Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

Report: Armor Causing Humvees to Roll Over

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News

NVMojo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jun-11-06 11:48 PM
Original message

Report: Armor Causing Humvees to Roll Over

DAYTON, Ohio (AP) - 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 - has shielded soldiers from harm.

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2006/jun/11/061102879.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Wilms

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jun-11-06 11:54 PM
Response to Original message

1. Tell me again. I'm a little thick.

Who supports the troops?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Igel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #1

4. Interesting question.

There was certainly a rather large flap over the lack of armor protection, and a great outcry to get their armor upgraded as quickly as possible.

Tough call.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cant_wait_for_2008

(90 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #4

6. If they used Titainium instead of steel it would make a huge difference

Titanium is much stronger and lighter then steel, but not as light as the aluminum coffins these people come back in, thanks to Bush's War!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

truthisfreedom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #6

9. titanium is 40% lighter than steel. they could use it for everything above

the center of gravity, and use steel everywhere lower.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sofa king

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #9

19. But it's expensive as hell and hard to work with.

By "expensive," I mean that uparmoring the fleet with titanium might cost as much as a week's worth of Halliburton's operations in Iraq.

These guys don't want material results, because it's so much easier to steal electrons.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

newspeak

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #19

27. yes, my father-in-law

worked at a company that makes titanium--he actually was one of the workers who made it and he developed certain techniques that made a more pure titanium. Titanium has a high heat capacity, very strong and lightweight compared to steel. The heat panels on spacecraft were made of titanium before ceramics were used. And, helicoptors, planes also made with titanium. It's amazing the government doesn't want to spend the money for a more reasonable solution--I agree- titanium on top and steel below.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

merwin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #4

8. Hummers were not meant to be used in the manner that they are being used.

They need vehicles meant for this purpose, and not try to retrofit a non-combat vehicle.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Igel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #8

29. The right answer. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

krkaufman

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #4

10. Personally, I would have expected the military and the companies...

... providing the up-armoring to have tested the vehicles under the armor load, and have adjusted to insure safety. Well, I would have expected that under a Democratic administration, anyway.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Igel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #10

30. I'd have wanted it.

But it was a big political football at the time.

Do you hold off saying, "We need to test this," while the other side is saying, "But our little boys are being shredded!"? The tests would have come back ambiguous, leaving "But our little boys are being shredded!" to resound in the press while Rumsfeld hauled out graphs and charts and tried to explain a dozen scenarios and how the top-heavy vehicles under some scenarios would lead to greater deaths and under some scenarios fewer deaths. Then he'd try to explain that a new vehicle was being designed and would be ready in a decade, or that the assembly line for something else was being kicked into high gear.

It was a political decision, mixed with a military decision, an economic decision, and an engineering decision. You get that many factors, none of which are incredibly principled and all of which demand a compromise, and you get a bad decision.

Deaths aside, though, I wonder how armor's affected the severity and incidence of injuries to the passengers--if this ups the number of severe injuries overall, or reduces it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

merh

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #4

18. Not a tough call at all

there was another vehicle that should have been produced for use in Iraq.

The humvee is actually a very poor choice due to it's design, the windows at street level, no armor, and, the failure to have the "V" under carriage.

The "V" deflects the impact of IED's

Humvees are used so that the manufacturer can continue to make profits. It's about corporations, not the troops.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

newspeak

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #18

28. could it be that the corporate cronies

picked the Hummer? We got to give our "friends" these contracts, afterall. It's like our local police are riding around in Broncos--gas guzzlers and have a propensity to roll. The city got a "sweet" deal on them or is it pay back for some politician's backer. Anyway, what a stupid move. How come I get the feeling that this war is being budgeted on a shoestring when it comes to our soldiers but not when it comes to funding Halliburton.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

merh

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #28

32. The reason you get that feeling is because

that is exactly what is taking place. :(

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

coalition_unwilling

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #4

25. Tough call, b/c taking evasive action to avoid

hostile fire probably makes vehicles, up-armored or no, more prone to roll-overs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tesha

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #1

15. That would be the folks who want to reserve their use...

> Who supports the troops?

That would be the folks who want to reserve their use for
times when our nation is actually *IN JEOPARDY*.

Tesha

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Vidar

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 12:05 AM
Response to Original message

2. Humvees were an expensive joke with too high a center

of gravity to begin with.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cant_wait_for_2008

(90 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #2

5. So was the Jeep. These vehicles can't be/do everything without a tradeoff.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

physioex

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #5

7. Right....

Can't have a vechile do everything. For a vechile designed over 20 years ago, it has done a pretty good job. And it is probably time to look at yet another total redesign.

I addition to getting the hell out.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Vidar

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #5

14. Jeeps were dirt cheap & didn't pretend to be armored vehicles.

They had half-tracks & armored cars for that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

merh

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #5

22. They should have gone with the Buffalo and Cougar in the first place

(snip)
When he recently heard the U.S. military was implementing a heavily-armoured truck very familiar to the Saracen, he wasn't surprised.

At this moment, the Pentagon is rushing these U.S.-made trucks into battle. There are two types. One is called the "Buffalo", which is mostly used for bomb clearance. Then there's the "Cougar", which is smaller yet more versatile.

Switzer says their size "is unforgettable". Both tower over the flat, low-to-ground Humvees. Their narrow, V-shaped hulls direct blasts detonated underneath vehicles out and away from passengers.

The company that manufactures them -- Force Protection Inc. of Charleston, SC -- admits the V-shaped design is indeed taken from past South African designs. They also say some of the same engineers that designed the original Buffel for the South African military are now employed by Force Protection.

(continued at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1224-06.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rman

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #2

24. Expensive joke - most likely,

but to high a center of gravity? I don't know. Surely the center of gravity of a hummer is much lower than that of a jeep. They have a very wide wheel base and are not build high on the chassis. I don't see how you could make them lower without losing to much ground clearance. In fact, given the long and wide wheel base i've always though that insufficient ground clearance is the main problem for hummers. Not that i'm an expert, just common sense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cliss

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 12:45 AM
Response to Original message

3. Tell me again,

what country am I in - the Soviet Union?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

clixtox

(941 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #3

11. If you are in the USA>>>

you are in a "Banana Republic", without the cheap, fresh tropical fruit. Duh...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Rene

(758 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 05:08 AM
Response to Original message

12. Someone please check on this info....If they roll over it's

labeled an 'accident' and those deaths are not in the official US death count.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cessna Invesco Palin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 05:32 AM
Response to Reply #12

13. Yes, they are in the official count.

Go to icasualties.org for more than you ever, ever wanted to know about US military deaths in Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Crunchy Frog

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #12

17. They are in the official death count, but

they are not labeled as "combat" casualties, and on some level that renders them somehow less significant. Also, the ones who are wounded but not killed in these accidents do not go into the official numbers. If you look at icasualties.com you will see that the only wounded listed are those wounded in action.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Crunchy Frog

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 07:48 AM
Response to Original message

16. Yeah, but at least those deaths aren't "combat" deaths,

and the injuries that result don't even get counted since they're not combat either. So even if it's not saving lives, at least it's making the Bushies look better, and that's the truly important thing here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

saigon68

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 08:18 AM
Response to Original message

20. *Its Corporate Profits" --You silly person

Anything that increases corporate profits and wealth for the ruling class is good

To hell with the rustics who enlist, they are so much cannon fodder

Wait til they are homeless begging in the streets

Then the ruling class will really shit all over the said rustics

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Toots

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 09:14 AM
Response to Original message

21. Trying to use the Hummer as an Armored Personel Carrier

It is no wonder the US can not get a handle on a few civilians...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

merh

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 01:34 PM
Response to Original message

23. The Buffalo and the Cougar -

BAE SYSTEMS Awarded $180 Million Contract to Manufacture Iraqi Light Armored Vehicles
Publisher: BAE Systems
Date: 06/05/2006
Website: http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060605006191&newsLang=en

YORK, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 5, 2006--BAE Systems has received a $180 million Foreign Military Sales contract to manufacture 378 Iraqi Light Armored Vehicles from the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command.

BAE Systems, as prime contractor, along with subcontractors Force Protection, Inc., based in Ladson, S.C., and Spartan Chassis, Inc., headquartered in Charlotte, Mich., will manufacture, test and provide logistics support for wheeled Iraqi Light Armored Vehicles.

The 4x4 Iraqi Light Armored Vehicles are similar to the proven Cougar armored vehicles, and include a V-shaped hull designed to deflect the force of explosions away from passengers.

"We are pleased to apply the resources of BAE Systems as a major defense contractor to the rapid manufacture of a proven vehicle design that will provide a survivable, mobile, capable light armored vehicle to the customer," said Ted Wright, Vice President of Strategic Development for BAE Systems. "This vehicle expands BAE Systems' commitment to protecting American and allied troops in Iraq."

The total value of the Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity contract could reach $445.4 million and 1,050 vehicles, if all options are exercised.

Continued @ http://www.forceprotectioninc.com/news/news_article.html?id=103

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

reprobate

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #23

26. THAT'S a LIGHT armored vehicle? Damn thing's as heavy as a semi-loaded!

80,000 lbs GVW! I don't think it will replace the HummV

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

merh

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-12-06 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #26

31. Look at the link

It is being built to replace the humvee as the humvee is not designed for the urban/desert combat missions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

reprobate

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-13-06 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #31

33. Yeah, I read it. But this giant can't replace the humvee. It's too big.

It WILL protect the troops as the Hummer simply could not do.

But the HummV was designed as a replacement for the jeep, which was a small, light and maneuverable vehicle to carry a few people or small cargo loads.

This behemoth will NOT do those kind of jobs, so the military will still need a small, light, and maneuverable AR
MORED vehicle.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 15th 2024, 06:28 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC