>have perfectly good humvees >need to spend more taxpayer

>>32356384
>humvees
>perfectly good
pick one and only one

>>32356393
This. Hummers were just enlarged jeeps. No protection of any kind.

>>32356393
I came here to post this.

>>32356384
Humvees are entirely inadequate as anything but utility and light recon. They absolutely suck for modern warfare. The 1114 and 1151 armor kits were totally inadequate shit.

MRAP type vehicles were a big improvement. The new JLTV is supposed to be a streamlined standardization of the hodgepodge of armored vehicles currently fielded.

>>32356393
This, OP is a muppet.

File: ad.jpg (76KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 600x450px

>>32356384
That top turret cover thing looks like a bloated mess, just stick an RWS on and be done with it already.

>>32356541
This is the exact turret setup that has been used across vehicles for close to a decade now. It works. We had a whole CROWS vs turret thread yesterday. CROWS stuff has some advantages, but you start getting diminishing returns when you put it on more than a few trucks in an element.

>>32356565
>CROWS stuff has some advantages, but you start getting diminishing returns when you put it on more than a few trucks in an element.
Stop using VGA video format in RWS then come back. FFS iPhone and iPod are light years ahead of military technology.

>>32356688
Can't see shit with CROWS. Situational awareness isn't exactly amazing when looking through cameras.

>>32356688
They use thermals, which can be a great situational advantage. But diminishing returns, not every vehicle needs a thermal turret.

They have a lot of disadvantages relating to the weapons themselves. And current manned turrets are pretty well designed. The only good argument against them is "they look bulky!!!!" based on photos on an image board.

File: 1481866280919.jpg (114KB, 947x1080px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 947x1080px

>>32356697
>this

>>32356697
>Situational awareness isn't exactly amazing when looking through cameras
>install single potato camera and a single potato screen in his potato military vehicle
>i can't see shit, whaaaa whaaaaa!

>>32356714
>The only good argument against them is "they look bulky!!!!" based on photos on an image board.
>juba sniper compilation.mp4

>>32356738
Come back when you've got a ~180 degree, fast swiveling camera system that can take cover to avoid fragmentations.

>>32356748
Modern turrets have armor all around them minus a bit between the gunner shield and body of the turret.

Chances of small arms actually killing a gunner is pretty low. In practical terms, armor penetrating weapons would be required for consistent kills. And those same weapons would have about the same chance of going through the hull, so the protection level is kinda even no matter if the gunner is in a turret or inside with CROWS.

CROWS are great for giving thermal scanning capability, recording, and initial fire accuracy for opening shots. Lot of disadvantages in pitched shooting.

>>32356762
>using swiveling camera when panoramic cameras exist

>that can take cover to avoid fragmentation
>implying human gunner can dodge supersonic fragments
>implying sights can't have armored covers

File: aaok.jpg (66KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 450x600px

>>32356805
this desu

>>32356805
>using swiveling camera when panoramic cameras exist
That give you a 360x360 degree vision of all directions?
>implying human gunner can dodge supersonic fragments
No, but when he hears the whistling or gets shot at, he can duck and avoid fire. How resistant are CROWS to direct and indirect fire?

>>32356852
More than a meatbag

>>32356876
Which is why the meatbag has armour around him and can get inside the vehicle itself.

>have perfectly good humvees
Good for nothing except Cold War utility missions in friendly countries. What the FUCK do you think is "good" about a delicate light truck that can't survive urban combat and is rendered dangerous to drive by uparmor kits?

>need to spend more taxpayer money
HMMWVs were totally inadequate against command detonated mines (referred to as IEDs so the Army don't look stupid for ignoring a threat they encountered in Viet Nam), RPGs and barely protective against small arms with an uparmor kit. How stupid are you? Stupid enough to think everything with wheels is interchangeable? Evidently...

>make MRAPs
Which are highly successful compared to HMMWV. MRAPs are "constabulary mission" vehicles. MRAP are not expeditionary because they have high ground pressure. They are however excellent for driving on mined roads. US logistics is essentially roadbound so it requires protection, and urban policing required suitable armored trucks.

>need to spend still more taxpayer money
MRAP are not expeditionary. We'll assume you are too lazy to get the distinction.
>make JLTV
Which is not an MRAP and is much better off-road. All the roadbound solutions for Iraq and A-stan are specific to occupations in permissive environments.

The Army lightfighter leadership despises treadheads (I've been involved with some procurement programs and the politics is nasty) so preference is given to wheeled constabulary vehicles because we don't expect to fight nation-state wars any more (not my idea).

Short version: HMMWV is a suicide machine in combat, and can't into cross-country if uparmored. It's as obsolete as a fucking WWII Jeep. MRAP is a police truck family of vehicles just like their South African/Rhodesian ancestors. MRAP are tall targets which cannot maneuver off-road except in ideal ground. Army wants a smallish truck so JLTV is what they ordered.

I don't consider JLTV very good but its predecessors are so bad they are dangerous in an expeditonary environment.

>>32357065
Decent post. Mostly on point.

> inadequate against command detonated mines (referred to as IEDs so the Army don't look stupid for ignoring a threat they encountered in Viet Nam

This is a weird tangent. IEDs and command detonated mines have a reason for being distinct. Within IED classification, there are a ton of subclassifications and the distinctions are important for combat.

The only other main problem with the post, is thinking that "MRAP" is a single vehicle designation, when the monikor has evolved to cover a wide range. A Buffalo and a MaxxPro have widely different offroading abilities, protection, and maneuverability, both can casually be called "MRAPs" though. It is essentially just a classification which encompasses a wide variety of different vehicles. A JLTV very squarely falls into the company of modern MRAPs. It shares a lot of similarities with the current lighter vehicles like MaxxPro and MATVs. It is supposed to be a more comprehensive and standardize solution which includes improvements from both those vehicles and retains the offroading of something like the MATV (or even better the SF MATV kit).

>>32356384
>humvees
>good

What the fuck are you smoking?

Not to disagree with the gist of this thread, but just popping into say to all the "humvees suck" posts, that humvees are great for certain things. They just suck for the role they got shoehorned into.

Take a humvee configured as it was intended and strip off all the armor and the doors and you've got a pretty nice offroading vehicle to run long distance mounted missions out of. Once you start running it at 2mph down a city street full of IEDs of course it sucks and you end up needing a new kind of truck.

File: baldeaglelaugh.jpg (15KB, 374x378px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 374x378px

>>32356393
fpbp

>>32356384
We had humvees since the 80's they were never armored cars, they were just a jeep replacement which is basically just a military car.

You could argue about the effectiveness of the MRAP, but it's supposed to be an armored truck...

I assume jltv is supposed to be a hybrid general purpose car with armor.

File: boxart.jpg (420KB, 1280x908px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1280x908px

>>32357705
It's functionally filling the same role as the existing MATV, which is a currently fielded armored vehicle.

Different manufacturer and some extra features, but it's not a huge leap away from what is already in the field.

File: Hawkei-vehicle.jpg (365KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 1920x1080px

>Not buying Hawkeis
Top kek retards

File: Hawkei 1.jpg (505KB, 2250x1015px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 2250x1015px

>>32358070

File: Joint-Light-Tactical-Vehicle-JLTV-oshkosh-program-demo.jpg (365KB, 1920x1108px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 1920x1108px

>>32358070
Hawkei is just a bootleg MATV that's been stepped on
The JTLV is an evolution of the MATV that is shorter and less prone to roll overs

>>32358070
>>32358078
i was gonna give you shit for not v-hull but then I looked it up and it apparently has one.
carry on.

>>32356384
>what fucking purpose does this serve besides spending taxpayer money?

You're acting as if this isn't the only reason.
Protip, that's the ONLY reason.

>>32357746
>different manufacturer
nope, they're both made by Oshkosh

>>32357746
The JLTV is a smaller, less roll over MATV. Both are Oshkosh products.

And the extra features may "already be in use," but this us a vehicle actually designed to use them. Compared to you average HMMWV which has everything just bolted in and you can't move.

File: 1385616740357.jpg (416KB, 1600x1043px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1600x1043px

>The MRAP concept gets heavier and heavier until we get APCs

File: Juba.jpg (50KB, 328x778px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 328x778px

>>32356748
Did somebody say Juba?

>>32356393
This, my unit still only has humvees and they are shit. Always breaking and leaking shit everywhere

>>32356384
>humvees
>perfectly good

I thought those were being blasted to shreds by even small shitty IEDs and small arms fire?

MRAPs were okay though, right?

>>32360597

MRAPs have excelled in their primary intended role. They have managed to reduce fatalities and injuries from IED attacks and their presence on the road has been said to deter further IED attacks due to the fact that insurgents are aware that their smaller IEDs that were able to penetrate Humvees cannot put a dent into MRAP armor. This means insurgents are forced to use much, much larger explosives which requires more resources, are riskier to build and plant, and are easier to be spotted and disposed of by EOD and patrol teams to achieve a lesser result, because it has been shown that even in the event of a penetrating hit on an MRAP, casualties will be fewer and less severe than in a Humvee.

People have criticized the MRAP because they say that the MRAP was introduced as IED attacks were declining, but there is a prevailing theory that IED attacks were declining BECAUSE more MRAPs were being deployed, as the units IED attacks were dropping against were specifically the units that were being issued MRAPs.

If you think Humvees are perfectly good your only experience with them was probably call of duty. Humvees are fucking garbage. I work in an infantry battalion right now. We are lucky to have 2/3 of the trucks in any form of an operational status at any given time. Plus the Humvee was never designed to travel with armor or other expected "amenities" that it has today, resulting in numerous problems for it. The Humvee is a dated design and needs a replacement.

The MRAP was a stopgap solution to the problem with IEDs while an alternative was found for the future, it was never intended to become a replacement of Humvees everywhere. It was no were near modular, and with its drastically increased size and weight it is unable to do everything the humvee was expected to do. This is all fine and dandy when your enemies are fucking farmers with rusy AK's and IEDs, but when you need variants ranging from High Backs to TOW vics, the MRAP was not going to be a viable replacement.

The JLTV is inspired from the MRAP insofar as it was designed with Armor and survivability from IEDs in mind, while still being modular and fulfill many of the same functions the Humvee was intended to perform.

>>32356384
On unrelated note, while the need of streamlining things because of logistics is all fine and well, it'll lead to too much compromise

I'd rather if they maintain them humvee fleet (with some modification like added protection against armor), and getting smaller amount of light armored vehicle like Otokar Cobra or Mowag Eagle.

But fuck it, the US spends like 2 trillion bucks per year to spend on military. Common sense is unnecessary if the military had that kind of money

File: latv.jpg (519KB, 1800x959px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 1800x959px

Take a uparmored Humvee but make it actually be able to handle the weight of its armor, give it IED protection on par with an MRAP and excellent offroad ability and you have a JLTV.

>>32361334
>compromise is bad but I can't specify the compromise
>keep using Humvees and buy limited numbers of inferior vehicles

idiot

File: 1455852866813.png (75KB, 768x453px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 768x453px

>>32361334

>>32361217

Well the MRAP is the best for what it's meant for, which is patrolling mostly permissive areas with roads and the main threat being IEDs, mines, and small arms ambushes.

The MRAP being pushed into a role of Humvee replacement off road is where we see it fail, because it is too tall, big, and heavy to perform those cross-country operations.

MRAPs for cities and roadways and JLTVs for cross-country and off road operations is going to be the best possible outcome, and that is EXACTLY what future Army doctrine is beginning to look like.

>>32361420
She's pretty

How long until civvies can buy them?

File: 1304dp-01%2Bapril-2013-military-power-am-general-brv-o%2Bfront-three-quarter.jpg (385KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1600x1200px

>>32361442
How the hell did AM General and LockMart fuck up that hard

>>32361916

Oshkosh was the designer and manufacturer of the MRAP, and therefore was technologically ahead of the competition.

Moreover, LM and AM Gen expected Oshkosh to secure the contract, and didn't put any R&D or any real effort into trying to win the contract, they basically made a knockoff uparmored Humvee out of existing parts and threw it into the competition.

Oshkosh WANTED that contract, and the R&D had already been done in the form of the MRAP work.

Similar to how AOC just submitted a Thompson SMG rechambered for .30 Carbine for the M1 Carbine competition. They didn't expect to win, but it cost almost nothing to make and submit, and on the off chance they did win the contract, it would make them plenty of money.

Also, the more competition in the contract bidding phase, the more bargaining power the government has in negotiating a per vehicle cost.

>>32356384
>why can't we just keep using the same vehicles forever?
I want you to think about that sentence for ten seconds, just so you realise how stupid you sound.

File: 89[1].jpg (237KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 800x600px

>Humvees and MRAPs
>Not Hawkeis and Bushmasters

Will Americans ever learn?

>>32359024
How exactly is the JLTV better than the Hawkei?

>>32356384
MRaps were better and more armored. Had a tendency to tumble tho. Then we had MCats. Now I'm such an oldfag I dunno what this new stuff is exactly.

>>32356805
Panaramic camreas suck dick for resolution and situational awareness. Its not like you can give the gunner a 50'' flat screen.

What you MEAN to say is a DAS system with a helmat for the gunner, but thats expensive 4 u.

i'd like some IED proof willies jeeps

>>32362265

Not him, but the Hawkei was specifically designed to be a lightly armed and armored patrol and recon vehicle. It is *great* at this role, and the Aussies I'm sure can put it to fantastic use in the field, I don't doubt this.

The JLTV is an entire program that wants to field a family of vehicles ranging from light patrol and troop transport, to mobile fire support, ambulance, command and control, and armament transport.

They fill different roles.

>>32362315
Righto, fair enough.
In Aus we've got the Bushmaster for our troop transports, ambulances etc.

Are they going to try and keep all of the JLTV variants heli-transportable, or just the recon/patrol ones?

>>32362182
>>32362265

JLTV has bigger engine, can carry and tow more, goes slightly faster, can use 30mm RWS, all the way down to 5.56.

>>32362328

I believe they're going to all be airdroppable, I'm not sure though, things change.

I assume they will be though, because right now HMMWV variants with TOWs and such are airdroppable, and if the JLTV-AT variant isn't it would leave a capability gap.

File: RG1[1].jpg (75KB, 658x439px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 658x439px

>>32362344
>tfw Americans will never understand Australians' love for turbocharged straight-6 engines

>>32362352
The weight is a huge deal though.

The only way they could get it working on the Hawkei was to have a removable B-level armour that you transport separately and attach on site.

If you're adding much more in terms of weapons or equipment they might have to F-35 it by saying that "It was only ever meant for C-130s, not helicopters"

>>32362367

That's what kinda worries me, it is possible that 2 Chinooks could carry the package, one with the armor kit and doors and the other with the JLTV TOW variant. Not sure though.

>>32362387
I don't know anything about the JLTV, but the wiki page says it's already got two armour configurations.

Doesn't that mean that's what they're doing already? Transporting the B-level armour separately to the rest of the truck?

>>32362356
Not going to lie, i dont understand either, but them be the facts.

The hawkais goes farther, and is lighter.

>>32362393

You're right, but I'm not sure if the armor configuration is a package to bolt on or what, honestly. I mean, I'm sure you can add and remove armor from it, but I don't know of you're going to be able to do it in the field or if you need a motor pool to do it.

If you do require more than a few mechanics and power tools, I'd assume the light armor variant would be airdroppable with a TOW launcher on it.

>>32362328

Okay, so Cat C GP loadout is a 2 seat armored vehicle that can be airdropped, it is a 2 seater to save weight and be airdropped with mission packages like ATGMs, MANPADS, or HMGs.

>>32362433
>2 seat
That sounds pretty useless, but I'm sure it makes sense somehow.

>>32356852
>That give you a 360x360 degree vision of all directions?
They now have spherical cameras, The only blind spot is when you get very close (about a foot away) from them.

>>32362436

That's the one specifically designed to have TOWs and MANPADS, there is a Cat C troop carrier that has 6 seats and is airdroppable.

>>32362436
Imagine a pickup truck.

Guys can still pile in if they have to.

File: shamumoon.jpg (18KB, 89x131px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 89x131px

>>32362457
>Mrap
>Pickup

Muh dick

>>32356393
this

File: Subaru Brat.jpg (184KB, 580x375px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 580x375px

>>32362457
Armoured Brat.

Make it happen.

File: tmp_13233-jltv-utl225885068.jpg (94KB, 450x233px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 450x233px

>>32362462
>>32362472

4 ur diks pleasure.

>>32356565
What are the returns+isadvantages, and what's the TLDR of the thread? I didn't see it.

File: Hawkei ute.jpg (70KB, 636x358px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 636x358px

>>32362479

>>32362488
>flatbed

Into the trash.

>>32362488
hows that better than a HMMV?

>>32362511
>Has armour
>Doesn't break constantly

>>32356384

That's how you keep an industry alive mate. Those are just hidden subsidies to the arms industry.

>>32362692
>implying the JLTV is not the best light combat truck in the world.

File: homemade guns 1.jpg (103KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 600x450px

>>32362692
guns is just as good as butter

and

its only pork when its not your district

picture unrelated to post content

>>32356852
>wahhh low visibility
>better create a manned turret with fucking tiny windows so your slaves will die without knowing what hit them :^)
>not equipping your MRAP with automatic turrets with 360 degree heat/color camera with ultra high resolution and viewed via VR helmet
>claiming to have the most advanced military on earth

lmao at your ass murrikan, your shart is showing off

>>32361420
>le designer windows

Its shit.

>>32362831
Well thats not the JLTV...

>>32362344
literally no reason why a 30mm RWS can't be bolted to the roof or back. also, made by ausfags so it's undeadable

>>32356384
Justifies the defense budget. If they don't spend it they don't get it next year.

>>32362852
>literally no reason why a 30mm RWS can't be bolted to the roof or back.

Plenty of reasons. Roof cant support the weight, mounting brackets cant support the weight+recoil, lack of onboard power for both the RWS and the heavy stabilizing system...

The fact is, as far as i know it has not shown the capability.

File: cobra.jpg (102KB, 600x376px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 600x376px

seems like a Turkish Kobra would have been a wiser choice or even just using an LAV.

>>32362952
JLTV is still more powerful, more powerful weapons, and going by the program requirements have more armor.

>>32362952
That's one ugly vehicle

>>32362308
Helmet displays suck dick for resolution you wanted to say.

>>32363161
F-35 Disagrees with your assessment.

>>32362485
+ It gives you thermal optics and zoom-in/out camera on your mg. That's useful for engagements and reconnaissance.
+ It provides better protection to the gunner.
- It limits you field of view and your situational awareness.
- It takes a lot of space inside the vehicle.
- It makes it much harder to deal with any jam or malfunction.
- It requires additional maintenance.
~ Armored vehicles, and their modern gunner nests, are so well armored that their main concern is armor penetrating damage, which the RCW gunner is still susceptible to- making the added protection that the system promises into not such a huge deal (still safer on the inside though).

>>32362952
Limited storage, poor visibility... hungry hungry engine.

Even the Nigerians, with their massive scarcity of LAV's, stopped using it in their COIN operations

>>32360392
>nasheed slowly fades in

>>32357525
>This is a weird tangent. IEDs and command detonated mines have a reason for being distinct. Within IED classification, there are a ton of subclassifications and the distinctions are important for combat.

That is true but has little to do with Army spin doctoring failure to prepare for an easily anticipated threat which had previously been dealt with in combat.

The Army shitcanned all gun trucks but the one at Ft. Eustis museum and had to be pressured by Congress (Duncan Hunter in particular) into fielding MRAPs after the hillbilly armor debacle. That was before later advanced "IEDs" were a thing.

Lightfighter "we don't need armor" faggotry squandered many soldier lives despite command detonated mines/IEDs being a very old idea. Congress had to pressure the USMC to buy MRAPs because they were holding out for more (unspecified) "expeditionary" vehicles to use in a different war than they were fighting.

Interesting OT trivia is MRAPs were a highly successful case of Congressional earmarking overcoming military resistance to procurement. Also interesting is Force Protection are famous for efficient downsizing after MRAP demand declined. They anticipated market shrinkage brilliantly.

>>32362150
>Oshkosh was the designer and manufacturer of the MRAP, and therefore was technologically ahead of the competition.

Not the original MRAPs which were Force Protection products. Oshkosh has a long history of outstanding trucks so no surprise they do well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP#U.S._MRAP_initiative

>i'd like some IED proof willies jeeps

You can't protect a Jeep-sized vehicle effectively from IEDs. Even with perfect armor they are too small and light. Jeep is tiny and a shit form factor for a combat vehicle. It was good in WWII but everything from WWII except a few small arms is primitive junk by modern standards.

>>32362396
But offers less payload and less protection.

Different roles.

>>32362517
>armor is worthless against anything bigger than AK's
>I'd hope it doesn't break constantly, it's only a year and a half old instead of 33 years old

File: 772.jpg (42KB, 800x587px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 800x587px

>>32356384
>have perfectly good humvees

I want to have you drawn and quartered with four humvees for typing that.

>>32356393
Idk if it's the sole purpose for the switch but the JLTV is world's above the Humvee in terms of off-road capabilities.
I worked for a company that tests military equipment and vehicles and was stuck on the JLTV for about 6 months during the testing.
I got to ride in one on some of the courses and they can haul ass through terrain that a Humvee just couldn't get accross.
The air bag suspension is impressive to say the least. Felt like a rollercoaster.

>>32362495
That's one of like 10 configurations.

>>32356384
More like this OP
>have humvees
>humvees built for rear echelon shit and some scouting
>humvees used in combat in Somali due to the Americans not having heavy vehicle assets cuz "LOL PEACEKEEPING MISSION"
>isn't ideal but does the job against hordes of skinnies
>Iraq War II
>humvees used for combat and patrol again
>humvees get BTFO by IEDs
>administration is humiliated
>spends money to uparmor humvees
>works in some cases but humvees are still getting BTFO by IEDs
>administration still looks like fuckups
>starts looking into MRAPs
>none of the MRAPs on the market are being made in enough numbers to completely replace the humvees with one vehicle
>solution: BUY ALL THE FUCKING MRAPS
>soldiers have MRAPs
>only way to defeat the MRAPs is with bigger IEDs (more of a resource drain) or EFPs (more complicated to make and use
>MRAPs get BTFO at a far less rate than humvees
>MRAPs are cumbersome and maintaining several different vehicle types at a time is more expensive in the long run.
>humvees are 30+ years old anyways
>make JLTV

>>32366218
You missed out the "MRAPs aren't modular and utility enough" part.

>>32356384
>>have perfectly good humvees
The fate of OP and thread in one line.

>>32356384
>have perfectly good hmmwvs

LOLOLOLOLOLOL
The machine itself isn't bad, it's the constant new armor upgrades we've made without refitting the suspension system (now fixed, took forever at the expense of literally every other part). Must importantly is the armor addition and lack of upgraded engine. You can't expect to add over 800lbs of armor and the engine to work the same. Especially to the very top of it making it into a top heavy animal that's still just as vulnerable to ieds.

>>32356384
It's like you don't know that wars and the military are just vehicles for people to make money.

>>32364625
>That is true but has little to do with Army spin doctoring failure to prepare for an easily anticipated threat which had previously been dealt with in combat.

Just pointing out that your first post seemed to imply that "IED" was some kind of bullshit term invented recently. IEDs and command detonated mines are different things, and the appearance of one or the other has different implications.

I agree with the overall point of:
>an easily anticipated threat which had previously been dealt with in combat.

I'll additionally point out that "IED" is a very old term and that we have been dealing with them for a long time, including in Vietnam, making them anticipable.


>Lightfighter "we don't need armor" faggotry squandered many soldier lives despite command detonated mines/IEDs being a very old idea. Congress had to pressure the USMC to buy MRAPs because they were holding out for more (unspecified) "expeditionary" vehicles to use in a different war than they were fighting.

Agree with all of this. In addition to the 1980s light fighting mentality of a lot of planners is the total and complete lack of preparation for an insurgency in Iraq beforehand. So, even when it became clear to everybody that heavier trucks needed to be fielded, they were doing it in the midst of combat operations rather than a peacetime equipment transition, making things more of a mess.

>>32366597
No matter how much armor you slap on the sides of a humvee, the bottom is still incredibly vulnerable as well.

File: A_Jackal_Armoured_Vehicle_is_put_through_it's_paces_in_the_desert_at_Camp_Bastion,_Afghanistan_MOD_45148137.jpg (214KB, 858x570px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 858x570px

Gotta say, having trained on CVR(T) (britfag army), and then used the Snatch wagons in Iraq, before progressing on to the Jackal in Afghan, the Jackal is by far the single best all-terrain vehicle I've ever used. In combat, yeah, it gets spicy due to lack of top cover protection, but maneuverability and a good driver means you shouldn't be a sitting duck.

Top cover choice of weapons were superb as well. GMPG, twin GMPG, HMG and GMG. When you had 40 of these fuckers making up a squadron in Afghan, and you broke off into your Troops under contact which then broke off into their sections, the enemy just didn't know what the fuck was going on save for the fact they were very quickly surrounded and smashed with a massive rate of fire.

>>32365010
The big difference is the mine protection.

Hawkeis and LMTVs will protect you in a mine blast, a humvee won't.

>>32366714
>tfw you're us army and despite multiple liazons with foreign military you still find British and Australian vernacular hilarious
>tfw you've never described your combat experiences as spicy

Literally the next time it's happening.

>>32363197
The F35's helmet costs $150,000

>>32366218
>>humvees used in combat in Somali due to the Americans not having heavy vehicle assets cuz "LOL PEACEKEEPING MISSION"
>>isn't ideal but does the job against hordes of skinnies

Except it didn't do the job and US forces had to be rescued by Pakistani M48 tanks and Malaysian Condor APCs. Sending unarmored light junk trucks into urban combat should have gotten someone a court martial for gross incompetence.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB63/doc10.pdf

US military leadership confirmed spineless pieces of grabasstic shit for not demanding tracks. There has only been one US officer in living memory with the balls to tube his career over a misfought war, and that was (pre-senile on CNN version) David Hackworth.

>>32366597
>The machine itself isn't bad,

Yes, it is bad, because it's not a monocoque armored hull, because it is essentially a pickup truck in drage instead of having a medium duty drivetrain like MRAP, and because the delicate design works against effective upgrades. HMMWV is extra-tippy because of the light truck suspension design.

>>32366714
Jackal appears wisely designed, with an intelligently low CG and without a crippling excess of armor.

How well do they do on wet, soft ground?