Reply With Quote
No. I'm not a joiner.
Here's this also:
Troops Reject New Body Armor as Dangerous
by James Dunnigan
April 14, 2006
Last paragraph:Have you ever been in the military, have to carry a weapon, rations, grenades, wear armor, etc. in the desert?The senior commanders are under a lot of pressure to "protect the troops." Many people back home have invested a lot of themselves in efforts to get better armor for the troops. Hearing that the troops value lightness and speed, over armor and more weight, will upset some politicians and pundits. But if the opinions of the troops counts for anything, weight matters, often more than anything else.
No. I'm not a joiner.
Props to anyone who is. It just isn't my cup of tea.
Trust me. If you cannot move, you're dead.
Hard to argue with that.
I wasn't aware our warriors were casting aside their armor on a service-wide basis.
I'm not too sure if I am right now.
Haven't you learned yet that I do not make things up?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-08-2009 at 07:21 PM.
But you do make things up.
you.
How seriously stupid do you have to be to not realize that requiring troops to convoy materials and supplies, as well as patrol areas for security purposes in an environment were it is 100% certain that theose will be subject to EIDs, grenades, RPGs, and mines in unarmored vehicles is a bad idea at best, and sheer negligence at worst?
The way you place political gain over everything else and try to minimize the incompetence of the Bush administration when it comes to Iraq sickens me.
The intent of the article was to show that, indeed, our troops were having to weld steel onto their unarmored humvees because the administration didn't think it needed to provide some protection against the threats that anybody with a brain larger than a pea could have easily forseen.
Yet again, you completely miss the point and focus on some minor aspect of an issue at the expense of the wider picture so that you can prioritize feeling good by making anybody “conservative” look good or less bad because it makes you feel better.
Emotions over logic, accountability be damned, as long as Wild Cobra can feel good about being a "conservative", it's ok if a few troops had to die. God forbid we should ever apply some critical thinking to what happened and come out with an answer that might make the Bush adminstration look bad, because that would be a tragedy. It is far more important to hyper-focus on minutae than to admit somebody in the Republican party f***ed up.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 07-14-2009 at 11:17 AM.
Before WC goes off on another tangent, let's restate the issue at hand:
The Bush administration DID NOT start the process of getting up-armored humvees, and other armored vehicles until AFTER hundreds of soldiers were killed in convoy ambushes by IEDs, RPGs, and mines.
Anybody with ANY knowledge of Iraq or Low Intensity Conflicts would tell you that such weapons are the FIRST choice of guerillas, so planning for that should have been a HIGH priority.
The Bush administration probably thought it wouldn't have to stay there long enough to do that, and that in and of itself was fantasy that also demonstrated a total disregard for what ANY expert on the Middle East or Iraq would have told them, and probably tried to tell them.
The new armored HUMVees going into production are heavy sons-a- es. We were working on a small portion of the compe ion's submission (they lost the bid). The contract winner's vehicle is pretty cool, horrible website though.
http://www.force-dynamics.net/
Damn. Thing looks like an APC... which is I guess what they're shooting for.
Wasn't the Stryker designed in order to provide troop movement in a combat situation where IEDs would be expected?
This looks like a Stryker Lite. I think Stryker's are for balls out protection. They are radiation, and bio weapon proof... so this is just like a more practical version of an APC.
Those suckers are huge too... these humvee versions look a bit more maneuverable.
The MATV is not bio proof...for soldiers. But it utilizes a special CARC painting that is bio resistant. Meaning, if an MATV is hit with a bio weapon, the crew dies but the shop will only have to hose it down with water and its good to go later that day.
From their website:
Cheetah M-ATV incorporates lessons learned since 2004 in the operations of Force Dynamic's Cougar MRAP in Iraq and Afghanistan with US and NATO coalition forces. It is a matured design incorporating 3 years of prototype, preproduction and user test and evaluation.
The Independent Suspension Cougar is air transportable; one by C-130 at GVW.
From spec sheet:
Base Weight: Approx 20,800 lb
For reference, the H1 weighs about 10,300 lbs.
...and that heavy-ass thing won the bid?!
Son of a , the compe ion weighed in at 15,000 and passed the armor test just the same.
I don't know if you're trying to correct me or not.. but I was referring to the Stryker when I mentioned bio/radiation proofing.
Two ships passing in the night. I'm pretty sure DR was in the biz. I think he was talking about a particular bid. (Please correct me if I'm mistaken, DR.)
Nope, if anything, I was just adding on to your point.
You were correct, unfortunately. I was formerly apart of the project.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
