About Those Un-Armored Humvees - bogus?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by msr, Dec 19, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. msr

    msr LE

    Q On the 278th, can you repeat this? At the time the question was asked, the planted question, the unit had 784 of its 804 vehicles armored?

    GEN. SPEAKES: Here is the overall solution that you see. And what we've had to do is -- the theater had to take care of 830 total vehicles. So this shows you the calculus that was used. Up north in Iraq, they drew 119 up-armored humvees from what we call stay-behind equipment. That is equipment from a force that was already up there. We went ahead and applied 38 add-on armor kits to piece of equipment they deployed over on a ship. They also had down in Kuwait 214 stay- behind equipment pieces that were add-on armor kits. And then over here they had 459 pieces of equipment that were given level-three protection. And so when you put all this together, that comes up with 830.

    http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008949.php

    msr
     
  2. In that case, something very interesting and significant is going on. According to Gen Speakes on that link, only 20 of the 830 vehicles had still to be uparmoured, they were completed within 24 hrs and were always going to be ready in 24.

    Uparmouring is something commanders and G3 staff would have had a handle on: it's not merely a logistical/technical detail in a formation on its way to operations. Yet strangely neither of the senior officers flanking Secretary Rumsfeld moved a finger to help him when he was under pressure. Nor did anyone else in the hall - surely someone knew the figures? And remember the cheer which went up around the hall when the soldier asked that question?

    Mr Rumsfeld can hardly be expected to have known the regiment's uparmouring status, but his responses to the "planted" question have left him weaker and attracting criticism from Republicans as well as Democrats. I suggest that the "hillbilly armor" plot against Rumsfeld goes a lot further than one soldier and one over-zealous embed reporter.
     
  3. Exactly. Another "unbiased" reporter without an agenda and acting on his own :roll: :lol:
     
  4. Rumsfeld's reply was disappointing but not surprising in its arrogance. In the very least no one could have faulted him for saying that he would look into it but no, he probably didn't even realise that his response was dismissive and arrogant.

    Couple that with the breaking news today of the fact that he has not personally been signing condolence letter to the families of fallen soldiers, but using a machine instead and the public image of a Defence Secretary who cares not for the lives of soldiers is hardening.

    Days to do Donald.
     
  5. Well said Birdie. That "arrogance" is one of the reasons I do not like Rumsfeld. There is however a fast acting and well organised movement against him.

    Cheney was a better Secretary of Defense IMO.
     
  6. Specialist Wilson's account of what happened. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000739870

     
  7. If Rumsfeld gets the chop, can we send over TCH? It seems that he would be eminently suited to the role! :twisted: