concerning unarmored tactical vechicles

[theotherjohn]

anyone know why in 1979 the High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle, a.k.a. the HMMWV, or Humvee was made without armor to begin with?

You have a vehicle designed for combat with plastic doors and roof.

Yup makes sense to me. Lets make it the main vehicle of our army.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by theotherjohn
anyone know why in 1979 the High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle, a.k.a. the HMMWV, or Humvee was made without armor to begin with?

You have a vehicle designed for combat with plastic doors and roof.

Yup makes sense to me. Lets make it the main vehicle of our army.

I'm definitely not a car, or armor, or war, or Humvee expert, but I'd wager that the purpose of the vehicle was to move people/equipment/whatever through any kind of terrain. Enough body armor would raise the center of gravity (making it easier to tip), and make the vehicle heavier and less manueverable.

Additionally, in 1979 they didn't have the same type of "armor" available that we do today. The armor necessary to make the vehicle bulletproof was likely very heavy and very expensive.

Jorddyn, just guessing :shrug:

It's cheaper that way.

[Nakiro]

They are not using the same design as they were in 1979. As needs change, designs change.

Armor is always needed jackass. The point is, there is no reason to outfit every single vehicle with uparmor when it just costs extra money, raises maintanence needs and generally fucks the vehicle in the long term if some guy is just driving it around ft chafee to pick up mail.

[Warriorbird]

Heh. The main time I feel bad for the people in Humvees is all the poor bastards in Wisconsin who had to ride around in winter in cloth ones.

Do they need armor? Probably not.

[Fengus]

... High Mobility Multi-purpose ... was made without armor to begin with?


I think you answered your own question.