Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 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. 642933[/snapback] Fine, then wear and tear on the roads. Wreck your roads, it causes wear and tear on the trucks. Look, sh-- is designed for a purpose. Part of designing for a purpose is making tradeoffs. It's an imperfect world. Grow up and deal with it.
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 Fine, then wear and tear on the roads. Wreck your roads, it causes wear and tear on the trucks. Look, sh-- is designed for a purpose. Part of designing for a purpose is making tradeoffs. It's an imperfect world. Grow up and deal with it. 642948[/snapback] In this case, this sh-- was designed for American roads and the military is simply adapting it for their purposes. Well we aren't talking about our roads here, we are talking about Iraqi roads. Why the hell should we care about Iraqi roads? Ever see a road after an Abrams tank has gone over it? I guarantee you that the wear and tear to Iraqi roads by up armored trucks (tractor trailor cominations) is insignificant to that done by our armor. Who cares anyway? How do you make an argument to endanger American lives because of wear and tear on an Iraqi road?
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] It amazes me that people so critical of DOD acquisition can come up with so many bull sh-- impediments to the simple task of up armoring a tractor.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Author Posted March 27, 2006 It amazes me that people so critical of DOD acquisition can come up with so many bull sh-- impediments to the simple task of up armoring a tractor. 642956[/snapback] I started this out as I came across an article that to me looked like some common sense on an issue for a change, from the mouths of those directly affected. You took it down the road from the vein that you are a better judge of what they should and should not wear than they are.
Alaska Darin Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 If I had it my way, none of those 130,000+ troops would need the body armor. 642903[/snapback] Stomp up and down some more, they'll start to care any minute.
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 I started this out as I came across an article that to me looked like some common sense on an issue for a change, from the mouths of those directly affected. You took it down the road from the vein that you are a better judge of what they should and should not wear than they are. 642958[/snapback] I think all our service people should have the best body armor we can provide available to them. If they choose not to wear it, that is their choice. Over the years, I've heard arguments against up armoring tractors. Those arguments have and continue to be ignorant or worse yet obstinate. It is no big deal to add armor to the doors and bullet proof glass to the windows, offset by some angle iron, to the windows. Our servicemen have been doing it for a couple of years in theatre. They have been hampered by the lack of supplies. Any chop shop in the US could do it. It really is not that difficult. I will not let up on it because the typical right wing circle jerk on this board spins into action.
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 Stomp up and down some more, they'll start to care any minute. 642963[/snapback] Thank you. The circle is complete.
Alaska Darin Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 Thank you. The circle is complete. 642965[/snapback] How is it complete, exactly?
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 How is it complete, exactly? 642966[/snapback] I may have misread the intention of your post.
EC-Bills Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 ArmorReminds me many years ago when I was a tanker in the Cav. Went through a period where we had to wear flak vests, until someone with a brain stepped in. Flack vests? I'm in a friggen tank, for Christs sake. Anyway, the quote I've highlighted pretty well sums it up. Some poor grunt that works for a living will be that much more exausted at the end of the day, so folks here can feel better. 642873[/snapback] I agree on multiple fronts. From the exercise physiology standpoint, you will become dehydrated and fatigued much quicker. And the more fatigued you are: the longer the recovery time is for your body, the more susceptible to health related issues, etc. Finally, I would figure the fatigue would also limit your awareness or reaction times, which in combat, is not a good thing.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 I think all our service people should have the best body armor we can provide available to them. If they choose not to wear it, that is their choice. Over the years, I've heard arguments against up armoring tractors. Those arguments have and continue to be ignorant or worse yet obstinate. It is no big deal to add armor to the doors and bullet proof glass to the windows, offset by some angle iron, to the windows. Our servicemen have been doing it for a couple of years in theatre. 642964[/snapback] And not conicidentally, the equipment's been wearing out faster.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 In this case, this sh-- was designed for American roads and the military is simply adapting it for their purposes. Well we aren't talking about our roads here, we are talking about Iraqi roads. Why the hell should we care about Iraqi roads? Ever see a road after an Abrams tank has gone over it? I guarantee you that the wear and tear to Iraqi roads by up armored trucks (tractor trailor cominations) is insignificant to that done by our armor. Who cares anyway? How do you make an argument to endanger American lives because of wear and tear on an Iraqi road? 642952[/snapback] What, we have to destroy the infrastructure to protect it?
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 And not conicidentally, the equipment's been wearing out faster. 642984[/snapback] We should care more about the wear on trucks than soldiers lives.
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 What, we have to destroy the infrastructure to protect it? 642985[/snapback] The degradation on Iraqi infrastruture by trucks that are overloaded for American roads based on the standards of individual states in insignificant compared to wear and tear of tracked vehicles on Iraqi roads. Not that wear and tear on Iraqi roads should be factored against American lives.
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 What, we have to destroy the infrastructure to protect it? 642985[/snapback] BTW nice avatar. It suites your obstinante ass backwards position well.
GG Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 If I had it my way, none of those 130,000+ troops would need the body armor. 642903[/snapback] Yet, this is not a non sequitur. Now your circle is complete. You should be happy.
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 Yet, this is not a non sequitur. Now your circle is complete. You should be happy. 643134[/snapback] It was as relevant as the Mickey like argument VA Bills made.
VABills Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 It was as relevant as the Mickey like argument VA Bills made. 643211[/snapback] What that armoring tractors (where the hell did you come up with tractors?). I was assuming you meant trucks and equated that to the general stupidity that it was.
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 What that armoring tractors (where the hell did you come up with tractors?). I was assuming you meant trucks and equated that to the general stupidity that it was. 643215[/snapback] Those "trucks" that have a 5th wheel and drag trailers behind them (sea containers, tankers etc.) are tractors.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Author Posted March 27, 2006 I think all our service people should have the best body armor we can provide available to them. If they choose not to wear it, that is their choice. Good. We're in agreement on my main issue. That's not how you sounded on your first take. As for armoring trucks, I still see a cost benefit issue. The extra armor really is more of a feel good thing. Trucks are more likely to be blown up in roadsides than shot at in ambush these days. That's more reserved for black SUV's. Hard to destroy a truck with a rifle. To be honest, I don't know the effectiveness of the applique armor against RPG's, but that would be the only value I could see.
Recommended Posts