Quote:
thatguy96 said:
Public outrage led to increased armor with little appreciation for the almost equally dangerous rollover problems it caused when driving the vehicle at high speed.
|
There may have been some noise about increased accident rates for up armored HMMWVs but frankly what do you prefer:
a slighty higher chance of a lethal accident, which can be mitigated by appropriate driver training, or being torn to shreds by the first IED you run into?
The increased armor has turned HMMWVs from a vehicle vulnerable to anything from small arms to explosives to one vulnerable only to well placed RPG shots (which can't be fired by nice safe remote control), big/lucky IEDs or EFPs, which are more resource intensive to make.
Note that up armor kits were improvised by soldiers in the field early on and of course bullets/fragments were the reasons APCs were developed in first place.
In a place like Iraq everything must be (and has been for the most part) armored to stop at least bullets/frag, including armored cabs for resupply trucks. This brings a lot of headaches (less payload, substantially more maintenance etc.) but is better than the alternative.
A specialized airborne vehicle has different requirements and lack of armor is an acceptable trade off but anything else designed now should be at least fitted for armor.
Re: Expeditionary Fire Support System
)
) range. On the other hand you need to reduce the accuracy or ROF because the RAP ammo was not really accurate for arty standards used in french artillery. In 1992 the maximum error allowed was 1 m for 1km.
Linear Mode
