Army to start evaluating balsa wood and foam Humvee
Civilian Hummers are the bane of environmentalists everywhere, but long before poseurs decided that they wanted to look tougher than everyone else, the military HUMVEE was born. The HUMVEE was originally conceived as a general purpose utility vehicle to replace the Jeep. Over the years it evolved to take on more roles just as the combat environments they operate in also evolved. One particular example of the environment changing is the improvised explosive device that has killed so many people in Iraq.Because the HUMVEE was never intended to withstand such weapons, they are very vulnerable. Troops have added more armor to existing vehicles but that extra weight causes them to ride much lower than normal which may actually make them more vulnerable to explosives. In an attempt to address the issue, the Army is working with AM General to evaluate the use of lighter weight materials in the body and frame of the HUMVEE. They have used fiberglass, balsa wood, foam and carbon reinforcements to reduce the weight of the HUMVEE by 900 lbs. That weight reduction would allow the use of extra armor without riding so low, making it safer. It would also provide reduced fuel consumption which is always an advantage to military forces.
[Source: Army Times via Gizmodo]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Tony Belding 1:16PM (9/17/2007)
The HMV is a tremendously capable off-road vehicle -- far moreso than the Jeep it replaced. However, I think it was always a questionable substitute for the old Jeep. It's much heavier, more fuel-hungry, and more expensive. At the same time, we see the need for more light armored vehicles, which the HMV was never designed to be. It's been shoehorned into a compromise position between the Jeep and the M113, and it doesn't fill either role terribly well.
I've noticed Chrysler are shopping around some new Jeep Wrangler-derived military vehicles. They look more sensible than the HMV for militaries that lack the US Army's vast fuel-and-equipment budget.
Reply
Smith 7:40PM (9/17/2007)
Armor it up and put a lift kit on it to compensate? Or have Iran or Turkey run Iraq(would cost less)?
I wish they would have just reinstated Saddam on the condition that he couldn't have a military. He knew what it took to run that country.
Reply
Zach 12:21PM (9/18/2007)
Oh my God.... I don't even know where to start with that senseless ill thought out comment
Reply
howard 12:55PM (9/18/2007)
Hey Zach; Smith is right! if we would have sent a "Surgical Strike Team" in to IRAQ and captured Saddam, convinced him to work with his people and stop his "Death Squad" activities we wouldn't be looking at over 3,700 of our BEST dead and over 30,000 wounded! Iraq is a vendetta by George W. Bush because Saddam had placed Georg H. W. Bush, his father, on his assanation list and no other! Hell, the Iraqi's didn't have enough ROW BOATS to invade the U. S. and, they had destroyed ALL their WMDs after the GULF WAR which was witnessed by U. N. investigators but, GWB wouldn't listen to his people, he wanted a war since he opted out of Vietnam by asking his father to get him deferred! He's a coward of the worst kind, he sends other people to die for what HE WANTS!
Reply
Zach 4:58PM (9/18/2007)
So is Bush there for oil or for his Dad? I'm getting confused now.
Anyway, the biggest threat from Iraq wasn't their rowboat navy coming to storm us like Normandy, it was the the threat of procuring WMD's and giving them to stateless radical groups (which they for a fact had unless you don't count gassing over 8,000 innocent villagers and sarin gas artillery shells set up for IED's) Oh and if they didn't have them what the hell were they hiding in the UN inspections before the war? Oh yeah they destroyed them after the war... except a build up again is relatively easy when you have 99% of a countrie's money at a dictator's disposal due to UN corruption.
Lets take the surgiacal strike idea, thats a great idea except when we look at history when Iraq ignored SEVENTEEN UN resolutions. So if we went in, put a M-16 to his head and said nicely stop it, he would? Thats preposterous.
Following your logic though, Stalin and Hitler were great leaders too cause they sure did make the damn trains run on time and had no dissenters. Nevermind the fact that the League of Nations told Germany not to build an Army after WWI.
Oh and to bring democracy to a people oppressed for over 50 years in Theocratic society is such a horrible goal, I'd hate to spread liberty and more equal quality of life if it required sacrifice.
Reply