Posted on 08/19/2019 10:23:42 AM PDT by BeauBo
Bkmk
Which means the units in Korea and the 82d will be among the first to see them. I assume they can be dropped.
Couldn’t HMMWV’s stay in service as base transportation in non combat roles, much as the old jeeps got you around the base in such applications back in the day?
You laugh, I was involved in a test project to reduce emissions on tank and tank killer diesel engines to provide for a cleaner battle field. No fooling.
I hope those aren’t rivets around the doors.
My PANG unit spent a one year deployment in sh*thole Iraq. We mostly ran convoy duty,pulled security and overwatch. There is nothing that will not conceivably be knocked out by an IED. We happened to see an Abrams,two Bradley,a Stryker,various MRAPs and a few "up armored" Humvees get ambushed by IED's. We lost four soldiers. Sometimes it's "luck" and "Mr. Murphy" that wins the battle.
“Couldn’t HMMWV’s stay in service as base transportation in non combat roles”
HMMWV’s will stay in the inventory for a long time to come.
Typically, as systems are replaced by new ones, the old ones are re-allocated to other units, further down on the priority list for deployment. Some units (especially in the National Guard and Reserve) will probably still have HMMWVs in 20 years.
“I hope those aren’t rivets around the doors.”
I imagine that they are bolts, to hold on an extra armor plate (perhaps reactive armor).
Yup. We have thousand of tanks sitting in deserts that have never seen military action. Only the Pentagon knows why we build these things.
It’s important to have reduced emissions on the battlefield, you don’t want to contribute more when you’re burning buildings, ammunition, shredding bodies and spewing depleted uranium, white phosphorous and napalm around.
Not to mention all the thousands of acres of airplane boneyards, many of whom were retired prematurely, because the USAF mgfrs - Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman - just wanted “something cooler” with the bigger and bigger budgets, from our taxpayer dollars.
“one year ahead of schedule.”
Could we get THAT CREW to go work on the Gerald Ford fiasco ?
“Only the Pentagon knows why we build these things.”
When GENERALS retire.....need I say more ??
“higher running chassis and maybe a slightly wedged shape under-body to dissipate energy”
Those are key factors.
Shaped charges or explosively formed projectiles will probably negate these improvements.
The main question is, “How do you transport these monsters other than by driving them to the battlefield or onboard ships?”
C-17s C-5s, C-130s and C-141s are finite in number and needed for more important cargo.
Time to re-examine your battlefield transportation paradigm. In Vietnam we walked through the rice paddies because the dikes were often mined. Same idea applies to bloated jeeps and roads.
“How do you transport these monsters?”
They are about as heavy as up-armored HMMWVs - 10,000 to 15,000 pounds a piece. They can be loaded on any of the aircraft you mentioned, shipped by rail or ship.
There’s my answer. Maybe they’ll incorporate some anti-tank capability onto that thing.
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.