Skip to comments.
Armored Humvee replacement competition
Murdoc Online ^
| March 29, 2006
| Murdoc
Posted on 03/29/2006 9:42:10 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 last
To: 91B
The germans are getting around in afghanistan with these:
It ran on a 6 kg anti tank mine and was 'deplaced' 2 m to the side. One front wheel was ripped of - noone was hurt the cell was unharmed.
41
posted on
03/30/2006 11:41:06 PM PST
by
globalheater
(There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare - Sun Tzu)
To: globalheater
42
posted on
03/30/2006 11:41:47 PM PST
by
globalheater
(There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare - Sun Tzu)
To: Southack
Perhaps we limit recon and scouting in hot zones to Strykers...separating those tasks from general purpose errands and such for existing HMMVW's.
Sounds good to me and I think that is existing doctrine. The problem is that local commanders have to do their assigned tasking with available equipment.
One of the problems I have with the HMMVWs is with being closed in. Even with bullet resistant glass the trooper is still looking out a window and isolated from his environment. It is nice to have airconditioning in a hot area, but at what price? There is also the nearly unavoidable psychology of being in a safe vehicle and protected from harm. Just as people who drive on our Interstates here at home in a car with air bags all around, impact absorbing frames and bodies, built in roll bars and low deductible insurance are usually not as careful while driving because much the danger has been removed, the soldier in an uparmored vehicle will feel safe and not be as aware. And of course, the ability to bail quickly out when necessary has been subjugated to this safety.
I saw some of the same reaction in Viet Nam when we would transport combat arms troops on our boats. They were all a bit nervous because they could not dig a nice hole in a steel deck. They could not quickly move to a safer area when under fire. All they could do was stay where they were on our boat and take it.
43
posted on
03/31/2006 5:06:24 AM PST
by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Which ones did the South African's develop? They had a V shaped bottom which makes more sense...OAS (in South African) produces both the RG-31 and the RG-32. OAS is a wholly owned subsidiary of BAE Systems but General Dynamics has the marketing rights for the RG-31. The Buffalo, produced by Force Protection (in South Carolina) is a derivative of a South African design.
44
posted on
03/31/2006 5:26:36 AM PST
by
O6ret
To: O6ret
To: R. Scott
"There is also the nearly unavoidable psychology of being in a safe vehicle and protected from harm. Just as people who drive on our Interstates here at home in a car with air bags all around, impact absorbing frames and bodies, built in roll bars and low deductible insurance are usually not as careful while driving because much the danger has been removed, the soldier in an uparmored vehicle will feel safe and not be as aware." That's very true and very real...but...combat fatigue and road weariness impacts even the otherwise alert motorcycle rider after enough miles.
Which is to say, you can only be alert for so long. When you are alert, or capable of being alert, then being able to bail out has high value. For longer duty, however, you'd better have some small-arms armor protection. You can't forever remain so alert as to avoid getting shot, after all. For the long-term, you need armor.
Understanding the above, it makes sense that hyper-alert Special Forces put a premium on mobility rather than on armor for their hit-hard, hit-fast missions.
But longer-term SOF (e.g. a 2 week sniper mission) will use the armor of camoflage...an option frequently not available to GI's riding on a road in a GP vehicle (hence, the need for some armor).
There is a place for max mobility, minimum armor. There is a place for maximum armor. And most other places require varying degrees of compromises...keeping in mind that historically our casualties have declined as our armor has increased (because people can't be alert 24/7).
46
posted on
03/31/2006 1:16:28 PM PST
by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Southack
Which is to say, you can only be alert for so long.
We were issued small pills in a foil strip. Guaranteed to keep a person alert for a minimum of 24 hours. We also had the little pills in strips that would guarantee we would not have to worry about the head for 24 hours.
Of course, the War on Drugs ended that.
I still have this thing about being in confined spaces.
47
posted on
03/31/2006 2:12:57 PM PST
by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
To: globalheater
48
posted on
03/31/2006 4:59:08 PM PST
by
Cannoneer No. 4
(Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics.)
To: globalheater
It ran on a 6 kg anti tank mine and was 'deplaced' 2 m to the side. One front wheel was ripped of - noone was hurt the cell was unharmed. 12+ lbs of anti-tank exposive, and no one hurt. Pretty impressive
49
posted on
03/31/2006 5:03:55 PM PST
by
AFreeBird
(your mileage may vary)
To: Wiz
Armored Security Vehicle 131 is a premier platform that is being used for convoy and route security in Iraq. The ASV employs the MK-19 grenade machine gun (turret mounted), M-2 .50-caliber machine gun (turret mounted), and the M-249 5.56mm Squad Automatic Weapon. ASV 131 arrived in Iraq in late June.
Armored Security Vehicle is highly-mobile and C-130 Aircraft transportable. The vehicle's armor is capable of resisting .50 caliber armor piercing rounds and has the capability to deflect up to a 12-pound mine blast. This particular M1117 blew an o-ring in the wheel solenoid and was repaired at Camp Liberty, Iraq, April 5, 2005.
50
posted on
04/02/2006 6:20:48 PM PDT
by
Cannoneer No. 4
(Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics.)
To: Cannoneer No. 4
Just found this forum and wanted to throw in my two cents worth about these vehicles. If the idea is to replace the Humvee with a survivable and capable urban assault vehicle, I think attention needs to be given to Textron’s Marine Land System Armored Security Vehicle, Guardian. Looking at the other vehicles the chief design flaw is the vehicles box like silhouette. This would make any of those vehicles more vulnerable to effective impact damage from RPG and similar highly mobile anti tank style weapons. The angled profile of the guardian would deflect (ricochet) a projectile away from the vehicle. The gun turret projects an obvious threat that demonstrates the ability to defend itself while minimizing the exposure of the vehicle occupants to hostile fire. It seems to make sense to me to replace the Humvee, we need to have a quick, light armored vehicle that is capable of operating in a variety of environments and terrains. The Guardian looks like it fills the need to me.
51
posted on
06/20/2008 9:57:17 AM PDT
by
ssntough
To: Cannoneer No. 4
bail out quickly? Thats why we sat on top of the ACAVs and
stowed .50BMG ammo on the floor and sandbagged the driver
floor.
52
posted on
02/02/2010 9:23:54 AM PST
by
rahbert
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson