PDA

View Full Version : Army misses goal on Iraq Humvees




zimv20
Apr 8, 2005, 01:05 AM
link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-04-05-humvee-us_x.htm)


WASHINGTON — The Army has fallen short of its goal of having enough factory-armored Humvees in Iraq and other combat zones to protect U.S. troops, despite promises to hit that target by April 1.

In December, Army Brig. Gen Jeffrey Sorenson said the Army's goal was to have 8,105 factory-armored Humvees in the Central Command "theater," which includes Iraq and Afghanistan. That included a goal of 7,299 in Iraq, Sorenson said. As of March 28, however, the Army said it had 7,250 of the special Humvees in the Iraq-Afghanistan theater.

An Army official said Tuesday that the goal had never been to have all the vehicles in combat zones by April 1. Nancy Ray, a civilian spokesperson for the Army, said the Army's goal was to have possession of the new Humvees, which are specially armored to protect troops. "We completed the production at the end of March. We had them at the end of the month, we keep on sending them when we get them," Ray said.

The Army's explanation was met with some surprise. "I did not see the asterisk," said Rep. Robert Simmons, R-Conn., a member of the House Armed Services Committee. "What the hell good is it to possess a Humvee in America if the guy in Iraq doesn't have it to drive?"

Simmons said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other defense officials had made it clear that meeting the goal meant having the Humvees in the Central Command theater. Now "they start playing word games," he said.

The Army also disclosed that it had raised its goal for factory-armored Humvees in the Iraq-Afghanistan theater to 10,079. Army spokesman Col. Joseph Curtin said the goal is to be met in June.

(emphasis mine)

buried all the way at the end is an interesting little tidbit which indicates -- what -- an expectation of increased troop presence?

what should we be reading into that?



skunk
Apr 8, 2005, 04:45 AM
buried all the way at the end is an interesting little tidbit which indicates -- what -- an expectation of increased troop presence?

what should we be reading into that?That they need another 2,000 for Iran?

mactastic
Apr 8, 2005, 10:32 AM
I'd say it's just realism from the top brass that this will be a longer effort than they had been prepared for. Plus these Humvees are better targets than a Bradley or a Stryker or a tank. We probably lose more Humvees than other types of vehicles.

Frankly it's a welcome sign. I'd rather those guys had a few extra armored Humvees around than not enough. You just gotta feel terrible for those killed up till now in unarmored Humvees.

Desertrat
Apr 9, 2005, 11:05 AM
A couple of THR moderators are in Iraq, and some of the THR members get emails from friends and relatives serving there.

There were gripes about the armor issue, early on. Most of those have been resolved. Many of the new armored HumVees are to replace severely-damaged armored HumVees. The armor is not a total panacea.

The present gripe that I've run across has to do with who has the new ones. The guys getting shot at really do resent the idea that REMFs (Kuwait, southern Iraq) are driving around in the new ones, instead of sending them on up to the Sunni Triangle area.

'Rat

Xtremehkr
Apr 9, 2005, 01:54 PM
If Hummers keep getting blown up maybe GM will be able to stay in business. The military has been getting substantial increases in budgetary and operational funds. Strong financial oversight of the military is needed, I don't know what these fiscally conservative (bwhahahahaha!) republicans have been up to lately but the government is leaking money like a sieve.

pseudobrit
Apr 9, 2005, 02:00 PM
If Hummers keep getting blown up maybe GM will be able to stay in business.

Wrong General.

Xtremehkr
Apr 9, 2005, 02:07 PM
Wrong General.

Not a subsidiary?

pseudobrit
Apr 9, 2005, 02:25 PM
Not a subsidiary?

AM General. They sold the marketing rights of the Hummer to GM, but they still build and sell the HMMWV.

They've claimed they're not operating at capacity and have delivered every HMMWV the Pentagon ordered on schedule.
link (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/203200_armor10.html)

skunk
Apr 9, 2005, 02:27 PM
Wrong General.I thought you meant General Bush.

pseudobrit
Apr 9, 2005, 02:28 PM
I thought you meant General Bush.

That's King George to you, pal.

Xtremehkr
Apr 9, 2005, 02:29 PM
AM General. They sold the marketing rights of the Hummer to GM, but they still build and sell the HMMWV.

They've claimed they're not operating at capacity and have delivered every HMMWV the Pentagon ordered on schedule.
link (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/203200_armor10.html)

Oh, well too bad for GM. Maybe the G6 will sell better in Iraq.

pseudobrit
Apr 9, 2005, 02:42 PM
Oh, well too bad for GM. Maybe the G6 will sell better in Iraq.

Always hope for a reborn "IROC" then.

Xtremehkr
Apr 9, 2005, 02:55 PM
Always hope for a reborn "IROC" then.

Maybe even.... the IRAC!

miloblithe
Apr 9, 2005, 07:07 PM
buried all the way at the end is an interesting little tidbit which indicates -- what -- an expectation of increased troop presence?

what should we be reading into that?

I think it's just equiping the troops properly. I think that for PR purposes, a troop reduction is necessary. If the US can go down from 150,000 to 130,000 or 120,000, wow, we must be winning!

Also, just a guess, with Britain, Poland, Italy and all pulling out, the US will have to do more work. Thus more Humvees.