• thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    25 days ago

    I’m confused about the design. If it’s designed for mountain areas but is top heavy and rolls easy, isn’t that a major design floor for an area where the terrain is likely to be steep from left to right in parts?

    Maybe my idea of terrain in mountainous areas is wrong.

    • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      25 days ago

      It’s designed to stay on roads.
      Those roads are natural choke points where bombs are often hidden on the ground, which results in a high and heavy design.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        24 days ago

        MATV begs to differ. We always had the technology. We just wanted a cheap solution to stop taking so many casualties.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        25 days ago

        Correct, they move slow but they are quite explosion survivable past the original design.

    • BigPotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      24 days ago

      Tall but narrower than other options while having survivability in case of getting IED’d. I know HMMWVs are actually big but the MRAPs didn’t all have a much larger footprint.

      Fun fact though, they had to add a gunners harness because the gunners were more likely to die in a roll over. Armored plates all up over your back but you get crushed because the Specialist driving hasn’t even driven anything bigger than his Civic and doesn’t have enough hours dealing with actual Afghan roads.