Army Aggressor Threatens Hummer Manufacturers

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Patroklos
In any case, it has been a long term goal of the army to reduce the fuels logistics footprint which right now is huge. Most people forget how much stuff it takes to make a modern army move, anything that reduces that is good, and this seems like a logical first step.

I think teh quietness thing is the main advantage. I doubt it's going to be used in stop-go traffic, negating some of teh benefits of teh hybrid engine, and, in Iraq at least, I think charging it with electricity is probably not that much more convenient that filling it up with diesel.

[LordShiva]

BTW, Wezil, please discuss teh topic, not teh poster, kthx.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by LordShiva
BTW, Wezil, please discuss teh topic, not teh poster, kthx.

I would dearly love to , but that is up to you.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Wezil


I would dearly love to , but that is up to you.

From your five posts in this thread, it's pretty clear that you have no intention of discussing the topic, and instead seem to only want to display your childish behaviour and desire to circumvent site rules. As such, I do not think it's appropriate for me to continue this exchange. Good day, sir

DRose, Oerdin, certainly there are some uses of vehicles in teh field that are not usually subject to IED and bombing risk? Why must every vehicle operating in Iraq need heavy body armour? I would think that teh commanders in teh field would not use teh Aggressor in those situations where there's a risk of it getting blown up. So no need for teh body bags

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Looks like a lot of body bags to me. No armor or protection of any kind. I know it is supposed to be a fast-light recon vehicle but Special OPS already has those wicked fast dune buggy things so why waste money on a whole new design?

there is still a fight between the people that want MRAPs and the people that want to continue thinking that lightly armored vehicles are the way to go.

[Wiglaf]

This is an unexpectedly clever thread title

And what a sexy vehicle. God dammit it is really impressive to look at, I am thinking of bookmarking it and looking at it later. And keep in mind reducing your thermal signature in Iraq is good if the Iranians ever export a lot of heat seeking missiles into the country, which they are doing now. But short of that this seems like a vehicle asking for trouble if they will really be in Baghdad "en masse," an assertion this piss author doesn't back up.

Patrokolos...we get it you were in the navy, but that does not mean you were in Iraq..I can understand how you would associate yourself with an Iraq expert because you are some sort of sailor however your association is patently bizarre and quite simply offensive to people who spend their lives in Iraq. They study it so you don't have to

[Dinner]

Originally posted by LordShiva

DRose, Oerdin, certainly there are some uses of vehicles in teh field that are not usually subject to IED and bombing risk? Why must every vehicle operating in Iraq need heavy body armour? I would think that teh commanders in teh field would not use teh Aggressor in those situations where there's a risk of it getting blown up. So no need for teh body bags

There is a niche for non-armored recon vehicles not traveling which don't travel on roads. Most IEDs are on roads so if you're not traveling on roads then you're unlikely to encounter IEDs. My objection to this vehicle is that we already have a perfectly serviceable ATV like light recon vehicle so why spend all the money designing and building another? Such duplication just wastes tax payer money.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by LordShiva
From your five posts in this thread, it's pretty clear that you have no intention of discussing the topic, and instead seem to only want to display your childish behaviour and desire to circumvent site rules. As such, I do not think it's appropriate for me to continue this exchange. Good day, sir

My "childish" behaviour? That's rich.

What are you 20 something going on teh 13?

[Patroklos]

Patrokolos...we get it you were in the navy, but that does not mean you were in Iraq

Am in, have been to Iraq (twice, its looking like a third time soon), and neither of those things matter in relation to my comment.

In fact that simple comment of mine is a basic, obvious truth.

They study it so you don't have to

You obviously were not paying attention to what "they," said, or were probably listening to the wrong "theys."

[VetLegion]

It looks good. As for IED proof vehicles, I have a design:

.-V-.

You might ask, how is this IED proof? Well, the V shaped bottom is going to deflect most power of the IED blast. US army already has a big truck with this design, but the idea would work on smaller vehicles too.

[VetLegion]

It's a hulking machine, at 31,000 pounds, with a 'V'-shaped hull that diverts blasts away from the carriage – and the troops riding inside. No one has ever been killed riding in one version of the vehicle, called a Cougar.

Obviously while this thing stays on the ground, smaller wehicle would probably be blown away in some direction, but there is a chance it would stay in one piece and protect the passangers.

[Patroklos]

I saw a trainload of those on their way out just the other day.

[snoopy369]

For some reason I think the IED issue is not very relevant here. These are not "multi purpose vehicles" but are specially made to be useful for special ops missions and such. Armor is not practical for those types of missions, because it makes it louder, hotter, and slower.

[Seeker]

3'' of armour??
You wouldn't get me out there without a poncho made from two front plates off a pair of Abrams!
My doctor tells me I have a severe shrapnel allergy.

If I were ever conscripted into the army I'd get one of those jobs where I watch radar all day behind three blast doors and a M-1 Security Blanket.

[Japher]

They should go with a 4-wheel drive version of the Pivo then.