Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Countrydave55

Back To The Draft

Recommended Posts

They were ordered that way on purpose

...Nothing wrong with the vehicle ....Its been designed as air portable transport ....Not for use in a combat zone .... Its just bad planning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Nothing wrong with the vehicle ....Its been designed as air portable transport ....Not for use in a combat zone .... Its just bad planning

:lol:

Hummers were specificly designed for combat use.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already spoken to the Navy and will likely go in as a GMO (general medical officer) if I can take my exams. As a GMO I will get a straight officers salary.

Do gay officers get a better salary? :woot:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hummers were specificly designed for combat use

with no armour on the origional models ......? anyway read a soldiers view Edited by Tankus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do gay officers get a better salary

Its the Navy ...mate... arf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with no armour on the origional models ......? anyway read a soldiers view

Nah, don't need to. My wife works with soldiers at the VA all day long and we have many family members in high military positions, between us we talk to hunders of soldiers every week. Edited by Z10N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arf ....ask them ..then....!

 

from the link posted

Some background: The first Humvees hit the dusty trail in the mid-1980’s, with the formal designation of the M998 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV). They replaced the M151 (1/4 ton Jeep), M-274 (1/4 ton Mule), M561 (1-1/2 ton Gamma Goat, and M880 (1-1/4 ton truck). All of those vehicles were light cargo or administrative vehicles that were not designed to withstand the rigors of a combat environment. Neither was the Humvee. 

 

That is the problem. 

 

Taking a piece of equipment that was designed for light duty and trying to turn it into a combat machine is an exercise in programmed failure. It’s like giving a 100-pound female a rifle, basic load of ammunition, seventy-pound backpack, combat boots, flak jacket, helmet, a vest full of rations and other gear, and calling her a combat soldier. It only increases her already high probability of becoming a casualty.  The same goes for armor plating Humvees. 

 

The later model Humvee, the M1097A2, is powered by a 6.5-liter V-8 diesel engine, weighs 5,900 lbs., and has a payload of 4,400 lbs. Hanging up to 4,000 pounds of armor plating on it doesn’t leave many pounds for weapons systems, ammunition, troops, personal gear, radios, fuel and other battle-essential equipment.

Edited by Tankus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know what I don't like... when someone refers to President Bush as "Mr. Bush." that's an insult, in my opinion. whether you like him or not, he's still the President of the United States and should be addressed as such, not just Mr. Bush.

 

you won't see me referring to President Clinton as Mr. Clinton.

And yet many people in other threads have referred to him as "the shrub" and when I objected I get my little wristies slapped.

 

Don't misunderstand me - I'm not of a fan of the Presidents' politics, but I agree with the need to at least show SOME respect for the person , if not their politics.

 

BTW and this is a genuine question - since Clinton is a retired Pres is he still referred ro as President Clinton? - I always assumed it was Mr. Clinton now.

Edited by paul77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arf ....ask them ..then....!

Derrrr! I already have, anything the media reports (and some things they don't) they talk about, they all agree that people who are believing most of the media biased reporting are being tooled.

 

 

And BTW, some of the most effective war machines have been UNARMORED, that doesn't mean it is not a combat vehicle! On the same note, there are many armored NON-COMBAT vehicles.

 

This story is just the latest cannon fodder for the media.

Edited by Z10N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are all still presidents ...even the dead ones ........ we just stick ours in the Lords ...dead or alive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chopdoc

 

hmmm me too ...its just the irony ......different players ...same game ..... again

 

We are already supplying small arms to the " fledgling " militia of the "new Iraqi " order .... ........ I guess LAVs are a natural progression of what what we seem to be doing now...

 

Zion ......oh boy ....!

My response is that they should buy them if they need them.

 

Regarding the small arms the irony is that we destroyed so many!

 

Why didn't we warehouse them for reissue after the war? We could be giving all those AKs back right now!

 

Is it a natural progression? Well, in a way yes, but we need toask where that progression ends. We certainly won't be giving them nuclear weapons, so somewhere between small arms and nuclear arms a line has to be drawn. For me, anything beyond small arms should be purchased if they need it.

 

That's just where I draw the line, others will draw it in other places. I don't think we should leave them with nothing as we are the ones that disarmed them in the forst place. If we intend for them to take over their own security we need to give them their small arms back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are believing most of the media biased reporting are being tooled.

unlike the well informed peeps who belived the pres about the WMDS ...arf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

Hummers were specificly designed for combat use.

:rolleyes:

Actually they were designed for combat and noncombat use, they replaced the Jeep.

 

Are you saying that because they are designed for combat they have to be armored?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do gay officers get a better salary? :woot:

:lol:

 

I mean to say that there would be no bonuses for service as a doctor, just those available to any other officer, and the salary would be just as any other officer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unlike  the well informed peeps who belived the pres about the WMDS ...arf

Or those that believe the media's fabrication of that being the reason for why we went to war.

 

And what's with all the "arf's," do you want a doggie treat?

Edited by Z10N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually they were designed for combat and noncombat use, they replaced the Jeep.

 

Are you saying that because they are designed for combat they have to be armored?

No, and that's my point, they were a versitile replacement to the stahlwart Jeep.

 

The PT-109 was the hummer's equivilant on water, and it was made of wood!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so somewhere between small arms and nuclear arms a line has to be drawn. For me, anything beyond small arms should be purchased if they need it.

Oil for weapons ..?...ooohhhh I feel an 80's song coming on ..... "Isn't it ironic" ..... I quite like "jagged little pill "

 

Back to the start

 

I think the coalitions governments will eventually crank up the arms trade again ...not really any options left

Edited by Tankus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that because they are designed for combat they have to be armored

If the other side isn't armed ...then fair enough ...... But if your getting shot at ...?

 

maybe a couple of generals tied to the bonnet ..... woof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with no armour on the origional models ......? anyway read a soldiers view

Some are armored, some are not.

 

Nice article, it never addressed why many were not armored in the first place. It states clearly that the rise in need has been sudden! Why? Because many Humvees were not armored! Why? Because they were specified that way!

 

Humvees are speced out for many purposes and guess what? Many of those intended for combat are intended to not be armored! Why? Because they are designed to be air dropped and/or carried by other means where weight is a major factor. In addition, those that are not armored are faster due to their lighter weight. This is a specific requirement of some specifications.

 

Next we will hear that many Humvees are not fitted with .50 cal machine guns. Then there will be a big uproar that our troops can't do their jobs and all of a sudden there will be a jump in the market for .50 cal machine guns.

 

Then you will post an article that consists mainly of interviews with machine gun industry executives about how they are having a hard time keeping up with the need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Safety in a battle zone comes from armor and speed. You need to trade one for the other. Unarmored Humvees were made top move quickly out of harms way not to patrol slowly in the presence of RPGs and mines. That is why there are armored troop carriers. They move relatively slowly but are protected by armor.

 

The problem is that the Humvee was employed in a role and environment it was not designed for.

 

As for risking loosing the rich in battle and the loss to our economy. I can pick a lot of wealthy people that don't contribute and would be no great loss. I am sure that their money would return to the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the other side isn't armed ...then fair enough ...... But if your getting shot at ...?

 

maybe a couple of generals tied to the bonnet ..... woof

I hate to burst your bubble but many military vehicles are not armored. Yes, including combat vehicles.

 

Would you like to issue a tank to every soldier?

 

Did you know that their body armor could be much more protective? You could armor each soldier until he could barely move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are all still presidents ...even the dead ones  ........ we just stick ours in the Lords ...dead or alive

exactly. President Madison, President Lincoln, President Reagan, President Bush Sr. etc. Edited by The1PatO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Safety in a battle zone comes from armor and speed. You need to trade one for the other. Unarmored Humvees were made top move quickly out of harms way not to patrol slowly in the presence of RPGs and mines. That is why there are armored troop carriers. They move relatively slowly but are protected by armor.

 

The problem is that the Humvee was employed in a role and environment it was not designed for.

 

 

Exactly.

Almost.

 

It was designed for all around use. It replaced the Jeep.

 

Using it as a patrol vehicle is a legitimate use, even if not armored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To any US citizens complaining about the humvee armor. Don't complain when they have to cut money from more programs to put into military/defense funding. You asked them to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see how many combat vehicles we can brainstorm that either have no armor, or armor equivilant to or less than a Hummer. :)

 

Virtually every jet and plane.

Just about all helicopters.

Every soldier.

 

Come one now, don't be shy.

 

Maybe we should equip every M1 tank with it's own portable 12 foot thick titanium/carbon matrix bunker!

:rofl3::rofl2:

 

Go fetch...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...