Plywood armor plating

Page 2 of 10  
Kevin wrote:

Well, he can believe that, but I suspect that the real story is that the Humvee is the replacement for the Jeep and nobody expected them to need to be armored anymore than the Jeep was armored. Now it turns out that they're enough more capable than the Jeep that they're being used in ways that the designers never expected and it turns out that they _do_ need armor, but actually getting it in place is not going to be something that is going overnight.

While it is conceivable they could or would, it seems unlikely that that is the case in this instance. "Armor the Humvees" will be a lesson for the next round of procurement, meanwhile retrofitting armor in any systematic way is going to take time. First somebody has to decide just how good the armor should be, then issue RFPs, somebody has to produce a prototype, they have to test it (and they'll find out either that it's not good enough to provide adequate protection or that it's too heavy for the running gear and causes breakdowns or that when they have real soldiers try to field install it too many problems arise or something else major will be wrong with it) and so there will be another round or two while they fix the design, then the manufacturer has to tool up for production then it gets delivered. And all of this has to be approved by Congress first, which usually means a year or so of lead time during the budget negotiations. I've been inside this process (and totally frustrated by the delays over which I had no control) and it sucks but it's the way it is and so far nobody has been able to come up with a way to shortcut it that doesn't result in even more massive waste than the current system.

Uh, were the "higher ups" _aware_ that the 88mm antiaircraft gun could be used in a dual role? Did it even _exist_ when the contract for the Sherman was let? Bear in mind that the Sherman was a _vastly_ better tank than anything that the Germans took into Poland or France--for that matter the French Char-B was better than the German tanks during the invasion of France. Are you suggesting that when it was determined the hard way that the Sherman was inadequate that production should have been halted while they waited for a new design? So that instead of fighting the Germans with crappy tanks our guys would have been fighting them with _no_ tanks? If not, what _do_ you think should have been done but was not that was technologically feasible without a ground up redesign? And could that change have been gotten from concept to field delivery in less time that a new tank design?
Note by the way, that the US was not the only outfit that found that their tanks needed more armor--look at some of the German field expedients--concrete poured over the steel for example.

Uh, as far as body count goes, consider that unlike the US, the Russians had the best bloody tank in the whole bloody _world_, and look at _their_ losses. There is more to success on the battlefield than quantity or superiority of hardware. If that were not the case the Germans would have hit the Maginot Line and bounced.

I maintain that you are ignorant of the realities of engineering design, production leadtimes, and military procurement.
Note that the Sherman lesson _was_ learned--I've seen no complaints about the adequacy of the armor on the Abrams. And the Humvee lesson will be learned too.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24 Jan 2005 08:52:23 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Sorry. I just attributed this to Andy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

... and it's just about the most dumb-a**ed statement anybody could make. Even, for the sake of argument, accepting the premise that the leaders in this country or war don't value the lives of their troops -- they still value results. The purpose of sending troops out on a mission of any sort is to have them accomplish their objectives. An absolutely free humvee and no-cost bodybags in which the humvee is destroyed and no objectives are achieved vs. a very expensive Stryker that accomplishes its mission and returns with few or no casualties is an easy trade even for someone who doesn't value life but does value results.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:14:00 -0700, Mark & Juanita
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
.........no...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Note crossposting and follow-ups.
Mark & Juanita wrote:

make.
leaders in

still
sort
humvee and

are
and
who
False dichotomy. A mission may be accomplished despite casualties.
Why did the administration refuse the manufacturer's offer to increase delivery of the up-armor kits for Humvees if not for budgetary reasons?
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No - screw the crossposting. Why would you go and start that crap? Please don't take up on this crossposting stuff. Kindly keep comments within your own group.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Note follow-ups.
Mike Marlow wrote:

Please
within your

What do you mean by 'your own group'? I do not own any newsgroups.
It is simply a matter of nettiquette to post articles in a newsgroup where they are on topic.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I meant that folks in alt.politics should discuss things in alt.politics and folks in rec.woodworking should discuss things in rec.woodworking. If one wants to discuss things with another group they should go to that group to hold that discussion. It is not, nor has it ever been netiquette to cross post as you did. It only invites an invasion of conversations that are not relevant to the group in question. If what you were trying to accomplish was to take a political discussion away from a woodworking group (not necessarily a bad idea all by itself...), then it works better to get the participants to go there. Opening this group up to a deluge from alt.politics by cross posting there does nothing in the name of netiquette.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thing about it is, its a complicated world. ... many here are using filters that work against crossposting. If you take out the crossposting, you defeat the filter.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

newsgroup
filters
defeat
IOW, those who filter to remove cross-posts don't want to read the OT articles in the first place, right?
Works for me.
Rec.woodworking is one newsgroup that works as intended. We have great, flame-free discussions of woodworking and woodworking- related topics. Most of the off-topic articles are crossposted here by trolls.
What boggles the mind is that evidently a few of the regular participants are unhappy about that flame-free environment and insist on posting off-topic articles with subjects guaranteed to provoke flame wars. One supposes that results largely from two factors. First, a profound ignorance of UseNet itself and/or an attitude that accepted rules of nettiquette are for other people only.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think I'm beginning to see your original intention Fred, which was either not clear, or I simply missed, earlier on. I now appears you were trying to direct the conversation over to alt.politics rather than allow it to run here. I wouldn't agree with that as a tactic, but if that's what your intent was, then I did misinterpret it in the beginning. It appeared to me to be what we see a lot of in usenet - trolls who cross post in order to bring others in from different groups, for the sake of creating a major cluster f*ck. If I misinterpreted your intent, then I apologize.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Marlow wrote:

run
As the British say, spot on.
Thanks.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not necessarily ... everyone responds differently at different times. Many don't mind participating in the ocassional OT rant/tirade/dicussion/flame fest if it is among familiar participants of the group. The best, and worst, of us are guilty.
Then, there is always the NEXT key for net nanny wannabe's.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Andy Dingley" wrote in message

they
It's a war, Andy ... and if you were really paying attention you would know that it is NOT the RPG so much as the IED that is the cause of the flurry to jury rig armor on utility vehicles that were never intended to be used solely for troop transport. They are designed as military "utility" vehicles, not "armored" vehicles.
Blame Congress and previous administrations that designed, budgeted and built them, not the current battle planners and those executing the plan.
Ground troops ... their mission is to pound the ground, not ride into batlle, therefore these vehicles were not designed solely for troop transport. Give a foot soldier the choice or riding in an unarmored vehicle, or walking, and he'll take the ride any day regardless of the danger ... IOW, he'd take a bicycle rather than walk.

Your guys are doing a excellent job, and they undoubtably have more experience in dealing with close quarter insurgency, but they're also getting shot at with RPG's too, statistcially just not as frequently.
All but the most naive amongst you know that this "armored vehicle" thing is being used as a rabbit trail ... and just like foolish, unaware coon dog, many of you are being fooled by it.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's not - it's the on-going occupation of an unruly civil population. The biggest single lesson of NI was the disaster of Bloody Sunday, that kicked so much of it off. The Paras are great as soldiers for fighting wars, but they're lousy policemen. This is _not_ a war - you can tell this, because you're not allowed to get the big toys out. A civil situation like this needs a different approach and it's not one that infantry are trained for.

Sure, but we're talking about plywood. Plywood _does_ have uses against RPGs, odd though this might appear at first.

I'd extend it to the military planners. They're supposed to be the experts, not Congress itself.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Your distinction is theorectical, impractical and spoken like a civilian. A rose by any other name ... when the bullets are flying, it's a _war_ to those having to duck..

to
No argument, as I said, we used chain link fence ... but not as "armor".

Congress appropriates the funding and approves, cuts, or increase budgets for the military planners/designers based on administration. IIRC, The previous administration did a lot of cutting in that area.
Nonetheless, all these current equipment design decisions were made years ago. The military commander has to fight with the tools available, and improvise from there, which is what is being done, and has been done in every war. The equipment lag time, often based on "lessons learned", is never in favor of those who have to fight now, never has been, and never will be.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The distinction isn't about whether someone is shooting at you, it's about whether you're allowed to shoot back.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Andy Dingley" wrote in message

Total, absolute, nonsense ... it would really help if you would stick to what you know. Although ROE's may change according to the situation, our soldiers, and your's, operate under specific Rules of Engagment that allow them to use deadly force in self-defense and in defending others from death or serious bodily injury.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:01:18 +0000, Andy Dingley

In a war, if you're the bad guy, I can blow you away on sight... and use whatever I have available to do it quickly..
In a "police action" I have to wait until you shoot at me... which is Nam all over again...
IMHO, we (US, UK and very few others) kicked ass quickly and effectively... and that's when the grunts should have gone home and a police force brought in...
Some are calling Iraq "Vietnam in the sand", but what I'm afraid of is that it's becoming another Ireland, and we'll be there forever..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mac davis responds:

Oh, crap. That one made my stomach lurch. 35 Marines killed today. Lessee. Ireland has been going on since what, October, 1917?
Semper fi.
Charlie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.