HUMMER = The Future of the Chinese Fire Drill ???

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

A few problems I see with your plan there PEWPEW. How are you gonna Uparmor a jeep? Do you know how much that stuff weighs? Little cheap jeeps are not going to be able to carry that kind of weight. My next piont is that are you going ask that Marine or Soldier to drive in an open, thinly armored jeep through the streets of Iraq and Afganistan? If you're not willing to do it yourself, then you can't ask those guys to do it either.

You must have not read the whole post then. I don't believe in uparmoring a what is supposed to be a highly mobile vehicle. If you want armor use an APC not an armor-laden sluggish bullet magnet that the HMMV has become.

Those vehicles were never designed to be an ARMORED VEHICLE. They were designed to move troops quick and allow them to maintain high mobility.

Oh and to your next point.... Yes I'd ask them to do so. And I'd do it myself... If the mission called for use of a highly mobile vehicle. If I could use an APC and successfully accomplish the mission then I'd use that.

 

[flyerstud4]

You must have not read the whole post then. I don't believe in uparmoring a what is supposed to be a highly mobile vehicle. If you want armor use an APC not an armor-laden sluggish bullet magnet that the HMMV has become.

Those vehicles were never designed to be an ARMORED VEHICLE. They were designed to move troops quick and allow them to maintain high mobility.

Oh and to your next point.... Yes I'd ask them to do so. And I'd do it myself... If the mission called for use of a highly mobile vehicle. If I could use an APC and successfully accomplish the mission then I'd use that.

Man you are an expert on the HMMWV and our tactics over there. Dont you think that if we had known ahead of time that a HMMWV was going to get hit by an IED we would have sent something else or gone around it? We need a vehicle that has high mobility but can still keep the guys inside alive when they get hit by an IED or a shoulder fired weapon.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Man you are an expert on the HMMWV and our tactics over there. Dont you think that if we had known ahead of time that a HMMWV was going to get hit by an IED we would have sent something else or gone around it? We need a vehicle that has high mobility but can still keep the guys inside alive when they get hit by an IED or a shoulder fired weapon.

Of course the guys running the show would have used something else if they had known that IEDs were going to be a big issue.

But you're missing the point. Highly mobile and bomb proof don't go in the same sentence.

You do know that to counter the uparmor they increase the power of the bomb. For instance when they use mines to create an IED they stack more mines on top and BOOM you've blown through the newly uparmored sluggish HMMV.

You can't have both. I agree with you that preserving the lives of the men who are sent out to fight is of great importance but if the goal of preserving life limits us from attaining victory then the lives that we do lose will be lost in vain.

 

[Raptor2216]

You can't have both. I agree with you that preserving the lives of the men who are sent out to fight is of great importance but if the goal of preserving life limits us from attaining victory then the lives that we do lose will be lost in vain.

Are you trying to tell us that we are losing the battle now because we use heavier vehicles? You always make too many presumptions with a lot of your statements. We aren't playing Halo in Iraq or Afghanistan where we need to be swerving through the streets shooting aimlessly in our "highly mobile vehicles". There must be smarter people somewhere well above your pay grade, if you have one, who are moving towards more armor vice less armor. By your theory, maybe all the troops should go ahead and shed some of the weight off their bodies, which is carried in the form of armor, so they can be more mobile. Things are never as simple as you believe them to be, pew pew.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Are you trying to tell us that we are losing the battle now because we use heavier vehicles? You always make too many presumptions with a lot of your statements.

Nope, I didn't say that. If you deduced with what I was trying to imply that then you're WRONG and you misunderstood.

We aren't playing Halo in Iraq or Afghanistan where we need to be swerving through the streets shooting aimlessly in our "highly mobile vehicles".

No shit. Thanks for informing me that we're not playing a video game. I didn't have a clue.

There must be smarter people somewhere well above your pay grade, if you have one, who are moving towards more armor vice less armor. By your theory, maybe all the troops should go ahead and shed some of the weight off their bodies, which is carried in the form of armor, so they can be more mobile.

It's not my theory. It's the idea that was passed along to me by the Army Reserve O-4 that just got back from Afghanistan and suggested these ideas to me. I'll go by what he says over what YOU say any day of the week because he's been there and done that and I think what he says has some credibility.

Things are never as simple as you believe them to be, pew pew.

Well here's my OPINION.

Things are never as complicated as you believe them to be, P_ubhi18.

 

[flyerstud4]

Just because some Major suggested that doesnt mean that its a good idea, there PewPew. We have a bunch of old crusty sim instructors up here who think that the t45 and the Hornet are garbage and that we should go back to the A-4. Now flying the A-4 sounds like a blast, but there is a reason why its no longer in service, you catch'n my drift?

Bottom line, we are not going back to WWII era jeeps and to suggest that makes you sound like an infant

 

[Deepsea 31]

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]GM to sell Hummer to Chinese company[/FONT]

I wonder what the 'new' ChiCom PLA jeeps are gonna' look like ... ???

Any suggestions??

Or maybe something like this.....

 

[phrogpilot73]

Just because some Major suggested that doesnt mean that its a good idea, there PewPew. We have a bunch of old crusty sim instructors up here who think that the t45 and the Hornet are garbage and that we should go back to the A-4. Now flying the A-4 sounds like a blast, but there is a reason why its no longer in service, you catch'n my drift?

Bottom line, we are not going back to WWII era jeeps and to suggest that makes you sound like an infant

Watch your tone.

I think you're missing his point. An up-armored vehicle is not always required. A good METT-T analysis will determine the right vehicle for the job. If you were right, and there would be no need for an un-armored vehicle, then why does the Marine Corps own these?

The MRAP is probably the safest in terms of protection from an IED, however it is worthless off road. The HMMWV is great off road, but the suspension can't keep up with the increasing amount of armor they put on it. The IFAV has no armor, but is fast and good off road.

Put it this way - Iraq and Afghanistan will end. And even if they don't, there's other shit going on in the world than just those two countries. By simply focusing on what is needed there, then we are woefully unprepared for other theaters.

 

[brownshoe]

Huh ???

My '89 K-5 Blazer (350 CID) got 375,000 miles on it, and STILL would accelerate goin' uphill ... and did not burn any oil ....

And then the lower hose failed .... on the freeway ...

Toast.

But it was a great engine & a great vehicle.

I guess what I meant, like Bevo said, is that the motors in the large GM trucks just do not get very good mileage. The motors themselves are very reliable, as are the trucks, look at the odometer reading (you’ve got me beat at 375,000)of my Tahoe, and she is still running strong. As I said, we keep her around for the times when I need a real truck. My little Honda is great driving to offices and meetings, great for getting around town, and it gets a little over 19 MPG during stop and go driving all day long. However, my business today took me to environments where the Honda would not have been suitable. I’ll always have a Tahoe, when this one wears out we’ll buy another one… little trucks just can’t take the punishment. These photos were snapped this afternoon.

Steve

 

[Bevo16]

My old man has just shy of 400K on his 1996 Dodge Cummins Turbo. He works in the oil field and has driven that thing all over the Lord's creation. I have the 2002 version, and I know for a fact that the engine has serious balls. They come somewhat restricted from the factory (to protect the 100,000 mile power-train warranty), and you can really spice them up with just a chip. I can dial mine all the way up to 470 horsepower (with no other mods), and come just shy of pulling the earth off it's axis.

When I moved out to San Diego, I pulled my wife's F-150 on a trailer all the way from Pensacola and still got 18MPG for the trip. I was passing people going UP the mountains in Cali.

There is no doubt that the engine is strong enough drive what is basically a truck chassis with a bunch of armor on it.

OBTW,

For you Studs and College Studs who think you can teach a class on armor and tactics:

Take it from a guy who reads all the casualty reports, there is not a vehicle in the inventory short of an Abrams that will protect you from the IEDs that they are rolling out these days. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Brits, and Civilians are all getting hit and all getting killed/injured. If anyone had the perfect piece of gear, we would all be rolling in it. As soon as we develop one, they are going to come up with an IED to defeat it.