Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!emory!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: jeff@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (JEFF NANIS )
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: FAV's
Message-ID: <1991Mar18.003827.23493@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 18 Mar 91 00:38:27 GMT
References: <1991Mar14.035453.26969@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar15.035237.8376@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: JHU/APL, Laurel, MD
Lines: 9
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: jeff@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (JEFF NANIS )

	From what I've been told by friends who work in the fighting vehicle
design biz for the Army, a principal reason the FAV never made it big was 
that the suspension wasn't meant for extra armor and armaments. This in turn
led to severe kidney damage in a number of the soldiers who tested it. Any
nephrotic ex-9th IDers out there who can confirm or deny?