it was deployed in quite a bit of places and apparently served well.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 01:33 PM
link   
"(scottish accent) I'm only borrowing your humvee!"



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
I may be partial, as my first car was a Mercedes, but a Mercedes symbol on anything is a mark of quality. Being anal goes a long mile when you are an engineer, and the Germans are just that. I'm not bashing the BMW, it's a fantastic vehicle with great hadnling, but Mercedes just has a different feel and I happen to like it.



Im baised to BMW since I own one now My first German Car
Never owned a Mercedes drove a older one so its not really fair to compare it to my car.

I have to say I heard some amazing stories of Mercedes lasting like 300,000 miles superb reliability



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   
The G-Wagen doesn't look at all armored. It looks like a truck. That's what it is, and that's what the hummvee is, a truck. It's been pressed into service as a utility vehicle in a combat environment it was never meant to be in. It was designed for Europe and a sensible soviet enemy in a highly mobile environment, not the middle east, tight streets, and suicide bombers. Light infantry was never meant to have APCs, nor were they meant to be peace keepers. We need a new kind of military unit for this mission. One that can move securely and pack a big punch. APCs with light armor, reactive armor and missle capability, probably. Instead of hummvees, we should be using strykers and bradleys to partol the streets. But, we did not make enough of them to go around in a situation like this. You can build 10 humvees for the cost of 1 bradley, and politicians liked that at budget time. We ARE armoring them, but by the time they all are armored, we won't need the armor any more. So, we'll just have to make due with what we have and pray... And plan for the future battlefields, North Korea, Iran, and Africa.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulforge
The G-Wagen doesn't look at all armored. It looks like a truck.


Not entirely true, as is evident from the literature:



The G-Wagen provides superb mobility, reliability, and economy, both off- road and on-road. It optimally fulfills its intended mission as a vehicle for transporting personnel or loads at a maximum two metric tons, and for towing trailers or artillery.

Designed for air landings, the vehicle can be transported easily as an external load below a helicopter or as an internal load for aircraft, including the U.S. Marine Corps V-22 Osprey. It can also be air-dropped by parachute.

The G-Wagen is offered in several armored versions, with protection ranging from small arms to mine blast protection. It has performed successfully for German special forces in Afghanistan and U.S. Marine Corps Force Recon Units in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. Powered by a modern turbocharged common rail diesel engine, the G-Wagen military series meets the latest requirements of modern armed forces with respect to fuel efficiency and exhaust emissions.


[edit on 10-12-2004 by Aelita]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Toelint, from the story I linked (apparently you missed it) the cost to armor a Humvee

At O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt, the Ohio firm that turns specially designed Humvees into fully armored vehicles at a cost of about $70,000 each, spokesman Michael Fox said they, too, can provide more if the government wants them.


As to the Huey and M-16, yeah and those kind of lists are endless. The British .303 (carbine) should be king of the modern 'should have been better' lists. A friend of mine has an M-16 with Mattel modeled into the stock.

One of my favorite weapons that surprised everyonje as to its usefulness was the US M-1 carbine (not to be mistaken for the real M-1) and also as the M-2. A kind of rifle meant to replace a pistol! Yet these little jewels performed admirably and became much revered by specialist troops (commando types).

As to the 'floating coffin,' at least two come to mind:
Landing Craft: Tank, or LCT
and
Liberty Ships

Back to the 'Hummer'-
I think it is a bold vehicle, most other nations have opted for something similar to the Mercedes posted in this thread by others. The Hummer has no equal or near-equal in the modern military of any nation. The US military had a small truck (I can't remember the designation or name of) that the Hummer reminds me of, upgraded.

The American military has limited numbers of Stryker available or a few others. These are true infantry support vehicles but they are not in adequate supply.

So, at $70,000 extra a pop, is it worth having armored Hummers?



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Wow the Mercedes symbol on the grill of a military truck just don't look right to me. The G wagon has a much smaller stance then the Humvee I can also tell from the picture that the Humvee has better ground clearance.

"83.5 HP or a 2.5 naturally aspirated diesel with 75 HP. " Man thats a weak engine I had a 4 banger with over twice as much horse power. Not sure about the Torque numbers I assume they are much higher.

Give me a Humvee anyday even in the civilian world I like BMW better then Mercedes


You need to understand the difference between raw Horsepower and the ability to generate the horsepower under load. For instance, most commercial bulldozers have around 15hp. Thats HUGE diesel engines producing 15hp. Of course, they produce that 15hp when under loads that would blow the engine (and transmission) in a 200HP sports car.

75HP is a LOT of power if the engine can support the HP under massive loads (which a hummer can do). They wont be drag racing you any time soon, but they dont get stuck easily and they keep going in some tough conditions.

Also, folks, we have a series of tucks between the jeep and the hummer. They were the equivalent of green-painted S-10 pickup trucks. The their name escapes me at the moment. I never drove a jeep OR a hum-vee while in the service, just these pieces of crap. They got stuck rather easily.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join