How much money are we spending on armor for Humvees?

[iluvtruenos]

Also, got any links?

 

[OrganizedChaos]

to much. i say we buy a bunch of cheap surplus coldwar era t-72s for the troops to drive around in. probably cost lest than a humvee and protect the guys insode better.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: iluvtruenos
Also, got any links?

Youre posting on Anandtech and you have never heard of Google?

[edit] no, thats not a link to google, just click [/edit]

 

[iluvtruenos]

Oh god I love you.

:beer:

 

[S Freud]

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
to much. i say we buy a bunch of cheap surplus coldwar era t-72s for the troops to drive around in. probably cost lest than a humvee and protect the guys insode better.

Do you really think so? I know that there isn't enough now, those guys don't have a fighting chance when a roadside bomb explodes next to them, I think they should have the best possible.

 

[imported_Aelius]

It's scary how a $20 weapon can annihilate a multi million dollar one inside of a second with a half decently placed shot and it costs billions of dollars to try to counter it. I think the coolest one was the force field projected around a vehicle that's strong enough to set off the weapon away from the vehicle.

 

[TallBill]

Reactive armor is the best route.

 

[raildogg]

Humvees are an old design that we have put too much weight on. The weight limit is exceeded by the added armor. The vehicle gets bogged down and isn't as maneuverable. It is a disadvantage.

Our soldiers deserve a new generation transport vehicle.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Humvees are an old design that we have put too much weight on. The weight limit is exceeded by the added armor. The vehicle gets bogged down and isn't as maneuverable. It is a disadvantage.

Our soldiers deserve a new generation transport vehicle.

They're working on them, but its tough to pump a ton into replacing vehicles when so much money is going to sustainment in Iraq.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
to much. i say we buy a bunch of cheap surplus coldwar era t-72s for the troops to drive around in. probably cost lest than a humvee and protect the guys insode better.

They are slower, destroy the roads, can be heard from several miles off practically, can only carry 3-4 people, and also would require a complete retooling of our maintenance personnel and facilities. Sure, sounds cheaper. The reduced speed also makes them ideal targets for IEDs.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
They are slower, destroy the roads, can be heard from several miles off practically, can only carry 3-4 people, and also would require a complete retooling of our maintenance personnel and facilities. Sure, sounds cheaper. The reduced speed also makes them ideal targets for IEDs.

You left out that you can't see well at all out of the tank unless someone is sticking his head out of the tank with its hatch open and looking around, which makes him a sitting duck for insurgent fire. If the hatch is buttoned up, the insurgents can easily sneak into position within an urban setting to take out a T-72 with an RPG from the right angle. This before you even consider that a T-72 is much bigger than a hummer and simply can't fit into the same area.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: raildogg
Humvees are an old design that we have put too much weight on. The weight limit is exceeded by the added armor. The vehicle gets bogged down and isn't as maneuverable. It is a disadvantage.

Our soldiers deserve a new generation transport vehicle.

They're working on them, but its tough to pump a ton into replacing vehicles when so much money is going to sustainment in Iraq.

I had heard that upgraded pickups (the big ones, like an F-250) were being either used or considered.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: iluvtruenos
Oh god I love you.

:beer:

Go back to OT you fool.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Reactive armor is the best route.

Reactive armor requires a heavy frame so that the reactive blast won't annihilate the host vehicle. That's why so far it's been limited to troop carriers and tanks. Putting reactive armor on a car is unrealistic.

 

[Meuge]

We should buy the rights to build Merkava-4 tanks. They can carry 9 people besides the crew... or 3 stretchers, a medic, and the crew. Coupled with low profile, thick floor and roof armor... and reactive armor on the hull, turret, and roof... it's almost (if not more) protective as the Abrams... at a much lower price.