Pentagon touts new, lighter vehicle for Afghanistan

[Blackmagic94]

How is civi, it uses the TAC-4 driveline that used on the USMC MTV, so parts are common to other vehicles in country. The thing offers superior protection to M1114s, only an idiot would argue that.

[brainplay]

Originally Posted by CantGetRight

I've always questioned the continued emphasis on all of these MRAPs, you simply cant build something bomb proof, there will always be something out there which can kill it. In most cases an RPG can defeat these, the angled hull makes for weak defense against angled EFP's they all roll over easy, get stuck easy, have poor visibility, smoke through gas, etc etc

So why do we need ANOTHER one of these?

I wonder how this million dollar piece of crap stacks up against the RG-31

seems to me we already have this "M-ATV" in everyway but name

You're getting APC's and patrol vehicles mixed up here. MRAP's, MATV's, and HMMWV's aren't meant to sustain RPG hits. They're proof against a now common threat (IED's) and small arms fire. It takes ALOT to punch through an MRAP hull right now. That kind of detonation will cause mobility kills against even the hardest armored vehicle out there.

EFP's are alot easier to defend against than actual RPG's as they lose their energy quickly due to the irregular characteristics but are much more rare due to the machining needed to make one. The other issues mentioned are specifically part of the requirements to be met by the M-ATV and JLTV projects.

Like I said before, the M-ATV is a niche vehicle.

[eskachig]

Originally Posted by ViceStan

I'm glad im not the only one who feels that million dollar APC's are simply too expensive for the ultra cheap ied's and rpg's.

I agree in principle, but you guys are forgetting that a killed or injured soldier is very expensive for the military as well, both in dollar terms and in political capital. Remember that a serious injury is a lifetime of medical expenses. There are many arguments against a heavier vehicle - low mobility, decreased effectiveness, strained supply lines due to fuel consumption, etc. But the price issue is sort of moot - if it reduces deaths and injuries while remaining effective it's probably paying for itself.

[dracon49]

The US still works on the quick kill active protection system?...i read that they are interesting in the Iron Fist.

[Mastermind]

Originally Posted by eskachig

I agree in principle, but you guys are forgetting that a killed or injured soldier is very expensive for the military as well, both in dollar terms and in political capital. Remember that a serious injury is a lifetime of medical expenses. There are many arguments against a heavier vehicle - low mobility, decreased effectiveness, strained supply lines due to fuel consumption, etc. But the price issue is sort of moot - if it reduces deaths and injuries while remaining effective it's probably paying for itself.

I fully agree. My exception is that Wars themselves are expensive in terms of casualties. The solution to that is winning as quickly as possible and not dicking around "nation building" and "pacifying" and working more on social welfare than winning the god dmned thing. Long, drawn out occupations and 'winning the hearts and minds" bull crap gets people killed. The "insurgent" types know just exactly how to win...all they have to do is keep on killing and maiming your people and not letting themselves lose. We are playing right into their hands by showing how afraid we are of getting down and dirty and taking care of business...doing the real act of war which is to annihilate your opponent in the most efficient way possible. Cruising around the countryside in nice expensive mobile forts that can be wiped out by a 1914 "tank" trap covered ditch is not taking care of business in my book.

That said...I am all for protecting troops...I would be the very first to gladly accept a vehicle like this in any battle area (my God, in my war, we were lining our floorboards in those little aluminum M-111's with sand bags...which did no good what-so-ever). But, it is sending the wrong signal to all concerned.