MRAPs
OK, for 5 points can someone give me a compelling argument as to what the best armored car is? And not just based on what looks the coolest, cause I can decide that for myself.
And, yes, cost is a factor too. It seems like everyone is vying for contracts on this thing right now, and they all look the same to me. I don't know much about em.
There's a lot of talk about the Cougar, Caiman, MaxxPro, RG31, RG32, and who knows what else. I guess last year the Corps bought some RC31s.
It seems to me that a plain ole LAV would do just fine. Everybody likes a good ole trusty war pig, don't they?
And I know this is blasphemy, but maybe something like a BRDM or BMP? Eeeek. Forget I said that last part. You probably like BMPs, don't ya. Ya commie.
If it were based strictly on looks, I think I'd pick the Serbian Lazar.
The next time you're at a cocktail party and you want to talk to the military guy about military stuff, don't pull out the ignorant ole "Saddam never had WMDs!", or the tired and broke "I'm for the Draft!".
Actually do some research and form an opinion based on something solid, and while holding your Maker's Mark on the rocks you can say something like "The RG33 might be more blast resistant than other MRAPs, but due to it's extreme weight many bridges won't be able to hold it, and helicopters won't be able to airlift it. And if you're worried about RPG threat, a lesser armored vehicle can simply use the Raytheon Quick Kill system and call it good."
Then you won't sound like a crazy dope.
It'll be a lot more fun than this:
Glaucon: "Saddam had no ties to terrorism. I promise!"
Brando: "What about Abdul Rahman Yasin then?"
Glaucon: "Who's that?"
Brando: "......."
Brando: "You're joking right? Forget it. How about Saddam paying $25K bonuses to families of suicide bombers? He upped it from $10K after 9/11. That's pretty direct support for terrorism, right?"
Glaucon: "That doesn't count. They're Jews."
Brando: "......"
Brando: "Let's just keep it pleasant. Can we just talk about MRAPs or Osprey or some other gear? "
Glaucon: "Sure. The troops don't have body amour, and the ones that do are from the Vietnam era!"
Brando: "Actually, I never saw anybody that had anything less than Interceptor Armour?"
Glaucon: "What's Interceptor Armour?!"
Brando: "....."
Brando: "The shrimp cocktail sure is good tonight."
And, yes, cost is a factor too. It seems like everyone is vying for contracts on this thing right now, and they all look the same to me. I don't know much about em.
There's a lot of talk about the Cougar, Caiman, MaxxPro, RG31, RG32, and who knows what else. I guess last year the Corps bought some RC31s.
It seems to me that a plain ole LAV would do just fine. Everybody likes a good ole trusty war pig, don't they?
And I know this is blasphemy, but maybe something like a BRDM or BMP? Eeeek. Forget I said that last part. You probably like BMPs, don't ya. Ya commie.
If it were based strictly on looks, I think I'd pick the Serbian Lazar.
Vroom Vroom
The next time you're at a cocktail party and you want to talk to the military guy about military stuff, don't pull out the ignorant ole "Saddam never had WMDs!", or the tired and broke "I'm for the Draft!".
Actually do some research and form an opinion based on something solid, and while holding your Maker's Mark on the rocks you can say something like "The RG33 might be more blast resistant than other MRAPs, but due to it's extreme weight many bridges won't be able to hold it, and helicopters won't be able to airlift it. And if you're worried about RPG threat, a lesser armored vehicle can simply use the Raytheon Quick Kill system and call it good."
Then you won't sound like a crazy dope.
It'll be a lot more fun than this:
Glaucon: "Saddam had no ties to terrorism. I promise!"
Brando: "What about Abdul Rahman Yasin then?"
Glaucon: "Who's that?"
Brando: "......."
Brando: "You're joking right? Forget it. How about Saddam paying $25K bonuses to families of suicide bombers? He upped it from $10K after 9/11. That's pretty direct support for terrorism, right?"
Glaucon: "That doesn't count. They're Jews."
Brando: "......"
Brando: "Let's just keep it pleasant. Can we just talk about MRAPs or Osprey or some other gear? "
Glaucon: "Sure. The troops don't have body amour, and the ones that do are from the Vietnam era!"
Brando: "Actually, I never saw anybody that had anything less than Interceptor Armour?"
Glaucon: "What's Interceptor Armour?!"
Brando: "....."
Brando: "The shrimp cocktail sure is good tonight."
posted by brando at 10:50 PM
8 Comments:
I can't tell the difference either. I think you really need to run extensive trials which can be difficult when lobbyists cloud the issue.
BTR-80's & 90's are probably nice and cheap compared to many other designs, and probably just as effective if used properly.
It's really hard for someone on the outside to compare and contrast cause the armor is classified.
But I also think the Cougar looks cool.
I'd say the M 117 because my friend was "test driving" one down at Fort Knox. He's headed to Afghanistan in August. From what I've read (according to Wikipedia, hardly an unbiased or accurate source) there were 79 at the end of the Cold War and the production line was restarted after the beginning of Iraq due to their success in taking hits from IEDs without having any of the occupants wounded. I read one case from '06 where one was hit twice, blowing out all the tires and yet the driver was able to drive it fifty miles home to base w/o any casualties. So, price wise it's sensible. Think about the cost to up armor a HMWV. Think about the slowness of an MRAP. I'd say an M117 ASV is where it's at.
Cool. I haven't even heard of that vehicle. It looks durable, cheap, simple and effective.
And it's 3/4 the weight of a stryker.
I'm totally going to bust that out at the next cocktail party.
5 points to Matt.
how about the EM-50 Urban Assault vehicle?
That vehicle is only good in Wisconsin.
Don't you mean the M1117?
'Cause if you do. I like it!
Yeah, I think he means this.
Post a Comment
<< Home