Humvee's days as military workhorse are running out

[leftchick]

By Steven Komarow
USA Today


The Pentagon is accelerating its search for a replacement for the Humvee, after two years of roadside bombs and suicide attacks in Iraq that have killed hundreds of soldiers in a vehicle that wasn't designed for front-line urban combat.

Before the war in Iraq, a Humvee successor wasn't due until the middle of the next decade. Now the Army plans to review designs this fall, and working prototypes will be due in June.

Humvees, the Army's workhorse vehicle, are produced by AM General Corp. in Mishawaka, Ind., where the Humvee plant employs about 1,000.

AM General also makes a civilian copy of the Humvee, called the Hummer. Hummers started selling in the 1990s as the consumer demand for trucks took off. General Motors bought the Hummer market rights in 1999.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050824/NEWS06/508240499/1012/NEWS06

[Porcupine]

1. It's not the truck but the TACTICS dummys!

You cannot govern from inside a tank. Your troops have to get out of the tank and walk up to the people you are trying to control. If you cannot do that you have already lost.

[Ilsa]

2. I don't think the former pilot running the DOD gets that!

Let's just call it all off and go home, shall we? If only.

[havocmom]

3. Some have been killed not from bullets or bombs, but Hummers flipping over

and smashing them. It is not just the armor problem getting our people killed, the damn vehicles flip over too easily. There are deaths due to hummer accidents having nothing to do with combat.

The vehicles suck. Period.

[Boomer]

6. Hummers were never meant to be tanks

The problem is that Hummers were never meant as replacements for tanks, but that is how they are being used.

So, yes, of course they suck.

[havocmom]

7. Yes, they get used like they are tanks. Even get big guns put on top

And then young men get flattened when they tip over. Used like tanks, driven like jeeps; the only winners of that are the Hummer sales team.

[durablend]

18. They were never meant as passenger vehicles either

DAMN GAS GUZZLING ELITIST PIECES OF CRAP

[Redstone]

23. They're not QUITE as bad as the old jeeps for flipping over,

but close.

Damn Jeeps killed almost as many GIs in Europe during WWII as the Germans did. (That's a bit of an exaggeration, but not much. Between the flipping over that the impalement on the steering wheel column, those damn things were deadly.)

Redstone

[Oerdin]

30. Hummers are better at not flipping

Then just about any other SUV out there because they are wide and long. They are still jacked up very high because they are off roaders but these vehicles really are used off road by the military and aren't grocery getters at the mail like the civilian ones. Sure, there are still accidents but there will be accidents with any vehicle and the Army at least has a pretty exhaustive and riggerous policy about how they are to be driven safely.

[Kingofalldems]

4. Good riddance

An overpriced piece of crap.

[bemildred]

5. Every soldier with his own Abrams ought to do it. nt

[trogdor]

8. No, not quite.

This will do just fine.

[bemildred]

9. Well, OK. I exaggerated.

You want something with tracks and armor that gets 0.2 MPG.
Or you could just admit that it's a stupid enterprise in the first place.
:hi:

[Jackpine Radical]

10. As I recall, those APC's aren't nearly as impervious as they look.

You can chew one up pretty effectively with a .50 machine gun, for example. RPGs woould probly blow awfully big holes in them with any kind of AP round.

[Squatch]

12. Ah...the M-113...27 tons of aircraft grade aluminum.

I think I'd rather take my chances as a leg.

[ET Awful]

16. You're kidding right? That thing is made of aluminum.

It won't stop anything bigger than an M-16 round really. A .50 cal will tear it apart.

The APC and it's variants are pretty much worthless for protection from anything above a standard infantry rifle round.

[Redstone]

24. Fuck no, not the M113. You ever see the pictures from

Viet Nam of those sons of bitches with the GIs hanging all over the sides of them? That's because they were deathtraps. An AK round could penetrate one side, but not go out the other, and the fucker would ricochet around seventeen times until it found somebody to kill.

Redstone

[Oerdin]

29. M113 "breadbox"

Has aluminium armor and really sucks. They don't go fast, they tear up roads with their tracks, and they're expensive as all hell. The army has transfered most of those to national guard units who themselves want to phase them out. The original Jeep stayed in daily service for 40 years before it wa replaced by the Humvee and the Humvee should only be half way through it's life cycle right now. The problem isn't the Humvee but the model of Humvee which the military has been buying. The M1025 Humvee comes with plastic or fiberglass doors which won't stop a rock thrown at it much less a bullet or a bomb but the M1114 uparmored Humvees are really rather good.

When I was in Iraq I used an M1114 every day and felt safe 90% of the time because of it. We got hit by mortar shrapnel and small arms fire but nothing penitrated the crew compartment and one of my friends had an IED go off two feet away from his M1114 and although the vehicle was a wreck no one was seriously injured (the gunner did have a ruptured ear drum). The military doesn't want to pay the money for armored humvees so they keep order more soft backs and that's the wrong tactic given that IEDs and car bombs are the enemy's favorate method of attack.

[Toots]

37. Oh my God have you ever been in one of those things?

Made out of aluminum and bounce over a marble. Hum Vees are as safe as those things are and they don't tear up the roads. That looks like a 114 that is used only for reconnisance. No mounted fifty anyway.

[underpants]

13. Mechanics form Gulf1 told me sand kills M-1s

Abrams were made for defending Europe. I rode in a Bradley which were designed for pretty much everywhere (and a real pork project) or so the mechanics told me.

[bemildred]

14. Not being serious.

The "real" problem is trying to fight a guerilla war without having lots of dead on both sides. Armor is just an attempted patch on the underlying stupidity, and the Iraq War has served as an excellent demonstration that the patch won't work in the presence of copious quantities of high-grade explosives on the other side.

[underpants]

15. Bombing ant hills with B-52's

The used of huge armored vehicles saves US lives (thank god) and allows for the covering and "control" of larger areas but it doesn't do much for getting every last one of the "opponent", for that you need "legs" or one-to-one action.

The big boys have a purpose but if they really think they are going to get every one of "them" they are going to have to go lighter. Of course, as you mention, bombs do lots of the heavy lifting.

[Javaman]

11. Wonderful...just wonderful...

so now GM, the gas sucking car producer, will make yet another military vehicle that some bone head wanna-be chicken hawk civilian repuke will have to buy, so he can play army man on the roads of America. Let's hope this one comes with lazar guided coffee cup holders.

colossal failure*

[Enraged_Ape]

17. How about something that won't flip over every 5 minutes?

Like, say, something that has a lower center of gravity--like, perhaps, a Jeep?

[Redstone]

25. No, not a Jeep. See my post #23.

Those things are deadly, too.

Redstone

[Enraged_Ape]

34. Wow, I didn't know that

Maybe not heavy enough? :shrug:

[high density]

19. Front-line urban combat?

The Iraqis are welcoming us with open arms!!!! Why all this negative reporting from the liberal media????? WHY?????

[jmowreader]

20. Why HMMWVs tip over

HMMWV = High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle. Humvee to you. Hummer to a freeper.

There are two "height" specifications that govern this vehicle--ground clearance and overall height at the base of the windshield. The Army wanted a lot of the first and not much of the second so that they could clear obstacles with it, but still get the vehicle into very low places. These two contradictory ideas--low-slung vehicle that sits high above the ground--put all the weight real high up. Of the 6000 pounds a HMMWV weighs, I'd be shocked if more than 600 of those pounds were unsprung weight.

Bring back the Mule!

[H5N1]

22. fascinating

[Chico Man]

21. National Guard pimps out hummers for recruitment purposes!!

Have a look..



Snapped this at the town fair... you won't believe it, but three soldiers were dancing to techo music on the roof of this Hummer a few minuted before i snapped the pic!

Unbelievable!

[leftchick]

31. and my Tax $$$$ pay for that horror show???

omg... :puke:

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

35. Theres a Duke

I found this with google...

[davepc]

26. The Humvee does what it was designed for very well

which is a light utility vehicle/troop transport.

However it does some things poorly, mainly in the role of urban assault vehicle. Unfortunately the Army and Marines are trying to make a work truck into a combat vehicle with predictable results.

Just because you can strap a machine gun or grenade launcher to the top of one, does make it a well suited direct action combat car.


The Army has a purpose built combat car/troop transport; the Stryker. However only a handful of units currently are equipped with them.

[CatholicEdHead]

28. Also being a scout vechile

was part of the Humvee's designed mission.

[Oerdin]

32. The stryker is a huge waste of money.

It was originally designed to be a fast, light weight air movable APC; something like a lighter weight Soviet BTR-60 or that Swedish 8 wheeled amphibious APC. To keep it light they had to skip a main gun as not even a 25mm like a Bradley had could be fitted on plus the armor was the same thin aluminium crap found on the old M113. The result is rifle fire can pierce the crew cabin and an RPG-7 will open it like a tin can.

The army knew how deficient the Stryker was so they ordered add on reactive armor which has to be strapped on the outside before it is allowed in theater. The problem is all this extra armor makes the Stryker so heavy it is no longer air movable which was the sole point for it's existance to begin with plus it can still be knocked out by a mine or buried bomb because the add on armor doesn't cover the bottom of the vehicle or the engine compartment. All this in a giant vehicle that automatically becomes a target for every yahoo with an AK-47. No, thank you.

To make it worse the Stryker is an ancient design. Reagan originally asked for both the Stryker and the Bradley back in the early 80's and Congress rightly said it was a waste of money to have two APCs and that the military would have to choice either the Stryker or the Bradley. The Army took the Bradley sinceit is a superior vehicle in every way. The defense contractor kept at it and kept trying to get the dead project restarted and eventually they got enough republicans in the late 1990's to agree to this pork project so this crappy 20 year old design was brought back to life. It's garbage and a waste of money.

[saigon68]

33. JUST THINK HOW MANY SENIORS COULD GET PRESCRIPTIONS?

OR CHILDREN FED?

OR HOUSES CONSTRUCTED?

OH WELL

I'll bet the rich are making a killing off providing a more efficient "KILLING MACHINE" or WHO WOULD JESUS KILL?

[meow2u3]

27. Try going back to the good, old-fashioned JEEP!!!

The military never should have asked for such a gas-guzzling behemoth anyhow. Why not the Jeep? If it was good enough then, why not now?

[jmowreader]

38. It wasn't "good enough" then and it's not good enough now

Let's see...

One-quarter-ton capacity. In the brown-shoe army this was called a Field Car, because that's what it was: a car. Not a truck, and if you need to carry anything that weighs more than two soldiers wearing their load-bearing equipment and carrying their assigned weapons, the back of the car gets real squirrelly. The HMMWV, having a 1.25-ton capacity, can haul many things including S-250 communications shelters, lots of ammo and even construction supplies.

Very little towing capability. It will not tow any of the trailer-mounted generators, towed guns, or other modern military device used by today's Army. A HMMWV will tow all of those things.

Easy to flip. Every army base that has a tactical training area has a sign at the entrance to it: speed limit for M151--35MPH. If you drive this vehicle faster than 35MPH, you'll probably turn it over in the first corner you take. It's got skinny little tires and lotsa ground clearance and no weight to speak of. (Four good-size soldiers can pick one of these little pieces of shit up and lift it out of a ditch. Trust me on this one.) HMMWVs are also easy to flip, but not as easy as a jeep.

No seat belts, and no real good way to add them. HMMWVs are equipped with them.

Runs on gasoline. The Army is attempting to minimize gasoline use so they can carry one main fuel to the woods. A HMMWV is diesel.

So old it was very unreliable when they finally got rid of the damn things. My last jeep had the bumper number 209-39, which the motor sergeant said was highly coincidental because there were 209 things wrong with it, 39 of which were "deadline" items that were supposed to keep it in the motor pool.

[0007]

36. If the U.S. worked as hard making peace through out the world

as they do on weapons of war, the world would be a better place to live.