Marine Corps Moms: "We don't quit just because it gets hard."

« Fort Apache - Iraq: �You order, we mortar� | Main | I-A-M-B-L-I-N-D »

December 15, 2004

"We don't quit just because it gets hard."

Cassandra has a roundup of blog thoughts on the armor shortage debate. Brendan Minitar discusses problems with the military procurement system and Grayhawk weighs in with a military perspective.

MCM reader Jason also sends along this opinion from his cousin, 1stLt Sacavage, 1MARDIV, who is a twice deployed Marine:

Yes, there is a lack of "up-armored" HMMWVs in theater, though this can be misleading. The up-armored HMMWV (the M1114) was actually only minimally in the Army inventory and was never a Marine Corps vehicle. We went into Baghdad the first time with just the highback HMMWVs with soft doors and the hardback HMMWVs which have supplemental armor (for shrapnel protection - won't stop 7.62 small arms fire)

When the insurgency began they started kicking up production of this M1114 vehicle, but that's a large feat, as it comes with its own supply trail, plus the up armored HMMWV can't carry gear, just personnel and a gunner. In the meantime they were outfitting the highbacks (gear/personnel carriers) and hardbacks (personnel/gunner) with supplemental armor - the green kits you see, which will stop a round.

When I first rolled into OIF II we had first generation pieces of this, but a few months in we were outfitted with a thicker gauge with better hinges. Policy was that no vehicle left the forward operating base without supplemental armor.

I have numerous friends and colleagues that survived significant blasts in HMMWVs with the supplemental armor, including one where an artillery shell detonated in front of and behind the vehicle. I believe between the supplemental armor and kevlar blankets, Small Arms Protection Inserts, and ballistic glass that we have fairly good protection, though nothing's perfect and my battalion sadly did lose Marines to IEDs while in vehicles.

Keep in mind these insurgents have blown up entire M1 tanks, so no armor is perfect, and ultimately the mission takes priority. It's not feasible to roll around in tanks alone and we'd ultimately fail if we tried.

As for the soldier? I feel it's unprofessional. Rumsfeld's comments about going to war with the gear you have is right - the enemy is constantly evolving and we'll never be able to engineer the danger out of war. So many of these "conscientious objectors" and guys that just go UA are simply cowards feeding off an excuse the media is fueling. We don't just quit because it gets hard.

I don't know the whole story, there may be more to it, but when I was there armor was a hot topic. Advances were being made every day.

Posted by Deb at December 15, 2004 06:00 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.marinecorpsmoms.com/mt-tb.cgi/438

Comments

"Professionals" as I know them shall accept nothing less than the best equipment possible to do their intended task. I would like to submit the abstract example of 'Yo-Momma.' Let us say that 'Yo-Momma' needs heart surgery. She goes to a "professional" that says, "I am qualified to heal you." But, when she gets to the hospital, the surgeon lays out a butter knife and a pair of orange-handled scissors. For anesthesia, the surgeon tells 'Yo-Momma' to drink down a pint of Skoll Vodka and to bite on a dirty rag if she feels compelled to scream. Now, would it be unprofessional of the surgeon or 'Yo-Momma' to question the quality of the equipment and the procedures to follow? Or should we all just suck it up and say fuck it if 'Yo-Momma' gets snuffed? Not only is the soldiers concern "professional", it is also long overdue--in fact, the question was asked a year ago and ignored. Before anyone starts to assert that people should 'go to war with the Army they have; not the one they want,' it would be best to ask this question: "Would I accept this for my Momma?" Didn't think so.

MATTSON

Posted by: Mattson at December 18, 2004 01:03 PM