My son told me about this problem some time ago. All the armor that politicians have insisted the military needs to install on Humvees have made the vehicles prone to rollover accidents.
DAYTON, Ohio, June 11 — Thousands of pounds of armor added to military Humvees in Iraq have made the vehicles more likely to roll over and kill or injure soldiers, a newspaper reported.
"I believe the up-armoring has caused more deaths than it has saved," Scott Badenoch, a former Delphi Corp. vehicle dynamics expert, told the Dayton Daily News for its Sunday editions.
Congress and the Army have spent tens of millions of dollars on armor for the Humvee fleet in Iraq, the newspaper said.
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.
But serious accidents involving the M1114 have increased, and accidents are much more likely to be rollovers than those involving other Humvee models, the newspaper reported.
I know the troops appreciate the armor when an IED goes off. I also know it's just plain dangerous changing the center of gravity on a vehicle by an enormous amount – which is what the additional armor does. So what's the answer? Redesign of the vehicles is a good start. By the way, my son says some of the changes already made have helped some with the rollover problem. The media is a bit behind the reality on this.
UPDATE: Others: Ranting Profs and Sundries Shack.
UPDATE: Very insightful comment from Blackhawk that really needs to be read.
Gaius, read that article very carefully. I will grant that (in my opinion) the original HMMWV was not desinged to carry all that armor. But that is why the M1114 is a unique designation. It is a significant redesign of the original M998 series HMMWV. In fact, many of the parts are not interchangeable (especially the suspension).
The very next paragraph after your exerpt is a GENERIC statistic. It does not state if that stat applies to M1114, or all HMMWVs. A comparative statistic might have been better. BUT, as a former troop commander and BN S3/XO, I will also posit that the actual tactical employment of M1114s vs. M998s (generic HMMWV) is too different to make a direct comparison valid. We send M1114s into harm’s way…we would like M998s to stay the ‘F’ out of the way.
The next paragraph is great: ‘”The whole thing is a formula for disaster,” said Badenoch, who is working with the military to design a lighter-armored vehicle.’ Sounds like a contractor begging for a contract…
Is a complete redesign in order? My gut instinct says ‘you’re damn right’. That’s why other nations with similar threat experience (Brits in Northern Ireland, South Africans in general, Israelis) build specific wheeled vehicles for urban operations. However, we didn’t do that. But fielding new vehicles costs big moola and takes mucho time. Uparmoring existing vehicles, to a standard that has been tested (M1114) is a good stepping stone. Lots of issues to figure out, like how much higher failure rate are we willing to accept because of the weight, how much cross country mobility are we willing to lose, how much weight are we willing to accept, all factor in.
There are some industry-sponsored replacements being offered. I saw one on the Pentagon channel that was based on an F-350 frame and build specifically for urban operations. So maybe, we will get urban operations-specific vehicles in the future, but it takes time. And lots of moola.
Couple of paras down: Army has made lots of improvements. Damn right they have. These should have been on the original HMMWV, especially the seats and seatbelts, but, hey, I’m not writing the checks. I’m just getting a bad back and sore butt from the decision.
Last two paras are the best: they apply to ANY version of the HMMWV that has a gunner’s station. How does this relate to the headline? Not directly.
So, who linked armor on Iraq Humvees to deadly rollovers? Not to belittle the physics behind the problem, but you have a contractor “who is working with the military to design a lighter-armored vehicle” and a reporter who slings numbers around without context.
This article is either just filler, poorly developed (maybe there is a problem, I just don’t have the perspective to make that assessment), or was a piss-poor editorial trial baloon to see if this would gain traction. There is my assessment of this turd.
The great news here is what your son added: we are learning and adapting. If this is at the manufacter’s level, then this is awesome news. If it’s just local techniques, then we’ve got work to do to institutionalize what we are experiencing in Iraq with these vehciles.
As a long aside, I remember reading an article back in the early 90s about how HMMWVs were dangerous because it was difficult to back them up safely. At least that’s what this particular article inferred. Actually, they are more dangerous to back up than a civilian vehicle because they have no center mounted rear view mirror, and you can’t see out the back of most HMMWV models anyway. But the article, with quotes from Soldiers, painted it out to be far worse…far more sinister…almost like Ralph Nader’s evil alter ego set this up (or just Ralph Nader himself, I get them confused)…
Now, the article was in Penthouse, and it made me irate…because it took up too much page space that could have been otherwise devoted to art, not news. I also recall reading articles like this elsewhere, but Larry Flint’s article seems to stand out in my memory for some reason…
When we went into Bosnia in late 95, we had unarmored wheels. Midway through our tour, we received several ad hoc up armored packages, and even a few M1114s.
Yes, the weight doesn’t help with the roll over situation. Yes, there were problems. Did we have a Soldier die because of this? Yes. In a rollover, in a creek, with water. Cab warped on impact (less than 10mph), door stuck, TC drowned.
Uparmoring the vehicles significantly changes the risks and limitations in using them. But they also significantly help in other areas.
Absolutely great comment, Blackhawk. I’m going to link it to the post itself.
Blackhawk, that was fantastic. It’s not often you hear such a well-argued comment by someone who clearly has his facts straight.
My own comment is this: the contractor who said that the armor causes more deaths from rollovers than it saves is completely ignorant. As someone who’s been hit personally by an IED, I’m glad to have the armor, even if it does create dozens of maintenance problems and make the vehicle more prone to rollovers. It’s simply a matter of knowing the capabilities and limitations of your vehicle, as with anything else.
As a civilian working for a defense contractor, I can state unequivocally that the Pentagon is really “on the ball” with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan when it comes to upgrading the equipment. The Pentagon actually works WITH the contractors to determine the best way to fix things. The Pentagon gets suggestions from soldiers and marines in the field (and actually has a program to reward personnel for good suggestions!!) Some of those suggestions are just fantastic – like the platoon that has mounted civilian IR cameras on poles on the front of the Humvees to look for IED’s. They find IED’s regularly – they are usually warmer than the surrounding area.
The Pentagon then takes those ideas/suggestions back to the contractors, and because of the ability of the military contractors to rapidly prototype ideas, the military can field an enhancement in very short order.
I didn’t like most of the things that Clinton did, but his defense secretary implemented the COTS-based purchasing scheme – and I think it is working very well.
By the way, I agree with Sarge: Blackhawk, that was an incredible analysis.