Reichley: New ‘Buffaloes’ could save lots of soldiers’ lives
Several military-related publications I subscribe to list casualties from Afghanistan and Iraq. Usually shown is the service, name, age, hometown, place of death, and cause. Looking over these notices is sad, and underscores the difference in these two combat zones over previous ones in our history.
One publication last week listed 13 deaths, 12 soldiers and a Marine. What was most interesting to me was that nine were caused by improvised explosive devices (IEDs), or roadside bombs, three by accidents unrelated to combat, and only one, the Marine, was killed in direct combat with the enemy.
A movie last year about soldiers who blow up or disable these roadside bombs, titled Hurt Locker, won the Academy Award as best picture.
What has always puzzled me is how have these conflicts gone on so long, with IEDs causing by far the most casualties, without our researchers and equipment developers not having come up with a countermeasure to neutralize them?
Several years ago a task force “think tank” was created, with great publicity, to find ways or measures to counter IEDs. It was headed by a retired four-star general, who was a former CGSC commandant.
I haven’t read anything about the task force’s operations recently, but I continue to read about soldiers and Marines being killed by these simple devices.
During WW II after the Normandy landings the thick hedgerows of France halted movement of our tanks. An enterprising sergeant devised a sort of plow to go on the front of tanks that cut right through the hedgerows. Our tanks went after the retreating German forces with a vengeance, which helped win the war.
I’ve read of nothing the task force has produced in our quest to find a counter to the IEDs. But in the current issue of AUSA News, a publication of the Association of the United States Army (a world-wide organization headed by a former CGSC deputy commandant), is an article headlined “New armored vehicles give soldiers added capability.”
A color picture of one of the vehicles looks much more like an earth-moving plow than an armored tank or fighting vehicle. The Army has named it the Husky Mounted Detection System, and it has ground penetrating radar capable of detecting buried IEDs. Troops call it the Husky for short.
The other vehicle is the Buffalo Armored Vehicle, called a Buffalo, which is a mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicle, with the acronym MRAP. I think the troops will prefer to call it a Buffalo.
The article said that a 1st Armored Division combat engineer unit has been training with both vehicles at White Sands Missile Range, N.M. After the six-week training period the unit will deploy with the two types of vehicles to a combat zone “in theater.” Which theater was not specified.
The article didn’t say what the origin of the two new vehicles was, whether from the special task force or another development unit. The task force wasn’t mentioned in the article.
Nor did the article say how successful the vehicles were proving to be at White Sands. A sergeant team leader was quoted saying “After a training exercise my troops told me they really felt safe inside the vehicle.”
Nothing was said about how effective either vehicle was in accomplishing its mission. In the last paragraph a second lieutenant was quoted saying “This training is highly important. We’re able to implement tactics, techniques, and procedures so we’ll be able to help soldiers and ultimately save lives.”
That would be a good thing. I’ll look for future reports about the Buffalo and Huskies.
John Reichley is a retired Army officer and retired Department of the Army civilian employee.