Military building IED-proof vehicles(2 minute video)

[Redskins Diehard]

I think you guys are just not familiar with these types of vehicles.

It is NOT more highly armored. It is a new technology in the construction where the blast waves are forced to the sides rather than through the crew compartment.

Your arguments are like saying we should issue body armor- because the enemy will always use new tactics against them. Well, that may be true but meanwhile it has saved tens of thousands of US lives..

EVERY new tactic or strategy is met by a response from the enemy- that has been the case for about 4,000 years now. So what? The EPF that has damaged the heavy armor have been brought in from Iran, take out that ability and the threat decreases. Should we not build the Joint Strike Fighter because our enemies will likewise change their tactics to fight it?

Maybe that is the case. I think you are just not familiar with this type of warfare. And what the mission REALLY is for the guys actually carrying out the policy.

[mjah]

Question is, why can't WE produce enough? WTF is wrong with this country? Get GM to do it, they're losing their asses to the Japanese. I'm sure they'd want the business

The last GM car I owned had enough trouble protecting me from engine failure and electrical problems.

[JMS]

I think you guys are just not familiar with these types of vehicles.

It is NOT more highly armored. It is a new technology in the construction where the blast waves are forced to the sides rather than through the crew compartment. Similar to the Buffalo ship type hull..

AFC this is not a new concept in armored vehicle. IF they have IED's which can defeat the armor on an Abrams tank which costs about 20 times as much as any transport, they can certainly blow up this new toy. I don't care what the manufactures sales pitch is.

Your arguments are like saying we should never have issued body armor starting in the 1960s- because the enemy will always use new tactics against them. Well, that may be true but meanwhile it has saved tens of thousands of US lives..

Your analogy is flawed. Body armor doesn't directly reduce our ability to accomplish the mission. Huge armored transports instead of foot patrols do.

These things are advertisments to all who view them how vulnerable and scared US troops are.

EVERY new tactic or strategy is met by a response from the enemy- that has been the case for about 4,000 years now. So what?

Only todays strategy shifts come so fast we actually have the ability to stratigize ourselves off the mission. You agree on a mission and you addopt strategies to accomplish that mission. The mission currently is hearts and minds and security for the Iraqi people. Shutting ourselves off in bigger armor is counter productive to that mission.

The EPF that has damaged the heavy armor have been brought in from Iran, so take out that ability and the threat decreases. Should we not build the Joint Strike Fighter because our enemies will likewise change their tactics to fight it?

If the JSF aids our ability to meet the mission. It doesn't inhibit that mission.

Every possible upgrade makes the enemy's job correspondingly harder when they are being hammered daily..

The enemy's mission isn't to blow up our soldiers. The enemies mission is to replace the government in Iraq. Blowing up our soldiers is their tactic to accomplish their mission. Our strategy can't be to set our strategies based on their tactics. That is a recipe to failure. Like we've had for going on 4 years.

More troops, More foot patrols, and likely more casualties in the short run... Or we should just bring them home.

[Air Force Cane]

I still think you are downplaying the fact that with better tailored vehicles, we can then give all of our HMMV up armored to the Iraqis.

This would then make our forces stronger, and their forces stronger. So increasing combat power for tens of thousands. I think you are also confusing tactics (utilizing safer transport) with strategy (getting our forces into the Joint Centers and FOBs).

Just because we bring more force protection onto the battlefield doesn't mean the troops will not be able to accomplish the "hold and build" mission.

[Redskins Diehard]

I still think you are downplaying the fact that with better tailored vehicles, we can then give all of our HMMV up armored to the Iraqis.

This would then make our forces stronger, and their forces stronger. So increasing combat power for tens of thousands. I think you are also confusing tactics (utilizing safer transport) with strategy (getting our forces into the Joint Centers and FOBs).

Just because we bring more force protection onto the battlefield doesn't mean the troops will not be able to accomplish the "hold and build" mission.

How "strong" our forces are is not an issue. Our forces are plenty "strong" to defeat the enemy.

Getting our forces INTO the FOBs is not the objective...it is getting them OUT of the FOBs and onto the street. Into the market. At the police station. Etc. This type of mission is not accomplished by loading into one of those vehicles inside a secure compound and unloading at a destination.

As I have said. I did not want to put any undue risk on my soldiers(or myself for that matter:) ) but at some point our soldier ARE exposed and MUST be exposed to accomplish the mission there. Further if our objective is to keep the troops "safe" then we should just bring them home...I do not think that is the objective though.