Originally posted by DREDIOCK
What I wanna know.
Is why our armed forced have UNARMORED Humvees to begin with?
I was under the impression that one of the reasons we had them in the first place was because they were armored and offered our troops better protection.
Hell for the price we get ripped off for 1 humvee we coulda sent over 3-4 Suburbans that woulda done the same damn thing.
I figger you cant just Blame Bush and Rumsfeild on this one.
But everyone in Congress who agreed to buy these things as well
Humvees were replacements for the Jeep, which was never armored, either. It's not supposed to be an armored personnel carrier, but a utility truck with off-road capability. Of course, once accepted, the Army started putting guns, antitank missiles, grenade launchers, and everything else they could think of on them. This was to make up for the fact that we didn't have a vehicle like the Striker or LAV in the inventory.
Now, we desperately need a wheeled light armored vehicle for security (not heavy combat, although they look the same in some ways) duty, and are just now getting it. We knew in 1991 that the need existed, but the previous administration dragged out the procurement process to save money and look good. Now the development phase is over, we have the Striker in production, but don't have enough in inventory.
It's a sad situation, but not Rumsfeld's fault, or of anybody in the current administration. The facts are that you can't aromor the humvee enough to survive RPG rounds or heavy MG rounds or roadside bombs or antitank mines. The kevlar and metal armor they put on them is only for splinter protection. You're still driving nothing more than an armed pickup truck into a firefight. Essentially, the Somalis can do that just as well with a Toyota Tundra.
shubie
