This wouldn't do well either.
Posted on 03/23/2006 6:56:16 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
The humvee was designed to replace a jeep, not an Abrams!
I agree, that basic armor should be on all vehicles IF it can fit the mission type.
This is a topic that can be discussed forvever, and never answer the question...because I think it is impossible to build/field a vehicle that can do everything for everyone.
The bottom line in Iraq is that the war differs from one TF sector to another. What my TF saw as far as the threat, terrain, weather, etc...was different than the one 80km to the north, or the one across the Tigris from me, or south.
We lost tanks and a Brad to stacked AT mines in addition to the dozen or more HMMWV's coded out. These (the Hummers)were due to IED's and VBIED's. We saw bigger IED's as the tour wore on as the bad guys adapted. The point has been taken that you can armor a vehicle (or a soldier) to the point where it/he can't move.
About a million years ago I was in the 9th Infantry Division (Motorized) at Ft. Lewis, where we expected to die gloriously fighting the Russian hordes in unarmored HMMWV's and dune buggies (FAV's). It was said then, and I still believe:
If you can be seen, you can be hit. If you can be hit, you can be killed. Better not to be seen.
Regards,
doing recon in a loud a** abrams is a hell of way to be stealthy. :)
I wish I could confirm that. In Vietnam, we always sat on top of the APCs or stood up inside with the cargo hatch open because of the fear that if we hit a mine, then someone sitting inside the track would break their necks after their heads hit was overhead.
ASV's do worse than HMMWV's?
Damn true -
True enough...but damn, we looked good doing it! :)
Regards,
I bet that guy wishes he has a humvee! :)
If this is the M-1 that was blown up a couple of weeks ago, then the crew escaped without injury. If it is a different tank, than I have no idea.
Would you like to see the Up Armored HMMWV replaced?
If so, what would you recommend?
RG-32M
The M1114 was okay for most missions we did. I would have preferred the Strykers the guys north of me had. We did use M113's for some missions too (Engineer route clearance), but got those guys into M1114's and M1025 AOA's as soon as we could. I would have liked the Buffalo's and Cougar's the Engineer (Division and Corps Level) route clearace units were using.
The Stryker could be fielded alot quicker (disclaimer here, this is NOT official army thinking) if we didn't have to stick all the gee-whiz C4ISR stuff in them, or that goofy Koenigburg sight on top. Put the standard C3I Suite in them, and get them to the BDE's NOW. Or better yet, buy some LAV III's with the 25mm turrets from the Canucks. The damned things don't have to fly over there in a C130, to that excuse for not buying them is useless. Add on armor can be used for the same reason...not ONE Stryker vehicle has been moved into MNB-N sector via air.
LAV armor (which can be added to), a 25 mm turreted gun, and a squad of infantry in back.
It's a start.
Regards,
Oryx
LAV III's are too much like Marine LAV's. The Army will never buy them.
We used them for surrogate Strykers when fielding the SBCT. It is pretty impressive.
Regards,
I'm going to defer, because like I said, I don't know jack about this.
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.