posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 09:45 AM
I don't like vehicles that sit high without commensurate width to justify the ground clearance with good lateral stability.
I don't like vehicles which waste armorable cabin space with huge front hood engine enclosure that effectively breaks the armor envelope up into
'grill and driver' vertical segments (though it does add a firewall which increases frame rigidity) and cabin and engine hull widths.
I don't like large glass inserts with support post frames as this too violates the principle of a monolithic structural armor system.
I don't see the need for an open cupola enclosure to break the roof line when a remote weapons pedestal will do the job as a scab mount with minimal
The lights are exposed and, IMO, useless. While most driving should be at night it should also be off the main arteries which presupposes the use of
night vision capable systems. The road driving which does occur should be during 'military only' odd-hours of the day. And after a curfew at
The forward bumper sits too high to support a dozer and it exposes the forward axle and frame to grazing and bounced fire.
I certainly don't think much of a 10-15 ton 'light' armored vehicle which cannot fit into a C-130 for multiple intratheater transport.
The ideal 'armored car' should look like a tank on wheels with multiple unobtrusive video monitors in shot-protected (armored blinker skirts) and a
raisable backup periscope system in an otherwise completely unbroken body.
A two-layer armor enclosure should trap unique and easily upgradeable/replaceable insert sandwich between inner and outer skins which should
themselves be overlapping well beyond the access points.
The drive system should be hybrid electric with on-wheel motors (any two of which should be able to limp you home) fed by an armored spine power
conduit from a rear mounted engine. Dumping the conventional transmission and drive shaft would save TONS of weight and FEET of cubic volume,
allowing the powerpack to be aft mounted with shielded intakes.
To compensate for NOT using the engine block as a shield, the entire front of the vehicle should be sloped with another THICK spaced armor design
while allowing for a large step-in cabin volume and better wheelbase/track trades for a given degree of CG and rollover. Separate, foldout,
gunshields should act as auxilliary passenger armor when folded flush but door outlines and hingepoints should be avoided with sliding or vertical
lift entry from the sides or aft. While roof hatches should form the principle secondary egress option for forward cabin occupants.
I too believe that the fiercer looking a given system is, the more 'respect' it gains, but would tend to attribute this more to things like smoke
mortars and intelligent EFP defeat mechanisms than say the 113 ACAV approach to dual MG coverage.
Now, if you 'want to get technical' the real problem isn't building an armored vice faster ambulance. But getting it into the heads of the people
doing this that THEY are the ones who MUST help end things. That there are no fence sitters. And that they had better well stop this or WE will be
the ones who /bury/ them under consequential, not reactive, LAW ENFORCEMENT rules.
By putting 300,000 boots on the ground _with no rotations_ so that we don't play whackamole between Baghdad and Anbar.
By making it illegal to own weapons or weapon making material of ANY kind. With the men to police up entire cities on a block by block basis with
ZERO 'flee for 3 months before we go in' options.
By forcing registration of residence and workplace using complex biometric ID so that any body can have it's family or fellow workers punished for
the acts of those they should have ratted out.
By taking the mosques on the principle that if you don't treat your sanctis sanctorum with respect, why should we?
By instituting a law which permits any neighbor to inspect his friends house at a moment's notice and FORCING them to police themselves on the notion
that every terrorist/insurgent who is caught or body-recovered had friends and fellows who _should have known_ and thus are themselves subject to
By shutting down all cell communications systems and making it a felony to own remote transmitter equipment of any kind.
By forcing all vehicle owners to be register ALL vehicles in the country with direct responsibility for their transport should it be used as a
By forcing anyone who wants to come into Iraq to be vouchsafed by their parent country (visa or passport) to the tune of 1 million dollars and a
public apology on Al Jazeera when their citizen is caught doing something vile.
By causing every IED or VBIED event to cause the relevant county/provincial region to lose vehicle transport for 1 month for the first offense. 6
months for the second. And 1 year for the third. Making all residents firmly dependent on U.S. airlifts of food and making them WALK for at least 5
miles to come get it.
By making every shiia based crime result in payment of funds to sunni victims from a national 'penalty fund' which must only be contributed to when
violence occurs. And vice versa.
By making any and all people (at the discretion of the local authority) who are found outside their registered regional area wear GPS tags to track
their locations until they decide to officially transfer residence or go home.
By forcing anyone who is not officially employed to sign up for 'day jobs' as an idle-hands defeat mechanism whereby those not employed are jailed
at the tender mercy of thier opposed sectarian religious group until they decide they've had enough.
By stopping the nonsense of NTISR and quadrupling the number of UAVs airborne at any given moment so that there are 200-300 vehicles up, all over the
By denying funeral rights and the right to make matyr tapes to those caught or found dead as Shahid. Forcing their deaths to be unconsecrated as they
are left to be torn to pieces by scavengers in remote regions. Doing the same to their victims. So as to make it clear that the only way that
'Islamic Law' will ever come to apply _to the individual_. Is if you make SECULAR LAW apply to the society as a group-whole.
If you are not willing to use absolutely /brutal/ force to end violence based on a greater fear of the U.S. firepower, dispensed almost randomly.
You MUST avoid the temptation to 'engineer a technical solution'. Instead, they themselves must acknowledge the direct action:consequence morality
of their little pissant temper tantrums. As a function of beginning to change their minds based on a KNOWN of laws broken aftermath to each
individual event. This will not happen by making it impossible to get at our troops. But rather by emphasizing that it is impossible for any
perpetrators to avoid detection and LEGAL retribution themselves.
These are social adolescents left to run wild in a Lord Of The Flies scenario. They are not responsible adults ready to enter into a binding societal
agreement. Until WE acknowledge this and take the steps to make it clear (as the Hague empowered occupying force) what will happen if they fail to
grow up, they will continue to stamp their feet and cross their arms on their chests with the assumption that _you don't /really/ want them to
change_. And thus why should they listen to your 'gentle encouragement' to do so?