I need a military perspective on this. I'm curious as to what people who actually patrolled in these things think.
Wayyyyyyyy back in 1990 or so when Schwazenegger first bought one and they came to popularity in the first Gulf war, I took one look at those things and though "They must be armoured, otherwise they're useless!"
Turns out they weren't armoured. So they're useless, at least in my opinion.
And I can back up my opinion.
On base they're too big and thirsty to be good for anything. So they're for s**t. The new smaller Jeep J8 that they wanna buy would be a million times cheaper to purchase and fuel and a million times more useful in and around bases.
For patrolling? Well, they seem to blow up constantly due to IED's, they're not particularly bulletproof and in real trouble they're slow and hard to turn around. Might as well be patrolling in a pickup truck!
The new
MRAP armoured vehicles are a much better alternative, but even then they seem to be designed to be blunt objects. Incapable of being easily manouvered out of a trouble zone. The best one I've seen is the
M-111-7 ASV which I hope they'll choose as a Humvee replacement because it seems fairly fast and easy to turn.
I love you Yanks, but sometimes I think that your own government doesn't like you as much as I do. It's unforgivable to have sent so many men out to be mutilated in subpar vehicles with no armour and then just shrug and go "Well... that wasn't in the budget."
So what's the verdict? Humvee - Yay? or Nay?
nay, those things make me afraid for my life every time i drive my crx.......i don't know why they ever stopped using the jeeps......
Not Military, but...
If I remember right, the Hummvee's have interchangeable doors, covers for the rear areas and glass that are either regular strength for around the base, or armoured when on patrol (There are variants with a turreted machine gun on top, and the doors can be changed out, not sure about a belly plate, but there are explosives test footage that the DOD did with them when the initial order was placed, and the interior survived).
The question is whether congress wants to fund placing the armouring on the trucks, and pay for more fuel that it will cost to propel the trucks, and whether the military wants to have a shortened range because of the extra weight.
I don't know about these newer vehicles, but I hope Canada gets some new ones as well... BUT, I think anyone that's been in one will take a Hummvee over an older and tin cannier Bombardier Ilitis.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Matt, yes you can have versions of "up-armored" HMMWVs, however every vehicle i was in in Iraq was as armored or less armored than my 86 suburban, usually way less
it is a useful vehicle when stripped down, but not for what we are currently using them for and armored up they are absolute dogs.
OK... here we go...
I was a mechanic in the military and have worked on more HMMWV;s than I can remember..
HMMWV (highly mobile multi wheeled vehicle) is how you actually spell it as far as the military ones are concerned.
There is a GIGANTIC difference between an armored and unarmored humvee.
They are all powered by either 6.2 or 6.5 litre chevy diesel engines and are geared really low (automatic tranny with full time AWD)so they are slow as hell and top about around 55mph wide open.
The amored versions actually do thier intended job fairley well, but the unarmored versions are not good for anything but putting around base and screwing around off road. Most humvee's a civilian will see are the unarmored, tarp door versions. Some of the armored versions actually have A/C on them because they get soo hot inside.
A fully armored HMMWV is desinged to protect everyone inside the vehicle if it drives over something like a normal landmine... and can stop most high powered rifle (or assalt rifle) rounds from entering the cabin even through the glass windows.. The windshield on an armored humvee is about 4 inches thick.
I don't remember all the specifics... but the problem is that they where never designed to handle the explosions that some of these road side bombs make, and thats why they tend to seem useless when you see them exploding on the news.
You could rob a bank with an armored Humvee, but all an anarmored one would be good for is recreational off roading.
I can tell you this for sure.... they are a pain in the butt to work on... and I don't miss mixing them.
this is better? this will stop an IED?
HMMWV FTW.
1st and only thing I see wrong with this in my eyes is that the OP is basing his opinion on a brand new truck and a truck built in the 90's. Really man, this is like comparing apples to orranges. How are you gonna start a topic statting that a truck from the 90's is nothing compared to a truck from now. Or SUV or whatever. It's called advancements. In the 90's the humvee was the top of the line off road truck. Now it's crap cause every Jeep owner had a hard on to try too proove it wrong. It's like the whole 4 cylinder against 8 cylinder debate. Or piston against rotary. Every advancement in society is a proof that the old is not as good as the new.
They arent useless, they just arent practical for the current war conditions
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
David Alameda (Zspeedcav) wrote:1st and only thing I see wrong with this in my eyes is that the OP is basing his opinion on a brand new truck and a truck built in the 90's. Really man, this is like comparing apples to orranges. How are you gonna start a topic statting that a truck from the 90's is nothing compared to a truck from now. Or SUV or whatever. It's called advancements. In the 90's the humvee was the top of the line off road truck. Now it's crap cause every Jeep owner had a hard on to try too proove it wrong. It's like the whole 4 cylinder against 8 cylinder debate. Or piston against rotary. Every advancement in society is a proof that the old is not as good as the new.
he was not comparing off-roadabilty of anything, he was comparing the economy and usefulness of a smaller vehicle for stateside peacetime duties and questioning why we do not employ safer vehicles the are designed more for the types of combat in which our soldiers are currently in.
as far as the bolded statement goes that is the most opinion based statement ever, it will be a matter of personal usage and nothing more (what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander).
im a mechanic in the military right now and work on up armored hmmwv on a daily bases and have driven them as alot. i personally hate the things there slow the 6.5 that they have suck have no power . if your not moving or rolling at idle speed its insanely hard to turn it. they are very difficult to work on and are always breaking down. we go throw more engines for them then any vehicle i know of. on street you cant keep them in a straight line if your life depended on it, but once you get them off pavement and on to a gravel road or muddy area thats were they impress me. they drive really well on any surface other then pavement. they get like 10 mpg if that the up armored ones any way cause they weigh so much. but SF's use them everyday and drive around base, mostly off base to patrol.
2002 cavy with 5spd ecotec(RIP)
1991 eagle talon tsi awd 5spd(sold)
1999 audi a4 1.8l turbo 5spd
http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/779567
Believe it or not..... they don't get asround very well in snow and ice condidtions either.... I was stationed in Alaska and they sucked up there in the winter.
Honestly... they arn't used often on base (at least in the Air Force)... you'll see slightly modified civillian vehicles like chevy and ford Pickup trucks painted blue or green with military plates on them more than anything.... as for the Cops... (SP's or MP's) they usually drive Implala's, Lumina's, Crown Vics, Pickup Trucks, Blazers, and broncos.... but I've never seen a HMMWV wish cheriies on top of it.
They reason they have them for peace time and stateside base use at all is basically the.. "well we have them... we might as well use them" mentality and for training purposes.
And yes.... we really need something safer for the current war in the middle east, than we have now.
Unarmored Version
Armored Version
the ones here are used everyday on base too, we do have your normal cop cars but have hmmwv's with cherries on top of them too, if you know anything about minot afb then you'll understand why we have not only b-52's but up armored hmmws too. yea im sure that they suck in snow and ice and i know here we're going to be super busy like we are now getting them ready for winter. i can only imagine what the SF's well do to them in the winter when we have snow and ice on the ground.
2002 cavy with 5spd ecotec(RIP)
1991 eagle talon tsi awd 5spd(sold)
1999 audi a4 1.8l turbo 5spd
http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/779567
i read the title and thought you meant on the road. so yes they are completely useless in that capacity. as for military...? cant say, as i'm not in it.
The thing about the HMMWV (I knew the correct name btw, but I was afraid a mouthful of letters might look like a speak n' spell wrote the topic and some people might not know what I meant, so I used the slang term Humvee) is that it seems to be a jack of all trades and a master of none. It was designed in 1979 by AM/General to fit the military parameters of the time... peacetime. I mean a HMMWV can do EVERYTHING, but nothing really particularly well. Which to me seems a clear violation of the "Right tool for the right job" motto that you service guys have.
I mean, I understand the rationale behind the decision. The HMMWV was supposed to cut down on the sheer number of different vehicles the military had that were unique to one job or another. You didn't need one model to be an ambulance, another to be a communications array, another to be a rolling generator, another to carry and launch surface to air missiles. It was a waste of money to have different vehicles for each of these jobs and the idea was to kind of merge all of these vehicles into one modular design. And you know what? I agree. It's a perfect vehicles for those above specialized tasks. That way the motor pool doesn't need to keep four different types of replacement engines or trannies, it just needs one. Same with tires, or doors, or windows, or whatever. One size fits all. It's a very clever solution imho.
but...
As a vehicle to just carry guys or equipment around base or to patrol warzones. Eeesh... Too big, too expensive and not IED proof.
A Jeep J8 can carry more people around for twice the Fuel economy. A GMC CUCV will carry more equipment around in the back and pull as large a load for again twice the fuel economy. They're also smaller and easier to drive around base. Not to mention that you can buy three of them for the price of one HMMWV.
But really, I'm nitpicking about most of this stuff. The really bad problem is the IED's and from what Weebel's said it's fairly proficient in combat once it's armoured, but simply isn't able to deal with the sheer size of some IED explosions. Fair enough.
But you need something to replace them, because that's unacceptable. There were IED's in Vietnam and Korea and WW2 and we had vehicles to survive those. We have vehicles that can drive through a house and survice direct LAW missille attacks, we have got to have some idea on how to fix the problem. As for the cost, who cares? There should be a war tax when a war begins to cost too much, end of story. If people support the soldiers, let them show it with their pocketbooks. There comes a time when all the flags and ribbons don't mean a damn thing if the public rationalizes that a few extra caskets are worth the new pool they just bought.
Thanks for the replies Weeb and fnf, God be with you.
thats the thing as for the Air Force (being thats what im in) they dont understand logic like that. they'd rather waste money in something like the HMMWV which is alright and does its job but just costs alot to keep it maintained. as for the money part from what ive noticed the aire force would rather spend money on expensive furniture to make the offices of the higher ups nice then put money into parts and labor and maybe even working on developing something or a couple vehicles that can take its place. but until someone can prove that they have something better and more reliable then the HMMWV the military will continue to use them. even though its a waste of money and like stated before they only protect to extent. they do a good job at stoping bullets as longs as its a up armor but when it comes to IED's yea its going to be hard to make or design something that can handle that. being that not all IED's are the same each one designed for a different target.
2002 cavy with 5spd ecotec(RIP)
1991 eagle talon tsi awd 5spd(sold)
1999 audi a4 1.8l turbo 5spd
http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/779567
all military equipment is built by the lowest bidder. remarking that you can get three of anything for the price of one Vee is nonsense. if a jeep, or any vehicle, was up against the hummer; it cost more, that's why the feds didn't buy it.
Well since AM General has the current military contract for hum v's I bet the Cobra's and/or Eagle's will be the next Hum v's.
PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:all military equipment is built by the lowest bidder. remarking that you can get three of anything for the price of one Vee is nonsense. if a jeep, or any vehicle, was up against the hummer; it cost more, that's why the feds didn't buy it.
Not quite.. Lowest bidders sometimes, but with ancillary clauses for supplies...
It also depends on who's palms are getting greased in the senate appropriations committee (in the case of the Hummvee, Conservatives under Ronald Reagan in 1986).
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
In my first deployment i used the 1114 or the up armored HMMWV. If im not mistaken the 1114 turbo charge, so it can move all the freaking armor and i've had taking it to more than 60mph. Well the gauge couldn't go farther than 60mph lol but the little stick (don't know the name in English lol) was to the right of the 60 lol. But now days I hop in the 1114 and they can't move for @!#$ because all the armor they have put on. But I don't go out with HMWWV anymore. We use now the Cougars and the Buffalo. Yeah buffalo im in route clearance lol. Yeah I know it sucks, but someone have to do the job lol. This vehicles are also call MRAP Mine Resistant Ambush Protected. Cougars are MRAP level 2 and the Buffalo is MRAP level 3. I don't know if you guys know which one is the buffalo, but it came out in the movie Transformers; unfortunately it was the first to die lol.
But like Rodimus says is depending the condition where we at. Right now the Cougar resist more the IEDs than the up-armored HMMWV. But Marines still use it because is more maneuverable than the Cougar in tight places.
<a href="http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=6982448"><img src="http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/10/30205335123.jpg" alt="Click to enlarge"></a>
<a href="http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=6982447"><img src="http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/10/30205335131.jpg" alt="Click to enlarge"></a>
Sweet.. an armored up 5-ton... havn't ever seen one of them
Most the HMMWV's I worked on in the air force actually belonged to either the Army or the Marines and we where just prepping them for combat, but we did have a few of our own also.
As far as replacing them... it's in the works.
Yes the military if somewhat obsessed with "all purpose" vehicles wich is why the HMMWV exists in the first place.
The reaon we still use B-52 bombers is because they still carry the largest payload of any aircrafdt we have and still do the best job for the cost. It would not be cost effeciant to build something that does the job better than what we already have especially since what we have is more than enough.
As far as the lowes bidder thing.. thats not true... when it comes to one propriatary thing yes... but as far as vehicles are concerned the military is required to "spread the wealth" when purchasing GP (general purpose) vehicles wich is why you will see Chevy, Dodge, and Ford vehicles on a military base although it would be easier for everybody that has to fix and / or drive them if they where all the same.
HMMWVs can go well over 60mph, even the 6.2 engines could, you just need to know mechanics that can hook you up. i miss the hell out of B100 my first assigned HMMWV and it was a nimble command vehicle, to me anyways as i am used to driving subs and k5s.
hell i've had dueces and 5 tons over 60mph before and got all 10 wheels off the ground in a deuce, would not advise it at all, 10 tons and no suspension really is hard on the back.
MD-LD9: while the first 2 concepts appear to have great uses over the HMMWV you also hav to take into account that they 'appear' to have the same wheelbase and footprint of the HMMWV and appear to have a ridiculously high center of gravity which would make it a poor choice for any high speed maneuvers whatsoever. the other 2 appear to just be cosmetically changed HMMWVs and that is all.
hell aboot 12 yrs ago i remember an article in the NCO journal that was touting the HOTV (IIRC) that was designed in the dunebuggy style and geared for scouts and mobile light infantry with the capability to be fitted with the .50cal, M60 (before the M240 A/B/G and M249 were in full use but I assume they would easily mount up) and the MARK19 grenade launcher and it was a sweet ass looking little all purpose mover and shaker, however it would be no use against an IED.
there is always something being thrown out there to replace what is being used and unfortunately there is no such thing as the perfect all around use combat vehicle.
Quote:
HMMWVs can go well over 60mph, even the 6.2 engines could, you just need to know mechanics that can hook you up. i miss the hell out of B100 my first assigned HMMWV and it was a nimble command vehicle, to me anyways as i am used to driving subs and k5s.
well... you would have to have them
REALLY hook you up for that to happen... a stock military humvee tops out at 65mph wide open and it's not recommended to drive them over 55mph for extend periods of time.
All these stories that peopl tell you about how they where doing 80mph in a HMMWV when they where in the military are filling you full of BS
The sad thing here is that I'm actually an expert when it comes to this.... I'm amazed that no one ever believes me.
how is it BS, 65 is not the top speed of the HMMWV.
not that i am trying to argue with you but it is like saying the j-body can only go 106 and that's it
before this goes off topic let's agree to disagree this one point and get back to the meat of the topic.
