Everytime we accept delivery of one of those widow-makers, an "up-armored" humvee, an American soldier will die believing he was protected by true armor - not Plexiglas.
1 posted on
05/05/2004 9:26:31 PM PDT by
Vetvoice
To: Vetvoice
The Hummer is just a better Jeep - never intended to be an Armoured Vehicle.
Trying to armour it is like putting wheels on a bumblebee. Stupid............FRegards
2 posted on
05/05/2004 9:45:23 PM PDT by
gonzo
(Look, it's not easy dealing with Tourettes' Syndrome, SO CUT ME SOME F*%CKING SLACK!!..........)
To: Vetvoice
Published in the Seattle P.I., which, I'm sure, has opposed every defense appropriation in my lifetime.
3 posted on
05/05/2004 9:57:22 PM PDT by
Uncle Miltie
(Islam: Nothing BEER couldn't cure.)
To: Vetvoice
Just to play devil's advocate.
Aren't M113s succeptable to .50 cal fire?
Aren't M113s just as or more vulnerable to RPGs as Strykers?
Is the maintenance infrastructure in place to deal with putting hundreds of miles a week on tracked vehicles?
4 posted on
05/05/2004 10:05:58 PM PDT by
MediaMole
To: Cannoneer No. 4; archy
Ping.
7 posted on
05/06/2004 4:09:18 AM PDT by
FreedomPoster
(This space intentionally blank)
To: Vetvoice; All
I don't tell war stories, however, I never saw a Jeep survive an encounter with an RPG nor a "booby-trap" as we called them back then-now IED. NVA/VC oft times wired 152/137MM arty shells along roads/trails. Look at the pics from 'Nam-many GIs riding atop APCs. Good reason for it. Most preferred to be "sniper bait" as opposed to burning alive...
I wish we could have a vehicle "impervious" to IED/RPG fire. However, with advent of new Thermobaric round for RPG? I doubt we could do it.
The threat of sudden, violent death/dismemberment surely weighs on our troops. Just as it did to those of us who served in VN and our fathers/grandfathers before us. The injuries from such explosions are traumatic to survivors and demoralizing to those around them. Amputations. Prolonged rehab. Frequent trips to the VA. Prosthetic devices. All bode ill for the young GI...
Can such be prevented by "upgrading armor?" Time will tell...
14 posted on
05/06/2004 5:01:43 AM PDT by
donozark
(I have benefited unfairly from the Bush tax cuts and rebounding economy. I feel SOO guilty!)
To: Vetvoice
Are the 700 upgraded M113A2-3 protected from mines IEDs and RPGs? Anything less than complete perfect protect would be unacceptable to many.
17 posted on
05/06/2004 5:59:08 AM PDT by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
To: Vetvoice
Very true. I don't recall any LFTE being performed on up-armored humvees. Strykers suck like Monica at a personal development session with the president, but at least they have undergone LFTE. This means the soldiers driving and fighting on them know what the Stryker's problems are.
18 posted on
05/06/2004 6:09:26 AM PDT by
.cnI redruM
(The words "nose candy" and the name Ted Rall belong in the same sentence.)
To: Vetvoice
Colin Quinn said something the other night on his show that is probably appropriate to this - it was along the lines that we should have went in as an occupying force, key word being force, we should have made it clear who was in charge, treated it like an old west town out of control and we go in like one of the big name marshals. Instead we acted like a bunch of ACLU lawyers armed with 'Chicken Soup for the Soul' and now we have the situations we have.
Driving around in humvees doesn't exactly project the air of an occupying force. They know these things can be easily taken out, and they aren't afraid of them.
To: Vetvoice
I am suspicious of the reference to "Plexiglas", a brand name for acrylic. Acrylic doesn't do anything. I'm sure the vehicle must use some type of polycarbonate, which is much stronger and a variation of it is used for making "bullet proof"glass.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson