Armor Causing Humvees to Roll Over (Vehicles MORE Dangerous Than Before)

AP ^ | 6/11/06

[Tennessean4Bush]

The law of unintended consequences strikes once again.

[DoughtyOne]

I don't see any numbers addressing the issue of people spared because IEDs and snipers failed to kill our troops in these more heavily armoured vehicles. I'd sure like to have seen more stats to back up the original assertion.

[expatpat]

If so, I blame the uproar from the Democrats and their media allies for panicking the Pentagon into doing something without adequate testing.

[driftdiver]

going to be hard to document what didnt happen. Perhaps we could take a look at the stats before and after the armor was available. considering the way the vehicles trickled in I don't think there is an easy way to do this.

His premise seems reasonable though. Take a vehicle design and make it much heavier and raise the center of gravity. What else could we expect to happen?

[taxed2death]

Adding armor in that fashion (all that weight up high) without increasing suspension spring rate, compression dampening and rebound rate is a recipe for disaster.

You can't fight physics.

[Mr. Brightside]

You may be right.

But remember how hard the dems hit Bush on this issue?

Wouldn't it be interesting to find out that the main Democratic campaign talking point of 2004 was pure BS?

[Lurker]

That would be an interesting comparison.

Me thinks this is just another hit piece masquerading as a 'we love the troops' article.

L

[DoughtyOne]

His and your attention to the center of gravity is warranted. Still, what is better, to have the troops sitting ducks or to have an accident once in a while. The per thousand rollover rate doesn't seem that high. The actual numbers of deaths isn't that high considering three years. Each one is tragic, but viewed in perspective this seems like another morale ball breaker to me.

[DoughtyOne]

You mean along with the main talking points of 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004? Yeah, I guess so. LOL

In truth, I hear you and agree.

[DoughtyOne]

Agreed.

[bandleader]

Yes,because they are(Largely)designed to replace the"JEEP"!I would like to know how many of our forces were Killed,Wounded,etc.,etc.,whilst riding in JEEPS in WWII,Korea,Vietnam....I don't think there was any outrage expressed at the time that they were"under-armored"!This is just another avenue for THE LEFT!!!!Tanks(and more lightly armored APCs)are"Armored"vehicles.Hummers are meant to be light,all-purpose transports(Jeeps)!!!!!!!!SHEESHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[wyattearp]

That's what happens when you try to use what is essentially a jeep in a role that calls for light armor. It is the wrong tool for the job.

[FrankR]

Damned SUV's. (sarcasm)

Gilda Radner used to say, "It's always something...sweatball on the end of your nose, lint in your belly button...it's always something...".

[bandleader]

You're Right!Loading up these Hummers with tons of armor-plating REDUCES their survivability because they can no longer Manuever!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bandleader]

The IED problem needs to be addressed!Beefing up vehicles(Hummers)doesn't get rid of the IED problem!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mr. Brightside]

Democrats 2004:

"The administration has done nothing to provide armor for our soldiers in Humvees."

Dems 2006:
"Never mind." (/Emily Latella)

[sgtyork]

I don't know. Those suckers have a really really low center of gravity. Not like the old jeep.

[DoughtyOne]

Yes the IED problem does need to be addressed, but in instances where those IEDs are not direct hits, the armour is very important.

[bandleader]

Only if"The Added Armor"doesn't make Hummers MORE vulnerable!