<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 4CHURCHILL:
All I kow is the HMMWV was o designed for combat. They should keep the HMMWV for behind the lines transport etc.... and design a new vehicle just for battle. That way each can be designed specifically for one thing rather then combining both </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say but the HMMWV was designed for and used from the beginning as a tactical vehicle. It is most certainly designed for combat.

I think it is more that you do not understand the common battlefield it was designed for and have heard this comment from some other ill-informed person.

Also, the whole point of the HMMWV was to create a vehicle that had multiple uses off of one platform. It created a much easier way of maintaining the fleet. You are suggesting that there is something lacking DUE to this utilizing this common platform process.

maybe I mis-spoke.....The HMMWV was not designed for the type of combat it is encountering in Iraq. To the best of my knowledge that is a stated fact. Again I could be wrong. All I am saying is in my view what makes a good battlefield vehicle doesn;t neccessarily make a good vehicle for the other uses the military has. The idea of using one platform does make more sense if they can design different configurations which excel in the areas they are designed for. I think that is more along the lines of what I was trying to say.

I guess turtles are stealthy.