Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Just because there's instances of non compliance doesn't mean you're absolved from that moniker.
you're a hack because you're a hack. Just admit it. There should be no shame in your game.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Just because there's instances of non compliance doesn't mean you're absolved from that moniker.
you're a hack because you're a hack. Just admit it. There should be no shame in your game.
Wow...Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000
If I'm a hack, what do you call yourself? I don't care for the republicans much, but I have liberals. If the fact I despise their social agenda makes me a hack, then I'll wear that badge with honor.
How effective does an IED need to be to penetrate 1/16" vinyl, brain trust?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The army only had about 300 armored humvees when the invasion was over and the occupation began.
The "armor" on your standard issue humvee consists of a vinyl door.
The "armor" on your standard duece and a half was a 1/4" rolled steel door and standard auto glass.
We're not talking about the difference between armored and better armored.
We are talking about sending troops into a low-level conflict wtih UNARMORED vehicles.
Anybody how has any concept of modern guerill fighting can easily imagine a fragmention grenade, or stick of dynamite with nails taped to it, either of which, you moron, will penetrate vinyl doors.
Question: Will the new armored Humvees pass Obama's CAFE standard?
I hear the new diesel engines are *low soot*, don't know about the rest of it.
I'm whatever you think I am. I'm not gonna let a title bestowed upon me in a message board to hurt my feelings or get my panties in a bunch. My opinion of you is that you're intellectually dishonest and lack any ability to think critically. It's my opinion. The world's not gonna end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Question: Are they even subject to the CAFE standard?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095705/
Why is the White House underfunding armored Humvees? (Feb 18, 2004)
You've read the story countless times: An American convoy in Baghdad or Fallujah or Tikrit is attacked; a GI is killed and others are wounded. Nearly all those convoys include the all-purpose Humvee, which, it is becoming clear, lacks sufficient armor. Many feature no more than canvas roofs and doors. "We're kind of sitting ducks in the vehicles we have," one lieutenant colonel told Newsday.
...
So how is the White House proposing to deal with this? By underfunding the program to armor Humvees.
...
The need appears to be significant, however. One congressional staffer told me that Iraq and Afghanistan currently have about 1,600 up-armored Humvees—meaning there's a need for 2,600 more. And according to a recent story on the military's Army New Service wire, a total of about 1,000 armor kits have been shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan. That would leave about 7,000 to go. What's more, the Pentagon's requirements have been subject to constant upward revision, as it apparently realizes that just about all its vehicles in Iraq are subject to attack.
The Pentagon is rushing to fill the shortfall. Besides armor kits, it's ramping up production of up-armored Humvees—to 220 per month—and it's shipping as many as it can from other theaters to Iraq. Still, the military says it doesn't expect to meet the need for either type of protection before late 2005.
The White House doesn't appear to be helping. Its proposed budget for 2005 includes funds for 818 up-armored Humvees, which may or may not be enough, depending on whether the military's latest estimate of its needs holds steady and how many up-armored Humvees are already in the pipeline. (An Army spokesman said he wasn't sure of the number.) As for the thousands for armor kits the military says it needs, the proposed budget includes exactly zero dollars for them.
Much has been made of the $50 billion the White House estimates it will need for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—keeping troops in the field fed, equipment maintained, etc.—but didn't include in the proposed 2005 budget. Not including any money for armor kits may be motivated by the same likely impulse, that is, an effort to low-ball the budget until after the elections. The White House says it doesn't need the $50 billion now, arguing that there's plenty of money in the current budget to cover operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of this year. Anyway, says the White House, it wouldn't be smart to budget for more money now, since nobody knows what the operation in Iraq will look like in a year.
---------------------------------------------
$50Bn pricetag, anybody remember that?
That was what the Bush adminsitration thought it would take.
The military gets excemptions from all the fuel and emissions standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
One thing the military is realizing though, is that fuel intensive vehicles require LOTS of fuel.
Duh, one might say. So what?
That requires more fuel convoys.
More fuel convoys = more IED targets.
Battery technology, solar panels and quickie distilleries for alchohol, are being considered as ways to reduce the logistics footprint of units.
Talk about going green...
One think you forget.
The HUMVEE was never designed to be armored as a whole fleet. Only to move important people. There are armored vehicles for combat purposes, and an armored humvee is now too heavy for off road uses.
The article I see as spin, spin, spin...
One more thing Random...
I limit myself to a font size of 4. I think you went a bit overboard.
Humvees in Iraq were not used in combat?
The .50 cals and 40mm grenade launchers were there just to make the "important people" feel cool.
Nuking an American city would not be a good thing because it would "shake us out of our complacency." That's crazy.
Nuking certain American cities would be a good thing because it would have the potential to kill millions and millions of liberals.
Do the millions of conservatives living alongside them count at all for you, High-school Security?
It's not like the libs all live in the city of refuge, or some other well-defined kibbutz.
Please don't drop the bomb on America, Hi-Skool.
Think of the chilluns.
Is your concern for their immortal souls such that you wish to dispatch them to the other world instantly, to prevent their further corruption?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I was being sarcastic. WC did have a good point about Humvees not being designed to be an armored vehicle. What you get in protection you lose in fuel economy, agility, and speed.
Some may say "So what" about fuel economy. Would you want to run out of gas in Fallujah?
Unfortunately, you can't make anything 100% safe.
The libtards don't care Darrin. They just spout off what their masters tell them to, without a thought based in reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
My father-in-law was a loadmaster on a C-130 in Vietnam. He said they used to sit on sandbags and chains to protect themselves. Sometimes you have to improvise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Too bad the nedia has such a liberal bias. The hounded the fact for years the soldiers didn't have body armor, then when it was issued, the soldiers [conveniently] lost it so they didn't have to carry the extra weigh. Too bad the news didn't report the soldiers didn't want it.
How did you find out?
I don't remember. It was probably an interview with a soldier on talk radio. Now before you accuse me of believing anything Hannity or Limbaugh say, I usually listen to local radio hosts. It would have been an interview with home town soldiers. Here are some interesting writings:Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
wiki: Interceptor Body Armor
Now remember the controversy about the Army not allowing the private purchased "Dragon Skin" to be used? Read this:Quote:
Body armor is always a compromise: mobility and comfort (and thus speed and stamina) are inevitably sacrificed to some degree when greater protection is achieved. This is a point of contention in the U.S. armed forces, with some favoring less armor in order to maintain mobility and others wanting as much protection as is practical. The debate is especially valid in the Iraq war, when comparing lightly-equipped insurgents with U.S. troops routinely burdened with upwards of 60 lbs. of weapons, ammunition, armor, food, water, and other assorted equipment. Many troops have complained that under such conditions, they are simply unable to pursue their guerrilla opponents. Troops who primarily ride in vehicles generally want the highest practical level of protection from IED's and ambushes, while dismounted infantry often make the case that impaired mobility can prove just as fatal to them as inadequate armor.
May 2006 Evaluation of Pinnacle Armor SOV 3000 “Dragon Skin"
Why lose the mobility when it fails half the time, and is heavier than the Army's choice for the "Interceptor" armor.
In other words, it was reported in the broadcast media. That's how you found out.