Tell the government to protect our troops
 

How the hell are you going to ask them to go fight for you and die for you and not protect them?

The troops asked Rusmsfeld about this on Wednesday and now their worries are every bit true.


The New York Times

Armor Scarce for Big Trucks Transporting Cargo in Iraq

December 10, 2004
Armor Scarce for Big Trucks Transporting Cargo in Iraq
By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - Congress released statistics Thursday documenting stark shortages in armor for the military transport trucks that ferry food, fuel and ammunition along dangerous routes in Iraq, while President Bush and his defense secretary both spoke out to defuse public criticism.

Soldiers confronted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Wednesday with complaints that the Pentagon was sending them to war without enough armored equipment to protect them. One soldier who challenged Mr. Rumsfeld was apparently prompted by a reporter traveling with his unit. The commander of American ground forces in the Middle East responded Thursday to the complaints with a vow to provide armored transportation into Iraq for all troops headed there.

"The concerns expressed are being addressed, and that is, we expect our troops to have the best possible equipment," Mr. Bush said. "And I have told many families I met with, we're doing everything we possibly can to protect your loved ones in a mission which is vital and important."

The House Armed Services Committee released statistics on Thursday showing that while many Humvees are armored, most transport trucks that crisscross Iraq are not.

The committee said more than three-quarters of the 19,854 Humvees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait carry protective armor, which can vary in quality. The most secure are factory-armored Humvees, and the Pentagon has received only 5,910 of the 8,105 that commanders say they need. But only 10 percent of the 4,814 medium-weight transport trucks have armor, and only 15 percent of the 4,314 heavy transport vehicles.

The uproar has exposed some of the most crucial challenges facing the Pentagon: how to equip and train troops for a war whose very nature has changed.

A resourceful insurgency has seized on an American vulnerability - the shortage of armored vehicles - and attacked supply lines with roadside bombs. These trucks are driven primarily by reservists, while a much greater percentage of active-duty soldiers are deployed in direct combat, and disparities between these troops have already prompted the Defense Department to begin sweeping changes in the way soldiers are trained and equipped.

These issues gained new intensity and widespread attention because they were raised not in the safe confines of a Capitol Hill hearing or a Pentagon suite, but by a scout with the Tennessee National Guard who directly pressed the secretary of defense in the deserts of Kuwait just days before the soldier is to be sent into Iraq for a year.

At Camp Buehring, a staging base for American troops entering and leaving Iraq, the scout, Specialist Thomas Wilson, said his unit had been forced to dig through local landfills to find scrap metal to bolt onto their trucks for protection against roadside bombs. The incident was startling in part because of the soldier's willingness to challenge a cabinet official, but it emerged Thursday that a newspaper reporter embedded with the troops had helped orchestrate the questioning.

Mr. Rumsfeld, after leaving Kuwait for India, said it was valuable for senior officials to hear concerns directly from troops, but he offered no immediate changes in how the Army was reacting to the problems.

"I think that it's good for people to raise questions," he said. "It gives senior military leadership that has the responsibility for these matters a chance to hear them, talk to them."

Gone are the days when the American military could plan for fighting along dangerous front lines while relying on a relatively safe rear area for logistics.

"Last year, we began to see an increase in improvised explosive device attacks against our forces, primarily against convoys that were moving throughout Iraq," said Lt. Gen. R. Steven Whitcomb, commander of coalition ground forces in the Middle East. "And they began having an impact on our soldiers, a deadly impact, as we all know."

In a hastily arranged video news conference from Kuwait, General Whitcomb said the Army had since rushed armored vehicles to take troops into Iraq, and had hastened to add armor to others.

"I've got enough metal, I've got enough folks, and I've got enough time to meet our schedule that ensures that no combat unit in a wheeled vehicle goes into Iraq now that is not in an armored vehicle," he added. "So we're continuing to work feverishly to ensure that they meet our requirement, and that's that nobody goes north without it."

Continuing shortages have prompted soldiers going to Iraq to scrounge for steel and ballistic glass, improvising shields that have come to be called hillbilly armor.

At the transit camps in Kuwait, Army and Marine Corps drivers weld antishrapnel collars onto the hoods of their trucks, to deflect exploding debris while maintaining visibility. Sandbags are laid on the floors of Humvees, trimming the skimpy legroom from economy class to steerage. On the battlefield, there is an air of resigned acquiescence about the lack of armor, rather than bitter complaints. Among units that lack armored Humvees, the mood 20 months into the war tends more to black jokes than to recrimination.

"If they i.e.d. you in this thing, there won't be enough of you left to package up and send home," a Marine sergeant said earlier this week, as he showed embedded reporters to one of three open-backed Humvees assigned to a raid on a suspected rebel stronghold raid south of Baghdad. Among troops in Iraq, i.e.d., for improvised explosive device, is shorthand for the roadside bombs that have killed about two-thirds of Americans who have died in combat.

At briefings, commanders resort often to an old Marine adage, "Improvise, adjust, overcome," and are dismissive of complaints.

Yet others remain angry. "This is a big problem that demands immediate attention, and what you saw yesterday from Rumsfeld shows that he fails to understand what goes on the ground," said Paul Rieckhoff, a former infantry platoon leader with the Florida National Guard in Iraq who now runs an organization called Operation Truth , an advocacy group for soldiers and veterans. "This is a life or death situation for guys over there. Complacency, incompetency, or negligence, I don't know what other excuse there could be. But when these guys screw up, we bleed."

The kits to add extra protection to vehicles already in Iraq are being produced by the United States Army Matériel Command, where officials said they were scrambling to speed up the work and complete the most recent order from Iraq before the previous goal of March 2005. "We're trying to ramp up and accelerate the process, and there is a possibility we might meet the requirement prior to that time," said Tesia Williams, an Army spokeswoman.

At the same time, she defended the Army's efforts to date in armoring the Humvees used in Iraq. According to figures supplied by Ms. Williams, the Matériel Command first received orders for 1,000 kits in November 2003, followed by orders for 2,870 in December; 800 in January 2004; 2,090 in February; and 1,516 in April 2004. More orders received last summer brought the total order to 13,872, of which about 75 percent has been filled, she said.

Only some of the work has been contracted out, mainly to a plant in Ohio run by O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt, a unit of Armor Holdings. The rest of the kits are being produced by civilian employees of the Army working at depots in New York and six other states, where they are using laser-cutting machines to cut steel purchased directly from two mills.

Armor Holdings also produces armor for new Humvees, and the company said it told the Army last month that it had the capacity to increase its production to 550 vehicles a month, compared with the 450 vehicles is handling now.

Military officers at the Pentagon expressed no surprise that it was a member of the National Guard who raised the issue with Mr. Rumsfeld. Already, the length and number of Guard tours and the number of their members killed and wounded have imposed unexpected stresses on the Guard and Reserves, whose members have not always been as well trained and equipped as active-duty members.

The system for training, equipping, mobilizing and deploying reservists was not ready for the historic increase in call-ups since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, officials acknowledged. The Guard and Reserves clocked nearly 63 million duty days last year, more than five times the totals recorded annually in the late 1990's. As of Wednesday, the total National Guard and Reserve personnel on duty around the world and in the United States stood at 185,019.

Democrats in Congress rushed into the debate on Thursday, saying one of Mr. Rumsfeld's chief duties was making sure that the troops would be safe.

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and one of the harshest critics of the administration's Iraq policies, said troops lack some protective equipment, in part, because of the urgency with which the United States went to war.

"This was a war of choice, not necessity, to be waged on our timetable, not Saddam's," Mr. Biden said in a statement. "And why is it that, 20 months after Saddam's statue fell, our troops still don't have the protection they need? Congress has given this administration virtually every dollar it has asked for in Iraq."


Thom Shanker reported from Washington for this article and Eric Schmitt from New Delhi. Reporting was contributed by John F. Burns in Baghdad, Iraq; John Files in Washington; and Michael Moss and Leslie Wayne in New York.

-Rudey

W?

I'm assuming you're referring to Bush but I'd like to think more than one person makes a decision in this country.

But if you were referring to the hotel chain, yeah I like it and I could enjoy the incredibly cute girls in short dresses serving me a gibson right now.

-Rudey

You're right. But isn't he called the "Commander In Chief?" Just where does the buck stop?

Well, apparently the massive billions towards Iraq and the DoD that justify massive increases in our nations debt havent done much to help our troops.
Next time we should give our troops their weapons when we let them ask the Bush Admin questions.

That's kind of odd...

Most of the logistical transportation is done by private companies over in Iraq, not by the Army. One of my brothers was in town for leave and told of the conditions over there. Those private drivers won't ferry supplies if they think it's too danterous. The troops further away from the supply drop-off points (this includes troops in Baghdad, and other cities) actually run out of food, water, and ammo b/c these driver's are not doing their job. Granted it's dangerous...but YOU TOOK A JOB IN A WAR ZONE! For a lot of money. Put two and two together. You are going to be in danger.

Getting down to the armoring of vehicles. Speed is the best advantage we have. If you armor a hummer or a five ton or whatever (with the exception of actual Armor, i.e. tanks, bradleys,..) they will be so slow that they are sitting ducks. Hummers are not meant to stand up to an RPG or gun fire.

Maybe we have not done enough to protect our Troops by and large.

The Soldier who asked that question was given to him by a Reporter to ask.. It was a very good question of course!

I have two Brothers over there and have known others and want them to be safe and come Home!

A Missouri Transportation Unit of The Guard just said screw you, we aint going on that ride!:D

So the Army was going to prosecute them, but for what? Being not stupid?

The shame of it all is sending Our People there for "A War" but not giving them the tools to do it safely!:(

I dont want to see anymore of our People Killed!


Some one told me in the store, if they blow up a building take out a block. If they take out a block, take out a city.

A Marine Friend told me this and said before going back over there for the second time, just tell the people of a insurgent town, get out, it will be leveled and all killed!

The ones that suffer are Our Troops and the civilians who are trying to live there and run the country legally. Well out side of American intervention so to speak!

Let me first say that it is unacceptable that our troops do not have the best protection that is available. Yet, I find it strange that the same people that voted for Kerry are making the biggest deal out of this whole fiasco. I mean, isn't Kerry the one who voted against the bill that would supply our fine men and women with this equipment that is crucial in improving their safety.

I believe his vote against it was because he, along with others, wanted the $$ to come either from rolling back taxcuts for those making somewhere around $500K+ a year, or by having some of hte aid to Iraq be in the form of loans.

I'm sorry, but I've gotta say this...
 

Bush did send (with full Congressional approval) our military over to Iraq for a mission...

"They" do say they have all these "outsourced" folks rebuilding Iraq--hence the insurgents chopping these folks heads off for it...

Why don't we just "outsource" the war?

Re: I'm sorry, but I've gotta say this...
 

The French already did that with their French Foreign Legion. I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions about the French military.

Re: Re: I'm sorry, but I've gotta say this...
 

Buy into the crap you may have been fed by the latest round of "French Bashing" but I would never, I repeat never, fuck with the Foreign Legion... hard fuckers that have a lot of respect and fear from me (from what I have seen and heard).

Re: Re: Re: I'm sorry, but I've gotta say this...
 

Of course the French Foreigh Legion is not made up of Franchmen/women. And their backgrounds are sometimes suspect.

Foreign Legion or not, France hasn't been a paragon of military power over the past couple hundred years.

They do seem to be pretty good at riding other countries coat tails, though.

Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm sorry, but I've gotta say this...
 

YAY for DeltAlum, he figured it out. The French Foreign Legion isn't made up of actual French people. I nosed around their info site and you can use a fake name to join, and then get French citizenship. Very interesting.

I wonder percentage wise how many victories the Legionaires have in comparison to the regular French troops.

(P.S. I lived with someone from France and I am still harboring anger about her blaring Celine Dion in French, in addition to all her French friends coming over and talking only in French in front of me, then heckling my French when I joined the conversation. If you don't like my French, speak ENGLISH)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm sorry, but I've gotta say this...
 

From what I understood, they didn't care who you were or what you had done and gave you a completely new identity. Supposedly if you ran away, let's say to your country of origin, they could also kill you as a deserter or something along those lines.

-Rudey

The buck doesn't stop ever to me. People can always be blamed. And in my opinion, more than one person deserves blame. You can only go after one person in the blame department I guess, but I choose to be upset at more than one person.

-Rudey

Kudos to Coramoor for cracking the code. Improvised "armor" is highly suspect at best as to its effectiveness and very often acts against those who are relying on it. Logistic vehicles are not designed to operate carrying an extra load of weight that slows them down substantially, changes their center of gravity, and provides a false sense of security which dissolves when a round or a bit of shrapnel punches through a quarter inch or half inch plate of non-armor grade metal. This results in additional bits of frag flying around the confined space of the so-called armored vehicle. HUMVEES, CUCVEES, 2 and 1/2 ton trucks, five ton trucks, wreckers, etc, etc were not designed to operate with all sorts of added weight. S&Ps (stake and platform semi-trailer trucks) were surely not designed for this sort of window dressing. The Army learned that lesson in Viet Nam. The improvised gun-trucks which the Army used to escort supply convoys were OK on main roads but had no mobility off roads and in situations requiring fast pick up or sustained speed. The cargo and logistic vehicles were much better off without add ons that actually impeded performance and put the drivers more at risk. If you are going to get hit by a command detonated device it is most likely going to take you out no matter what sort of improvised armor you have. If it is a smaller non-command detonated random device you need to learn to smell out the likely detonators. One favorite is a tin can in the road. You roll over it, crush the can, and it closes the detonating circuit. Bang, you are dead. There are many such devices and our people are learning how to spot and avoid them. In addition to my own experience I have spoken and corresponded with many friends from the Army who tell me that the best way to deal with this issue is to keep a sharp lookout for likely detonators, don't talk about the types we have learned about (except for the obvious "classic" ones) so as not to tip off the murderers that we are on to them, and be prepared to react instantly when an incident occurs. If it is a command detonated device the bastards will almost always be in direct line of sight to the target. We need to be able to spot them and nail them. Sometimes however, you can't respond immediately and that becomes one of those times you earn your pay the hard way. Remember, this is a war, it is dangerous, and it is going to be a lot more expensive in terms of casualties before it gets better. We have a 100% volunteer army and the downside risk of military service is that you can get hurt or even killed when doing your job. In case anyone wants to mutter about armchair quarterbacking, please remember that I was there at the start and among my keepsakes from that deployment is a purple ribbon with white edges.
Historically, we have never gone to war with a perfectly equipped Army. We go to war "with the Army we have", learn how best to deal with what we face, and respond accordingly. Let's not loose sight that war is dangerous and every time we engage an armed enemy someone is always calling for magic solutions to make it safe. War is not safe and there are no magic shields to protect us from harm. Its a hard, dangerous business and we need to fight with our eyes open and keenly aware of our surroundings and get over this business of looking for deus ex machina solutions.
dekeguy
Captain, USAR
been there, ready to go again

And that's pretty much always been the case.

In both of the World Wars, we had to build up our armed forces and gear up our industry. In Vietnam, we had to learn jungle warfare. In this case, after the initial campaign, it's turned to urban warfare. We've always had to adapt.

The problem with that, in terms of this particular situation is that it turned into a political issue during the last election with the GOP alleging that Senator Kerry didn't want to pay for the best equipment, etc.

Now, with the questions from the Reservist/Guardsman last week and reports from armor manufacturers, that would seem, at least on the surface, to have turned around on the Administration since they have been given all of the appropriations for which they've asked.

The bad news, always, is that it's the grunt on the line that ends up bleeding while the politicians sit and...well...politic.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm sorry, but I've gotta say this...
 

Not entirely true... there are some crimes that the Legion won't overlook :rolleyes: But yes it has been historically used as a great way to gain a new identity and citizenship, if shall we say, your previous country/identity was getting a little too "hot".

Case in point would be the Foreign Legion after WWII.... there was a suprising number of new recruits from Germany with convient wounds or burns under their arm (were the SS tattooed it's troops with blood-type)... so interestingly enough up to 50% of the force was German WW2 veterans fighting in places like Algeria or French Indo-China (Vietnam).

That being said... I have to respect some of the things that they did in Rwanda...



Okay back to the thread topic...

Well the armouring issue is currently the media darling, like Dekeguy has said it's not the black & white issue the media makes it - we went through the same thing, media wise, up here just over a year and a half ago. Yes armour does raise the protection and survivability of the troops, but it isn't the "magic bullet" that solves the problem of IEDs... training and enviromental awareness is the primary way to protect yourself - the armour is a fall back.

Dekeguy--

Do you truly have all that you are allotted to do your job with the utmost efficiency? Is there anything you must need that was told you would have it and it never came through--not because someone in your area, command-group didn't do their job, but because someone in another "reality" chose not to follow thru--or does it work like that?

Because the American people need to know straight up, with no chaser exactly what has to be going down so that you all can do the best job you have been highly trained to do...

AKA_Monet,
To clarify a bit, I am not currently deployed. I was there at the start of this conflict but have been home for a year and am finishing my last year of law school. When I was there I commanded an Armored Cavalry Troop and we were very well equipped with everything we needed to successfully defeat our opposition. Of course there are all sorts of nice-to-have items but none that were really necessary. On the other hand, the role of the logistics troops can often be a bit more dangerous in this present sort of fighting because they operate vehicles that are not designed to engage the enemy in direct combat where we slug it out nose to nose. Likewise, they are not designed to withstand explosive devices in ambushes. These are trucks, admin vehicles, and light scouting vehicles. As I mentioned in my previous post, these vehicles are actually often at a disadvantage if encumbered with improvised armor plate that degrades performance and is inadequate to provide real protection. These vehicles can't carry the weight needed to afford real protection. So, we encourage a false sense of security while turning these vehicles into possible death traps by hanging all this "stuff" on them.
Our soldiers have excellent training, excellent weapons, excellent supply replenishment, and material appropriate to their role. In an ideal world there would be magic armor and bullet proof vests and impervious vehicles and all sort of wonderful things to keep our troops from harm but sadly these things do not exist in the form the media would have us believe, and soldiers from the dawn of time have had to make do with what was both available and appropriate to their role. Actually, in an ideal world we would not be fighting any wars at all. But, since we have to deal with this world in which we fight with the Army we have, we need to realize that this is the best equipped Army we have ever sent to war and we need to realize that sometime its not too smart to burden the troops with too much equipment and let them get on with the job rather than lugging around half a ton of stuff that does not really do what you want it to.
Do we have what we need to do the job? Yes. Do we have everything we could possibly want to make life easy and safe? Of course not, but we need to deal with reality, not with media generated attention to the awful truth that war is messy and dangerous. Lets know this and realize that sometimes there are no easy solutions, just hard soldiering. Then, when our soldiers do come home lets recognize what they have done under less than perfect conditions and simply say thanks. The basic right of all Soldiers is to gripe, then he gets down to business and carries out his mission.

Dekeguy,

Thank you for your honest and clear reply... I appreciate what you have done, what your battle group has done and what you all may have to do, if necessary.

I have a few friends serving in this war and they are telling me things that would be considered unacceptable coming from my profession--medicine. We cannot have a patient on a surgery table unpreppred. Malpractice would nail us to the cross. But many medical doctors who receive training at my current location are ready to leave because the "state" has malpractice insurance up so high, it is not worth practicing here. And if there were to be any epidemic, or threatening health conditions--whoa to the patients coming in the hospitals... Because there would be very few medical doctors or nurses (practionner's included) to do the type of job required to protect the health of the patient.

From what my friends were telling me there are some "policy issues" related to "Geneva Convention" Rules... But we can post that on a different group... However, I was shocked at what you are NOT allowed to do, which seemed to me that stopped you from doing the best job. I know that is how it is being a soldier--you don't question the orders, you carry them out...

But, I am sorry, I just want to make sure most of you folks are set and cared for completely when you are civilians or deployed...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/25/in...arines.html?hp

Bloodied Marines Sound Off About Want of Armor and Men
By MICHAEL MOSS

On May 29, 2004, a station wagon that Iraqi insurgents had packed with C-4 explosives blew up on a highway in Ramadi, killing four American marines who died for lack of a few inches of steel.

The four were returning to camp in an unarmored Humvee that their unit had rigged with scrap metal, but the makeshift shields rose only as high as their shoulders, photographs of the Humvee show, and the shrapnel from the bomb shot over the top.

"The steel was not high enough," said Staff Sgt. Jose S. Valerio, their motor transport chief, who along with the unit's commanding officers said the men would have lived had their vehicle been properly armored. "Most of the shrapnel wounds were to their heads."

Among those killed were Rafael Reynosa, a 28-year-old lance corporal from Santa Ana, Calif., whose wife was expecting twins, and Cody S. Calavan, a 19-year-old private first class from Lake Stevens, Wash., who had the Marine Corps motto, Semper Fidelis, tattooed across his back.

They were not the only losses for Company E during its six-month stint last year in Ramadi. In all, more than one-third of the unit's 185 troops were killed or wounded, the highest casualty rate of any company in the war, Marine Corps officials say.

In returning home, the leaders and Marine infantrymen have chosen to break an institutional code of silence and tell their story, one they say was punctuated not only by a lack of armor, but also by a shortage of men and planning that further hampered their efforts in battle, destroyed morale and ruined the careers of some of their fiercest warriors.

The saga of Company E, part of a lionized battalion nicknamed the Magnificent Bastards, is also one of fortitude and ingenuity. The marines, based at Camp Pendleton in southern California, had been asked to rid the provincial capital of one of the most persistent insurgencies, and in enduring 26 firefights, 90 mortar attacks and more than 90 homemade bombs, they shipped their dead home and powered on. Their tour has become legendary among other Marine units now serving in Iraq and facing some of the same problems.

"As marines, we are always taught that we do more with less," said Sgt. James S. King, a platoon sergeant who lost his left leg when he was blown out of the Humvee that Saturday afternoon last May. "And get the job done no matter what it takes."

The experiences of Company E's marines, pieced together through interviews at Camp Pendleton and by phone, company records and dozens of photographs taken by the marines, show they often did just that. The unit had less than half the troops who are now doing its job in Ramadi, and resorted to making dummy marines from cardboard cutouts and camouflage shirts to place in observation posts on the highway when it ran out of men. During one of its deadliest firefights, it came up short on both vehicles and troops. Marines who were stranded at their camp tried in vain to hot-wire a dump truck to help rescue their falling brothers. That day, 10 men in the unit died.

Sergeant Valerio and others had to scrounge for metal scraps to strengthen the Humvees they inherited from the National Guard, which occupied Ramadi before the marines arrived. Among other problems, the armor the marines slapped together included heavier doors that could not be latched, so they "chicken winged it" by holding them shut with their arms as they traveled.

"We were sitting out in the open, an easy target for everybody," Cpl. Toby G. Winn of Centerville, Tex., said of the shortages. "We complained about it every day, to anybody we could. They told us they were listening, but we didn't see it."

The company leaders say it is impossible to know how many lives may have been saved through better protection, since the insurgents became adept at overcoming improved defenses with more powerful weapons. Likewise, Pentagon officials say they do not know how many of the more than 1,500 American troops who have died in the war had insufficient protective gear.

But while most of Company E's work in fighting insurgents was on foot, the biggest danger the men faced came in traveling to and from camp: 13 of the 21 men who were killed had been riding in Humvees that failed to deflect bullets or bombs.

Toward the end of their tour when half of their fleet had become factory-armored, the armor's worth became starkly clear. A car bomb that the unit's commander, Capt. Kelly D. Royer, said was at least as powerful as the one on May 29 showered a fully armored Humvee with shrapnel, photographs show. The marines inside were left nearly unscathed.

Captain Royer, from Orangevale, Calif., would not accompany his troops home. He was removed from his post six days before they began leaving Ramadi, accused by his superiors of being dictatorial, records show. His defenders counter that his commanding style was a necessary response to the extreme circumstances of his unit's deployment.

Company E's experiences still resonate today both in Iraq, where two more marines were killed last week in Ramadi by the continuing insurgency, and in Washington, where Congress is still struggling to solve the Humvee problem. Just on Thursday, the Senate voted to spend an extra $213 million to buy more fully armored Humvees. The Army's procurement system, which also supplies the Marines, has come under fierce criticism for underperforming in the war, and to this day it has only one small contractor in Ohio armoring new Humvees.

Marine Corps officials disclosed last month in Congressional hearings that they were now going their own way and had undertaken a crash program to equip all of their more than 2,800 Humvees in Iraq with stronger armor. The effort went into production in November and is to be completed at the end of this year.

Defense Department officials acknowledged that Company E lacked enough equipment and men, but said that those were problems experienced by many troops when the insurgency intensified last year, and that vigorous efforts had been made to improve their circumstances.

Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis of Richland, Wash., who commanded the First Marine Division to which Company E belongs, said he had taken every possible step to support Company E. He added that they had received more factory-armored Humvees than any other unit in Iraq.

"We could not encase men in sufficiently strong armor to deny any enemy success," General Mattis said. "The tragic loss of our men does not necessarily indicate failure - it is war."

Trouble From the Start

Company E's troubles began at Camp Pendleton when, just seven days before the unit left for Iraq, it lost its first commander. The captain who led them through training was relieved for reasons his supervisor declined to discuss.

"That was like losing your quarterback on game day," said First Sgt. Curtis E. Winfree.

In Kuwait, where the unit stopped over, an 18-year-old private committed suicide in a chapel. Then en route to Ramadi, they lost the few armored plates they had earmarked for their vehicles when the steel was borrowed by another unit that failed to return it. Company E tracked the steel down and took it back.

Even at that, the armor was mostly just scrap and thin, and they needed more for the unarmored Humvees they inherited from the Florida National Guard.

"It was pitiful," said Capt. Chae J. Han, a member of a Pentagon team that surveyed the Marine camps in Iraq last year to document their condition. "Everything was just slapped on armor, just homemade, not armor that was given to us through the normal logistical system."

The report they produced was classified, but Captain Royer, who took over command of the unit, and other Company E marines say they had to build barriers at the camp - a former junkyard - to block suicide drivers, improve the fencing and move the toilets under a thick roof to avoid the insurgent shelling.

Even some maps they were given to plan raids were several years old, showing farmland where in fact there were homes, said a company intelligence expert, Cpl. Charles V. Lauersdorf, who later went to work for the Defense Intelligence Agency. There, he discovered up-to-date imagery that had not found its way to the front lines.

Ramadi had been quiet under the National Guard, but the Marines had orders to root out an insurgency that was using the provincial capital as a way station to Falluja and Baghdad, said Lt. Col. Paul J. Kennedy, who oversaw Company E as the commander of its Second Battalion, Fourth Marine Regiment.

Before the company's first month was up, Lance Cpl. William J. Wiscowiche of Victorville, Calif., lay dead on the main highway as its first casualty. The Marine Corps issued a statement saying only that he had died in action. But for Company E, it was the first reality check on the constraints that would mark their tour.

Sweeping for Bombs

A British officer had taught them to sweep the roads for bombs by boxing off sections and fanning out troops into adjoining neighborhoods in hopes of scaring away insurgents poised to set off the bombs. "We didn't have the time to do that," said Sgt. Charles R. Sheldon of Solana Beach, Calif. "We had to clear this long section of highway, and it usually took us all day."

Now and then a Humvee would speed through equipped with an electronic device intended to block detonation of makeshift bombs. The battalion, which had five companies in its fold, had only a handful of the devices, Colonel Kennedy said.

Company E had none, even though sweeping roads for bombs was one of its main duties. So many of the marines, like Corporal Wiscowiche, had to rely on their eyes. On duty on March 30, 2004, the 20-year-old lance corporal did not spot the telltale three-inch wires sticking out of the dust until he was a few feet away, the company's leaders say. He died when the bomb was set off.

"We had just left the base," Corporal Winn said. "He was walking in the middle of the road, and all I remember is hearing a big explosion and seeing a big cloud of smoke."

The endless task of walking the highways for newly hidden I.E.D.'s, or improvised explosive devices, "was nerve wracking," Corporal Winn said, and the company began using binoculars and the scopes on their rifles to spot the bombs after Corporal Wiscowiche was killed.

"Halfway through the deployment marines began getting good at spotting little things," Sergeant Sheldon added. "We had marines riding down the road at 60 miles an hour, and they would spot a copper filament sticking out of a block of cement."

General Mattis said troops in the area now have hundreds of the electronic devices to foil the I.E.D.'s.

In parceling out Ramadi, the Marine Corps leadership gave Company E more than 10 square miles to control, far more than the battalion's other companies. Captain Royer said he had informally asked for an extra platoon, or 44 marines, and had been told the battalion was seeking an extra company. The battalion's operations officer, Maj. John D. Harrill, said the battalion had received sporadic assistance from the Army and had given Company E extra help. General Mattis says he could not pull marines from another part of Iraq because "there were tough fights going on everywhere."

Colonel Kennedy said Company E's area was less dense, but the pressure it put on the marines came to a boil on April 6, 2004, when the company had to empty its camp - leaving the cooks to guard the gates - to deal with three firefights.

Ten of its troops were killed that day, including eight who died when the Humvee they were riding in was ambushed en route to assist other marines under fire. That Humvee lacked even the improvised steel on the back where most of the marines sat, Company E leaders say.

"All I saw was sandbags, blood and dead bodies," Sergeant Valerio said. "There was no protection in the back."

Captain Royer said more armor would not have even helped. The insurgents had a .50-caliber machine gun that punched huge holes through its windshield. Only a heavier combat vehicle could have withstood the barrage, he said, but the unit had none. Defense Department officials have said they favored Humvees over tanks in Iraq because they were less imposing to civilians.

The Humvee that trailed behind that day, which did have improvised armor, was hit with less powerful munitions, and the marines riding in it survived by hunkering down. "The rounds were pinging," Sergeant Sheldon said. "Then in a lull they returned fire and got out."

Captain Royer said that he photographed the Humvees in which his men died to show to any official who asked about the condition of their armor, but that no one ever did.

Sergeant Valerio redoubled his effort to fortify the Humvees by begging other branches of the military for scraps. "How am I going to leave those kids out there in those Humvees," he recalled asking himself.

The company of 185 marines had only two Humvees and three trucks when it arrived, so just getting them into his shop was a logistical chore, Sergeant Valerio said. He also worried that the steel could come loose in a blast and become deadly shrapnel.

For the gunners who rode atop, Sergeant Valerio stitched together bulletproof shoulder pads into chaps to protect their legs.

"That guy was amazing," First Sgt. Bernard Coleman said. "He was under a vehicle when a mortar landed, and he caught some in the leg. When the mortar fire stopped, he went right back to work."

-Rudey
--Read more at link above and all that

Scary thought, when I was in Iraq there was a big field behind our office which we walked across several times a day. The fiel was inside the base which was supposedly cleared already. About six months into our tour the explosive division realised that the area wasn't cleared and found several unexploded devices. It is truely a miracle that none of us were hurt or killed.

The military is finally providing side body armor.

A previous study said that 80% of deaths could have been prevented had troops had this armor.

-Rudey
--That's our government for us.

You can't make everyone happy:

Today's AJC headline:

"Soldiers chafe at extra weight of body armor"

Sgt. Joshua Winchester, a Pepsi truck driver from Jesup, "doesn't plan to wear the (protective side plates)" which can easily top 70 lbs.

Extra weight can slow you down and make you just as vunerable as if you weren't wearing armour... it's a trade-off that some are uncomfortable making - but it's a trade-off that the troops should have in theatre.

Agreed, 70lbs is a lot for me to wear especially with the ruck and everything else carried in theatre. I would like the choice though. If in a vehicle I know I would be wearing it at all times. Will be nice to see if my unit gets when they fly next week :)

I know the British and Canadian "combat vests"(armour) is somewhat customizable - with various levels of protection depending how much you add to the basic armoured vest... kinda like NBC gear in a way - ever increasing levels of protection as you add on more gear.

Ideally all the troops would be issued a full kit of body armour, and the mission would determine how much they'd lug around...

But damn 70lbs, with kit and weapons you'd be packing around 110lbs... I feel for the GPMG gunner...

US Army had a Lt. who was injured. His Body Armor was removed and thrown away as BioHazzard Material.

He was brought back to USA and could not get His Last Military Check as He had not checked in His Body Armorimt at a cost of $516.00.

He had to pay for it but, a Catch 22.

Well, word got out and He will get His Last Pay and get a Check for his Vest. Some Pencile Necked Dick NCO and Minor Officer denide it. :(

Thank God I did Not searve in The Miliatary!:mad: