No

by John_234

Created on: January 10, 2011   Last Updated: January 12, 2011

The problems are obvious - images can be found in the news and the internet of humvees burning on lonely Middle East roads, destroyed by rocket propelled grenades and roadside bombs. Soldiers are dying in a war where the US is supposedly the bigger, better force. In comparison, armored vehicles are regularly credited for saving lives against dozens of rocket strikes, even if the vehicle doesn't survive the hit. It seems logical that more money for vehicles means more lives saved.

This isn't true at all. Look at the US DoD budget. Last year, it floated at $663 billion dollars. That's slightly more than half the money spent by militaries in the entire world, including Russia, China, the UK and South Korea -  the first three using about a tenth of what the US does. The United Nations estimates that less than a tenth (about a twelfth) the budget for the DoD could literally solve world hunger, provide basic healthcare and education.

So why are people still dying?

The primary light vehicle for the US Army and USMC in some form or another is the M998 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle "Humvee," usually upgraded with some sort of armor package. Depending on the armor, it may be protected against AK-47 bullets (7.62x39mm), RPG-7s and some shrapnel. But the result is several tons of armor that eliminate any maneuverability and all-terrain ability that the Humvee even has.

The Humvee was designed as a replacement for the iconic 'Willys Jeep" used widely during WW2. A light vehicle used to transport individuals, sometimes wounded and even carry a machine gun for quick attacks. A Humvee in today's battlefield looks like an armored car more than a utility vehicle. It's being forced into the role of something that is completely outside of it's design parameters, and the result can be lethal. A majority of cargo purposed Humvees in Iraq don't even have a machine gun. At times, the need for defense is so desperate that claymore landmines are lashed to the brushguard of the vehicle as a last ditch defense against a sudden attack, despite the risk of vehicle-crippling damage.

In recent years, increasing numbers of MRAPs and Strykers have drastically cut casualties in the field, up to 90% in some cases. But their production hasn't been at their fastest and many units are still saddled with Humvees and trucks. Anti missile systems and a variety of armor packages have also widened the capacities of such vehicles, and their ability to save lives on the field. With these multi million dollar projects, many options seem to be ignored entirely.

The M2 Bradley fighting vehicle, iconic of the Gulf War, is a somewhat rarer sight in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has similar speed to the Abrams, as it was designed to remain mobile during an assault, and has a small cannon for engaging entrenched enemies and light vehicles, as well as anti-tank missiles and smoke dischargers. It's relative durability makes it essentially impervious to RPGs, and there is enough mobility not to get thrown off the road like an over-burdened Humvee or get caught in an urban killzone.

Another vehicle is the M113, the iconic Armored Personnel Carrier and one of the most widely used vehicles ever mad. Used widely by the Israeli's, upgraded M113s cost a little more than twice that of a Humvee, but significantly less than a Stryker or MRAP. However, this doesn't count that the US Army has roughly 13,000 paid for and operational units in sitting in bases. The Israelis have gone one step further and taken enemy T-72 tanks and converted them into heavy APCs.

Another, even cheaper option is the guntruck. Basically a standard 2.5 or 5 ton truck with an armored cargo compartment and machine guns, these vehicles were successfully used to defend convoys in 2007, recieving minimal casualties without any formal funding or training. Factory options have been made, even for Humvee trucks, but currently the priority is low, and numbers are in the low hundreds. It's not expensive to provide good protection; most of these tactics were mastered in Vietnam. Indeed, making guntrucks had an entire military Field Manual on it, and examples can be found in many museums.

It isn't right to completely blame the DoD, though. One of the big problems with budgeting is that the amount of money spent year to year must be justified with progress. That means more projects, so the only option for the military is to let the budget's needs grow, or to get cut back in chunks. The result of the latter is well known, from the National Guard units that were abruptly removed from citizen life for repeated tours in the Middle East, to the sudden laying off of thousands of personnel in the USAF and USN. The military is under stress of going forward with every move, and looking backwards at Cold War stockpiles just isn't an option at times.

The US spends more than half of the worlds' collective military expenditures. A lot of these are justified costs. UH-60 "Blackhawk" helicopters cost millions of dollars, but only because their design and high performance force it. Same for fighter jets, regardless of design. But single projects can cost billions of dollars, and the aforementioned Strykers cost a hefty three million per unit, excluding the initial research cost and add-ons. Modifications in the field done without full funding have proved an improvement over the hobbled, multi-million dollar logistics of the current situation.

Does this mean we should sell our tanks and high-tech APCs for trucks with dumpsters welded to the sides? No, not unless we plan to patrol highways and nothing else. Specialized equipment is needed for specialized tasks. But we can definitely do better. Increased funding won't solve our problems; more educated choices will. If the most powerful military on the face of the Earth can't do it, nothing can.

Learn more about this author, John_234.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.