June 12, 2006
Thanks for Catching Up...
CNN, today:
Thousands of pounds of armor added to military Humvees, intended to protect U.S. troops, have made the vehicles more likely to roll over, killing and injuring soldiers in Iraq, a newspaper reported."I believe the up-armoring has caused more deaths than it has saved," said Scott Badenoch, a former Delphi Corp. vehicle dynamics expert told the Dayton Daily News for Sunday editions.
Since the start of the war, Congress and the Army have spent tens of millions of dollars on armor for the Humvee fleet in Iraq, the newspaper reported Sunday.
That armor -- much of it installed on the M1114 Humvee built at the Armor Holdings Inc. plant north of Cincinnati, Ohio -- has shielded soldiers from harm.
But serious accidents involving the M1114 have increased as the war has progressed, and the accidents were much more likely to be rollovers than those of other Humvee models, the newspaper reported.
USA Today, March 2005:
The Army is baffled by a recent spate of vehicle accidents in Iraq — many of them rollovers involving armored Humvees — that have claimed more than a dozen lives this year.One key concern: Soldiers lack the skills to handle the heavier Humvees and are losing control as they speed through ambush areas before insurgents detonate roadside bombs.
"An individual feels that if he goes faster he can avoid that threat," says Lt. Col. Michael Tarutani, an Army official tracking the accidents. "But now he's exceeded, first, maybe his capabilities, and then maybe the speed for those conditions."
In the past four full months, the numbers of serious vehicle accidents and fatalities in Iraq have more than doubled from the previous four months, records provided by the Army show. In the first 10 weeks of this year, 14 soldiers were killed in accidents involving Humvees or trucks. All but one died in rollovers. If that rate continues, the number of soldiers killed in such accidents this year would be almost double the 39 soldiers killed in 2004. Detailed records involving Marines were not available.
Perhaps recycling a year-old article is "news" for CNN, but their story is well-known to anyone who has been following this war... or any other.
Just as with the human body armor that some have been pushing, there is a significant trade-off, because added armor decreases mobility and flexibility. More armor does not always mean more survivability, as the heavier armor slows soldiers down and puts them in the enemy's kill zone longer. Firepower almost always ends up defeating a slowed, moderately-armored enemy.
It's a formula that has held for hundreds of years, at least since the Battle of Crécy in 1346.
I'm glad CNN is finally catching up.
I work in this field, so my comments may carry a little weight. We've known about this problem, but NO ONE other than this guy (who I've never heard of) believes that the armor presents more of a risk from roll-over than IEDs present. That statement is just mindless. Maybe he is trying to sell his product too hard.
Without going into details best left unstated, the current HMMWV is the best tradeoff we can come up with for the immediate requirement. We can't study this thing for years while Soldiers and Marines die. There are new vehicles in the works.
We train Soldiers and Marines in how to drive HMMWVs, spending a lot of time on preventing roll-overs. However, when bullets are flying, people react instinctively. Not always wisely.