Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by NATO AIR, Dec 18, 2004.
is it true? i'm not sure, you tell me... it doesn't sound good though
what a crock of horseshit.
You know, I am really sick of hearing how the hummers don't have armour and should. They never had (other than a few scout hummers that had KEVLAR) armour. They weren't designed to have armour. They replaced the old willies jeep. I remember when my unit, in 1986, received some of the first hummers put into service when I was stationed at Camp Greaves in Korea. They were much better than the jeep and we never expected them to have armour as they were not designed that way. I am sick of hearing this, as -=d=- so aptly puts it, "HORSESHIT".
There was no armoured hummers in Kosovo, Panama, Gulf War I, etc., etc.
there were no insurgents/IEDS in kosovo, panama, gulf war I....
insurgents, armies, combatants, whatever you want to call them, they pose the same threat. The point is, the Hummer NEVER was designed to be armoured. period.
they pose different threats. the iraqi insurgents do not fight likle the panama army or the iraqi army... then among them you have those who are terrorists, and among them, those who are suicide bombers. new challenges for the world's premier fighting force.
if the hummer was never designed to be armored then, i guess a whole lot of guys have died needlessly because somebody didn't think quick enough on their feet to realize in the first six months of the insurgency that something was necessary to protect guys from IEDS...????
So we armor all of our vehicles, it only takes a little more explosive to blow something with armor up. The military needs to change its mindset and start fighting the way it should be fighting. They need to gather intel from the community, make quick strikes to take out enemy leadership based on that intel, and start pysch warfare on the insurgents. Quit letting them name the dance tune and have them dance to ours. Just goes to show that the military still hasn't learned its counterinsurgency lessons that we should have learned from Vietnam.
I keep in contact with many guys from my old unit that are now in the Ramadi area (Delta Company, 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry) and the problem is, since the hummer was - again - never designed to be armored, the extra weight is causing the hummers to break down. So now they have problems with being sitting ducks. Get a clue nato.
As pointed out, and IED is only one type of explosive. Anti-tank mines have been around forever and armour is not going to stop that. You can't just keep trying to make things more bullet proof and you have to work with what you have. My point was and still is, too much emphasis is being put on this armour issue when the damn vehicles were never designed that way to begin with. What do you want them to do, put larger engines in them and totally redeign the vehicles and then when the enemy starts using bigger IEDs, mines, etc., we start the process all over again?
that's the nature of warfare... we advance, then the enemy counteradvances, etc etc
i see your point about weighing it down and them becoming sitting ducks. the whole situation is just a fucked up no win deal. i wonder maybe if clinton and congress hadn't pissed away so much of our R&D in the 90's we couldn't have developed a lighter weight, tougher armor....
but that's just a thought.
:cof: thanks to you and doc holliday for taking the time to explain to a thickheaded squid like myself without calling names or getting irate.
Free - give it up. It's a case of arm-chair 'generals' spouting ideas which 'brief well' but have little practical value.
Separate names with a comma.