Replies

My old artillery unit used the M1097 and 1098 version of the Humvee, with a few 998 versions thrown in for good measure.
What's interesting is the notion being fostered by a few, some in the press, that there is such a thing as 100% protection against explosions and projectiles.
The General touches on that and states specifically that notion is a fallacy. (Obviously paraphrased but the sentiment is the same. This line isn't for you Destro, but for the nitpickers that seem to like to pick these posts apart.)

During annual training at Drum, we were always told to put sandbags everywhere inside the vehicle, but we knew that the sandbags weren't going to stop much from coming through and dicing us up.
Especially since we had canvasback Humvees.

The 'uparmored' Humvee is a good idea, it does reduce the injuries.
So instead of being dead you're merely pretty badly hurt or mildly shaken depending on what happened.
The quote about teh Humvee never being intended for frontline use is accurate and spot on.
My artillery unit was viewed as a 'rear area occupancy' unit, meaning we weren't ever likely to see the other guy -ever.
(My nephews can see the holes in that idea..)
But Iraq has, as the article says, become a 360 battlefield.
(A surround sound event.)
and teh Humvees are ending up performing tasks under conditions they weren't designed for.
Seems the press doesn't understand this, can't understand this, or refuses to understand this.
And there's those who'd use teh current situation for political gain.
*sigh*

Again, thanks for finding the article!

The armored Hummers are designed to stop fragments so any direct fire arms over 7.62 (the standard AK size) will penetrate the hummers. Keep in mind that armor goes both ways. Armor all around means less guns pointing towards the bad guys. Yeah, we're taking some casualties in these Hummers but overall we retain mobility with limited protection and combined with our other forces it's a good beast for the job that needs done.

"Humvees are ending up performing tasks under conditions they weren't designed for. Seems the press doesn't understand this, can't understand this, or refuses to understand this. And there's those who'd use teh current situation for political gain.'

Correct, and it has always been so. Armored Hummers are an improvisation that helps but cannot resolve the problem. Just as Hitler's horribly over armored tanks failed to resolve the problem of allied numbers.

The fact is that weapons take time to develop and development is usually a reaction to the last threat; or a reaction to the time and financial limitations of the time. [Note, 'immediate' is seldom a good basis for 'perfect']

"The Humvee has been a good and useful replacement for the 3/4 and 5/4 ton truck. But now we ought to have something a little smaller, better armored, and amphibious as a direct replacement for the old Jeep without that earlier vehicle's shortcomings." [Archy]

Right again, but in the mean time, I sort of liked the old jeeps and I'm witholding my decision on Stryker...it shares a lot of the problems assigned to up-armored Hummers.

113s would be better in the close fighting, remember that their purpose was to get infantry into the fight, not to assault a hard target. They are slower in deploying, and still not immune to RPG or reasonably large improvised munitions.