U.S Military Humvee driving in Iraq

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Aimster
Maybe their humvees had no armor (or did the U.S fix that problem?)

They are working on it. They are also looking at ordering over 4,000 new blast resistant vehicles in the next few months (to be delivered as soon as possible).

Click me!

don't you find it embarrassing that we went to war unprepared ? And it's been 3 years and we still aren't ?

Look at the development of aircraft carriers in WW2, and how long it took to crank them out. I would think it would be easier to develop an armored patrol vehicle.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Aimster
Maybe their humvees had no armor (or did the U.S fix that problem?)

They are working on it. They are also looking at ordering over 4,000 new blast resistant vehicles in the next few months (to be delivered as soon as possible).

Click me!

don't you find it embarrassing that we went to war unprepared ? And it's been 3 years and we still aren't ?

Look at the development of aircraft carriers in WW2, and how long it took to crank them out. I would think it would be easier to develop an armored patrol vehicle.

The vehicles listed from Force Protection have logged over 2 million hours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have ramped up production but are waiting (after years) to get bigger contracts to ramp up production even more. Yes, the beaurocrats drag their feet in DC unless it's something that a lobbiest wants.

 

[Rogodin2]

Our government still propounds that there are roses falling as our soldiers traverse Iraq. Did you see any roses falling before the humv in that video?

I didn't.

Since there is no government there are no laws-hence-any regulation looking auto can pull that.

We just witnessed an escort group of Shite rebels using black Chevy Tahoes to penetrate a Baghdad campus (they are kidnapping the mind of Iraq), they even made it through the blockades because they had ID badges and the proper stolen US uniforms.

Heard that on NPR-these guys aren't fvcking around lads. You'll be drafted soon lads.

Rogo

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Aimster
Maybe their humvees had no armor (or did the U.S fix that problem?)

They are working on it. They are also looking at ordering over 4,000 new blast resistant vehicles in the next few months (to be delivered as soon as possible).

Click me!

don't you find it embarrassing that we went to war unprepared ? And it's been 3 years and we still aren't ?

Look at the development of aircraft carriers in WW2, and how long it took to crank them out. I would think it would be easier to develop an armored patrol vehicle.

I wouldn't say the US was unprepared, rather they underestimated the enemy tactics. IEDs are a relatively new tactic, but it has been effective and has changed the battlefield for the foreseeable future. My brother drove Humvees in the Gulf War and IEDs were not a problem at that time.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Aimster
Maybe their humvees had no armor (or did the U.S fix that problem?)

They are working on it. They are also looking at ordering over 4,000 new blast resistant vehicles in the next few months (to be delivered as soon as possible).

Click me!

don't you find it embarrassing that we went to war unprepared ? And it's been 3 years and we still aren't ?

Look at the development of aircraft carriers in WW2, and how long it took to crank them out. I would think it would be easier to develop an armored patrol vehicle.

I wouldn't say the US was unprepared, rather they underestimated the enemy tactics. IEDs are a relatively new tactic, but it has been effective and has changed the battlefield for the foreseeable future. My brother drove Humvees in the Gulf War and IEDs were not a problem at that time.

So it's acceptable for our adversary to develop tactics we didn't think of, and then for us to take years to react ? In the meantime real life American people, like the ones I see every day at the market or at school, now will spend the rest of their lives with no arms, no legs, blind ?

I find that unacceptable. And we the people are to blame, we spend more time and money on coffee than we do getting the government off it's ass.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Imdmn04
What do you expect?

Bunch of high school failures has no where to go in life and got recruited by the military, not exactly the cream of the crop of American citizens.

They do what needs to be done when called upon, so for me that's their 'free pass,' which entitles them to a pass on all petty judgmental calls. Frankly, they are patiorts in my eyes for what they do as long as they follow the rules.

Sure, if they fuk up or fail to represent the country adequately, they are entitled to discipline as are we all, but as far as I'm concerned, in that video, they are just men and women in an incredibly sh!tty situation trying not to get ambushed, and their actions are justified. Obviously their actions are reprehensible in a normal setting, but GIVEN THE SITUATION over there, it is justified since they have no fvking choice.

As far as I'm concerned, for logical argumentative purposes your comment might ring true for some of them, but I choose to believe that it does not for all of them. In addition, I find it rather crude that you do not wish to at least respect them for their sacrifice. They are not the politicians, and to treat them as such is really ignorant and pathetic.


BTW, I know this guy who is a soldier, and as far as I'm concerned, he is as bright an engineer as any man should hope to be. The man is a fvking PE.

 

[Rogodin2]

He volunteered though. If he chooses to waste his life/talents fighting in such a fvcked up war I have no empathy. Both of my grandfathers, veterans of WW2, don't believe any of America's young men and women should be sacrificing their lives for this war.

Rogo

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2
He volunteered though. If he chooses to waste his life/talents fighting in such a fvcked up war I have no empathy. Both of my grandfathers, veterans of WW2, don't believe any of America's young men and women should be sacrificing their lives for this war.

Rogo

your position is disgraceful. Soldiers don't decide what they will be asked to do.

I don't think our soldiers should be in Iraq either, but I don't blame them that they are.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Uh... that was sarcasm.

I ran with it.

 

[Rogodin2]

your position is disgraceful. Soldiers don't decide what they will be asked to do.

Soldiers that haven't learned from the last 30 years of warfare should decide before they enlist.

It's not 'disgraceful' it's common sense.

Rogo

 

[GalvanizedYankee]

Hey! Atleast they were not rudely honking at people. 😛

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
No wonder we won the hearts and souls of the Germans and Japanese...our soldiers then were gentlemen not jerks!

No, we had just literally pounded the civilian populations into dust and total submission for 4 long years. Barely left a city standing and every man of fighting age was dead, or a POW along with half the women and children dead.

That's why we haven't won a war since WWII. The collateral you protect from damage today is the little sh!t bombing your vehicle tomorrow.

That's because then we were fighting nationalistic, huge, organized armies. There were lines of battle, strategic positions, etc. Now it's a guerrilla insurgency where the guy you gave some gum to earlier is planting an IED later that day.

Both Japan and Germany could have just as easily fell into guerrilla warfare with suicide bombings had the civilian populations not been crushed, and, as I said, every man of fighting age imprisoned or dead.

Terrorism is nothing new.

This folks, as brutal as it may sound, is the very reason a war has not been totally won since WWII. We changed our tactics and can no longer stomach the complete brutality.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
No wonder we won the hearts and souls of the Germans and Japanese...our soldiers then were gentlemen not jerks!

No, we had just literally pounded the civilian populations into dust and total submission for 4 long years. Barely left a city standing and every man of fighting age was dead, or a POW along with half the women and children dead.

That's why we haven't won a war since WWII. The collateral you protect from damage today is the little sh!t bombing your vehicle tomorrow.

I suppose this means you think we should go back to bombing civilians?

Actually, it means I think you commit to total war against an entire nation or alliance, or not at all. It is very clear from all the wars in the past 60 years that targeting only an army will not win a war.

So you either commit to total war, or not at all.

War is brutal. To occupy a nation you have to swiftly crush ALL resistance, or give up any hope of occupation.

This is the only contrast in tactics between WWII and all following wars.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: Aimster
I think they were more afraid of getting shot?
Maybe their humvees had no armor (or did the U.S fix that problem?)

Kind of, but it made its own problems. They're too slow now, so the Pentagon is going to bring back WWII era design jeeps, smaller, lighter, faster, with a gatling or m240 or SRAW missile mounted on the back. Its a 3 seater.
So, the result will be that these jeeps won't really have to bump the cars, they'll be more maneuverable.

Are you kidding? 😕

He may be, or is simply uninformed. The US armed forces are getting new MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicles that far exceed the safety protection of the Humvee. The Cheetah could very well be the vehicle to replace most of the current Humvees.

No, I am not kidding or uninformed. The humvees right now are getting blown up because they're slow, I've talked to several marines about this. I've also talked to a docent and ex-marine who drove jeeps in 'nam and his father drove jeeps in WW2. I have also read in the military mag that they're considering bringing back WW2 design jeeps because they're lighter and faster. They're also able to carry a crew of three and a Gatling gun or an m240, or a rocket launcher. So this thing will be faster and speed past IEDs.
The Armor on Humvees isn't sufficient. It merely creates more shrapnel. Many Marines I have talked to testify to this. The Humvees are basically used as APCs, only much weaker. I know about this new vehicle you're talking about, that'll replace the Humvees patrol, the jeep will replace light assault and tactical recon.
So take your condescending attitude and shove it up your arse.

Man, you've said a lot of things in this thread, but the only facts you have to back up any statement you've made is that you've talked to people. Come on now, who is really going to believe that? Plus your "everyone hates Republicans" comment is just absurd.

If you don't want people to treat you like a fool, stop acting like one.

I never said anyone hates republicans, speak for yourself, bubblehead.
I don't care if you believe me or not, suit yourself, if you don't believe I live next to Camp Pendleton and MCAS Miramar, suit yourself, theres no need to make yourself a goon though.
I've told you my sources, and I've told you the theory.
And for the record, this is my 4th comment at most. Hows that a lot?

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: Aimster
I think they were more afraid of getting shot?
Maybe their humvees had no armor (or did the U.S fix that problem?)

Kind of, but it made its own problems. They're too slow now, so the Pentagon is going to bring back WWII era design jeeps, smaller, lighter, faster, with a gatling or m240 or SRAW missile mounted on the back. Its a 3 seater.
So, the result will be that these jeeps won't really have to bump the cars, they'll be more maneuverable.

Are you kidding? 😕

He may be, or is simply uninformed. The US armed forces are getting new MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicles that far exceed the safety protection of the Humvee. The Cheetah could very well be the vehicle to replace most of the current Humvees.

No, I am not kidding or uninformed. The humvees right now are getting blown up because they're slow, I've talked to several marines about this. I've also talked to a docent and ex-marine who drove jeeps in 'nam and his father drove jeeps in WW2. I have also read in the military mag that they're considering bringing back WW2 design jeeps because they're lighter and faster. They're also able to carry a crew of three and a Gatling gun or an m240, or a rocket launcher. So this thing will be faster and speed past IEDs.
The Armor on Humvees isn't sufficient. It merely creates more shrapnel. Many Marines I have talked to testify to this. The Humvees are basically used as APCs, only much weaker. I know about this new vehicle you're talking about, that'll replace the Humvees patrol, the jeep will replace light assault and tactical recon.
So take your condescending attitude and shove it up your arse.

Obvious Flaws:

1. Lets say theres a car in front of the jeep on a crowded road. The insurgents obviously don't care about killing iraquis. Lets see if that jeep can move faster than an explosion. Also, most IEDs are hand triggered. Anyone with decent reflexes could set one off and lead the jeep.

2. Jeeps, as I know them are vulnerable to light arms fire, which can hit with more precision than an IED and from longer range.

Bottom line: For tactical RECON, sure, but I don't see them assaulting anything without the crew being shot up. You need something that's bulletproof AT THE LEAST. I can see the humvee for light assault far better than I could see the jeep.
THIS is going to replace the Hummer?

Hrmmm...obvious flaws.
1)When I say assault, this will serve as a scout force, not a tank. It will be used as a scout force to throw the enemy off and sort of speed ahead of tanks. Also, if you think about it, the Iraqis aren't next to their IEDs, and they don't have lightning reflexes, as well as the fact that it isn't the IEDs themselves, but the shrapnel that kills soldiers. Even though these things don't have armor, their fast, and their a new alternative to slower Humvees.
Flawed reasoning #2: You're assuming that there will be vehicles in front of this thing, but as I said before, its going to be a scout vehicle, hence, its not going to be a traffic guide, its going to be ripping through select locale.
Flawed Reason #3.
That is not a combat jeep, thats an officers jeep that you just posted.
http://members.dialmaine.com/jeepguy/renlogo500x335.jpg
This is something more like it, with a gatling gun, m240, or SRAW mounted at the back seat, operated by a gunner.
Sorry if I misunderstood you or proposition.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Instead of smaller vehicles, I think they need larger vehicles.

When your enemy is an opposing nation, huge, slow vehicles are sitting ducks to airstrikes from jets and helicopters. But when your enemy is a band of thugs that hit you with whatever guns and bombs they can get their hands on (but don't have large weaponry like jets or attack helicopters), having a large, impenetrable vehicle would be an advantage over a smaller vehicle like a Jeep or a Humvee that can be destroyed with a simple armor piercing round or a roadside bomb.

well, it's a good thing you aren't in the armed forces then.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2
He volunteered though. If he chooses to waste his life/talents fighting in such a fvcked up war I have no empathy. Both of my grandfathers, veterans of WW2, don't believe any of America's young men and women should be sacrificing their lives for this war.

Rogo

once again you prove yourself to be a total.******.idiot.

 

[911paramedic]

Pretty much how I drive the ambulance, aside from the bumping. People tend to get out of your way much quicker when you are on the oncoming traffic lanes.

The worst thing those guys could do is get stopped in traffic, making a terribly easy target. I think they did what they had to, and there is probably a mandate to get the hell out of the way of military vehicles, if not, there should be. Insurgents would start traffic backups to trap troops, old trick. I think they did the exact right thing, and they were small bumps not PIT maneuvers, no harm no foul.

 

[broon]

Video doesn't work.

 

[DarkKnight69]

http://www.defense-update.com/products/r/RG-31.htm

These were just delivered to the forces in Kandahar (Canadian) and are proving to save live against IED's. The us has ~100 on order right now!

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
http://www.defense-update.com/products/r/RG-31.htm

These were just delivered to the forces in Kandahar (Canadian) and are proving to save live against IED's. The us has ~100 on order right now!

Good, I'm glad to see that, that the hummvees have a replacement for patrolling cities.

 

[ViviTheMage]

interesting thread

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

If you listen real closely, you can hear over their radio:

REQUESTING A PICKUP
REQUESTING A PICKUP
REQUESTING A PICKUP
REQUESTING A PICKUP
REQUESTING A PICKUP
REQUESTING A PICKUP