Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Iraq Vehicle Force Mix

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Iraq Vehicle Force Mix Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/3/2007 8:16:38 AM   
Marauders

 

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline 		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Should the Humvee have been replaced by a new vehicle?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?



Post #: 1
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/3/2007 2:24:52 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Marauders)
Post #: 2
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/6/2007 11:58:28 PM   
Marauders

 

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline
quote:

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.

quote:

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.




< Message edited by Marauders -- 4/7/2007 12:00:58 AM >

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 3
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/7/2007 7:08:10 AM   
Doggie


Posts: 3244
Joined: 9/19/2001
From: Under the porch
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Visit the New, Improved Mad Dog's Drive Thru

(in reply to Marauders)
Post #: 4
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/7/2007 8:15:52 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		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...

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Doggie)
Post #: 5
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/7/2007 2:41:56 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Deleted...

< Message edited by Terminus -- 4/7/2007 2:47:43 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Doggie)
Post #: 6
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/10/2007 3:22:44 AM   
rogueusmc


Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline 		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

< Message edited by rogueusmc -- 4/10/2007 3:23:19 AM >

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 7
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/10/2007 5:13:46 AM   
SemperAugustus

 

Posts: 257
Joined: 1/9/2005
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to rogueusmc)
Post #: 8
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/10/2007 11:45:20 AM   
Marauders

 

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline
quote:

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?


(in reply to SemperAugustus)
Post #: 9
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/10/2007 2:39:49 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		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...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Marauders)
Post #: 10
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/10/2007 4:10:55 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		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.


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 11
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/10/2007 5:42:40 PM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
quote:


"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:

< Message edited by Paul Vebber -- 4/10/2007 5:43:50 PM >

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 12
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/11/2007 5:56:06 PM   
Marauders

 

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline
quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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? 

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 13
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/11/2007 10:27:59 PM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
quote:

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".

quote:

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.)

quote:

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.

quote:

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...)

quote:

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/CASUALTY/Death_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.



< Message edited by Paul Vebber -- 4/11/2007 10:30:13 PM >

(in reply to Marauders)
Post #: 14
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/12/2007 1:34:51 AM   
Doggie


Posts: 3244
Joined: 9/19/2001
From: Under the porch
Status: offline
quote:

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 )

< Message edited by Paul Vebber -- 4/12/2007 5:31:46 AM >

_____________________________

Visit the New, Improved Mad Dog's Drive Thru

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 15
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/12/2007 8:21:34 AM   
Marauders

 

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline
quote:

Total deaths in the miltary per year:

http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_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?

quote:

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.


(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 16
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/12/2007 8:48:40 AM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline
quote:

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.

_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 17
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/12/2007 9:03:04 AM   
Marauders

 

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline 		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.

quote:

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?"

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 18
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/12/2007 9:28:12 AM   
Fredk

 

Posts: 75
Joined: 3/4/2007
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Marauders)
Post #: 19
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/12/2007 11:56:25 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
quote:

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.

quote:

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.

(in reply to Marauders)
Post #: 20
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/12/2007 11:03:30 PM   
Marauders

 

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline
quote:

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


My number support that what you said was misleading.  While your 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 correct in that throughout the entire military, there have been that number of deaths due to accidents, you make it sound like the war has not had casualties more than just a bit larger than that.  That is not the case. The deaths are over and above the deaths by accident, and if that is not explained, whether you meant to mislead or not, then the wrong conclusions could be made.

quote:

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.


I had asked for similar numbers of accidents in any theater of operations.  Having Paul site numbers from the entire military rather than one theater disregards the premise of my statement.  The deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are in the CENTCOM theater.  There is no evidence that suggests soldiers are being killed at the same rate as accidental death in that one zone.  That doesn't even begin to cover the requirement of matching the WIA personnel numbers either in theater or in total force.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 21
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/13/2007 6:27:45 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
quote:

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


You asked for statistics, I statisfied your criterea, but you dismiss it based on an argument that the absolute number of deaths is not comparable. That is an opinion, but that is all that is. Why would the fact that 3000 more peole died during a four year period of the Cold War than in a four year period of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars be "faulty logic". It is a fact. You may not like it, or believe it is meaningful. But that is a matter of opinion. Why is your opinion superior?

Unless you are disputing the statistics there is no fallacy of "appeal to authority" if the authority is indeed the "authority" for the statistic sited. Or are you saying that the Statistical Information Analysis Division of DOD is NOT the athoritative source of casualty statistics?

As to wounded vs injured - if you count hospital admissions of active duty personnel over those 4 years you get 1,151,111 active duty servicemembers admitted to military hospitals. From my days as a safety officer about 1 in 12
hospitalizations result in greater than 30 lost work days (the definition of a "serious injury") so somewhere in the neighborhood 96,000 "serious injuries" went along with those nearly 10,000 deaths (which also falls pretty closely in line with the death to serious injury ratio in peace time of about 9 - 1.

quote:

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.



Actually the design of the uparmored HUMVEE was done in 1993, the mine threat in Bonia led to an increase in 1996. THe 2000lb weight made for a mobility and transportability tradeoff that argued for a realtively small portion of them to be uparmored. THe Marines, which valued mobility over protection and did not initially uparmor theirs, uparmored 110 of their HUMVEES in 2003 with kits. The army started soon after and by Jan 2004 had over 2000. The company making them completed a new factory in early 2004 and that allowed 220 to be produced per month.

IED and RPG attacks resulted in the Army designing a diferen armor package to protect against them in 2003 these added only 1000lbs of weight. Other armor packages added only 750lbs, and another over 4000lbs.

What mix of these armor packages did Congress authorize? They didn't - they just plussed up existing funding streams for uparmored HUMVEES and the primary mnufacturer had the foresight to build a new factory that happened to come online in a timely manner. That together with in theater up armoring depots and herculean efforts to get around 20,000 vehicels upamored to various degrees.

"plusing up" an existing budget item is something Congress does from time to time. But they do not dictate to the Army the mix of armor packages they must buy with that money. Note that these were NOT funded with supplemental money but with FY 2004 and 2005 budget authority.

34 BILLION dollars has ben budgeted since to revamp the levels of armor in ALL the army's transport vehicle fleet. NOT SUPPLEMENTALS. That program is going to take until 2018 to complete the "tactical wheeled fleet transformation strategy" doesn't completely overall the mix of vehicles in the entire army - just the mix of truck types and levels of armor on the various types of trucks. That is almost 300,000 vehicles. and will take 12 years. And coming under Title X responsibilities, is NOT someting that can be paid fo with suplemetals (which can only pay for non-programmed costs, well, and whatever non-DoD pork they decide to add-in...)

ref: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Aug/Army_Seeking.htm

THAT is reality. The notion that major changes in the mix of army vehicles can be done quickly by supplementals is pure fantasy.


quote:

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,


Were civilian casualties "the problem" in WWII?

quote:

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.


Well, and destroying most of the oil production and disrupting its transport out of the gulf, sending oil prices through the roof, depressing the world economy. But who cares if that costs us ten times more than the Iraq war... we will be too busy selling aples and pencils on street corners to worry. And our military will be safely out of harms way...

As simple as that.


(in reply to Marauders)
Post #: 22
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/13/2007 7:40:33 AM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber
Were civilian casualties "the problem" in WWII?


We are living in a different world.
a. No matter what Huntington says it is NOT a war of civilizations.
b. And hopefully wont be a wolrd war.

The latest Red Ross report estimates the number of civilian deaths at a staggering 655,000 since 2003. Even the US budget cannot be strained further see respective docs. After the military spendings the next greatest sum is spent to pay the loans caused by Iraq. Either Clinton or Obama the democrats will move out of Iraq.

quote:

Well, and destroying most of the oil production and disrupting its transport out of the gulf, sending oil prices through the roof, depressing the world economy. But who cares if that costs us ten times more than the Iraq war... we will be too busy selling aples and pencils on street corners to worry. And our military will be safely out of harms way...


a. Or you can go bankrupt in 2 yrs time by trying to keep 150 000+ soldiers in Iraq.
b. Or you can leave say 20,000 marines between REAL (not boshniaks or other normal muslims) religious fanatics (aka wahabites and iranian revolutionary guardsmen), and to cover them would still force you to go bankrupt, cuz airforce still costs a hell lot of money so back to pint a.
c. Or ask the international community (incl. China and Russia not to mention EU to solve this problem since their will be also burned if hell brreaks lose above the majority of the Earth's oil reserves.
d. Or let them fight it out and force the whole world to refrain from the usage of Gulf oil. Still dont know whether it would be good or bad for the Bush clan.

Nice set of choices.

Edited for spelling.

< Message edited by Ursa MAior -- 4/13/2007 7:42:42 AM >

_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 23
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/13/2007 10:08:03 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior
normal muslims

Entry #113,472,991 in my compendium of oxymorons.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 24
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/13/2007 1:21:45 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior
normal muslims

Entry #113,472,991 in my compendium of oxymorons.


Wonder what #113,472,990 is?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 25
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/13/2007 2:31:34 PM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
quote:

Even the US budget cannot be strained further see respective docs.


The fact we spent more, longer during the cold war and FAR MORE during Viet Nam disproves this. What eidence is there we ar "bankrupting ourselves"?

quote:

a. Or you can go bankrupt in 2 yrs time by trying to keep 150 000+ soldiers in Iraq.


The war is less than 2% of GDP per year. This statement is absurd.

quote:

b. Or you can leave say 20,000 marines between REAL (not boshniaks or other normal muslims) religious fanatics (aka wahabites and iranian revolutionary guardsmen), and to cover them would still force you to go bankrupt, cuz airforce still costs a hell lot of money so back to pint a.


Only if you can get the "real fanatics" to wear different uniforms so we know who they are...

quote:

c. Or ask the international community (incl. China and Russia not to mention EU to solve this problem since their will be also burned if hell brreaks lose above the majority of the Earth's oil reserves.


LOL, we asked, they said no. They are betting that we judge that it costs us more in the long run to let the ME go to hell in a handbasket than keeping relative peace until the Iraqi military can take over (3-5 more years). They are right. The "cut and run and let them fight it out" will cost FAR more (some forecast the lost of 50% of ME oil would triple the price of oil and cost our economy over 2 TRILLION a year. 200billion is << than 2 TRILLION so the smart money says stick it out.

quote:

d. Or let them fight it out and force the whole world to refrain from the usage of Gulf oil. Still dont know whether it would be good or bad for the Bush clan.


See above. If suply both sides arms, when can probably get the entire Mideast oil shut down to by 75 or 80% that would teach those Chinese and Europeans not to support us. Can you sa 1000$ a barrel oil?

quote:

Nice set of choices.


Its a tough world. The notion that a war will go away becasue you decide not to fight it only works if the other side agrees. There is a name for deciding to stop fighting before the other guy...

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 26
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/13/2007 4:13:09 PM   
robpost3


Posts: 465
Joined: 8/18/2006
From: the backwoods of Mass.
Status: offline
quote:

Wonder what #113,472,990 is?

EU

_____________________________

The Yankee Motto:
Use it up,
Wear it out,
Make do,
Or do without.
"God Help us, and God, come yourself.
Don't send Jesus, this is no place for children."



(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 27
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/13/2007 5:30:51 PM   
Marauders

 

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline
quote:

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

Unless you are disputing the statistics there is no fallacy of "appeal to authority" if the authority is indeed the "authority" for the statistic sited. Or are you saying that the Statistical Information Analysis Division of DOD is NOT the athoritative source of casualty statistics?


The statistics make no difference in an "appeal to authority" (ad verecundiam) examination of logic.  Doggie's assertion that you must be correct because you are a Navy officer has no logical bearing on the premise.  That does not mean your argument is valid or invalid, as it would be an "ad logicam" fallacy for me to suggest that; it just means that his "appeal to authority" is invalid in itself.  The "appeal to authority" is faulty logic.

quote:

quote:

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.


The hindsite card is a red herring as it has no bearing on the question at hand: is there the correct mix of Humvee, uparmored Humvee, Cougar, Stryker, Bradley, and Abrams?  I didn't ask how or why the mix we have is correct, I asked if it is correct.  That is a simple but important distinction, and your comments, along with other comments here, introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed.

Of course there will be some hindsight involved in making conclusions.  How else would anyone be able to support any conclusion?  Bringing up that there may be some hindsight involved is therefore a moot point and a red herring, as it is irrelevant material brought up to divert attention from the points being made.

quote:

You asked for statistics, I statisfied your criterea, but you dismiss it based on an argument that the absolute number of deaths is not comparable. That is an opinion, but that is all that is. Why would the fact that 3000 more peole died during a four year period of the Cold War than in a four year period of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars be "faulty logic". It is a fact. You may not like it, or believe it is meaningful. But that is a matter of opinion. Why is your opinion superior?


The question to Twotribes was thus: 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?

How did you either satisfy or statisfy the criteria?  Since when is the entire global military statistic one command "zone of operation of this size" (PACOM, CENTCOM, ...)?  Not only did you use a dissimilar size database, you didn't even use a database within the requirements of the premise.

The question, as proposed, was a simple question.  It is similar to asking, "Did the Germans have the right force mix when entering into Operation Barbarossa?"   It was my belief that this board had grognards that could add some insight to the question.  Instead, I read a bunch of ad hominem attacks and red herrings.  The logic is abysmal.


< Message edited by Marauders -- 4/13/2007 5:33:49 PM >

(in reply to robpost3)
Post #: 28
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/13/2007 7:51:55 PM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
quote:

The "appeal to authority" is faulty logic.


I thought you were talking abotut my response. Sorry. Claiming that someone is an actual authority is generally considered fallacious if done to add credence to something outside their "range of authority" to say a doctor should be heeded when giving medical advice is not a fallacious appeal to authority. It would be if you used his being a doctor to enhance the credibility of stock advice (since he is a doctor and is rich) THAT is fallacious appeal to authority.

quote:

I didn't ask how or why the mix we have is correct, I asked if it is correct.


The problem with the question is it focuses on the single context of Iraq in a vaccum of all the possible other uses Army units could be put to.

You don't deploy a "vehicle mix" you deploy "units". IF your question is "Should the Army have changed its organization to have units available whose equipment is a better match to the conditions in Iraq?" then that is something that can be debated - though the nature of the post war conditions as "unexpected" (despite the edirials of the Editor Generals) meant that a requirement to change the organizatio was not foreseen.

The question "is the vehicle mix correct" is really "Is the Army Unit organization and TO&E correct" for the situation we are facing. There is no subtantive change in "vehicel mix" without a change in Unit organization and TO&E to prvide it.

The introduction of the Stryker was indicative of an inkling, but the FCS organization has not fully taken the lessons on-board yet. The GAO in particular vehomently disagreed that the Stryker was either requied, or suitable if you granted the requirement. Its success in the situation we are facing is indicative of some in the Army "getting it" despite being lampooned by many in the Army, the GAO and a phalanx of Editor Generals.

The question of "is the vehicle mix correct" is moot (or at best acadenic) if there is (or was) no way to change it in any substantive way. (The uparmoring of the HUMVEEs was an immense task and the Stryker was nearly DOA. The scope of teh Truck fleet revamp is indicative of the time and cost of an ancillary task to yours reagarding "the correct mix of Humvee, uparmored Humvee, Cougar, Stryker, Bradley, and Abrams" any significant change in which, requires a change in the service support fleet as well.)

quote:

Since when is the entire global military statistic one command "zone of operation of this size" (PACOM, CENTCOM, ...)? Not only did you use a dissimilar size database, you didn't even use a database within the requirements of the premise.


Because the data is not parsed to the "zone of operation" level so your question, with its arbitrary limitations, is unanswerable and arbitraily constrained. The context of the initial statment that our 'cost in blood' of the war in Iraq has been of comparable orders to periods when with few exceptions our military casualties were non-hostile in nature. The chacterization of the NUMBER of casualties as "unacceptable" flys in the face of the NUMBER of casualties we suffered in comparable periods of "peacetime" with a high tempo of operations.

You can put arbitrary limits and parsing on the data, but if you take the NUMBERS of casualties in "real wars" and the number of casualties in "peace time" the number of casualties per year in Iraq is FAR closer to the peacetime norm, than the wartime norm.

quote:

The question, as proposed, was a simple question.


Well, unless you have some understanding of the context of the question, like how the force mix might be changed and over what timeframe and at what cost (and legally with what money - NOT supplementals) its as irrelvant as asking if it would be better to have had transporters and phasers.

quote:

Did the Germans have the right force mix when entering into Operation Barbarossa?"


The answer such question is invariably "no", since we connote the "right force mix" with "a better one". But the answer is based on information that WE have in hindsight (like the number of T-34s) that the Germans didn't have. given that hinsight we would have taken at least more 88s, if not a Nashorn like SP version in considerable numbers, and ramped up the economy earlier, and had at least MIVhs if not Tigers for the opening invasion.

In hinddsight we can ALWAYS "do better". The more relevant question is "whcih of the decisions regarding the development of the Barbarossa force mix were "mistakes" resulting in a less effective force than they should have had - GIVEN THE REALISTIC CONSTRAINTS ON ITS DEVELOPMENT.

In the absence of those constraints which us would not have plucked our magic twanger and invaded with an all Panther force preceded by Pumas and Lynxs, supported by Wespes and Hummels covered in the air by a dark cloud of JU-87D-3 and Hs 129s?

SO to answer the question "did we have the right vehicle mix" you need to constrain the answer to the set of teh possible, which means you have to understand the constraints on the problem (about which I tried to educate you).

quote:

It was my belief that this board had grognards that could add some insight to the question. Instead, I read a bunch of ad hominem attacks and red herrings. The logic is abysmal.


I'm currently working in support of the Navy POM FY10 submission, (yes, the budget 2 and half years hence is being cast in wet cement this year - tat is sort of time delay OCngress demands) so it is not a fallacious appeal to authorty" to claim that I have some idea of what those constraints are".

I would be interested to see where I made any ad hominen attack on you and hope I've demonstrated that far from pelting you fish, I've endeavored to educate you on the constraints surrounding a relevant answer to your question. The very sort of "insight" you desire.



< Message edited by Paul Vebber -- 4/13/2007 7:55:41 PM >

(in reply to Marauders)
Post #: 29
RE: Iraq Vehicle Force Mix - 4/14/2007 2:20:53 AM   
Doggie


Posts: 3244
Joined: 9/19/2001
From: Under the porch
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior
The latest Red Ross report estimates the number of civilian deaths at a staggering 655,000 since 2003.


The Red Cross has said no such thing. You're referring to the Lancet Report, which even the decidely left wing iraqbodycount.org has described as utter nonsense.

Even Iraqbodycount Ignores the simple fact that the number one cause of death for poor innocent Moose-lims is their fellow Moose-lims

The 655,000 figure is absurd, by a factor of at least ten. It's nothing more than politically motivated propaganda.


< Message edited by Doggie -- 4/14/2007 2:22:50 AM >

_____________________________

Visit the New, Improved Mad Dog's Drive Thru

(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Iraq Vehicle Force Mix Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.172