Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 Why, you have forced vehicles that weren't meant to be armored have armor. Now those humvees, etc... waste more gas, can't go offroad, because they sink from the extra weight, or the undercarraige can't handle the weight and bumps. How many guys have died because their vehicles broke down/ran out of gas. How many really died from lack of armor? Do you really know? Also, even if they had the armor, how many would have really worn it? And yes the mule trains/elephants were armored. You may want to read some history and understand stuff before you question things. 642910[/snapback] Humvees? Where did I mention Humvees?
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Author Posted March 27, 2006 Most of my funding comes from surface ships now. Nice non seqitur. 642909[/snapback] I thought so.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 I think if we did away with all those submarines that put food on your table, we could armor more trucks. Makes about as much sense as anything you've said. 642907[/snapback] Oh no, you listened to one to many Kika de la Garza stories. Bib, nice try but he seemed to me that a lot of GIs were complaining to their families about sub-standard armor and the Press picked up on it. Then the story just got away from everyone. Also, some substandard or misallocated armor supplies for different jobs were used and these stories made the news. Typical of the army they made everything mandatory. Of course heavy armor isn't alway appropriate, but some snafus combined with bad press eliminates all flexibility. Problem is, your post did not address accurately the reasons for the problem nor acknowledge army press bumbling.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 The Romans had trains? You learn something new every day. 642901[/snapback] "Train" is a military term referring to the "non-combat" followers in an army. "Logistical train", "siege train", "baggage train". The Romans had trains, yes.
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 "Train" is a military term referring to the "non-combat" followers in an army. "Logistical train", "siege train", "baggage train". The Romans had trains, yes. 642917[/snapback] And the reason why it is so diificult to slap some armor on a tractor is?
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Author Posted March 27, 2006 Oh no, you listened to one to many Kika de la Garza stories. Bib, nice try but he seemed to me that a lot of GIs were complaining to their families about sub-standard armor and the Press picked up on it. Then the story just got away from everyone. Also, some substandard or misallocated armor supplies for different jobs were used and these stories made the news. Typical of the army they made everything mandatory. Of course heavy armor isn't alway appropriate, but some snafus combined with bad press eliminates all flexibility. Problem is, your post did not address accurately the reasons for the problem nor acknowledge army press bumbling. 642914[/snapback] Because it's old ground here. Gone over many times over the last couple years. Also, it's about the Marines, but I'm sure it carries to the Army as well. Many of the original complaints came from National Guard types that never figured in a million years that they would ever see a shot fired in anger. When I was there, early on, I never ran across anyone who didn't have body armor. The folks actually doing the fighting had the more recent stuff. The ones working in supply compounds and headquarters and what not had older, but still effective versions that were being upgraded over time. And, as far as trucks go - I don't care what the !@#$ you hang on the side, it's not going to be effective against a remotely detonated 155 mm HE round buried in a pile of crap on the side of the road. But, whatever makes Scraps feel better. Now, the press says "x" people might not have died had if they had "y" armor. So, now they have it. Maybe someone will come up with statistics as to how many grunts get their heads blown off because they are too heavy and bulky to get through a window without snagging on something.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 And the reason why it is so diificult to slap some armor on a tractor is? 642918[/snapback] What are you using the tractor for? It's not necessarily difficult - the Russians did it as a field mod (to agricultural tractors) in late '41 to tow guns. They worked. And they sucked. Made them overweight and top-heavy. Put limits on their cross-country use ("dry" ground they used to travel over before the war was suddenly too marshy to support their weight). Lower speed. Increased wear. Decreased load capacity. It's not difficult to slap some armor on a tractor...it IS difficult, however, to do so in a way that maintains their usefulness.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Author Posted March 27, 2006 And the reason why it is so diificult to slap some armor on a tractor is? 642918[/snapback] As I alluded to above, it's sort of pointless against the main threat, which is IEDs. All it ultimately does is wear the trucks out faster.
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 Because it's old ground here. Gone over many times over the last couple years. Also, it's about the Marines, but I'm sure it carries to the Army as well. Many of the original complaints came from National Guard types that never figured in a million years that they would ever see a shot fired in anger. When I was there, early on, I never ran across anyone who didn't have body armor. The folks actually doing the fighting had the more recent stuff. The ones working in supply compounds and headquarters and what not had older, but still effective versions that were being upgraded over time. And, as far as trucks go - I don't care what the !@#$ you hang on the side, it's not going to be effective against a remotely detonated 155 mm HE round buried in a pile of crap on the side of the road. But, whatever makes Scraps feel better. 642921[/snapback] Ever drive any of those trucks? I've driven similar trucks. How about having enough armor to stop a round from an AK-47?
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 As I alluded to above, it's sort of pointless against the main threat, which is IEDs. All it ultimately does is wear the trucks out faster. 642925[/snapback] Bull sh--. The amount of weight added to a tractor by adding armor is insignificant comared to the load in a trailor.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 And, as far as trucks go - I don't care what the !@#$ you hang on the side, it's not going to be effective against a remotely detonated 155 mm HE round buried in a pile of crap on the side of the road. But, whatever makes Scraps feel better. 642921[/snapback] Plus, every pound of steel plate you hang on a truck is a pound less the truck carries. Which means for a given amount of capacity, you're going to need more armored trucks than unarmored trucks...which means you're increasing overall risk by putting more people and material in harm's way. Plus, now that you've weighed down the truck with armor, you've made it slower, so you can't haul ass out of an ambush as quickly, and you've increased risk even more. (Probably substantially, considering every account of an ambush I've ever heard of emphasizes speed over protection in surviving it.)
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Author Posted March 27, 2006 Ever drive any of those trucks? I've driven similar trucks. How about having enough armor to stop a round from an AK-47? 642926[/snapback] I've driven just about everything in the inventory. If you are wearing the body armor, why is it so important to bullet proof the sides of the truck? You ever hear of cost-benefit analysis?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 I've driven just about everything in the inventory. If you are wearing the body armor, why is it so important to bullet proof the sides of the truck? You ever hear of cost-benefit analysis? 642931[/snapback] It's important, because they have AK-47s. Didn't you read his post? May as well armor proof the cases of MRE's the trucks carry, not to mention the MREs themselves.
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 Plus, every pound of steel plate you hang on a truck is a pound less the truck carries. Which means for a given amount of capacity, you're going to need more armored trucks than unarmored trucks...which means you're increasing overall risk by putting more people and material in harm's way. Plus, now that you've weighed down the truck with armor, you've made it slower, so you can't haul ass out of an ambush as quickly, and you've increased risk even more. (Probably substantially, considering every account of an ambush I've ever heard of emphasizes speed over protection in surviving it.) 642929[/snapback] Specious argument. Tractors in the US are designed to haul more than enough load to account for the armor. Loads are purposely underweighted to avoid wear and tear on the roads.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Author Posted March 27, 2006 It's important, because they have AK-47s. Didn't you read his post? May as well armor proof the cases of MRE's the trucks carry, not to mention the MREs themselves. 642932[/snapback] Sadly, I think the MRE's are already bullet proof. Ever eat one?
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Author Posted March 27, 2006 Bull sh--. The amount of weight added to a tractor by adding armor is insignificant comared to the load in a trailor. 642928[/snapback] Weight on the suspensions. Axel weight.
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 I've driven just about everything in the inventory. If you are wearing the body armor, why is it so important to bullet proof the sides of the truck? You ever hear of cost-benefit analysis? 642931[/snapback] Do you wear body amor on your head? Seriously, the weight is really insignificant.
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 Weight on the suspensions. Axel weight. 642936[/snapback] What about the axel weight? The tractors axels handle half the load on the trailor as it is. It is really not as big an issue as you and the monkey make it out to be.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Author Posted March 27, 2006 Do you wear body amor on your head? Seriously, the weight is really insignificant. 642937[/snapback] It's called kevlar. And, I suppose now you want them all airconditioned, because riding around in a vehicle in 100 degree heat causes many people to open windows.
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 It's called kevlar. And, I suppose now you want them all airconditioned, because riding around in a vehicle in 100 degree heat causes many people to open windows. 642940[/snapback] From what I've heard, most of the up armored tractors have had bullet proff glass added to the sides but offset from the cab by a few inches. This will allow airflow into the cab.
Recommended Posts