No doubt to be included in AP's weekly list celebration of Iraq combat deaths...
DUH!
You change the center of gravity by raising it and the vehicle rolls over...
Bush's fault
John Kerry is no doubt preparing a speech: "Who demanded armor on these humvees? It wasn't me! I voted against armor! But President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld insisted on armoring these troop transports. I served in Vietnam! If the election had not been stolen from me, we wouldn't be fighting terrorists in Iraq from armored vehicles!"
These people completely PISS ME OFF.
They BITCH and SCREAM and MOAN for more armor for the troops, to make it look like they are "for the troops".
They BITCH and SCREAM and MOAN that the armor may be a bad thing, and that it is killing our troops, to make it look like they are "for the troops".
Here's an idea: Ask the troops what they want and give it to them. If they are okay with the decreased speed, maneuverability, mileage and increased COG instability as a trade for increased survivability in a near miss by an IED, fine. If not, don't up armor any more.
Call it "Pelosi weight".
Especially since the MSM caused the armour controversy.
The best modification for the HV (said as a HV owner) in the Bagdad theare:
1. Light arms armour for doors -- stop rifle bullets and that's about it.
2. A supercharger, less offroad-focused tires, and changed gearing to make the damn things quicker, especially 0-40. (Fuel is pletiful and good there.)
They're slow --- 0 to 60 in 14 seconds or something. Add about a hundred horses and get that to 7 seconds.
Best armour is not getting shot.
New headline replacing old headline of "Lack of armor added to military Humvees have made the vehicles highly vulnerable, killing and injuring soldiers in Iraq, a newspaper reported."
Ain't it easy to be a "Journalist" today?
Relevent?
Ah, the irony.
The humvee was adopted as a jeep replacement (which had
no armor whatsoever), and one of the main jeep problems
was roll-overs.
Up-armoring humvees needs to be scaled down. What the
troops need is a proper APC, like Stryker, for this role.
The problem isnot the armor, the problem is that no one thought to tell these guys, most of whome are driving vehicles for the first time fresh out of high-school, that they have to drive them differently.
It's just like the housewife who trades in here Honda Accord for an SUV and does'nt change her driving style to match the vehicle. Suddenly "SUVs are killing people!"
The problem here is the same, with the added hazard that they are driving the same vehicle, which now has entirely different handling characteristics. This is a failure of the chain of command if drivers have been handed these vehicles without some kind of instruction.
The old jeep used to have a bad roll-over problem, which is one of the many reasons the Army pushed for the switch to a new vehicle. They need to break out those old FMs and training films.
The humvee is designed to be driven hard and fast off-road. It is otherwise a stable vehicle. The extra side and turret armor is needed, but not only changes center of gravity, but causes the springs and shocks to bottom out when cornering if they have not been stiffened. The combination is dangerous if the driver doesn't know what they are doing, especially when they come under fire.
It's the age old trade off. "speed and manueverability" vs. "armored protection".
I've taught many soldiers how to drive military vehicles. The problem is not the vehicle, it's the training. But you can be rest assured that the issue is being addressed and will be soon corrected, if it hasn't been already.
To all investors out there, check out FRPT.OB (Force Protection). The military is currently looking to replace the HUMVEE and FRPT has a great chance of securing orders. The company also has mine protection vehicles currently in the battlefield that with 0 casualties when struck by IEDs.
www.forceprotection.net
Fire Rumsfeld [/s]