US hurries to reinforce armour after casualties soar

[jonnyofthedead]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...205726,00.html

The Pentagon is rushing more armour to Iraq to protect its troops after casualties reached record levels this month, it emerged yesterday.

More tanks and armoured vehicles - which had been left behind by units not expecting full-blown combat - are to be sent, and the production of reinforced Humvee patrol cars has been accelerated.

The reinforcements come at a time of rising complaints from officers arguing that their troops have been sent into war zones without sufficient protection. A leaked army report revealed that up to a quarter of the US deaths so far could have been avoided if soldiers and marines had not been forced to rely on unarmoured Humvees and other "soft-skinned" vehicles.

A top general has complained that even the armoured Humvees are inadequate to protect troops against grenades and bombs, and called for the speedier production of a new wheeled armoured car, the Stryker.

Scrambling to beef up its troops, the army has even requisitioned howitzers that had been used in ski resorts to dislodge snow and prevent avalanches, the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday.

The deployment of more armoured vehicles would be a PR disaster for the Americans, and would signal a return to the "major combat operations" the president had declared over a year ago.

More than 120 US soldiers and marines have died in Iraq so far this month and more than 90 have been wounded, the worst figures of the occupation so far.

...

A defence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said about two dozen Abrams tanks were being sent from Germany to the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, Associated Press reported last night.

The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Gen Richard Myers, insisted the reinforcements represented only a "modest" increase in armour and not "a major change in philosophy".

But Daniel Goure, a Pentagon adviser at the Lexington Institute, said the reinforcements were a "knee-jerk reaction".

"If the problem is urban insurgency, more tanks don't help. Heavy armour cannot conduct stability operations. You don't patrol in a tank."

...

The high casualty rate has taken centre-stage in the presidential election campaign as pictures of the flag-draped coffins of dead soldiers being flown home from Iraq have appeared on front pages. Tomorrow television news anchorman Ted Koppel will read out on his ABC programme, Nightline, the names of more than 500 Americans killed in combat, as photographs of the dead are flashed up on screen.

[mike75]

"The deployment of more armoured vehicles would be a PR disaster for the Americans, and would signal a return to the "major combat operations" the president had declared over a year ago."

So safety should be less important PR?

[h2g2Fan]

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

[jonnyofthedead]

So safety should be less important PR?

Who said it should? They were saying it would be bad PR, not that it shouldn't be done.

[arfurvirus]

If we (U.S.A.) were heading into this thing, which we were...

Why the lack of troops, equip. ect? Why are families of soldiers buying vests on ebay?

We went in half assed, we couldn't afford or get the support for the real cost.

So here we are, in Russia's afganistan.

[lilnymph]

Now, The armoured transports I can understand, but Main battle tanks to fight insurgents? Why the heck do you need them?

hugs

lilnymph