Armor Holdings Could Boost Humvee Armor Output 22%- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,344

    Armor Holdings Could Boost Humvee Armor Output 22%

    http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...iRg&refer=home

    Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Armor Holdings Inc., the sole supplier of protective plates for the Humvee military vehicles used in Iraq, said it could increase output by as much as 22 percent per month with no investment and is awaiting an order from the Army.

    U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday the Army was working as fast as it can and supply is dictated by ``a matter of physics, not a matter of money.''


    And some of you rubes actually believe Rumsfelds lies. When will you ever learn?

  2. #2
    Trail rider and racer
    Reputation: Trevor!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,691
    I haven't read the article but I get the gist. Isn't the reason why every hummer is not armor protected because they are less agile when they are armored - so although this producer can increase production the U.S Government wont be compelled to equip every vehicle.
    Trev!

  3. #3

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor!
    I haven't read the article but I get the gist. Isn't the reason why every hummer is not armor protected because they are less agile when they are armored - so although this producer can increase production the U.S Government wont be compelled to equip every vehicle.
    No, troops are scavanging landfills to armor their humvees. That right there is indication that the people who are affected most would rather have armor than agility.

  4. #4
    gentle like
    Reputation: kept man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,837
    And from what I've heard, if they wanted agility, they sure as hell wouldn't have replaced all the jeeps with Humvees of all things. Slow, thirsty ... but they're damn cool, ain't they?

  5. #5
    Who are the brain police?
    Reputation: Locoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,111

    The most agile HV can't

    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor!
    I haven't read the article but I get the gist. Isn't the reason why every hummer is not armor protected because they are less agile when they are armored - so although this producer can increase production the U.S Government wont be compelled to equip every vehicle.
    The most agile HV can't outmaneuver a bullet or projectiles from IEDs. So given this, would you rather have the armor or not?

    FYI: Cost is the issue, not maneuverability. http://www.defense-update.com/produc...mer-plasan.htm

    Also, if GIs are digging through the garbage to find armor for their HVs, then I'd say armor is a huge priority for them.
    The Who - Glittering Girl
    Ween - The Grobe
    Yellowman - Strong Me Strong
    all your base are belong to us

  6. #6

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,344
    Quote Originally Posted by kept man
    And from what I've heard, if they wanted agility, they sure as hell wouldn't have replaced all the jeeps with Humvees of all things. Slow, thirsty ... but they're damn cool, ain't they?
    Well agility is relative, and during an invasion the humvee is suited to it's task of operating behind the real armor.

    It is not suited at all for occupation however, as that was never the mission for the humvee, or the entire US military for that matter. And that of course is the real problem.

  7. #7
    gentle like
    Reputation: kept man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,837
    I'm with ya, but I remember there being a bunch of eye rolling when jeeps were being replaced by humvees from at least some military types.

    The problem was exactly what you said ... humvees aren't the real armour, nor was that the place of their predecessor in the lineup. So why replace jeeps with with something as big and slow as humvees? It was a "neither fish nor fowl" kind of problem, from what I heard said: not only are humvees not suited to be armour, but they didn't really bring any real advantages over jeeps to the party. In fact, it was the opposite. So why not replace jeeps with ... newer, perhaps slightly larger jeeps?

  8. #8

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,344
    Ahh I see what you are saying. You've gone way past my knowlege of the humvee and why it was accepted. No doubt if you researched it you'd find a greasy palm at the heart of it.

  9. #9
    gentle like
    Reputation: kept man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,837
    Well, I have a close friend in the Canadian military, who is a bigtime student/study-er of the military in general. Very smart dude, and every once in a while he talks to me about stuff like this, or rifles, or ships ... among his non-military friends, I'm about the only one interested in this stuff. Well, me and Mrs. Kept, actually.

    DWF just said essentially the same thing in a different thread that I just read in here, too ...

    ... and yeah, I bet there's a greasy palm - or two - at work.

  10. #10
    Jm.
    Jm. is offline

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,131
    Quote Originally Posted by kept man
    I'm with ya, but I remember there being a bunch of eye rolling when jeeps were being replaced by humvees from at least some military types.

    The problem was exactly what you said ... humvees aren't the real armour, nor was that the place of their predecessor in the lineup. So why replace jeeps with with something as big and slow as humvees?
    Pure speculation.

    Sorry, but the humvee is very fast and capable off-road. It can take nasty off-road terrain at quite a speed, keep digging in with a fairly advanced 4wd system, and go up and down slopes that the jeep can only dream of. The hummer is a great vehicle in the role it's designed to be used in. Calling it "slow" compared to a jeep shows that one hasn't really driven a humvee hard.

    I have driven a humvee hard. I've gotten "air" in them. They get abused like you wouldn't believe, and come begging back for more.

    If you want to slow it down and dimish it's capabilities, add a few thousand pounds of armor.

  11. #11
    gentle like
    Reputation: kept man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,837
    Fair enough, Jm. While I live just around the corner from a Hummer dealership (oh the irony, when I moved down from Canada), I'll wait for the next "take $5000 off!" coupon before I ask about a test drive.

    Yes, I know it's not the military spec version ...

  12. #12
    Jm.
    Jm. is offline

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,131
    Quote Originally Posted by kept man
    Fair enough, Jm. While I live just around the corner from a Hummer dealership (oh the irony, when I moved down from Canada), I'll wait for the next "take $5000 off!" coupon before I ask about a test drive.

    Yes, I know it's not the military spec version ...
    "real cross country" travel is something most people never know or see. I've done it in armored personell carriers, and even though they only go about 40mph, they will go over stuff at speeds and ways that are simply impossible in any wheeled vehicle. In this same line of thinking a humvee far outclasses pretty much any civilian vehicle, and comparissions to the old "jeep" are just not relevent in any way.

    I've seen both agility and armor/survivabilty. I've been in and seen humvees scurry out of harms way at relatively high speeds, I've also places where a BFV would just smash through trees and over ditches to "safety". They each have their place, advantages and disadvantages.

    If a bunch of enemies have RPGs and your hummer is a hundred meters off-road from a ridgeline that will protect you, that lightweight agility might be what saves your a$$, even with armor an RPG can easily make your vehicle inoperable and "dead". You might have survived the intial hit, but now everyone has their weapons trained on you.

    Anyhow, where does it end? The armored personell carriers I used only claimed to stop .50 cal rounds, and we had to wonder how effective the comparitively soft aluminum of the hull would really stop .50 cal APs. Again, an RPG could easily screw over our vehicle, and possibly the personell inside?

    The solution is easy, give everyone their own personal Abrams tank.

    Otherwise, have a little more faith in military strategy and planning. People didn't just wake up yesterday and decide that a soldier needs 1 M16, 2 canteens, and a bunch of other stuff. They've been trying to balance topics like these for thousands of years. It's not as simple as "give everyone body armor". What about welfare and social security? Can we get away with cutting those to provide the armor necessary? What sacrifices are we going to make to do this? There's a reason we only have a handfull of the F22 Raptor fighter planes. The technology in those things is beyond amazing, the capability far exceeds anything out there, but they cost money and we have to be as efficiant as possible, get the most "bang" for the buck.

  13. #13

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    469

    Agility isn't an issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor!
    I haven't read the article but I get the gist. Isn't the reason why every hummer is not armor protected because they are less agile when they are armored - so although this producer can increase production the U.S Government wont be compelled to equip every vehicle.
    from a story in the AZ Republic.

    The kits that ArmorWorks provides for the military are made of composite ceramic rather than steel, which has been the traditional protective plating for military vehicles since World War I.

    "The steel weighs two-thirds more than our stuff," former U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon, a consultant for ArmorWorks of Tempe said. "It exceeds the payload capacity on the vehicles. The vehicles end up breaking down or losing their maneuverability."

    Unless I'm missing another aspect of the agility excuse, we can scrap (pun intended) it.

  14. #14
    Jm.
    Jm. is offline

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,131
    Quote Originally Posted by PetPervePete
    from a story in the AZ Republic.

    The kits that ArmorWorks provides for the military are made of composite ceramic rather than steel, which has been the traditional protective plating for military vehicles since World War I.

    "The steel weighs two-thirds more than our stuff," former U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon, a consultant for ArmorWorks of Tempe said. "It exceeds the payload capacity on the vehicles. The vehicles end up breaking down or losing their maneuverability."

    Unless I'm missing another aspect of the agility excuse, we can scrap (pun intended) it.
    um, it will still add a lot of weight. It's not like it's weightless or anything. Ceramics weigh less than steel, but take a big slab of ceramic, it's going to weigh quite a bit still. It may have originally been a 2000lb payload truck, and now it's limited to 1000lb, which may or may not be enough in a given situation.

    People probably do not know the scale we are talking about either, armor has to be made in many different configurations for the many different configurations of hummers, and it has to provide protection to the crew, which means many different body panels have to be replaced. Most humvees have canvas type doors and covering, so these all have to be replaced. They might be able to boost production, but the man-effort to install all of this is going to be huge given the number of hummers out there, and again, it still doesn't make it a good idea for all roles of the vehicle.

    It's just not a simple issue, as much as WW or Jubilee want it to be.

  15. #15

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    469
    Quote Originally Posted by Jm.
    um, it will still add a lot of weight. It's not like it's weightless or anything. Ceramics weigh less than steel, but take a big slab of ceramic, it's going to weigh quite a bit still. It may have originally been a 2000lb payload truck, and now it's limited to 1000lb, which may or may not be enough in a given situation.

    People probably do not know the scale we are talking about either, armor has to be made in many different configurations for the many different configurations of hummers, and it has to provide protection to the crew, which means many different body panels have to be replaced. Most humvees have canvas type doors and covering, so these all have to be replaced. They might be able to boost production, but the man-effort to install all of this is going to be huge given the number of hummers out there, and again, it still doesn't make it a good idea for all roles of the vehicle.

    It's just not a simple issue, as much as WW or Jubilee want it to be.
    The body panels and other things do take time, especially if you have to beef up the suspension. But the doors are by far the easiest and fasting component to change. They attached by simple hinges with pins. The Pins are built into the doors. The hinges are built into the body. They don't even lock into place. Gravity keeps them in place. To remove a Humvee door, you simply open the door, and lift it up. No tools, it's a one person, one hand job. If you can remove a pen from a pocket protector, you can remove a Humvee door.
    Right now, mobility isn't an critical issue. We're already there. It's not like we're speeding across thousands of miles of desert trying to head off a retreat. Even then, a heavy vehicle that has to make more refueling stops is ALWAYS more mobile and agile than a vehicle that's either blown up, or has a dead or injurred troop sitting at the wheel.


    Humvee Armor Suppliers Working Around the Clock

    by Joe Pappalardo, National Defense Magazine

    The now familiar sight of Humvees struck by mines and roadside bombs in Iraq are driving the industry to pursue short-term fixes and long-range changes in the way they produce vehicles.

    The attacks prompted a frantic effort to send armor kits to Iraq and purchase up-armored versions of the Humvees, which were not designed for frontline combat. They were introduced in the 1980s as a replacement for Jeeps.

    In April 2004, Maj. Gen. John Sattler, Director of Operations for CENTCOM, said that their initial request for up-armored Humvees hovered at 1,000 vehicles. “As the enemy changed his tactics and techniques, we upped that number where we have now in theater about 2,500 up-armored Humvees,” he said during a press conference. “There are additional up-armored Humvees on contract that will flow in, approximately another 2,000 that will flow in between now and in December. So at that point, we’ll have approximately 4,500.”

    He added that commanders on the ground asked for more help, quicker, so the production rate has increased. In addition, the Pentagon purchased and installed 8,000 up-armored kits to protect windshields and doors.

    “It’s not a matter of resources, it’s a matter of how fast can we build these things and get them over here,” Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs, said during a May visit to Iraq.

    The Army’s sole contractor for putting the armor plating on the standard Humvee chassis, Armor Holdings Inc., established a new group to respond to military requests.

    In May, Armor Holdings received a $16.6 million contract to supply additional up-armored Humvees through 2004 and into 2005. The company will increase its vehicle production rates to 350 units per month. The award also includes up-armored Humvees for the United States Air Force for delivery in early 2005.

    Another firm, ArmorWorks LLC, is also producing add-on armor kits for Humvees. In 2003, the company sent two engineers on a pilot program to Iraq to train soldiers on how to install armor kits.

    here's another site with info.
    http://www.defense-update.com/produc...e-zeroline.htm

    I still think Rummy is to blame for not planning for worst-case scenerios. I still think he tried to cut costs.

  16. #16
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor!
    I haven't read the article but I get the gist. Isn't the reason why every hummer is not armor protected because they are less agile when they are armored - so although this producer can increase production the U.S Government wont be compelled to equip every vehicle.
    hummer's aren't agile to begin with, but adding a half ton to the curb weight of the vehicle doesn't do its ground pressure or fuel economy any bit of good. A bigger problem is the expense (which is why most hummers weren't armored to begin with), and the fact the armor package still won't stop light anti-tank weapons like RPGs, nor will it do anything for surviving an anti-tank mine. Basically the armor package is good for rifle caliber munitions and shell/grenade fragments. But the road side bombs most insurgents are using are usually anti-tank mines, and/or artillery shells, which have a good deal more explosive content to ruin a hummer's day.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  17. #17
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,886
    Quote Originally Posted by kept man
    I'm with ya, but I remember there being a bunch of eye rolling when jeeps were being replaced by humvees from at least some military types.

    The problem was exactly what you said ... humvees aren't the real armour, nor was that the place of their predecessor in the lineup. So why replace jeeps with with something as big and slow as humvees? It was a "neither fish nor fowl" kind of problem, from what I heard said: not only are humvees not suited to be armour, but they didn't really bring any real advantages over jeeps to the party. In fact, it was the opposite. So why not replace jeeps with ... newer, perhaps slightly larger jeeps?
    Actually the origins for the hummer called for replacing not only all jeep variants but also 1 1/4 ton trucks as I recall (so basically everything smaller than a 2 1/2 deuce).
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  18. #18
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Jm.
    Pure speculation.

    Sorry, but the humvee is very fast and capable off-road. It can take nasty off-road terrain at quite a speed, keep digging in with a fairly advanced 4wd system, and go up and down slopes that the jeep can only dream of. The hummer is a great vehicle in the role it's designed to be used in. Calling it "slow" compared to a jeep shows that one hasn't really driven a humvee hard.

    I have driven a humvee hard. I've gotten "air" in them. They get abused like you wouldn't believe, and come begging back for more.

    If you want to slow it down and dimish it's capabilities, add a few thousand pounds of armor.
    Advanced by regular SUV driving civilian standards maybe, but pretty mediocure by military standards let alone true 4wd standards. If you think jeeps lack in slope handling ability you haven't ever watched jeep development and test footage from the US army. A central tire inflation system btw, is not particularly new or innovative for 4WD vehicles. Its been a mainstay in the military for about five decades now. And yes, they damn well are slow vehicles (both in top speed and acceleration).
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  19. #19
    Jm.
    Jm. is offline

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,131
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    Advanced by regular SUV driving civilian standards maybe, but pretty mediocure by military standards let alone true 4wd standards. If you think jeeps lack in slope handling ability you haven't ever watched jeep development and test footage from the US army. A central tire inflation system btw, is not particularly new or innovative for 4WD vehicles. Its been a mainstay in the military for about five decades now. And yes, they damn well are slow vehicles (both in top speed and acceleration).
    This is exactly the kind of BS that I was thinking about when I made the post.

    A jeep is fun going across the rubicon trail, but going up rocky stuff it has to "crawl", going across obstacles it "crawls". The hummer can be slammed at speed and due to the bigger and wider chassi, it's not going to flip over like a Jeep would.

    And yes, I've been in conditions in hummers where a Jeep would have just fallen over, they both have a fairly low CG (that is if you don't lift the jeep to give it more clearance), but the humvee is much wider, allowing it to handle off-camber slopes in ways the jeep can only dream about.

    Top speed and accelleration on road mean nothing when you are using it truly off-road.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.