Rambos a la Russe
http://pics.livejournal.com/drugoi/pic/00h0k9pa.jpg

You see, they are fighting in white gloves!!!

Bruno, are you a random post generator or do you occasionaly try to carry a point across?

I am competing with CNN;)

In that case, good effort. Close, but no cigar.:rotfl:

:damn:

This is the actual truck being produced:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...icial%26sa%3DG


The company is Navistar or also known years ago as International Harvester. I would much prefer our soldiers to ride in this. So, anyone who wants the Humvee in the war zone. Have at it.

Aren't those Cougars a bit big to serve in the narrow streets of some small cities/villages? I mean the Hummvees were already quite big, but that thing is really huge for an all purpose vehicle.

BTW the video doesn't show a thing. It's way to short. All I can see there is a Cougar getting blown up but no results. So what is that video good for? They should have shown the vehicle after the explosion... or were they afraid of showing it?

Well we did manage to beat the Japanese and the Germans with just the trusty Jeep. :yep:

Same with the trusty Humvee but the Humvee is out of date with todays type warfare. Just as the trusty Jeep became many years ago. Personally, I would love to have a trusty Willy's Jeep from that era.

It shows the blast being deflected away and not allowed to go up like the Humvee experiences. It is in the same theory and thought as the proximity fuse on a torpedo under the keel. The torp explosion will have a easier time of cracking a ship in two when it explosed other that attempting to push the water out from around it. With the V bottom, the blast force will be deflected off were as the Humvee the explosion can either move the ground or move the Humvee. Being the Humvee is easier to move when the explosion happens, the Humvee suffers greatly from the direct blast that is not deflected. The V bottom produces better survivability.

Great first hand account of this vehicle/V hull design and how it does work:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/au...gewanted=print


It really is a great urban assault vehicle.

I am aware of how the v-shaped body deflects the energy from the explosive. I just criticized that one doesn't see the vehicle after the explosion and how much damage it actually took. It would have been good to know how much explosives have been placed the cougar too.

I don't want to say that I don't trust the concept. I guess that thing really offers a lot of protection. It's just that that video didn't show the vehicles capability (but that might be a corporate/military secret).

I think the video at the time was to display the concept of the V hull and how it works. Nothing more really. If you read the link I posted above from solider in the field who had a IED explode under one, you will have an idea of how much damage the truck took and can take. But do we really care how much damage the truck withstood? It is if the men inside survived is the real question. Trucks we can replace. Lives we can not.

In the 80's we used to drive the M-151 MUTT. That was one great vehicle. And pretty fun to drive. It was a bit fragile, especially with a bunch of idiots like us bouncing across the desert in them.

Ah them were the days :up:

I drove a M151 for awhile during my tour in Germany.

IMO they were a totally different concept than the humvee. A vehicle light enough and small enough to be slung under a helicopter, stacked in a conex container, hid under a large bush or small tree, or even picked up and bodily carried by 6-7 soldiers. Closer to a motorcycle than a truck but with the trailer still able to carry a significant amount of gear and ammo.

Humvees on the other hand are becoming more and more like small moving pillboxes that offer protection to the troops inside where the jeep offers none, but the downside is, being so much larger and heavier, they require a lot more effort to deploy to the battlefield.