English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If IEDS are a major prob. in iraq, why doesnt the us just get a **** lot of covering for the bottom and make sures its heavy and stable enough to not flip. Get a bigger engine to keep the speed up but make it weigh more and be more heavy.

2007-10-15 09:41:05 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymousasd 2 in Politics & Government Military

10 answers

Im in the marines and our humvees are crappy. They get blow up all the time in Iraq from IEDs but the government is helping us by providing better vehicles for us to drive. They are building better ones that are "V" shaped on the underside so that when we roll across an IED and it blows then the blast blown outwards. But it sucks for us Marines but good for the army because they are bigger and get more money so they have already been provided with some of these vehicles. I have yet to see one.

2007-10-15 17:01:10 · answer #1 · answered by Donny L 1 · 0 0

Flipping the vehicle is not the primary way IEDs kill, they kill by destroying the vehicle, not crashing it. The IED's are generally on the side of the road, not underneath it so adding more armor to the bottom wouldn't be effective. Not to mention the actually uparmoreds that we have are already so heavy that the speed and effectibility are lowered tremendously. You can add all the armor you want, but eventually it will just be a big metal rock unable to move. We have designed better vehicles since the beginning of the war but currently they are only given to priority area troops as there arent that many yet.

2007-10-15 10:43:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Uh.....not all humvees drive directly over an IED for one thing and many of the IEDs are very large artillery shells, the kind that make huge craters and take out everything within 50 yards. You have not only the blast shock wave to contend with but thousands of hot, razor sharp shrapnel that can tear through armor like butter. Couple that with the updated shaped charges that literally melts through the armor of even a tank and you'll see pretty quick that just adding layers of steel to a transport vehicle isn't going to help much.

The Army guys know more about this than I do but I think I've got the gist of it all.

2007-10-15 12:18:19 · answer #3 · answered by Chris L 3 · 0 0

Silly lad, the solution to all the world's military problems isn't to weld more armor on.

When the North Vietnamese received man-portable surface to air missiles to shoot down helicopters with, did the US Army weld extra armor plates their choppers, or find a more practical way to avoid and deal with them?

When the Germans came under the risk of Russian troops sticking magnetic mines and grenades on their tanks, did they weld thicker armor plates on, or find a way to stop the magnetic explosives from being put on in the first place?

When firearms technology improved, did the armies outfit their infantry back into clunky metal suits, or did they abandon the concept of volley fire altogether so it'd be harder to actually shoot each other in the first place?

---

There's a chink in every armor system, along with more obvious drawbacks. Will more covering stop shaped charges? What if they use bigger shaped charges? What if bigger engines don't necessarily help that much, or drive up gasoline usage and absolutely ruin your logistical Can of Schmick? What if you can't even afford or fit bigger/better engines in your vehicles?

The best historical military forces of the world didn't focus on their defence.

2007-10-15 09:59:55 · answer #4 · answered by Gotta have more explosions! 7 · 0 0

It's not that simple -- the upgrade of the armor increases weight, so does the larger engine -- and that requires an increased suspension and drive train to handle the extra weight -- which requires a significant redesign of most of the chassis.

And don't forget -- there are only two types of explosives -- those manufactured in factories, and those which as "improvised" -- not a lot of arms factories in Iraq, so of course most of the explosives are improvised -- which also means they don't all work the same way, so you cannot tailor specific protection because it's difficult to know what to expect.

2007-10-15 09:58:23 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 0

The current humvees are not capable of having that level of armor put on them. The additional armor that is added to humvees now, is too much and is causing problems with the operation of the vehicle. Also, even with the added armor, there are IEDs capable of penetrating, and causing injury or fatality.

I can tell you from experience that the US Military is doing a lot to try to prevent IEDs from causing further casualties.

2007-10-15 09:49:44 · answer #6 · answered by James W 3 · 1 0

Because the Hummer was not designed to operate like that. It's already really heavy, and its center of gravity was designed to give it a specific mobility. It was not made to be a heavily armored transport, but rather a decently armored (talking small-arms fire) fast troop transport. Adding extra weight goes beyond design specs and almost assuredly makes it more likely to tip over. It makes it just as dangerous when it has to flee an area in a hurry.

2007-10-15 09:48:58 · answer #7 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1 0

Humvees were never ment to be used for what they are being used for.

They are not armored transport vehicles. They are closer to civilian vehicles than the true armored transports that can withstand IEDs.

However without IEDs taking out the cheap , unprotective humvees, neocons would have a hard time selling this war.

2007-10-15 09:44:44 · answer #8 · answered by vote_usa_first 7 · 2 2

once you're sufficiently previous to recollect returned that some distance, while Clinton become in workplace, he decreased the size of the armed forces and the armed forces funds to easily approximately zip. See, people do no longer prefer to recollect, or their too youthful to recollect. in case you believe you studied the Senate hearings, they are attempting to get the warriors the ideal of the ideal, despite the fact that it takes extra suitable than an afternoon to construct it. we are no longer conversing approximately an 'vehicle production line'...we are conversing a area of expertise...and maximum specialties take time. Congress using the greenback to end the President did no longer help issues. as nicely, this armed forces plan become drawn up on the Pentagon with civilians enjoying armchair warrior with a stupid possibility activity for crine-out-loud. armed forces war plans must be left as much as the armed forces. no longer a team of wanna-be chiefs.

2016-12-29 11:46:33 · answer #9 · answered by divalerio 4 · 0 0

No matter the protection the IEDS will get bigger, if the shrapnel don't get you the shock wave will turn your insides into jelly.

2007-10-15 09:45:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers