All matters MRAP JLTV (merged thread)

[Cole]

Apologies if this has already been posted elsewhere and I missed it, but I'm sure many will be nodding in agreement (not necessary on the M1 issue, but rather on the transportation/tactical flexibility/risk aversion issue):

Tanks, But No Tanks
Why heavy armor won't save Afghanistan.
Foreign Policy Magazine
BY MICHAEL WALTZ | NOVEMBER 24, 2010

But isn't the inability to use tanks/M-ATV in mountainous terrain a separate issue from use on flatter terrain? For instance, read recently that we are constructing "military roads" using engineer equipment and line charges that are well removed from the population. That way we do not encourage the Taliban to use IEDs on roads the public uses. With single tanks and a squad of infantry positioned every few kilometers along these "military roads," if properly positioned, tanks and small UAS could preclude IED-planting on the "road" and overwatch of population centers a km or so away where dismounts would move daily.

Tanks with rollers could also create temporary routes each day leading M-ATV/Strykers and dismounts toward populated areas where the M-ATV/Strykers would provide overwatch. Fuel trucks would use the military roads to resupply the tanks/M-ATV/Strykers.

Can also picture an optional-two-man ATV with tires spread far enough apart that a well-armored V-shaped tandem-seat (like Apache) PAX capsule would survive when the wheels triggered the pressure plate. Put airbags inside the interior to cushion the troops when the armored capsule goes airborne. Might even use a deploying parachute if the capsule sensed sudden acceleration. We spend millions putting ejection seats in fighters with low probability of use. We could similarly protect a limited number of two-man OP ATVs.