Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

As Clearly revealed by stats, the Humvee was never intended to

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:38 PM
Original message
As Clearly revealed by stats, the Humvee was never intended to
sustain hits like armored vehicles ...they are bigger jeeps is all.

My question::: Knowing everytime one of these babies go out, there is a good chance it don't come back with the driver/passengers alive.

So why allow them Hummers to go out in the first place...where are the Bradlies, tanks, etc. ????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why allow them to go out in the first place?
MONEY.

Your Military/Industrial complex at work for ... stockholders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Sooner or later, one of the Stockholders gonna recieve word
from the Officer at the DOOR....with white gloves and a Death Notice.

What good is the money when son or daughter is maimed/killed for shit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. No, ophihimoirmoi, such people don't send their own children
to fight.

Now more than ever: it's a rich man's war, a poor man's fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I suppose you are right....send in the Troops to die time..Pawns they are
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. And it's damn sad, isn't it? God, how I hate these people! NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. There will be a day ....when its them that pay a price.....In the ole days
it was their heads....nowadays...they just eat CROW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. Which one of bushies supporters/friends sell them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I got no idea...all I can see are needless deaths/injuries.
Its like them ole Generals that kept sending wave after wave of them boys to take yonder hill...only to be repulsed by that new fangled gun up there that spits bullets 300 rounds per minute.

"Sooner or later they gonna run outta bullets"

"Send the next Company"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemonFighterLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. The original metal on them was like a pop can
before up armoring. The old Jeeps probably wouldn't do much better with IED's, but were thicker.
The armored personnel carriers were being retired, just when the Hummers came around.
Fun to drive I suppose, but deathtraps. Definitely a screwup by the military industrial complex who right now don't seem to care.
:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Big bucks making them "SAFER"...on our dime too. What a Blunder...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemonFighterLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. That is costing us some big bucks
and many lives. I often wonder how many hummers have blown up and needed to be replaced? We have some terrible leaders in the pentagon right now and of course the whole junta at large.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fiveleafclover Donating Member (382 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
9. Product placement
Like in the movies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
10. re Bradley Fighting Vehicle (United Defense Industries)
says on the Carlyle Group site:

"Carlyle completely exited this investment in April 2004."

http://www.thecarlylegroup.com/eng/industry/casestudy-776.html


US: Pentagon Shapes Three Firms' Profits

by Renae Merle, Washington Post
January 28th, 2004


Defense giants Lockheed Martin Corp. and Raytheon Co. both swung to a profit in the fourth quarter as the Pentagon's determination to transform the military boosted sales of their high-tech programs.

United Defense Industries Inc. reported that its earnings declined in the quarter as the Pentagon moved away from the company's Bradley Fighting Vehicle in favor of lighter, more agile vehicles.

~snip~

Arlington-based United Defense reported net income of $28.8 million in the quarter (54 cents), down 33 percent from $43.2 million (82 cents), as demand slowed for one of its core products, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Revenue remained relatively flat at $524 million compared with $521 million.

Revenue in the Bradley vehicle unit fell 50 percent, to $35 million in the quarter from $70 million a year earlier. United Defense said the decline was expected and reflected a delay in expected orders.

"The trend is definitely away from the big heavy Army vehicles of the past," said Paul Nisbet, defense analyst for JSA Research.

~snip~

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7852

correlation?

:shrug:


"And Carlyle's timing was impeccable."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/01.11F.Arms.Carlyle.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Amazing timeing..... sad for the Troops....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
11. Do you know how long a Track on a Bradley or Abrams lasts?
Edited on Sun Oct-02-05 10:33 PM by happyslug
About 2000 miles, that its. At about 2000 miles the tracks have to be replaced. On a Hummer the wheels can last 50,000 miles (and will last at least 20,000 miles). Thus the Hummer WHEELS can travel 10 times the distance of a TRACKs before the wheel have to be replaced.

If we look at fuel economy, a Humvee gets about 14mpg. Please note all Mileage in this thread is based on dividing the "range" of a Vehicle by its fuel capacity. The EPA does actual tests but not on these vehicles. For comparison a Chevrolet truck with the same engine and transmission as a HUMVEE gets an EPA 9 highway, 12 city, most people get less. The numbers used here are for comparison purposes only but once you realized that ALL of the numbers are inflated about 50% the problem is WORSE than it appears just looking at these numbers.

The M113 gets about 2mpg, the M2 Bradley get less than 1.5 mpg, the M1 gets about 1.9 gallons to the mile (Notice I said Gallons to mile, NOT Miles per Gallon, the M1A2's MPG is less than .5 i.e. it uses 1 gallon of fuel for every 1/2 mile it travels).

Thus if you replace 100 Humvees with 100 M113s you have to increase the fuel allotment by a factor of SEVEN (i.e. since each Humvee has a 25 gallon gasoline tank, 100 Humvees means 2500 gallons of fuel). If you want M113s to do the same job as the Humvees you need 17,500 gallons of fuel (Or 15,000 more gallons of fuel than is being used when you filled the Humvees). Now one Tractor-Tanker can carry 15,000 gallons thus for each 100 Humvees you replace with M113s you also need an additional Tractor-Tanker just ot fill up the 100 M113s over what it took to fill up the Humvees. It gets worse if you use M2 Bradley for the factor there is 9.3 (or 23,250 Gallons of Fuel or 1 1/2 Tractor-Tankers of Fuel). For the M1 tank the factor is 28, or 70,000 gallons of Fuel or 4.6 additional factor-trailers of fuel.

Now lets look at maintenance and support. The Typical Army recovery vehicle (i.e Wrecker) is a 5 ton truck. It has more than sufficient power to pullout of any situation any vehicle 5 tons or lighter (10 tons with help from another 5 ton truck). The problem is the M113 is 13 tons, beyond the capacity of the 5 ton Wrecker. Thus you have to go to a heaver line of Wrecker and that is generally tracked (i.e. the M88). Like the M113, M2 and M1, the M88 eats fuel way more than the 5 ton Wrecker. Being tracked it has increased maintenance requirements, but if you go to the M2 Bradley or M1 Tank you MUST go with the M88. Now the M113 can be hauled by smaller wreckers but takes a good bit of work to get the five ton to do the job, thus you end up using the M88 on the M113 (Please note the M88 is considered marginal for the M1 tank, the M88 Series is based on the old M48 Patton Series of Tanks, most of the problems of the M88s have been solve with the Introduction of the M88A2 series).

Thus if you look at the numbers you see that switching from Humvees to Armored Vehicles increases the Fuel usage by a factor of a least ten (7 for use by the M113s and 3 for additional fuel for the Tractor-Tankers hauling the fuel AND increase usage by the Maintenance section when switched to M88s from five ton Wreckers). My guess, and that all it can be for I have NO information on present fuel usage, you can increase that number by a factor of 20 (i.e. 20 times the fuel being used TODAY). The above explains why the US has NOT shipped M113s to replace the Humvees, even up-armoring the Humvees is cheaper than giving the Troops the Armor they need to truly withstand what the Iraqis are throwing at them. Up-armored Humvees will use more fuel, wear out parts quicker and need replacing soon, but that is cheaper than upgrading the units to M113s, given the additional fuel costs, the additional upgrade in support units (i.e. the M88s) and the additional costs of replacing tracks every 2000 miles instead of tires at 20,000 miles (and remember the replacement tracks has to be hauled to the front by additional tractor-trailers given the situation in Iraq).

Specs on M113:
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm

Specs on the M2 Bradley (25 tons, 300 mile range):
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2.htm
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m2bradley.html

Specs on M1 Tank (M1A2, 265 mile range, 69.4 tons, M1A1 63 tons, 275 mile Range):
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/specs.html
http://afvid.topcities.com/specs/M-P/m1a1.html (505.3 Gallons of Fuel)

Humvee Specs:
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m998.htm

EPA Mileage Estimates:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byclass.htm

Heil Fuel Hauling Tankers:
http://www.heiltrailer.com/catalog_liquidPetroleum.aspx

The M88:
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m88a1e1.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Save Gas...lose lives....maybe its time to come home...we save more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. The above is why the professionals in the Pentagon...
Did not want the Iraqi War. It generally takes you twice the number of troops to hold something than it took to take it (And you do not take something you can not hold). With the US having such a military edge over Saddam the need for more troops to occupy was clear even before the invasion, but such numbers would have killed the invasion idea so we ended up this this mess, not enough troops to put down the locals, but enough troops to prevent the locals from kicking us out. Sooner or later something has to give, and I fear it will be US ability to supply our troops more than it will be Iraqi willingness to accept US occupation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. The Odds have it with the withdrawal mode...soon we will tire of the cost
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MojoXN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
17. "where are the Bradlies, tanks, etc. ????"
Where's the money?

In Halliburton's pockets. And don't forget about the lack of Reserve an National Guard funding.

Better question, "Where's the body armor?"

MojoXN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Yup, a cluster fuck all the way...and its us that pays the price
Damn....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
21. Hummers are LIGHT UTILITY VEHICLES.
Period.

But then, Our troops are STILL having to BUY THEIR OWN BODY ARMOR.

All freeping MFing rightwingnuts; GO DIE FOR YOUR BUSHGOD'S BULLSHIT you MFing bastards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Amazing this could happen to American Troops.....The Foot Soldier
is last to be concerned with...higher profits in Tanks, Planes, ships, bombs, bullets, rockets, body bags, MREs, weapons, scopes, etc.

But when its time to care for the TROOPs, Bush yanks their bennies... WTF?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC