F**cking Bureaucrats!

[Johan]

This just pisses me off soooooo much. It would be unbelievable, but I'm too jaded to be surprised. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/16/marines.mrap.ap/index.html)

Hundreds of U.S. Marines have been killed or injured by roadside bombs in Iraq because Marine Corps bureaucrats refused an urgent request in 2005 from battlefield commanders for blast-resistant vehicles, an internal military study concludes.

Mine-resistant, ambush-protected trucks can cost between $450,000 and $1 million.

The study was written by a civilian Marine Corps official and obtained by The Associated Press.

It accuses the service of "gross mismanagement" that delayed deliveries of the mine-resistant, ambush-protected trucks for more than two years.

Cost was a driving factor in the decision to turn down the request for the MRAPs, according to the study.

Stateside authorities saw the hulking vehicles, which can cost as much as a $1 million each, as a financial threat to programs aimed at developing lighter vehicles that were years from being fielded.

After Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared the MRAP the Pentagon's acquisition priority in May 2007, the trucks began to be shipped to Iraq in large quantities.

The vehicles weigh as much as 40 tons and have been effective at protecting American forces from improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the weapon of choice for Iraqi insurgents. Only four U.S. troops have been killed by such bombs while riding in MRAPs; three of those deaths occurred in older versions of the vehicles.

Let's be perfectly honest here; military bureaucrats decided that the cost of dead marines was an easier pill to swallow than the cost of vehicles that would protect the marines from being killed by IEDs. It comes down to a simple question of cost-accounting, with the dead soldier being less expensive than the vehicle to keep him/her alive.

What a wonderful world. :(

[Schnoogs]

I saw this ealier...

I guess what's not clear is whether the decision to hold off was made before or after troops started dying. It seems kind of vague...maybe the article wants you to think that they were requested after troops started dying but for all we know it was done in advance.

Sounds like now they're getting them which is good.

[CES]

I dont see the merit of putting a US army soldier in a light vehicle. They arent chasing down people in Iraq, they're patrolling and being ambushed. That usually calls for some thick armour plating. But yeah, skimp on the armoured vehicles that dont need to be rebuilt after even a minor IED, that'll cut costs for sure. Stupid bean counters.

[Johan]

I guess what's not clear is whether the decision to hold off was made before or after troops started dying.

That's true.

However, I would think that, with a two-year delay, at some point there was a definite cost-accounting and an acceptance of deaths as opposed to paying for the expensive vehicles.

[bKangy]

The beauracrats running things like Defense should be so carefully scrutinised it's not funny. When you're looking after people willing to put their lives on the line in some fucking hellhole the army shouldn't be in anyway, the government at the very minimum should ensure mistakes do not occur. Which is why this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7245533.stm) is disgusting:


The Oxford inquest heard that before his death, soldiers complained repeatedly about a lack of proper equipment - chiefly standard night vision kits and weaponry.

The MoD admitted an "administrative error" led to a 25-day delay in getting equipment to the front line
...
But he acknowledged that he could not promise no British soldier would ever again die as a result of equipment shortages.
...
"But I have to say to you that there has been a huge improvement, recognised by everybody, in the kit, equipment and supplies to our people both in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last couple of years."



A lot of fucking use that is to the guys who already died because they lacked the night vision and body armour to fight.

[Johan]

3jPgljRvzQw

[CES]

He's an idiot. Yes, high mobility vehicles are suited to combat in Iraq. In a strictly offensive role. On the defense, slap a ton or two of metal plate or ERA (remember that one, bean counters?) on a patrolling vehicle. Hell, have a few groups of light vehicles for rapid response, just fit a defensive role unit with armour. Yes, tanks get blown up. But it takes a damn sight more explosives to knock out a heavily armoured tank.

How did he get into that role again? Stupid politician.

[Schnoogs]

He's an idiot. Yes, high mobility vehicles are suited to combat in Iraq. In a strictly offensive role. On the defense, slap a ton or two of metal plate or ERA (remember that one, bean counters?) on a patrolling vehicle. Hell, have a few groups of light vehicles for rapid response, just fit a defensive role unit with armour. Yes, tanks get blown up. But it takes a damn sight more explosives to knock out a heavily armoured tank.

How did he get into that role again? Stupid politician.

I always get a chuckle out of people how lurk in video game forums who think they know more about combat then 4 star generals. :p

[bKangy]

I'm no military expert but if you can slap some armour on anything you may as well as long as it doesn't impede the functionality. What harm's it going to do?

[Esquilax1138]

Suprised? Not for one second. I'm sure it's good policy on a spreadsheet, dead troops are cheaper than good vehicles. So they'll keep dying, and the public will do nothing, and nothing will change.

Oh well, just remember what the Pres. says, Keep shopping!! And give up your constitution and liberites or you're ALL GONNA DIE!!

Please, take back America and make it a great place again, from a concerned canuck.

[Mojopin]

One of the main reasons why I avoided the military... like the fucking plague. Between shit like this (that happens every major war), and the sheer stupidity of us even STILL being in Iraq, why the hell would anyone EVER want to join the military? If you think the military, or our government (as a whole) gives a rats ass about those soldiers, then you are wrong... it's all about the objective. I.E. permanent military bases in the middle east. Simple as that.

Call me a conspiracy nut all you want, I have 4 buddies in Iraq now... (it was 5 just year ago but thanks to some fucking sniper...well) and they all know exactly what we are doing in Iraq. So take your CNNs, your BBCs, your Fox News and shove them up your collective asses (those who think you are getting the "real story"), because we never went in there for WMDs or to help the oppressed people of Iraq. You can thank Bush for hijacking our foreign policy and pushing to have it happen. Then you can thank congress for being cowards and not really doing anything to get us out of there. (obviously for political/election reasons).

How hard is to immigrate to the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index)? Beuler?? Beulllllerrrrr???? ;)

/rant

[Johan]

So take your CNNs, your BBCs, your Fox News and shove them up your collective asses

Tell us how you really feel! :D

[bKangy]

I actually object to some guy saying "we have to send these guys out to fight on this date because we made the decision to go to war so we need to win this decisively" at the same time as having some other guy saying "we haven't actually bought enough night vision goggles/body armour/vehicle stuffs to fight effectively yet" and it somehow happening anyway as much as the war itself. To abuse the trust of people willing to trust their lives and morals with your decisions like that and fail them entirely is utterly disgusting and should result in instant firing out of a cannon into the sun. It's downright murder.

[Esquilax1138]

I guess it would be political suicide to suggest that taxes might have to go up to give the troops the best equipment possible, war costs a LOT. In WWII everyone had to pitch in, ration things, recycle rubber and metals, the country got behind it and bought war bonds and pitched in in some way. I've seen nothing like that at all, in fact it was sold as costing nothing since Iraqi oil would pay for it, only one getting paid is the oil companies. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/business/01cnd-exxon.html?em&ex=1202101200&en=575e77c5fd8688b0&ei=5087%0A) "Exxon Mobil earned more than $1,287 of profit for every second of 2007" Maybe they should be taxed more to fund the vehicles?

Shopping at Wal-Mart is not going to help the troops, well maybe the Chineese troops...

[CES]

I always get a chuckle out of people how lurk in video game forums who think they know more about combat then 4 star generals. :p

Quite true. But honestly, common sense should be required for politicians. I could be wrong, but do the generals actually agree with this idiot?

[Mojopin]

Tell us how you really feel! :D
Sowwy, I get ranty when I talk about the war.... :(

[boratika]

I suspect this will be a recurring theme in history texts about this period in military history. In Iraq and Afghanistan. I guess we'll see.

[jeffbax]

Yeah its disgusting. War is serious shit, don't vote for people willing to rush to it so easily. People don't seem to get this.

[Johan]

Sowwy, I get ranty when I talk about the war.... :(

You and me both. :o

[Furious Wang]

If the request came in 2005, I'm pretty sure our marines had been getting blown up by road bombs for quite some time before the request was sent.

Its inexcusable that this wasn't made one of the highest priorities for protecting the troops, considering roadside bombs are one of the prime tactics the cowardly terrorists use.

The fact that a few million dollars was considered "too much" while billions of dollars are wasted or sit around unspent by the iraqi government is pretty sickening.

[Deadend]

Yeah its disgusting. War is serious shit, don't vote for people willing to rush to it so easily. People don't seem to get this.

But if they don't vote for those guys... the gays may be able to marry!

[LongStepMantis]

Is anyone shocked that politicians said that getting life-preserving armored vehicles to the front is too costly to be worth it, yet they will gladly vote themselves pay raises so they can add that 5th wing onto their mansion?

Just require them to spend a month in Iraq, and I guarantee they will bring boatloads of these vehicles with them.

[Oxonian]

I'm no military expert but if you can slap some armour on anything you may as well as long as it doesn't impede the functionality. What harm's it going to do?
Armor always impedes functionality, specifically, speed and manuverability. Armor has mass -- usually, quite a bit of mass. Increasing mass means increasing inertia, which means it's more difficult to accelerate, decelerate, or change direction.

Soldiers in Iraq face a variety of threats: IEDs, RPGs, etc. There are two basic schools of thought about how to deal with such threats. First, you can try to resist the force of the blast through armor. This is sometimes effective, but you can't build armor thick enough to defeat every threat. The other school is to try to avoid being hit in the first place by dodging.

History is replete with examples of heavily-armored vehicles that were death traps because they were unmanuverable. In the Second World War, lightly armored Japanese Zeroes murdered American airmen in tough but slow Wildcats. The German Koenigtiger was virtually indestructible, but it was so heavy that the steering column would often break and the engine would overheat from the strain of moving the behemoth.

Actually, the Koenigtiger is a great example of the dangers of heavy armor for another reason: fuel consumption. Moving a lot of mass takes a lot of energy, which means a lot of gas. In any war, and particularly in Iraq, supply convoys are very vulnerable. Vastly increasing the Army's fuel consumption would require a lot more convoys, which might mean even more deaths.

I suspect that, despite these problems, Humvees in Iraq ought to have more armor. But there's a definite trade-off between armor and manuverability, and it's not always clear a priori which one would save more lives.

[Johan]

I suspect that, despite these problems, Humvees in Iraq ought to have more armor. But there's a definite trade-off between armor and manuverability, and it's not always clear a priori which one would save more lives.

"not always clear?" Oh please...it's damn clear here which approach would have saved more lives, and has been clear for several years based upon the central threat faced by the troops in Iraq; stationary IEDs.

More than 3,200 U.S. troops, including 824 Marines, have been killed in action in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. An additional 29,000 have been wounded, nearly 8,400 of them Marines. The majority of the deaths and injuries have been caused by explosive devices, according to the Defense Department.

You plan for the threat. Also...

The MRAPs didn't meet this fast-moving standard and so the Combat Development Command didn't want to buy them, according to Gayl. The study calls this approach a "Cold War orientation" that suffocates the ability to react to emergency situations.

Poor operational planning, stuck in the threats of the past rather than planning for the threat from stationary IEDs, or responding to it as it became OBVIOUS that this was how the troops were being killed and maimed. Also...

The MRAP, Conway told Pace, could reduce IED casualties in vehicles by 80 percent. He told Pace an urgent request for the vehicles was submitted by a Marine commander in May 2006. No mention is made of Hejlik's call more than a year before.

Finally, the most damning piece of evidence in the list from the article:

Only four U.S. troops have been killed by such bombs while riding in MRAPs; three of those deaths occurred in older versions of the vehicles.

I think it's pretty clear from the evidence in the article that the military bureaucracy was egregiously negligent.

824 dead Marines, most from IEDs, and all in non-MRAP vehicles.
4 dead Marines (that's FOUR), from IEDs, all in MRAP vehicles.
Most deaths and injuries in Iraq occur from stationary IEDs.
80% or more could be prevented by MRAP vehicles.

I'm no genius, but I'm no idiot either. There is a clear pattern to the cause of deaths and injuries (IEDs), and a clear response to that which did NOT occur because of cost.

Fucking bureaucracy made a choice, and they chose cheaper; probably also chose to go with vehicles which were/are built in some senator's backyard, and therefore entrenched interests wouldn't allow a redirection of funds away from the lighter vehicles to the heavier MRAP ones.

Either way, the wrong choice was made for the wrong reasons.

[Oxonian]

Johan, surely you see the flaw in your argument. While most U.S. fatalities were the result of IEDs, which might be prevented by MRAPs, those vehicles are not necessarily resistant to RPG and other attacks. If the Marine Corps had adopted MRAPs and the insurgents switched tactics to use RPGs, you would now be screaming that the Marine Corps was incompetent for failing to recognize that vulnerability.

Moreover, the very article you cited says that the Marine Corps did try to respond to the threat of IEDs without sacrificing too much manuverability.

Budget and procurement managers failed to recognize the damage being done by IEDs in late 2004 and early 2005 and were convinced the best solution was adding more armor to the less-sturdy Humvees the Marines were using. Humvees, even those with extra layers of steel, proved incapable of blunting the increasingly powerful explosives planted by insurgents.

So the Marines put additional armor on their vehicles, and insurgents used more powerful explosives to compensate.

[Rifter]

I read an article a while back, about marines that didn't like the up-armored humvees, because they had trouble in the back roads getting mired down, and couldn't move, in adverse weather. They prefered the manueverablity and speed... and instead of going in a column, they would weave down the roads. But, different groups have different tactics, and operation theaters.

[PopoWRX]

I read an article a while back, about marines that didn't like the up-armored humvees, because they had trouble in the back roads getting mired down, and couldn't move, in adverse weather. They prefered the manueverablity and speed... and instead of going in a column, they would weave down the roads. But, different groups have different tactics, and operation theaters.

Yea, it looks like it depends on their method of operation. As Ox stated, the MRAP is effective for certain things, while a more mobile vehicle would be more effective at other things.

Still, the statistics Johan provided don't lie. Such a quagmire we are in.

[Johan]

If the Marine Corps had adopted MRAPs and the insurgents switched tactics to use RPGs, you would now be screaming that the Marine Corps was incompetent for failing to recognize that vulnerability.

That's a hypothetical. The flaw in your argument is that you seem to be arguing the lack of an operational/tactical change to MRAP vehicles can be excused because surely the insurgents/whatever-we-call-thems would have changed tactics by now to defeat the MRAP armor.

That's just silly. You don't wait two years to make a change that statistically results in far fewer deaths because the enemy will change strategies as well, supposedly thereby nullifying the benefits of the change. Surely you're not arguing that's a sound military/operational strategy, are you?...to keep a static tactical approach in war because attempting to combat the enemies' strategies will only lead them to change their strategies? :confused:

[Whimbrel]

Despite the fact that this was pure Bremer/ Wolfowitz/ Rumsfeld/ Cheney neo-con war planning and execution, I can expect that some people will still vote Republican because they are the party that makes better military decisions and keeps us safe.

[sparkfizt]

The other thing you're not seeing here is that you're totally focused on the vehicle. Also be aware that we play cat and mouse with countermeasures to IED's. Building a bunch of heavy ass trucks and flying them out there is not only costly but time consuming. A decision could be made that instead we would rapidly prototype and develop countermeasures that can be more quickly delivered and potentially save more lives.

I don't know ultimately if there is valid blame for the vehicle decision, we really don't have anywhere near enough information to come to a rational conclusion.

[stmfuller]

The part where the original poster said they were too jaded to be suprised fits me pretty well. I'm not suprised about anything anymore. We live in such a terrible world. Everyone should just kill themselves.

[[GH-SC]Ryctor]

http://br.geocities.com/futuramahp1/perhermes.jpg

Requisition me a Beat!

[cassiusregicide]

The turbo chargers or what ever is in the uparmored hummvees has some real zip on the roads, but I don't know how well they really do in some serious off road. But for convoys and patrols, they are a helluva lot better than sitting in the back of a high back

[J3DI]

I used to always think, when we went on any kind of patrol... Hell even training how I was supposed to survive in a war with the current vehicles. We used to always think that if we went to war that the stuff we trained with was just that; training equipment. That was until they told us that we went with what we had.

Humvees are worthless, crappy, pieces of shit! If anyone thought that people could survive a blast in one, they need to be shot. The body of a Humvee can be broken with a metal rod; most of them have plastic doors; and the transmissions in them suck ass. Perhaps this is just my experience from working in just one support battalion, that does maintenance on just one division, so I'm sure it can't be said for them all...:rolleyes:

[Schnoogs]

Yeah but if Arnold drives a Humvee they must be tough....right?

[cassiusregicide]

I used to always think, when we went on any kind of patrol... Hell even training how I was supposed to survive in a war with the current vehicles. We used to always think that if we went to war that the stuff we trained with was just that; training equipment. That was until they told us that we went with what we had.

Humvees are worthless, crappy, pieces of shit! If anyone thought that people could survive a blast in one, they need to be shot. The body of a Humvee can be broken with a metal rod; most of them have plastic doors; and the transmissions in them suck ass. Perhaps this is just my experience from working in just one support battalion, that does maintenance one division, so I'm sure it can't be said for them all...:rolleyes:

Lets not forget that the back of the high backs were for the most part protected by quarter inch thick wood and a troop strap

[J3DI]

Yeah but if Arnold drives a Humvee they must be tough....right?

Thats the thing though. I used to think they were the same. I know that you know the difference, but many don't.

Damn the Military/Government and its lowest bidder policies!

[Primus]

We talk a lot about this shit over here, but in all actuality it does not matter.

If we get heavier vehicles, they will get bigger IEDs.

[cassiusregicide]

One thing to keep in mind, Hummvees do really well when their job is to take you from point A to B. They are a lot better than walking.

[CES]

We talk a lot about this shit over here, but in all actuality it does not matter.

If we get heavier vehicles, they will get bigger IEDs.

Harder to hide bigger IED's though (or so you would think)

[Wslove]

Whatever happened to the Stryker vehical system? Do we have some of those over there? They can survive an RPGs and IEDs of concealable size. They aren't that big, about the size of a semi on the road. How come we aren't tooling around in those things over there?

[Oxonian]

Whatever happened to the Stryker vehical system? Do we have some of those over there? They can survive an RPGs and IEDs of concealable size. They aren't that big, about the size of a semi on the road. How come we aren't tooling around in those things over there?
We are (they're only available in limited numbers), but they're not as invulnerable as you think (http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/May/20070516News029.asp).

[Wslove]

What's interesting is that, from my research on the vehical, the thing was supposed to be shaped and armored to survive direct blasts from beneath the vehical. Since it seems that the very thing they were designed to prevent is now what's taking them out I can't help but think that either the design was flawed from the get go or the flaw was introduced after the lowest bidder got the contract to build them and they started deviating from the plan to go cheaper.

[Oxonian]

The Stryker has more undercarriage armor to protect from mines, but (as several people in this thread have noted) it's impossible to build armor thick enough to prevent damage if the mine is big enough or shaped properly. The article I cited noted that modern IEDs are using shaped charges and directional blasts: there's basically no way on Earth to prevent a decent-sized shaped charge from penetrating a vehicle.

[Wslove]

I don't know, a shape charge depends on the type of surface angle it's being shaped to. If you change the angle of the surface the right way it counteracts the shaping of the charge. So there is a way to beat a shape charge but it would require a modular shaped hull. Which in real time is impossible. But you could theoretically allow for different undercarriage hull configuations that could be swapped in an out. IED's shaped for one angle of armor would become lessened or useless against the swapped angle.

*shurgs* But then again I always thought our military could use more equipment with modular design. I like quick tactical flexability rather then over specialization in a certain area.

[Variable Gear]

Thanks to this thread, I now know that tanks can be blown up.

[Johan]

Thanks to this thread, I now know that tanks can be blown up.

There are known knowns...
there are known unknowns...
there are unknown unknowns...

Oh, forget it. :D