Jump to content

It's so beautiful!


Recommended Posts

USA Today has an article on possible replacements for the Hummer, since they don't seem to do well against IEDs

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-0...vees-main_x.htm

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08...e-designs_x.htm

 

Of course they say "Jeep" is believed to get its name from GP, which stands for "General Purpose" - but Ford GP (Governemtn Vehicle - 80" wheel base) or GPW - "Goverment, 80" Willys" I guess it's technially not wrong - but a tiny bit of legwork would find out where it does get it's name from.

 

*shrug*

 

Someone should send Gunny their way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

All we need is our M-113's back. <_<

 

 

A new multi-billion dollar design and production contract is not the answer. You know why we aren't using Bradley's for those patrols? Because the Administration thinks they "intimidate" the Iraqi's! Well noooooooo $&!* !!!!! :wacko:

 

If the insurgents couldn't cause casualties with IED's they'd stop using them! We don't need armored cars. We need to use the assets we have without our hands being tied. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC the Brads used in OIF and after, equipped with reactive armor, can take a hit from an RPG and keep going...

 

The Brads were upgraded with the -A2 model in terms of protection...

 

Really agree with Spartan6 wrt this: we don't need a Hummer replacement with armor. I fully support the idea of M113s coming back (perhaps with reactive armor protection, or similar), especially if it means dumping the Stryker. Never happen though...

 

Damon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the ceo of Albertson's drives one of those tonka trucks, fit right in with it :rolleyes:

 

glad to see they are finally deciding to do something with those chumvees but with all the roadside deaths & stuff, I'll have to agree with Spartan on this one as well.

 

Randy M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC the Brads used in OIF and after, equipped with reactive armor, can take a hit from an RPG and keep going...

 

The Brads were upgraded with the -A2 model in terms of protection...

 

Really agree with Spartan6 wrt this: we don't need a Hummer replacement with armor. I fully support the idea of M113s coming back (perhaps with reactive armor protection, or similar), especially if it means dumping the Stryker. Never happen though...

 

Damon.

My unit got the M2A2 ODS ( Operation Desert Storm ) model Bradley just before I got out. Everyone says the ODS will take an RPG and survive. I've seen pics of Brad's taking RPG's and it not harming the crew or troops so I have to lean toward saying they do just fine against RPG's.

 

The Israeli's have been using 113's with reactive armor for years versus RPG's and they do just fine. DoD just loves to throw money at problems. :wacko:

 

New contracts for those retired Generals working with defense contractors won't solve the problem.

 

No, I'm not bitter, why do you ask? :devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M-113 was a solid design with lots of multi-purpose ability. But, like Spartan said DoD likes to throw money at stuff (F-22, B-1B anyone??)

 

Looks like the Humvee is going to get the same treatment as the M-113 since it's failing at a job it was never meant for in the first place. Makes a lot of sense huh? Especially since its no slouch out in the field. The anti-air Humvee's (Avengers) took out more then a few of our jets that gota bit to low when we did joint ops with the Army guys... and I've heard from a tanker buddy of mine that with a couple of TOW's they aren't something to ignore, especially if you are in a tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A new multi-billion dollar design and production contract is not the answer. You know why we aren't using Bradley's for those patrols? Because the Administration thinks they "intimidate" the Iraqi's! Well noooooooo $&!* !!!!!"

 

 

 

Uh oh. The very second administration starts sacrificing effectiveness for intangibles, you KNOW you're in the crap. DMZ anyone??????

 

Dumb bastards. Listen to Sun Tzu! The general who is there runs the war, not the king who is far away!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you said it, Smoker!

 

we need to decorporatize our miltary fast. i have several friends in the US Mil who tell me this doesn't work, this thing is crap, and they say that about 1/2 of their gear. and what i hear is validated by multiple outside sources i've never met who have creds and say the same thing.

 

i'd like to see:

 

a better Assault Rifle. with 7.62 would be nice....

 

keep and make more of/supply refits in more readiness for the A-10. that plane saves more trooper @ss than a superhero.

 

use of vehicles for what they are supposed to be used for, or serious considerations taken into effect when thinking about modding or replacing one. (y'know. "sheet, it works poor at this, what is it good for???" )

 

the ability to spend quality cash on good designs instead of flagrant spending and pointless research. like, better assault rifles. or maintaining our good sheet to top grade.

 

i'm no leatherneck, btu i hear their voices and i know what our desk brass have said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think developing a 7.62mm assault rifle will quickly turn it into an anti-aircraft gun...

 

I think 5.56 us just fine as it is: you can carry lots more ammo, the recoil is mild enough that firing at full auto (or burst) doesn't automatically turn it into a very loud noisemaker, and more importantly is lighter and more adaptable. I've fired several hundred rounds of both 5.56 AND 7.62 (not to mention 12.7) out of a variety of weapons, and IMHO with the current conflict, the gain in power and accuracy of 7.62 won't help much in close-combat situations, and indeed might be counter-productive...

 

Instead, why not make a longer barreled, bullpup assault rifle that can generate higher muzzle velocities. Don't know the physics behind it, but that might solve the more power + greater range = better weapon argument...

 

As for the A-10, I don't advocate keeping it in service longer than its natural life, though I have no problems with designing a replacement...

 

I'd like to see the Stryker program axed (being an ol'tanker, I'm part of the track-mafia...), see about aquiring a fleet of basic armored car PCs for use by MPs and in convoy protection missions (may be too little too late...I wonder how things would have been different if convoys in Iraq were escorted by V-150s with Caddilac-gage turrets and dismounts in the back...)...

 

Damon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh oh. The very second administration starts sacrificing effectiveness for intangibles, you KNOW you're in the crap. DMZ anyone??????

Mogadishu anyone?

 

Ho Chi Minh trail anyone?

 

It's war!!! You don't put your shotgun away because you might scare the guy with the knife!!!

 

We record history for a reason. To learn from it. Someone please inform Cpaital Hill that we have these cool things called "libraries" that are full of books on historical mistakes. :upside:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the 5.56 is the types of rounds we use. We use a copper jacketed lead bullet with a tungsten core. Great for body armor but in unarmored folks you get whats called "shoot-through". All the kinetic energy of the round isn't transfered to the target. The transfer of kinetic energy is what causes hydrostatic shock damage. It's instead carried on through with the round. That whole thing about M-16 rounds "tumbling" is a myth. They don't tumble. They do however have a tendency to ricochet off bones and go at weird angles, but all bullets do. The 5.56 is a fine caliber. We just need every other round to be a hollow point.

 

We also need to train our shooters how to use pistols. That's a huge gap in current training. Inside a building, you can't beat a good ol' .40 or .45.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...