Why did the Army replace their badass, cheap, practical and reliable vehicles and equipment with the super-expensive and complex shit that they use today? I miss the time when the average G.I only had a rifle or carbine, a couple of grenades, a knife, a canteen and a simple steel helmet. Soldiers today look like kids wearing protective gear so that they do not hurt themselves while playing pretend to be soldiers,
Why did the Army replace their badass, cheap, practical and reliable vehicles...
Other urls found in this thread:
what is bullet resistance
shut up retard
Part of it is that protective technology has advanced to the point that you’ll see some worthwhile effectiveness. The other main part is that the modern US military, starting after Vietnam, is a professional force, that invests much more heavily in each individual troop than in did when most wars were fought by draftees.
So you're implying than not dying is more important than looking badass??
Haven't you taken the black pill yet?
This is a 18+ site.
USMC still look badass though
Humvees are just as resistant as jeeps, its only in the last 15 years that everythings gotten all up-armored.
Damn shame it's not 15 years ago then huh?
No, but your criteria still leaves a dead zone of 25 years where the army was using vehicles that were neither cheap and practical, nor bullet resistant.
Makes you wonder why we're not rolling around in plain jane humvees anymore either then doesn't it?
You're correct, so why are you still here?
Can't say about bullet resistance (after all having an actual steel structure around you is better than nothing at all as per OP pic) but humvee is designed as such that should the truck hit a land mine, the explosion will not be directly underneath the driver
Overall, a humvee is a good truck but for the price and for what it is (as a general utlility truck), I'd rather have a land cruiser
Damn, you schooled him little billy. Learn that one on the playground today?
so why adopt Humvees to begin with? you're getting too deep in a tangent of sophistry to try justify a poorly thought-out initial post
Natural progression? Hindsight is a bitch aint it? Come to think of it why didn't we just go to the moon in 1910. We had engines?
I miss the time
You can’t possibly miss something you weren’t even alive for, you stupid zoomer. Fucking summerfags, you’d be in bed already if you had school tomorrow.
They were probably pretty expensive at the time. Also, armies were larger, so shit was cheaper and rougher.
Damn fucking right I did.
to answer your question, #1 reason is money. This applies mostly to the transitions of the 1980s when jeeps were downgraded to the giant pile of shit humvee, which is really the worst vehicle the army has ever had.
Now, for the protective/personal gear. You have to realize up until the 2003 Iraq war, troops were not issued body armor beyond the flak vest. It wasn't until the problems with IEDs and the issues of insurgency that the military got serious about slapping armor on everything. All the shit troops carry today I don't think will really be practical if we get into another conventional war.
You have to realize up until the 2003 Iraq war, troops were not issued body armor beyond the flak vest.
Really? That's interesting. How does that compare to other countries?
oh shut up, you don't miss shit. I guarantee you weren't even born when this gear was in production, just as I guarantee that you've never used what has replaced it.
I would 100% take an IOTV and ACH over wearing a steel helmet and nothing else, and if you unironically believe that 'muh asthetics' matters then you're even more delusional than your pathetic excuse for a thread can make it out to be.
While I'm at it, post your guns.
I guess I don't know much about other countries, I know the Russians were running around Chechnya with pretty much the same kit, IE, only a select few being issued flak vests. They followed suit, when the US began issuing IBA/IOTV in mass quantities, although at a much slower pace.
Soldiers today look like kids wearing protective gear so that they do not hurt themselves
And the casualty rates reflect it.
hurr durr why do we give our guys protection instead of making them fit the aesthetic liked by a few tards on the internet?
And you were there during that time retard?
Jeeps are just military cars. Not meant to be APC's to drive soldiers straight into bullet fire.
Cool so we hop in a jeep to ride around the base in, then hop in an armored vehicle to do everything else. Thats two cars instead of one. Thank you tax payer.
Some fat dweller doesn't like the way modern soldiers look
Cry about it some more, will you? Literally nobody in the military gives a flying fuck about what you miss seeing in movies, they'd rather be alive.
At the time jeeps were replaced, humvees had no more armor than a jeep. It had nothing to do with armor, just stowage, towing, and mobility (not rolling over so easy was a big one). Problem is they are a complete shit design. Huge in size and heavy and it takes a tetris master to stow a proper loadout. They have 4 seats but only seat 2 midgets comfortably.
Making small dedicated jeeps would still be cheaper than making more armored heavy transports than actually needed.
You've run the numbers already?
Show the class then.
no fuck you
So you have nothing and are retarded. Cool.
no I am gay
Every military in modernity has run the numbers before him and come to the same conclusion you fucking moron. Go back to the timeline where Bradleys are fob ferries.
Please show me evidence of the fleets of jeeps roaming around ferrying dudes around in 2019.
Hmmvs have way better off road capability in stock form than a stock jeep
I know the Russians were running around Chechnya with pretty much the same kit, IE, only a select few being issued flak vests.
Wrong. They began issuing actual body armor (i.e. not flak jackets designed to counter shrapnel but vests with true ballistic protection) way back in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, and the vests only proliferated with time. The Soviets were the ones who invented the concept of the plate carrier as we know it, how did they "follow suit" when they were issuing them before anyone else?
since everyone ITT is stuck on the Jeeps vs. HMMWVs debate, I'd like to offer an interjection:
The HMMWV is like the Panzer IV tank- when it was introduced it was revolutionary, however years of constant use and upgrades have taxed the chassis to it's absolute maximum, causing it to become unreliable and unsuited for the roles it had found itself in.
Ironically, those were more or less the reasons why the HMMWV was developed in the first place, as over 25 years of constant use as well as shifting doctrine had degraded the Jeep's ability to be relevant on the modern battlefield of the 1980s
IEDs. The answer to almost any "why don't we [x] anymore?" question is IEDs.
why don't I have a girlfriend anymore?
fuck off man reatrd
She should have watched where she stepped
Bullshit. Humvee has a thin stamped flat sheet metal floor like a car. They kill everyone inside when they roll over an explosive because of this.
The entire reason why the MRAP was developed was so the US military would have a vehicle that didn’t peel open like a tin can when hit from below by an explosion. The V shaped hull bottom on the MRAP deflects blasts. The flat humvee eats them and sends it right into the crew.
The Jeep was no better in this regard.
oooh that shit looks heavy
Simple new vehicle for squad level, back to basics.
Oh shit there are some of those on base here, I thought they were a foreign military's since normally everyone rides in Humvees and shit.
SOF and Airborne fielding first.
So are Humvees. They were meant for rear echelon movement
New warfare means new tech. One of these jeeps would disintegrate if hit by an Iraqi IED
Big military-industrial complex money too
As Lasalle would've said
Any hussar who lives to be 30 is a wanker
mrzr would be more apt. In SOCOM GMV role that vehicle is north of 200.000 I'd be surprised they serial produce it for less than 80k in AGMV.