I didn't express myself very well in my post.

The point I was trying to make is that it isn't the "V." There are some problems now with people demanding designers try using a "shallow V."

What does buy something is standoff (i.e. ground clearance), reduced presented area, and stiffening the hull to involve as much of the structure in vehicle response as possible (the only way to accomplish absorption of energy). All that has to be balanced against impulsive load imparted to the crew, and what kind of "stroke" can be built into the seats to reduce impulsive injuries (such as ruptured disks). And that doesn't get into reliability issues of a dynamic suspension (to give a variable standoff), or vehicle mobility/agility issues associated with a higher center of gravity.

As to the tactical considerations, I think we're in agreement. I was trying to point out that in some tactical circumstances, a large silhouette is irrelevant.

When the SADF went into Angola against the Cubans, the vehicles had vulnerabilities that didn't appear in SW Africa or the COIN ops in South Africa itself. Vehicle silhouette is one of the first things designers try to reduce - smaller means lower probability of hit, which equates to better survivability. It's a lot harder to see and hit a HMMV than an MRAP at any sort of distance.