The latest Drudge scoop highlights an embedded reporter’s self-congratulatory e-mail claiming to have coached a soldier to ask Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld about the shortage of armor for Humvees. The reporter sounds like a bit of a creep, but his heart seems to be in the right place and whether or not soldiers were “coached,” the e-mail does not take away from the fact that the armor gap is a real problem.

Contrary to the reporter’s narcissistic impression, however, both the Pentagon and other media have been dealing with the problem.

Here’s a Rowan Scarborough article from last month, an op-ed in the Bangor Daily News on a novel proposal to help fill the armor gap from last March, and some good background compiled by The Commissar at Politburo Diktat, who excerpts an overview from Global Security:

As of late October 2004, nearly 5,100 up-armored Humvees were reported by DoD to have been delivered to Army and Marine Corps units in Iraq, with another 724 on ships bound for the theater. As of late October 2004, U.S. Central Command’s requirement for up-armored Humvees called for 8,105 up-armored Humvees in Iraq. Prior to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Army had only about 500 up-armored Humvees, called “UAHs,” in its inventory. These were primarily used by military police units in their rear-protection role.

Meanwhile, Armor Holdings Inc., the sole supplier of protective plates for the Humvee military vehicles used in Iraq, sent out a press release saying it could increase output by as much as 22 percent per month with no investment and is awaiting an order from the Army:

Jacksonville, Florida-based Armor Holdings last month told the Army it could add armor to as many as 550 of the trucks a month, up from 450 vehicles now, Robert Mecredy, president of the company’s aerospace and defense group said in a telephone interview today.

“We’re prepared to build 50 to 100 vehicles more per month,” Mecredy said in the interview. “I’ve told the customer that and I stand ready to do that.”

Update: The Reporterette’s persuasive take on the questionable media ethics of Edward Lee Pitts and his editors is here.

comments (0)   trackbacks (17)