[Wiz]

Fact 6: Soldier's life is more important than the cost of the armor
Fact 7: Adding a more powerful engine will give extra payload to cancel the decreased payload by the added armor, and the DOD have done this
Fact 8: there is no such frontline in Iraq, everywhere could be a battle field, and mortar rounds could fly from miles away that may damage vehicles as well.

[donmeaker]

I served in Germany in a jeep with no armor.

I also served in an armored vehicle. Each has its uses.

If you add armor, you can increase the size of the engine. Then you have to increase the size of the gas tank. Then you increase the size of the armor again. Then you increase the size and weight of the suspension. Then you increase the size of the engine and gas tank again. All these increase the cost, so you have fewer vehicles for a given number of soldiers, or a smaller number of soldiers, for a given about of tax money coerced from the tax payer.

Or, if you decrease the armor, you decrease the engine, decrease the engine, increase the speed, decrease the number of (unarmored) fuel tankers.

There is a balance. We can disagree on what the exact point of the balance is. We don't get anywhere calling each other names.