Welcome to EMUSE!

EmuseForum is your #1 forum for General Discussions, The weird & wonderful, Politics, Sexy Babes, Porn and more!

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Army preferes vehicles with too little armor (Bergs, you would like this)

Discussion in 'World News & Events' started by Stanky105, May 4, 2004.

  1. Stanky105

    Stanky105 Anti-Spoon & Anti-Monkey

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,206
    Ratings:
    +43 /0 /-0
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4880593/

    This talks about how the army prefers "sleek, fast" vehicles over the slow heavily armored ones, and how that may be a mistake.

    Refers to the new "stryker" vehicle and how its weaknesses to RPGs seems to have been taken out of consideration, and it has been thrown into Iraq.

    Interesting stuff.
     
  2. Dual

    Premium

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,258
    Ratings:
    +326 /0 /-0
    Chinks in our armor? I take offense to that
     
  3. Bergs

    Bergs Elitist

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,688
    Ratings:
    +76 /0 /-0
    I think they should stay with treaded vehicles for both practical and psycological reasons. Interesting side note, they are taking doors off many HUMVEES because they are useless in stopping bullets and shrapnel because of their absence of armor and are causing soldiers in patrols to be trapped in the vehicle when they may need to get out.
     
  4. ramittinbawdeep

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Messages:
    318
    Ratings:
    +9 /0 /-0
    think thats bad try serving in the uk armed forces.
    the best trained armed forces constantly let down by commitee after committee, equipment shortages and a government who wish it to police the world on a shoestring budget currently 25 billion around $45 billion
    at least we got the best armoured vehicles tho
     
  5. Karly

    Karly giggity

    Joined:
    May 17, 2003
    Messages:
    2,393
    Ratings:
    +91 /0 /-0
    they should make a swarm of pope moblies & have lil doors in it to lean a weapon out to shoot. I know- what a chick thing to say huh?
     
  6. shade

    shade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    6,013
    Ratings:
    +198 /0 /-0
    It depends on the unit. The unarmored hum vees are meant for air transportation and dropping. That is the excuse for them being unarmored.

    We also have a lot of hum vees that are meant to be on the ground all the time, and those are armored.

    This is according to my my friend in the 101st who is a sergeant and also happens to be forming a new stryker brigade in Alaska as we speak.
     
  7. Nocturnal

    Nocturnal Americana
    Premium

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,662
    Ratings:
    +116 /0 /-0
    sometimes we need the speed that these vehicles have, (ie a quick knockout punch as seen in the war itself) they are just not setup for semi-stationary roles of policing,
     
  8. shade

    shade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    6,013
    Ratings:
    +198 /0 /-0
    An armored hum vee can still move. My uncle makes armored/bulletproof mercedes that do 0 to 60 in 4 seconds. It costs 100k... but a lot of that is just the mercedes itself.
     
  9. Nocturnal

    Nocturnal Americana
    Premium

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,662
    Ratings:
    +116 /0 /-0
    I was trying to compare HumV type vehicles with standard armored vehicles (except for the M1, those babies can fly from what i hear)

    it seems like the equipment they are using is intended for speedy warfare, not policing.
     
  10. RFAlias

    RFAlias Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 /0 /-0
    I think the stryker is a good idea, but i also do not think they should replace the Bradley.
    If an RPG hits a bradley in the right spot, it will take it out. Half the time they dont take the pins out of the front of the grenade, and it dosent detonate.
    My bro, in iraq had some hit his, and it dosent do anything but bounce off.
    If the armor on the Stryker is positioned right, it could deflect a lot of the RPG's.
    I would not use it as a stationary thing, just to move troops, fast.

    M1 Abrams [not the A2] goes like 45 mph if i recall correctly.
    This Stryker, i would hope goes much faster than that, otherwise its pretty much pointless.
     
  11. JuliaAguilar

    JuliaAguilar Good night

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    10,666
    Ratings:
    +134 /0 /-0
    RPG's and IED's are a relatively new type of projectile we've had to deal with since we've been over in Iraq right now, most soldiers aren't effectively trained to counter the threat of such weapons, nor are our vehicles properly configured. All vehicles are vulnerable, though, from some position, and if the enemy knows how to penetrate armor, they're going to do it. We do prefer the faster vehicles, when your convoy gets attacked it's easier to haul ass out of a compromising position in a HUMVEE than a fucking tank, although the tracked vehicles do much better in the sand than our wheeled ones. They each have their weaknesses, but I doubt if casualities could have been avoided by changing only the vehicles that were used, I think more extensive training in convoy operations would have benefited us more. We were going to lose vehicles anyway, no matter if they were HUMVEEs, 5-ton trucks, or Abrams tanks, but they're not as important as the lives that could have been saved had we (as a whole) known how to effectively counter a convoy attack.

    Which isn't to say that I don't think we are doing a good job or that we are incompetent, far from that. Nor am I saying that American troops are poorly trained. I've just noticed that convoy training wasn't a priority before this war came along, nor was it included in basic combat training, so many of the soldiers who have been to Iraq have not had the opportunity to learn how to react to such an attack. Fortunately, they now have training in place for such attack situations so that every soldier knows how to handle themselves if/when they are attacked while driving.

    I have noticed that, too. The doors on HUMVEES are worthless. I always had a hell of a time getting out of mine! Had to reach around the outside of the window to the outer door handle, and being that I'm female and pretty short, that takes a lot of work. It's more hassle than it's worth, and if I needed to get out because I'm being shot at, I'd have been pretty much screwed. Those stupid canvas ones aren't that much better, either. Flimsy as all hell, and the handle's a little easier to work, but the wind of the sandstorms practically blow the fucking doors right off!
     
  12. 321 gizzo

    321 gizzo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 /0 /-0
    they should just get a Scion and put titanium plating around it
     
  13. shade

    shade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    6,013
    Ratings:
    +198 /0 /-0
    Thats absolutely correct. However, many of the hum vees are in fact armored. The only ones that are not armored are the ones in airborn units. Unfortunately, some of these are doing patrols... and being blown up. The thing is though, even a bradley or M1 can be destroyed by a bomb going off under it if its big enough... and some of the roadside bombs have been pretty powerful.

    A quick fix would be to take some UD armor plates and just strap them to the sides of the hum vees. That would at least solve the problem of bullets, and most rpgs.
     
  14. Nocturnal

    Nocturnal Americana
    Premium

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,662
    Ratings:
    +116 /0 /-0
    we need a fix for this problem fast, we can't stand to keep up this rate of casualties. If we are going to be there we need to protect our guys, whatever the cost.
     
  15. dama rei

    dama rei Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 /0 /-0
    Why titanium?
    It's a non-ferrous metal, and I doubt it would be suitable for armor.(In thick plating.)
     
  16. harold

    harold hell bent

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    654
    Ratings:
    +38 /0 /-0
    Nope titanium is a good armor. Havnt you ever watched battle bots or robot wars?
     
  17. shade

    shade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    6,013
    Ratings:
    +198 /0 /-0
    Glad to hear you arent voting for Kerry then.

    Nope. You would want a reactive armor or plates of super dense metal like depleted uranium. Dont confuse hard metal with effective armor.
     
Loading...

Share This Page