NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[The Manticoran Empire]

Not really. The Israeli companies are Israeli, built up by an Israel that couldn't count on foreign arms supplies for the first 20 years of its existence and so was forced to develop a domestic arms industry.

I guess I am in the wrong timeline, and so we have no common ground to talk about.

No. I just follow the Military and Defense world as closely as possible. Not everything is entirely reliant on Western companies to be accomplished. Israel, South Korea, Japan, China. These countries and others are entirely capable of developing and deploying their own military equipment with no Western aid and all four do it routinely.

[The Akasha Colony]

The Nazis were more advanced on paper, yes. But, in practice, their vehicles had miserably reliability even by the standards of the time and they were over engineered to the point that routine maintenance was nearly impossible.

Nazi Germany was not particularly advanced. They were notably inferior in radar technology, the development and application of early computers, metallurgy, and of course nuclear physics to the Western Allies. As always, there were fields in which they were ahead of their counterparts (rocketry, aerodynamics) and areas where they were inferior. They just happened to employ some rather flashy technology demonstrators.

The reliability of most German vehicles was on par with their Western counterparts when supply lines were adequate. Of course, they often weren't, which was the cause of a number of breakdowns. But the Western Allies rarely suffered from these circumstances owing to greater industrial support and a more conservative approach, so this was not readily apparent in most cases.

By using defilade and attacking at the right ranges or situations?

By using an absurdly tall tank? M4 was an infamously tall boi. The modern M1 is nearly a half-meter shorter. T-72 is shorter still. Shorter vehicles are preferred for this role because they are easier to conceal and harder to spot and for some reason you picked one of the tallest.

Which is why vehicles designed for this particular role are extremely low-profile:


But even with a purpose-designed vehicle this concept died out as technology rendered it obsolete and the Swedes just bought some Leopard 2s which were superior in every way.

Are you going to invade my country to replace the tanks???

You're the one who started this line of discussion?

I was only pointing out that superior technology only goes so far.

True. But it happens to go far enough.

Training and other human factors can overcome the differences between a 1990s tank and a 2010s tank. It cannot overcome the difference between a 2010s tank and a 1940s tank.

No. I just follow the Military and Defense world as closely as possible. Not everything is entirely reliant on Western companies to be accomplished. Israel, South Korea, Japan, China. These countries and others are entirely capable of developing and deploying their own military equipment with no Western aid and all four do it routinely.

This is an exaggeration. All four routinely copied or imported technology to develop their defense industrial bases. China is infamous for still doing this, and Japan did this for decades during its economic recovery. The backbone of South Korea's armored forces is a modified XM1.

Many of the concepts that went into Merkava were derived from the Israeli experience testing Chieftains before the British elected not to sell and the Israelis simply copied what they liked or at least didn't mind. Hence the use of an otherwise obsolete coil-spring suspension and an armor arrangement based on older principles.

[Hypron]

What would be the best use of Special Forces in a war?

[The Manticoran Empire]

What would be the best use of Special Forces in a war?

There are a lot of ways to use SF units. Long Range Recon Patrols, behind the lines sabotage, espionage actions, assassination of enemy political and military leaders, etc. etc. etc. If you are fighting an enemy that has one or more oppressed ethnic or religious minorities, use SF troops to foster rebellion and organize and train the resulting rebel armies as guerilla forces.

[Manokan Republic]

In the interest of military realism specifically, ironically, it's dawned on me for quite some time that the U.S. military predominately relies on humvees and MRAP's for most of their military work. Now, while I believe humvees are crap for a lot of reasons and MRAP's are pretty good but a sort of temporary solution, there seems to be the permanent long term strategy of the U.S. military for infantry to be transported in light vehicles, breaking away from 12 man halftracks of WWII and 11 man M113's of vietnam. This has several drawbacks, such as with humvees having poor RPG, IED and mine resistance, low armor piercing round resistance, no resistance to .50 caliber rounds, and reduced firepower as most humvees use M240 or M249 machine guns instead of .50 cals. There's also the problem of soldiers being exposed without protection when operating the machine guns, and the fact they have limited to no anti-vehicle capabilities unless specifically outfitted to do so. Strategically it is also a problem, as soldiers which are trained to operate in squads, now are broken down in to fireteams, which is reducing their strategic capabilities as each 4 man team basically has to be completely self sustained in the field, in that you can't rely on leap frog with two fireteams anymore but that the fireteam must break down internally in to even smaller teams, which they often don't. Meanwhile, while a large APC like the stryker is a better option, with a heavy weapon or even chaingun on top, a rocket launcher and other things like a boomerang anti-sniper system (too expensive to put on each humvee, but less expensive if all your men are in one vehicle), as well as generally better armor, we only have about 4500. That's maybe like, 40,000 soldiers to be transported with one, in comparison to the nearly 300,000 we deployed overseas at any given point in time, and of course not all strykers were deployed. Largely, soldiers moved around in the poorly armored, equipped, and relativley small humvees which broke down the normal squad function and has forced teams to operate as fireteams, which hasn't ended up so well (the 4 man Navy Seal team popularized by lone survivor for example suffered heavily by only use 4 men instead of 8 like they were used to). Soldiers just aren't trained or equipped to work in teams of 4 by themselves generally speaking, with all soldiers essentially not interchangeable in such a small team, for example with 1 one machine gunner who can't leap frog off of anyone.

MRAP's are a little better in that they tend to have better armor, and sometimes better weapons, but they are hideously expensive and still break the squad in to smaller pieces, and consequently the platoon and squad strategies that were normally implemented by infantry are going to be completely different. 4 man fireteams essentially have to operate like 9 man squads which, other than being rather pressing, is something they were simply not prepared for. The U.S. marines seem to be overcoming this to an extent by switching to the M27 IAR over the M249 in most cases, meaning that now each soldier can leap frog with each other, as well as adopting "fire and maneuver teams", or two-man battle pairs to leap frog off of each other instead of relying upon larger squad or platoon structures. They seem to be trying to make each soldier more interchangeable so they can perform strategies with each other instead of being fixed in to one specific role, making things like room clearing, leap frogging, and other duties a lot easier than if using completely different weapons. The fireteam is being broken down in to 3 men, as opposed to 4, with a 4th man attached, thus giving them even greater tactical flexibility when on the ground, capable of leap frogging with teams of three or four, giving them the ability ot implement more complex strategic maneuvers. While I've always figured the MRAP was a stopgap solution to the Stryker, and the Stryker itself was a stopgap solution to a replacement to the M113 essentially, the "Interim Armored Vehicle" has now turned in to the permanent and only way we plan on fighting, with no real replacement in sight, for it or the Humvee. This has lead to a radical shift in doctrine and in firepower levels with U.S. forces somewhat arbitrarily weakened against enemy forces. I feel like this is not only leaving the U.S. unprepared, but radically changing the basic tactics and strategies of our military. Further this is a trend that seems to be being done across many western nations which rely on only a handful of APC'S like the stryker, which are themselves still underarmored to many modern threats.

The marines seem to also be using the newer 12 man amphibious Iveco Super-AV, but again only in small numbers, on the order of a few hundred, clearly not sufficient for a whole military. So it seems like, the trend is smaller, lesser armored vehicles, no longer as a stop gap solution but as the main approach. With hundreds of thousands of humvees and only 10's of thousands of other vehicles, this seems to be the case. The other thing is the M113, that is an 11 man vehicle which can still support an army infantry team, almost seem a 12 man marine team and, that there are still large numbers of, but it also suffers from weaker armor. With perforated outer armor, and active defense systems that shoot down RPG's, they can stop a lot of threats including potentially, .50 caliber or 14.5mm rounds, which will probably make them more viable although being low to the ground they are terrible against IED's. It really doesn't seem like modern infantry warfare is more than lightly armored vehicles with tiny machine guns on the back carrying only a handful of soldiers.

[Manokan Republic]

What would be the best use of Special Forces in a war?

There are lot of uses depending on the war, but sabotage and reconnaissance has always been a primary goal of special forces since their inception. The SAS in WWII for example destroyed more aircraft in a single instance than potentially any allied pilot, and at least one soldier, Paddy Mayne, was said to have destroyed over 100. Infiltrating behind enemy lines to defeat radar, aircraft, disrupt fuel lines and other logistics supplies is a pretty important function, as far as conventional combat goes. Blowing up bridges or roads, linking up with and training resistance groups, disrupting transportation via road barriers or even mines. Laying down mines has an extreme psychological effect, especially in enemy territory, as no-one wants to lose men or tanks at random, and it will either force the enemy to slow down to avoid the mines, or employ mine clearing equipment on their main roads, which will make it harder for them to travel even in their own home country. With modern active mines like, radar activated mines that shoot rocket launchers, it's never been easier to set such systems up. Special forces in a lot of modern warfare do hostage rescue or spearhead ground operations to take territory while a occupying force comes in behind them, but in a large enough conventional war, this would be relatively rare given how small in numbers they are and they would probably focus on sabotage and reconnaissance, calling in air strikes and that sort of thing, taking out high value targets like generals. They might even capture them for interrogation, which would be of particular usefulness, and has been common in the war on terror with capturing enemy forces to figure our their plans or locations of other terrorists.

[The Manticoran Empire]

In the interest of military realism specifically, ironically, it's dawned on me for quite some time that the U.S. military predominately relies on humvees and MRAP's for most of their military work. Now, while I believe humvees and MRAP's are often crap for a lot of reasons with MRAP's actually being good but a sort of temporary solution, then seems to be the permament loong term strategy of the U.S. military for infantry to be transported in light vehicles. This has several drawbacks, such as with humvees being poor RPG, IED and mine resistance, low armor piercing round resistance, no resistance to .50 caliber rounds, and reduced firepower as most humvees use M240 or M249 machine guns instead of .50 cals. There's also the problem of soldiers being exposed without protection when operating the machine guns, and the fact they have limited to no anti-vehicle capabilities unless specifically outfitted to do so. Strategically it is also a problem, as soldiers which are trained to operate in squads, now are broken down in to fireteams, which is reducing their strategic capabilities as each 4 man team basically has to be completely self sustained in the field, in that you can't rely on leap frog with two fireteams anymore but that the fireteam must break down internally in to even smaller teams, which they often don't. Meanwhile, while a large APC like the stryker is a better option, with a heavy weapon or even chaingun on top, a rocket launcher and other things like a boomerang anti-sniper system (too expensive to put on each humvee, but less expensive if all your men are in one vehicle), as well as generally better armor, we only have about 4500. That's maybe like, 40,000 soldiers to be transported with one, in comparison to the nearly 300,000 we deployed overseas at any given point in time, and of course not all strykers were deployed. Largely, soldiers moved around in the poorly armored, equipped, and relativley small humvees which broke down the normal squad function and has forced teams to operate as fireteams, which hasn't ended up so well (the 4 man Navy Seal team popularized by lone survivor for example suffered heavily by only use 4 men instead of 8 like they were used to). Soldiers just aren't trained or equipped to work in teams of 4 by themselves generally speaking, with all soldiers essentially not interchangeable in such a small team, for example with 1 one machine gunner who can't leap frog off of anyone.

Humvees aren't meant as front line combat vehicles. They are general purpose vehicles to support Combat Support and Combat Service Support units as well as to serve as staff cars and other roles that AFVs aren't really suited for. The Humvee is around for the same reason the similarly vulnerable FMTV, HEMTT, and HET are kept around. They are NOT combat vehicles.

MRAP's are a little better in that they tend to have better armor, and sometimes better weapons, but they are hideously expensive and still break the squad in to smaller pieces, and consequently the platoon and squad strategies that were normally implemented by infantry are going to be completely different. 4 man fireteams essentially have to operate like 9 man squads which, other than being rather pressing, is something they were simply not prepared for. The U.S. marines seem to be overcoming this to an extent by switching to the M27 IAR over the M249 in most cases, meaning that now each soldier can leap frog with each other, as well as adopting "fire and maneuver teams", or two-man battle pairs to leap frog off of each other instead of relying upon larger squad or platoon structures. They seem to be trying to make each soldier more interchangeable so they can perform strategies with each other instead of being fixed in to one specific role, making things like room clearing, leap frogging, and other duties a lot easier than if using completely different weapons. The fireteam is being broken down in to 3 men, as opposed to 4, with a 4th man attached, thus giving them even greater tactical flexibility when on the ground, capable of leap frogging with teams of three or four, giving them the ability ot implement more complex strategic maneuvers. While I've always figured the MRAP was a stopgap solution to the Stryker, and the Stryker itself was a stopgap solution to a replacement to the M113 essentially, the "Interim Armored Vehicle" has now turned in to the permanent and only way we plan on fighting, with no real replacement in sight, for it or the Humvee. This has lead to a radical shift in doctrine and in firepower levels with U.S. forces somewhat arbitrarily weakened against enemy forces. I feel like this is not only leaving the U.S. unprepared, but radically changing the basic tactics and strategies of our military. Further this is a trend that seems to be being done across many western nations which rely on only a handful of APC'S like the stryker, which are themselves still underarmored to many modern threats.

MRAPS are also being retired from service very quickly. In terms of squads, the Army has determined that size isn't a factor for squads. Rather, the factors that matter are training and equipment.

The marines seem to also be using the newer 12 man amphibious Iveco Super-AV, but again only in small numbers, on the order of a few hundred, clearly not sufficient for a whole military. So it seems like, the trend is smaller, lesser armored vehicles, no longer as a stop gap solution but as the main approach. With hundreds of thousands of humvees and only 10's of thousands of other vehicles, this seems to be the case. The other thing is the M113, that is an 11 man vehicle which can still support an army infantry team, almost seem a 12 man marine team and, that there are still large numbers of, but it also suffers from weaker armor. With perforated outer armor, and active defense systems that shoot down RPG's, they can stop a lot of threats including potentially, .50 caliber or 14.5mm rounds, which will probably make them more viable although being low to the ground they are terrible against IED's. It really doesn't seem like modern infantry warfare is more than lightly armored vehicles with tiny machine guns on the back carrying only a handful of soldiers.

The M113 is like 50 years old and they have been trying to replace it for about 30 years. Light Infantry don't get heavy armored vehicles because they are intended to fight in ways which aren't supported by armored vehicles. Mountains, Airborne, Air Assault, etc. Mechanized infantry, on the other hand, uses Infantry Fighting Vehicles to move them up to the front. The guys with the trucks getting hit in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't the 11 Bang Bangs with the Bradleys and Strykers but the 88 Mikes lugging food, fuel, and ammunition between FOBs.

[Manokan Republic]

In the interest of military realism specifically, ironically, it's dawned on me for quite some time that the U.S. military predominately relies on humvees and MRAP's for most of their military work. Now, while I believe humvees and MRAP's are often crap for a lot of reasons with MRAP's actually being good but a sort of temporary solution, then seems to be the permament loong term strategy of the U.S. military for infantry to be transported in light vehicles. This has several drawbacks, such as with humvees being poor RPG, IED and mine resistance, low armor piercing round resistance, no resistance to .50 caliber rounds, and reduced firepower as most humvees use M240 or M249 machine guns instead of .50 cals. There's also the problem of soldiers being exposed without protection when operating the machine guns, and the fact they have limited to no anti-vehicle capabilities unless specifically outfitted to do so. Strategically it is also a problem, as soldiers which are trained to operate in squads, now are broken down in to fireteams, which is reducing their strategic capabilities as each 4 man team basically has to be completely self sustained in the field, in that you can't rely on leap frog with two fireteams anymore but that the fireteam must break down internally in to even smaller teams, which they often don't. Meanwhile, while a large APC like the stryker is a better option, with a heavy weapon or even chaingun on top, a rocket launcher and other things like a boomerang anti-sniper system (too expensive to put on each humvee, but less expensive if all your men are in one vehicle), as well as generally better armor, we only have about 4500. That's maybe like, 40,000 soldiers to be transported with one, in comparison to the nearly 300,000 we deployed overseas at any given point in time, and of course not all strykers were deployed. Largely, soldiers moved around in the poorly armored, equipped, and relativley small humvees which broke down the normal squad function and has forced teams to operate as fireteams, which hasn't ended up so well (the 4 man Navy Seal team popularized by lone survivor for example suffered heavily by only use 4 men instead of 8 like they were used to). Soldiers just aren't trained or equipped to work in teams of 4 by themselves generally speaking, with all soldiers essentially not interchangeable in such a small team, for example with 1 one machine gunner who can't leap frog off of anyone.

Humvees aren't meant as front line combat vehicles. They are general purpose vehicles to support Combat Support and Combat Service Support units as well as to serve as staff cars and other roles that AFVs aren't really suited for. The Humvee is around for the same reason the similarly vulnerable FMTV, HEMTT, and HET are kept around. They are NOT combat vehicles.

They're frequently used as front line combat vehicles, which is part of a growing problem. But that aside, it doesn't really matter as our primary losses have been from logistics troops, about 50%.

MRAPS are also being retired from service very quickly. In terms of squads, the Army has determined that size isn't a factor for squads. Rather, the factors that matter are training and equipment.

Size matters relative to training and being able to implement complex strategies. Fireteams are supposed to leap frog with each other and implement strategies such as flanking, with one fireteam pinning down the enemy and the other flanking, but this isn't possible if you only have... one fireteam. You can implement this strategy by breaking the fireteam in to smaller pieces, but then you get a rather uneven distribution of weapons and men, I.E. an M249 and ammunition carrier in one half-fireteam and a grenadier and regular riflemen in the other. You also have a squad sergeant, which means one fireteam has 5 men and the other 4, essentially, as the 9th man doesn't ride in his own vehicle but obviously tags alone with one of the fireteams. The current army squad as it stands now isn't really all that good at being broken down in to fireteams; hell, being broken down in to just squads isn't really working all that well, as they rely on certain platoon functions, like mortars or machine guns, which also won't be available. It will take a massive restructuring of the army squad to make fireteam operations viable, and the current army squads is used in almost every military unit, from the rangers and regular infantry to airborne. You basically have to treat each fireteam as if it's it's own squad which is completely different from what we currently do.

The M113 is like 50 years old and they have been trying to replace it for about 30 years. Light Infantry don't get heavy armored vehicles because they are intended to fight in ways which aren't supported by armored vehicles. Mountains, Airborne, Air Assault, etc. Mechanized infantry, on the other hand, uses Infantry Fighting Vehicles to move them up to the front. The guys with the trucks getting hit in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't the 11 Bang Bangs with the Bradleys and Strykers but the 88 Mikes lugging food, fuel, and ammunition between FOBs.

The airborne a lot of the times can't afford to use bradleys and strykers because of how heavy they are and the difficulty of using them in airborne operations so, they do rely on the humvee. The idea that everything fits in it's proper box somehow doesn't really hold true in actual real world combat. More often than that humvees and M113's are being used as "front line" combat vehicles, or finding themselves in ambushes as there are no real front lines, and ending up in precarious combat situations all the same, whether it was the intent or not. The idea of a front line is archaic in modern warfare, but essentially those doing most of the fighting rarely get to pick and choose their exact circumstances. Everyone needs to be prepared for heavy combat all the time, especially since logistics troops are being deliberately targeted, and that is something the humvee can't do.

[Hypron]

How would the K1A1 South Korean Main Battle Tank compare to the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank?

[Spirit of Hope]

Humvees weren't used as front line vehicles, at most they were used as transports for light infantry who didn't have organic heavier vehicles to maneuver with. This wasn't a huge issue for things like Dessert Storm and the Iraq Invasion, because those units generally could dismount and fight readily when they did come into contact with enemy forces. The problem comes when dismounting to engage the enemy isn't possible, see Mogadishu and the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because of the nature of the operations, and the nature of the enemy, troops in Humvees couldn't dismount to engage and clear enemy forces, especially as the enemy 's often did not engage with direct fire but instead with IED's and other weapons the Humvees wasn't designed to face.

Thus the US armed force made the MRAP's which were much more suited to the problems being faced. The Humvees is just great for how it was supposed to be used, so are MRAP's. There purposes are different.

[The Manticoran Empire]

How would the K1A1 South Korean Main Battle Tank compare to the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank?

They are essentially the same vehicle. The K1 and the M1 are mostly identical in form and function, with some differences in terms of technology. The K1 has a river fording kit, hydro-pneumatic-torsion bar combo suspension, different engines, fire control systems, and transmission, but beyond that the K-1 is practically identical to the M1.

K1


M1

[The Manticoran Empire]

Humvees weren't used as front line vehicles, at most they were used as transports for light infantry who didn't have organic heavier vehicles to maneuver with. This wasn't a huge issue for things like Dessert Storm and the Iraq Invasion, because those units generally could dismount and fight readily when they did come into contact with enemy forces. The problem comes when dismounting to engage the enemy isn't possible, see Mogadishu and the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because of the nature of the operations, and the nature of the enemy, troops in Humvees couldn't dismount to engage and clear enemy forces, especially as the enemy 's often did not engage with direct fire but instead with IED's and other weapons the Humvees wasn't designed to face.

Thus the US armed force made the MRAP's which were much more suited to the problems being faced. The Humvees is just great for how it was supposed to be used, so are MRAP's. There purposes are different.

Yeah. The Humvee is basically a modern Jeep, like it was supposed to be. The MRAP is a vehicle built to survive in insurgent conflicts, like it was supposed to.

[The Akasha Colony]

They are essentially the same vehicle. The K1 and the M1 are mostly identical in form and function, with some differences in terms of technology. The K1 has a river fording kit, hydro-pneumatic-torsion bar combo suspension, different engines, fire control systems, and transmission, but beyond that the K-1 is practically identical to the M1.

There are a number of differences given that the two designs diverged at the pre-production level.

How would the K1A1 South Korean Main Battle Tank compare to the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank?

South Korean K1s are more lightly protected than US M1 Abrams variants, which is one of the major reasons why they are several tons lighter. Notably, they don't include the depleted uranium modules that US tanks use as even export M1s produced in the United States don't have these. K1 also has a partial hydropneumatic suspension which is more adaptable than the torsion bar suspension used in M1, though also more expensive. These were concessions to local conditions which are quite mountainous in many parts of the Korean peninsula.

All K1s are also diesel-powered rather than turbine-powered which results in a lower power to weight ratio but also lower fuel consumption.

All K1s have an independent commander's sight which M1s didn't technically receive until M1A2, but M1 and M1A1 commanders have been able to use their machine gun sights for much the same purpose anyway so the difference isn't huge.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Humvees aren't meant as front line combat vehicles. They are general purpose vehicles to support Combat Support and Combat Service Support units as well as to serve as staff cars and other roles that AFVs aren't really suited for. The Humvee is around for the same reason the similarly vulnerable FMTV, HEMTT, and HET are kept around. They are NOT combat vehicles.

They're frequently used as front line combat vehicles, which is part of a growing problem. But that aside, it doesn't really matter as our primary losses have been from logistics troops, about 50%.

Just because they are USED as front line combat vehicles doesn't mean they are bad vehicles. They weren't designed for combat so naturally they don't do well in combat.

MRAPS are also being retired from service very quickly. In terms of squads, the Army has determined that size isn't a factor for squads. Rather, the factors that matter are training and equipment.

Size matters relative to training and being able to implement complex strategies. Fireteams are supposed to leap frog with each other and implement strategies such as flanking, with one fireteam pinning down the enemy and the other flanking, but this isn't possible if you only have... one fireteam. You can implement this strategy by breaking the fireteam in to smaller pieces, but then you get a rather uneven distribution of weapons and men, I.E. an M249 and ammunition carrier in one half-fireteam and a grenadier and regular riflemen in the other. You also have a squad sergeant, which means one fireteam has 5 men and the other 4, essentially, as the 9th man doesn't ride in his own vehicle but obviously tags alone with one of the fireteams. The current army squad as it stands now isn't really all that good at being broken down in to fireteams; hell, being broken down in to just squads isn't really working all that well, as they rely on certain platoon functions, like mortars or machine guns, which also won't be available. It will take a massive restructuring of the army squad to make fireteam operations viable, and the current army squads is used in almost every military unit, from the rangers and regular infantry to airborne. You basically have to treat each fireteam as if it's it's own squad which is completely different from what we currently do.

I don't write doctrine, man. In BCT, the squads we trained in had 15 guys until about a third of my "squad" dropped out. In my reserve unit, we don't focus on combat tactics since we are a bridge company. I have my own complaints about the 9 man squad idea but, again, I don't write doctrine. In terms of the fire team, what you described is a squad in miniature. M249 and Ammo carrier are the Base of Fire while the Grenadier and Rifleman are the Maneuver Element. It is Squad Attack 101, quite literally.

The M113 is like 50 years old and they have been trying to replace it for about 30 years. Light Infantry don't get heavy armored vehicles because they are intended to fight in ways which aren't supported by armored vehicles. Mountains, Airborne, Air Assault, etc. Mechanized infantry, on the other hand, uses Infantry Fighting Vehicles to move them up to the front. The guys with the trucks getting hit in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't the 11 Bang Bangs with the Bradleys and Strykers but the 88 Mikes lugging food, fuel, and ammunition between FOBs.

The airborne a lot of the times can't afford to use bradleys and strykers because of how heavy they are and the difficulty of using them in airborne operations so, they do rely on the humvee. The idea that everything fits in it's proper box somehow doesn't really hold true in actual real world combat. More often than that humvees and M113's are being used as "front line" combat vehicles, or finding themselves in ambushes as there are no real front lines, and ending up in precarious combat situations all the same, whether it was the intent or not. The idea of a front line is archaic in modern warfare, but essentially those doing most of the fighting rarely get to pick and choose their exact circumstances. Everyone needs to be prepared for heavy combat all the time, especially since logistics troops are being deliberately targeted, and that is something the humvee can't do.

The Airborne have to sacrifice armor due to weight. That has been a fact of the airborne since the first airborne operation was planned in 1918 and it will remain a fact until we can figure out how to make mass irrelevant. The US Army developed their current inventory for a conventional war against the Soviets. In a war where "Front Line" is utterly irrelevant and the enemy is literally everywhere and nowhere at once, there is no such thing as Frontline Combat. Preparing everyone for heavy combat is simply not possible. Armor takes up volume and logistics troops need that volume to carry supplies. They cannot afford to make their vehicle so heavily armored that they can survive most IEDs and that random shit. That is why the focus on armor protection is given to the Combat Arms vehicles like Tanks, SPGs, IFVs, and APCs as opposed the Combat Support and Combat Service Support vehicles like Humvees, HEMTTs, and FMTVs. Combat units are improving survivability with JLTVs but those aren't going to work well in the roles that the HEMTTs and FMTVs fill.

Also, logistics troops have been targeted by the enemy since literally the beginning of warfare. Cutting your enemies supply lines is the wet dream of every military commander ever. However, armoring the logistics guys has to balanced against them being able to do their job, I.E. RESUPPLY THE TROOPS in a timely manner. As a result, logistics vehicles focus mostly on being able to fill the transport role first and the survivability role second.

[Manokan Republic]

How would the K1A1 South Korean Main Battle Tank compare to the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank?

Well in general the U.S. abrams has superior armor to virtually any other tank, largely due to the design and money spent by the U.S. However a lot of foreign tanks tend have better designs, using more fuel efficient engines or superior interior lay-outs, taking advantage of remote controlled weapons, to reduce the size needed for the tanks to protect the crew, thus reducing protected volume and surface area.

The M1 abrams not only has some of the best armor in the world, but it is extremely fast too and has good targeting systems. The newer improved K1's are also fast and have good targeting systems, so if using a depleted uranium round which, the U.S. doesn't really share with the rest of the world, it could potentially beat and M1 abrams if it was able to outshoot it. However with the usually weaker export rounds for 120mm guns, it might not be able to and thus, out maneuvering won't mean as much although disabling an enemy M1 tank is far more probable. The main disadvantage is the weaker armor, at only about 50 tons vs. 68+ for the M1 abrams so, most likely they would take heavy losses.

[Manokan Republic]

Humvees weren't used as front line vehicles, at most they were used as transports for light infantry who didn't have organic heavier vehicles to maneuver with. This wasn't a huge issue for things like Dessert Storm and the Iraq Invasion, because those units generally could dismount and fight readily when they did come into contact with enemy forces. The problem comes when dismounting to engage the enemy isn't possible, see Mogadishu and the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because of the nature of the operations, and the nature of the enemy, troops in Humvees couldn't dismount to engage and clear enemy forces, especially as the enemy 's often did not engage with direct fire but instead with IED's and other weapons the Humvees wasn't designed to face.

Thus the US armed force made the MRAP's which were much more suited to the problems being faced. The Humvees is just great for how it was supposed to be used, so are MRAP's. There purposes are different.

Special forces, airborne, and various other infantry units have used the humvee as their primary go to vehicle and not just for logistics purposes. The main thing with a humvee I'd take issue with is that kevlar is a terrible material for resisting high velocity armor piercing rounds, and as well the epoxy resin binder they use burns. Steel or titanium at similiar weights would stop similiar rounds, but better and with less chance of a fire.

The up armored humvees are about 10,000 pounds, and while exact figures vary, they have about 400 square feet of surface area. If made out of AR500 steel, with 10 pounds per square foot, roughly the same as target steel, it could stop most rifle rounds and only be about 4000 pounds for the armor, where as titanium would be about 30-70% lighter for the same or slightly lower strength armor. If double the thickness, and including another 2000 pounds or so of other material, you could have at least half an inch of steel armor that would stop the majority of small arms rounds and even things like IED's, without the potential to burn, the only problem being spalling which is easily stopped with a, spall liner. Kevlar is also hideously expensive pound for pound, so I'm not sure why they ever used it as armor to begin with.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Humvees weren't used as front line vehicles, at most they were used as transports for light infantry who didn't have organic heavier vehicles to maneuver with. This wasn't a huge issue for things like Dessert Storm and the Iraq Invasion, because those units generally could dismount and fight readily when they did come into contact with enemy forces. The problem comes when dismounting to engage the enemy isn't possible, see Mogadishu and the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because of the nature of the operations, and the nature of the enemy, troops in Humvees couldn't dismount to engage and clear enemy forces, especially as the enemy 's often did not engage with direct fire but instead with IED's and other weapons the Humvees wasn't designed to face.

Thus the US armed force made the MRAP's which were much more suited to the problems being faced. The Humvees is just great for how it was supposed to be used, so are MRAP's. There purposes are different.

Special forces, airborne, and various other infantry units have used the humvee as their primary go to vehicle and not just for logistics purposes. The main thing with a humvee I'd take issue with is that kevlar is a terrible material for resisting high velocity armor piercing rounds, and as well the epoxy resin binder they use burns. Steel or titanium at similiar weights would stop similiar rounds, but better and with less chance of a fire.

It was never designed as a combat vehicle. It's used by airborne and light infantry units, yeah but that's because it is light enough to be dropped with them. Titanium is expensive and steel needs to be a bit thicker to provide the levels of armor protection you appear to want and would weigh a lot more. Plus the Humvee chassis and frame is steel while the body is aluminum specifically for the reason of saving weight.

[Spirit of Hope]

Humvees weren't used as front line vehicles, at most they were used as transports for light infantry who didn't have organic heavier vehicles to maneuver with. This wasn't a huge issue for things like Dessert Storm and the Iraq Invasion, because those units generally could dismount and fight readily when they did come into contact with enemy forces. The problem comes when dismounting to engage the enemy isn't possible, see Mogadishu and the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because of the nature of the operations, and the nature of the enemy, troops in Humvees couldn't dismount to engage and clear enemy forces, especially as the enemy 's often did not engage with direct fire but instead with IED's and other weapons the Humvees wasn't designed to face.

Thus the US armed force made the MRAP's which were much more suited to the problems being faced. The Humvees is just great for how it was supposed to be used, so are MRAP's. There purposes are different.

Special forces, airborne, and various other infantry units have used the humvee as their primary go to vehicle and not just for logistics purposes. The main thing with a humvee I'd take issue with is that kevlar is a terrible material for resisting high velocity armor piercing rounds, and as well the epoxy resin binder they use burns. Steel or titanium at similiar weights would stop similiar rounds, but better and with less chance of a fire.

Correct, a number of forces used the Humvee for battlefield maneuver, they did not remain in them to engage the enemy however. Instead when they thought they were going to engage the enemy they, generally, dismounted from their vehicles and engaged on foot, with the Humvee potentially providing heavier weapons support. This is very different from the job they got pressed into, which was to serve as essentially armed escorts. Here the troops using them, due to their mission, generally couldn't dismount and engage the enemy as airborne/special forces/light infantry would. Instead they had to remain in their vehicles. Thus the creation of the up armored Humvee and MRAP, to protect troops who could not dismount to engage.

The up armored humvees are about 10,000 pounds, and while exact figures vary, they have about 400 square feet of surface area. If made out of AR500 steel, with 10 pounds per square foot, roughly the same as target steel, it could stop most rifle rounds and only be about 4000 pounds for the armor, where as titanium would be about 30-70% lighter for the same or slightly lower strength armor. If double the thickness, and including another 2000 pounds or so of other material, you could have at least half an inch of steel armor that would stop the majority of small arms rounds and even things like IED's, without the potential to burn, the only problem being spalling which is easily stopped with a, spall liner. Kevlar is also hideously expensive pound for pound, so I'm not sure why they ever used it as armor to begin with.

Armoring the Humvee makes little sense, especially using expensive metals like titanium, unless you want to directly engage the enemy with it. If you are doing that why not get a Bradley, Striker, or other actual armored vehicle. The Humvee is for moving people to the front line, not engaging on it.

[The Manticoran Empire]

Humvees weren't used as front line vehicles, at most they were used as transports for light infantry who didn't have organic heavier vehicles to maneuver with. This wasn't a huge issue for things like Dessert Storm and the Iraq Invasion, because those units generally could dismount and fight readily when they did come into contact with enemy forces. The problem comes when dismounting to engage the enemy isn't possible, see Mogadishu and the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because of the nature of the operations, and the nature of the enemy, troops in Humvees couldn't dismount to engage and clear enemy forces, especially as the enemy 's often did not engage with direct fire but instead with IED's and other weapons the Humvees wasn't designed to face.

Thus the US armed force made the MRAP's which were much more suited to the problems being faced. The Humvees is just great for how it was supposed to be used, so are MRAP's. There purposes are different.

The up armored humvees are about 10,000 pounds, and while exact figures vary, they have about 400 square feet of surface area. If made out of AR500 steel, with 10 pounds per square foot, roughly the same as target steel, it could stop most rifle rounds and only be about 4000 pounds for the armor, where as titanium would be about 30-70% lighter for the same or slightly lower strength armor. If double the thickness, and including another 2000 pounds or so of other material, you could have at least half an inch of steel armor that would stop the majority of small arms rounds and even things like IED's, without the potential to burn, the only problem being spalling which is easily stopped with a, spall liner. Kevlar is also hideously expensive pound for pound, so I'm not sure why they ever used it as armor to begin with.

The base M998 Humvee has a GVWR of 7,700 pounds and a curb weight of 5,200 pounds. 4,000 pounds of steel armor makes it 9,200 pounds with NO cargo capability and absolutely shit handling. The Up Armored Humvees had to be redesigned into new variants because the standard drivetrain couldn't handle the weight. Basically you are taking the problem of the old Up Armored Humvees and making it WORSE. 3/8" thick AR500 steel weighs 15.31 pounds per square foot. So that is 6,124 pounds, not this 4,000 pounds you claim. Source.
In terms of armor protection, in order to stop 5.56mm NATO rounds, you need about 12mm to 18mm of RHA. Given that AR500 steel weighs 20.42 pounds per square foot at 1/2 inch thickness, you are now looking at 8,168 pounds for armor. Yet again, it is simply too heavy.

[The Manticoran Empire]

The Nazis were more advanced on paper, yes. But, in practice, their vehicles had miserably reliability even by the standards of the time and they were over engineered to the point that routine maintenance was nearly impossible.

Nazi Germany was not particularly advanced. They were notably inferior in radar technology, the development and application of early computers, metallurgy, and of course nuclear physics to the Western Allies. As always, there were fields in which they were ahead of their counterparts (rocketry, aerodynamics) and areas where they were inferior. They just happened to employ some rather flashy technology demonstrators.

The reliability of most German vehicles was on par with their Western counterparts when supply lines were adequate. Of course, they often weren't, which was the cause of a number of breakdowns. But the Western Allies rarely suffered from these circumstances owing to greater industrial support and a more conservative approach, so this was not readily apparent in most cases.

That's why I said "On Paper".

[Kassaran]

They're frequently used as front line combat vehicles, which is part of a growing problem. But that aside, it doesn't really matter as our primary losses have been from logistics troops, about 50%.

No, they're not being 'frequently used as front line combat vehicles'. That's a fallacy born from not understanding the inherent nature of the majority of engagements that happen involving them. They get engaged while involved in logistics and sustainment duties, such as escorting convoys of other logistics vehicles, or hauling out the meager minimum resources needed for a lone outpost or patrol. Just because you end up fending off a criminal, you don't become a police officer on the front-lines of fighting crime, it just makes you a victim of circumstance. As you even mentioned and disproved by writing, it's the logistics troops that are taking the brunt force/majority of these attacks and casualties because it's the weak spot in our operations in current hot spots around the globe and everyone knows it.

Size matters relative to training and being able to implement complex strategies. Fireteams are supposed to leap frog with each other and implement strategies such as flanking, with one fireteam pinning down the enemy and the other flanking, but this isn't possible if you only have... one fireteam. You can implement this strategy by breaking the fireteam in to smaller pieces, but then you get a rather uneven distribution of weapons and men, I.E. an M249 and ammunition carrier in one half-fireteam and a grenadier and regular riflemen in the other. You also have a squad sergeant, which means one fireteam has 5 men and the other 4, essentially, as the 9th man doesn't ride in his own vehicle but obviously tags alone with one of the fireteams. The current army squad as it stands now isn't really all that good at being broken down in to fireteams; hell, being broken down in to just squads isn't really working all that well, as they rely on certain platoon functions, like mortars or machine guns, which also won't be available. It will take a massive restructuring of the army squad to make fireteam operations viable, and the current army squads is used in almost every military unit, from the rangers and regular infantry to airborne. You basically have to treat each fireteam as if it's it's own squad which is completely different from what we currently do.

Infantry Squads don't need those things organically though and they're already big enough as discovered by the US Army quite some time ago. It's really just a bit beyond the purview of their specialty, which is why you have specialists that you add in for patrols. While the 9-man squad is generally toted as being the standard, that's rarely the actual size of a squad on patrol... and here's why:

As explained to me a few years ago in BCT by my DS, a two tour veteran in Iraq and one time in Afghanistan with plenty of in-firefight experience to get across the ideas concisely enough- you have your standard 9-man team like you mentioned. That formation generally ends up looking scant like you were saying:

1) Squad Leader
2) Team Leader 1
- Rifleman
- SAW Gunner
- Ammo Bearer
3) Team Leader 2
- Rifleman
- Squad Designated Marksman
- Grenadier

Or something of this ilk. The TL's will, on patrol, break into their own individual units and operate independently on the field, leaving the SL to bound between them both or otherwise as he chooses which helps with maintaining operational flexibility. This, however, isn't all an infantry unit on patrol will be though, because the platoon will assign additional personnel as allotted by the Company. These personnel include (but are not limited to) JTAC's, FEO's, Medics, and additional firepower roles like additional ammo bearers, machine-gunners, and grenadiers.

I'm sure you've been keeping track though, and yes... the numbers generally add up to the patrol squad composition being roughly ten-to-eleven soldiers. This means you can generally have three fireteams at all times of at least three individuals, operating on the battlefield. The lead fireteam is usually the one with the heaviest weaponry because you use that to suppress any contact you come across, the middle fireteam being the command element with the bounding personnel, who will move up to also aid in suppressing enemy contact when it is found, and the rearmost element which consists of your precision killers and flankers trained to scoot around the enemy's flanks and engage from their least protected side.

The airborne a lot of the times can't afford to use bradleys and strykers because of how heavy they are and the difficulty of using them in airborne operations so, they do rely on the humvee. The idea that everything fits in it's proper box somehow doesn't really hold true in actual real world combat. More often than that humvees and M113's are being used as "front line" combat vehicles, or finding themselves in ambushes as there are no real front lines, and ending up in precarious combat situations all the same, whether it was the intent or not. The idea of a front line is archaic in modern warfare, but essentially those doing most of the fighting rarely get to pick and choose their exact circumstances. Everyone needs to be prepared for heavy combat all the time, especially since logistics troops are being deliberately targeted, and that is something the humvee can't do.

Front lines are not an archaic idea in modern combat. What you're mistaking for warfare is COIN operations. For examples of front-lines where people have a general idea of where the enemy is in force, see the fighting done between the Ukraine and the Russian Ultranationalists in the Donbass, or the Syrians in their civil war. In both of those situations, you can see clear divisions in the land between held, and uncontrolled territory. In Afghanistan where the enemy lost the war, but still has some means to resist, we see them embedded amongst the local populace and carrying out insurgent activity which negates the idea of a front-line in and of itself (AFAIK).

Because there is no front line, because the enemy in Afghanistan is not an organized nation-state or entity (but rather a homegrown terrorist and insurgent movement), logistics and sustainment operations can be regularly challenged and engaged by said insurgents. On the other hand, in relatively larger conflicts between somewhat more organized forces, we can see front-lines where enemy activity is stopped in force.

[The Akasha Colony]

Nazi Germany was not particularly advanced. They were notably inferior in radar technology, the development and application of early computers, metallurgy, and of course nuclear physics to the Western Allies. As always, there were fields in which they were ahead of their counterparts (rocketry, aerodynamics) and areas where they were inferior. They just happened to employ some rather flashy technology demonstrators.

The reliability of most German vehicles was on par with their Western counterparts when supply lines were adequate. Of course, they often weren't, which was the cause of a number of breakdowns. But the Western Allies rarely suffered from these circumstances owing to greater industrial support and a more conservative approach, so this was not readily apparent in most cases.

That's why I said "On Paper".

It's sort of the opposite though.

"On paper," when looking at the actual state of the German industrial and scientific base, they weren't noticeably more advanced overall than their opponents. The data on paper does not bear out the notion of German scientific superiority.

But popular imagination has turned "Nazi super-science" into a meme in the public consciousness, regardless of its lack of grounding in any sort of metric.

[The Manticoran Empire]

They're frequently used as front line combat vehicles, which is part of a growing problem. But that aside, it doesn't really matter as our primary losses have been from logistics troops, about 50%.

No, they're not being 'frequently used as front line combat vehicles'. That's a fallacy born from not understanding the inherent nature of the majority of engagements that happen involving them. They get engaged while involved in logistics and sustainment duties, such as escorting convoys of other logistics vehicles, or hauling out the meager minimum resources needed for a lone outpost or patrol. Just because you end up fending off a criminal, you don't become a police officer on the front-lines of fighting crime, it just makes you a victim of circumstance. As you even mentioned and disproved by writing, it's the logistics troops that are taking the brunt force/majority of these attacks and casualties because it's the weak spot in our operations in current hot spots around the globe and everyone knows it.

Size matters relative to training and being able to implement complex strategies. Fireteams are supposed to leap frog with each other and implement strategies such as flanking, with one fireteam pinning down the enemy and the other flanking, but this isn't possible if you only have... one fireteam. You can implement this strategy by breaking the fireteam in to smaller pieces, but then you get a rather uneven distribution of weapons and men, I.E. an M249 and ammunition carrier in one half-fireteam and a grenadier and regular riflemen in the other. You also have a squad sergeant, which means one fireteam has 5 men and the other 4, essentially, as the 9th man doesn't ride in his own vehicle but obviously tags alone with one of the fireteams. The current army squad as it stands now isn't really all that good at being broken down in to fireteams; hell, being broken down in to just squads isn't really working all that well, as they rely on certain platoon functions, like mortars or machine guns, which also won't be available. It will take a massive restructuring of the army squad to make fireteam operations viable, and the current army squads is used in almost every military unit, from the rangers and regular infantry to airborne. You basically have to treat each fireteam as if it's it's own squad which is completely different from what we currently do.

Infantry Squads don't need those things organically though and they're already big enough as discovered by the US Army quite some time ago. It's really just a bit beyond the purview of their specialty, which is why you have specialists that you add in for patrols. While the 9-man squad is generally toted as being the standard, that's rarely the actual size of a squad on patrol... and here's why:

As explained to me a few years ago in BCT by my DS, a two tour veteran in Iraq and one time in Afghanistan with plenty of in-firefight experience to get across the ideas concisely enough- you have your standard 9-man team like you mentioned. That formation generally ends up looking scant like you were saying:

1) Squad Leader
2) Team Leader 1
- Rifleman
- SAW Gunner
- Ammo Bearer
3) Team Leader 2
- Rifleman
- Squad Designated Marksman
- Grenadier

Or something of this ilk. The TL's will, on patrol, break into their own individual units and operate independently on the field, leaving the SL to bound between them both or otherwise as he chooses which helps with maintaining operational flexibility. This, however, isn't all an infantry unit on patrol will be though, because the platoon will assign additional personnel as allotted by the Company. These personnel include (but are not limited to) JTAC's, FEO's, Medics, and additional firepower roles like additional ammo bearers, machine-gunners, and grenadiers.

I'm sure you've been keeping track though, and yes... the numbers generally add up to the patrol squad composition being roughly ten-to-eleven soldiers. This means you can generally have three fireteams at all times of at least three individuals, operating on the battlefield. The lead fireteam is usually the one with the heaviest weaponry because you use that to suppress any contact you come across, the middle fireteam being the command element with the bounding personnel, who will move up to also aid in suppressing enemy contact when it is found, and the rearmost element which consists of your precision killers and flankers trained to scoot around the enemy's flanks and engage from their least protected side.

The airborne a lot of the times can't afford to use bradleys and strykers because of how heavy they are and the difficulty of using them in airborne operations so, they do rely on the humvee. The idea that everything fits in it's proper box somehow doesn't really hold true in actual real world combat. More often than that humvees and M113's are being used as "front line" combat vehicles, or finding themselves in ambushes as there are no real front lines, and ending up in precarious combat situations all the same, whether it was the intent or not. The idea of a front line is archaic in modern warfare, but essentially those doing most of the fighting rarely get to pick and choose their exact circumstances. Everyone needs to be prepared for heavy combat all the time, especially since logistics troops are being deliberately targeted, and that is something the humvee can't do.

Front lines are not an archaic idea in modern combat. What you're mistaking for warfare is COIN operations. For examples of front-lines where people have a general idea of where the enemy is in force, see the fighting done between the Ukraine and the Russian Ultranationalists in the Donbass, or the Syrians in their civil war. In both of those situations, you can see clear divisions in the land between held, and uncontrolled territory. In Afghanistan where the enemy lost the war, but still has some means to resist, we see them embedded amongst the local populace and carrying out insurgent activity which negates the idea of a front-line in and of itself (AFAIK).

Because there is no front line, because the enemy in Afghanistan is not an organized nation-state or entity (but rather a homegrown terrorist and insurgent movement), logistics and sustainment operations can be regularly challenged and engaged by said insurgents. On the other hand, in relatively larger conflicts between somewhat more organized forces, we can see front-lines where enemy activity is stopped in force.

Iraq also had the whole "Front Lines kinda disappeared" thing as did Chechnya.

[Manokan Republic]

Special forces, airborne, and various other infantry units have used the humvee as their primary go to vehicle and not just for logistics purposes. The main thing with a humvee I'd take issue with is that kevlar is a terrible material for resisting high velocity armor piercing rounds, and as well the epoxy resin binder they use burns. Steel or titanium at similiar weights would stop similiar rounds, but better and with less chance of a fire.

It was never designed as a combat vehicle. It's used by airborne and light infantry units, yeah but that's because it is light enough to be dropped with them. Titanium is expensive and steel needs to be a bit thicker to provide the levels of armor protection you appear to want and would weigh a lot more. Plus the Humvee chassis and frame is steel while the body is aluminum specifically for the reason of saving weight.

It was designed to be used in a broad range of roles, including combat, which is why they mounted things like weapons on it and put infantry inside of it. Even if it was never designed for it, it's irrelevant as it's being widely used this way and it's ill suited for the purpose. The idea of keeping something in a rigid box based on a highly specific intended use is silly.

Titanium is only marginally more expensive than steel, depending on the time, sometimes as cheap as only 15% more expensive, and a 1/4 inch of AR-500 steel can stop most rifle rounds, including armor piercing rounds, at close range. The only exception as far as I know is incendiary armor piercing rounds or high explosive armor piercing rounds which are, rare in smaller calibers. There isn't really a weight advantage as kevlar is much weaker against high velocity or hardened rounds, and thus while good at absorbing energy, is bad at resisting penetration, which is why steel helmets are difficult to pierce with knives, but kevlar vest are not. The high hardness, flexibility and other mechanical properties makes it better suited for high velocity rounds, even if theoretically the MPA levels are lower. Humvees in their current configuration were found to be penetrated by armor piercing 7.62mm x 54mmR rounds, worsened by the fact that kevlar also weakens over time given that the layers will peal apart and that it degrades in UV, water, and heat, as well as to repeated impacts since kevlar sheers easily, where as steel and titanium succumb less to environmental stressors or being hit multiple times (except for rust in the case of some steels). For the same weight, steel likely would officer at least as good as protection as kevlar would. Aluminum is a good material and makes up the bulk of the humvee, but is also significantly weaker than steel or titanium, with medium grade aluminum comparable in capability to medium grade steel, but high grade aluminum nowhere near as capable as high grade steel. For example, the strongest aluminum materials have 700 MPA, where as AR-500 steel has 1500, and certain steels can get up to 2600. Moreover where as AR500 is much tougher, aluminum at these strength levels is very brittle, and quickly shatters, making it poor as armor. So, while steel is seen as heavier, for the same level of armor protection against higher velocity rounds, it actually is lighter weight, as the sheer strength of kevlar or aluminum is much lower. At around 400 square feet, it would only be about 4000 pounds to have a 1/4 inch of steel, which is sufficient to stop most armor piercing 7.62mm rounds, and probably an overestimate for how many square feet you would need to cover on a humvee; double this could potentially stop armor piercing .50 caliber rounds, but not HEIAP rounds. You would have to design the vehicle differently as you can't cast the material as easily as aluminum, and would need to bolt together sheets of metal.

[Manokan Republic]

The up armored humvees are about 10,000 pounds, and while exact figures vary, they have about 400 square feet of surface area. If made out of AR500 steel, with 10 pounds per square foot, roughly the same as target steel, it could stop most rifle rounds and only be about 4000 pounds for the armor, where as titanium would be about 30-70% lighter for the same or slightly lower strength armor. If double the thickness, and including another 2000 pounds or so of other material, you could have at least half an inch of steel armor that would stop the majority of small arms rounds and even things like IED's, without the potential to burn, the only problem being spalling which is easily stopped with a, spall liner. Kevlar is also hideously expensive pound for pound, so I'm not sure why they ever used it as armor to begin with.

The base M998 Humvee has a GVWR of 7,700 pounds and a curb weight of 5,200 pounds. 4,000 pounds of steel armor makes it 9,200 pounds with NO cargo capability and absolutely shit handling. The Up Armored Humvees had to be redesigned into new variants because the standard drivetrain couldn't handle the weight. Basically you are taking the problem of the old Up Armored Humvees and making it WORSE. 3/8" thick AR500 steel weighs 15.31 pounds per square foot. So that is 6,124 pounds, not this 4,000 pounds you claim. Source.
In terms of armor protection, in order to stop 5.56mm NATO rounds, you need about 12mm to 18mm of RHA. Given that AR500 steel weighs 20.42 pounds per square foot at 1/2 inch thickness, you are now looking at 8,168 pounds for armor. Yet again, it is simply too heavy.

The humvee is made out of aluminum, so you wouldn't simply add armor to it so much as replace the existing aluminum with steel. You would redesign the frame to be made out of a different material. However, the up armored humvees are 10,000 pounds, and not the lighter weight they were originally designed it, meaning it would be approximately the same weight as what we use in the field.