The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - February 9, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Hummer obsolete?
HYPOCENTER    10/27/2006 1:58:03 AM
In the current conflict in IRAQ more than 70% of the casualties are caused by IED?s.

Back when the HUMMER first hit the scene in the early 90?s it was well received. It had the most distinctive look of any vehicle in the world, and I would go as far as to say it?s the most advanced and near perfect design for a soft skin general purpose military workhorse.

The problem is IED?s have made the damn thing near useless overnight. I feel badly for the damn thing, it?s a great vehicle and it looks like it will never get the adulation it deserves and instead be forever remembered as a deathtrap, which is a shame. The HUMMER is now in an odd situation. Even up-armored it?s not really tough enough? and when fully up-armored the engine is over-stressed and mobility is lessened, it just wasn?t designed to be armored.

Will the next ?HUMMER? be built from the ground up to be hardened? What's on the drawing board?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2
flamingknives       10/27/2006 10:21:16 AM
Most advanced and near-perfect?

Not the consensus I've seen from user groups who've used that and a different soft-skin light utility vehicle.
Plenty of people from the British Army (comparing it to the Land Rover) think that it's a bit of a tractor, going by what is posted on the unofficial forum. 

From a design point of view, I'd say it's too big and often used in roles for which it is wholly inappropriate, having been marketed as a "do anything" vehicle.
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       10/27/2006 10:46:33 AM
 "I would go as far as to say it’s the most advanced and near perfect design for a soft skin general purpose military workhorse."
 
I don't know think it was all that advanced, it is a good sturdy design that is very capable on all sorts of terrain and can carry a wide variety of cargo (which is more or less was the "HMMWV" a.k.a Hummer says)  People have to remember this was more or less a replacement for the jeep!  As such, its great. 
 
The problem we have is that it's getting jobs that are more suited to light or even heavy armor.  I'm sure thats one of the reason the Stryker is around is because there was an obvious gap between a Hummer and a Bradley.
 
As for up armoring it, I'm not super keen on this.  Sure, if resources were unlimited we could give everyone in Iraq their own M1A1 to drive around in (and even those aren't immune to IEDs).  The point is, I think resources are being spent to try and make the hummer into something it was never designed to do.  It's not an ultra light IFV and is thus getting a undeserved reputation.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       10/27/2006 11:16:34 AM
Slightly off topic, but concerning the gap between a HMMWV and a Bradley, the UK has a similar gap between the Land Rover and the Warrior.
 
I know we have deployed Spartan to Afghanistan, as I saw a blown up one on the news the other night, but have we deployed any Saxon to Iraq or A'stan?
 
Saxon is a PoS as far a a wheeled vehicle goes, it doesn't even look as nice as a Humber Pig, while it is no more sophsticated than an M113.
 
 
Quote    Reply

HYPOCENTER    FENNEK   10/27/2006 1:27:09 PM
You said a gap exists between the HUMMER and a BRADLY.... and that the Stryker was created to bridge that gap. The problem is, a gap exists between the HUMMER and the Stryker.

And an up-armored HUMMER isn't the answer. The future "hummer" replacement will have to be designed to ride into combat, and may look like this (armored):





 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       10/27/2006 1:39:48 PM
"The future "hummer" replacement will have to be designed to ride into combat, and may look like this (armored): "
 
Why? If the hummer needs to be replaced with an armored vehicle then what about the supply trucks? semi's? fuel trucks?  My point is that a hummers should NOT be used to "ride into combat".  They are a combat support vehicle.  If you are patrolling or  moving to combat or even a convoy escort.  The Stryker or Bradley should be used to fill those roles.
 
Now, thats obviously not saying they won't see combat, because the do and $hit happens.  But I don't think the solution here is to (1) develop a whole new vehichle that will end up weighing only slightly less than a Stryker (which we all ready have) or slapping tons of armor to a chasis that was never designed for this purpose.  
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

HYPOCENTER       10/27/2006 1:52:02 PM

 My point is that a hummers should NOT be used to "ride into combat".  They are a combat support vehicle.  If you are patrolling or  moving to combat or even a convoy escort.  The Stryker or Bradley should be used to fill those roles.

This is my point also. HUMMERs were never designed to ride into combat, but that's basicaly how they're being used now.
 
Quote    Reply

HYPOCENTER    Related articles...   10/27/2006 2:05:12 PM
Two related articles discussing HUMMER replacement (both from USA Today):

Effort to replace HUMMER sped up
Designes in Motion for new combat vehicles

In case the links didn't work (which i'm sure they didn't):
http:      .usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-23-humvees-main_x.htm
http:      .usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-23-humvee-designs_x.htm
 
Quote    Reply

verong    armored humvee   10/27/2006 10:04:23 PM
Hey Foljks,
 
The humvee has allways had an armored version which is being replaced with the M-1117 ASV. Its purpose is to reduce casualties to rear area units not to fight as a tank, but it has to be able to fight out of an ambush thus the MG.
 
Sincerely,
 
Keith
 
Quote    Reply

HYPOCENTER    Everything needs to be armored   10/28/2006 2:49:50 PM

To add to my response from a few posts above, the answer is yes, they all should be armored (16 wheelers, transports, fuel trucks, anything and everything). Because unlike in WW2 there are no front lines in IRAQ. We have to accept that urban warfare and non-linear combat are all here to stay. The concept of the jeep was to operate in the ‘rear’… and as I pointed out there is no ‘rear’ anymore – only front lines wherever you look!

This means everything needs to be armored now (against small arms fire/mines/IED’s), and the HMMWV looks to be near-obsolete until a new linear WW2 type war begins again. Also, the M-1117 ASV (link to brochure here, shows pictures) is, to my knowledge, not a replacement for the HMMWV and is only being issued to the military police… so its overall effect will be nill?
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       10/28/2006 3:42:21 PM

To add to my response from a few posts above, the answer is
yes, they all should be armored (16 wheelers, transports, fuel trucks, anything
and everything). Because unlike in WW2 there are no front lines in IRAQ. We have
to accept that urban warfare and non-linear combat are all here to stay. The
concept of the jeep was to operate in the ‘rear’… and as I pointed out there is
no ‘rear’ anymore – only front lines wherever you look!


This means everything needs to be armored now (against small
arms fire/mines/IED’s), and the HMMWV looks to be near-obsolete until a new
linear WW2 type war begins again. Also, the M-1117 ASV (link to brochure here,
shows pictures) is, to my knowledge, not a replacement for the HMMWV and is only
being issued to the military police… so its overall effect will be nill?





So what you are saying is there need to be further major increases to the defense budget.  See my previous comment about giving everyone an M1A1.   If you turn everything into armored vehichles you significantly increase: 1) The purchase cost 2) The operating cost 3) The training cost (see 1 and 2)     Support and transportation of the vehichles also becomes more difficult.  They weigh more (something that has to be taken into account in transportation) and they will use far greater amounts of fuel because of their weight.  Maintenence will also be longer and more involved.

 
 
Quote    Reply

HYPOCENTER       10/28/2006 5:05:42 PM

Realistically, not everyone can have an M1A1 and that’s not what I’m calling for. An M1A1 level of vehicle is overkill for use in most instances and not very good for urban combat anyway (and some IED’s can/do take them out). But armoring all vehicles is necessary. Yeah, sure, budgets will go wild as with all new procurement (nothing new there). The real question should be: can we afford NOT to?

For instance, putting the human life variable aside… I know that up armoring HMMWVs is lowering their life cycle by years. I read somewhere the max-life span of an up-armored HMMWV is 4 years. So increased costs will happen either way… a whole new vehicle is more than warranted.

In urban warfare, in conflicts where there is no rear echelon and a “front line” is non-existent (i.e. Afghanistan/Iraq) soft skin vehicles are obsolete.

Any cost in defense budget would be immediately repaid in the political and operational gain by a military that is 1) better capable 2) increased moral from better protection and 3) lives saved from IED attacks, decreasing political pressure and thus frustrating the enemy.

 
Quote    Reply

verong    m-1117   10/28/2006 5:07:56 PM
Hey there Folks,
 
The Armored Humvee was originally used by the MP's. It is being replaced by the M-1117 ASV.
all those armored vehicles reduce the number of dead and wounded per combat sorte!!!!!!! Now that is just fine with me!!!! how about you?????
 
Sincerely,
 
Keith
 
Quote    Reply

Nasty German Idiot       10/28/2006 5:43:54 PM
The Fennek is a designated scout vehicle, not the kind that you use for patrols (although that may be a role of them too)

Dingo fits that role, is able to survive heavy IED and mine hits







antitank mine hit, crew only slightly injured
 
Quote    Reply

HYPOCENTER    ULTRA-AP and 3T   10/28/2006 8:26:58 PM

Here are two designs from Georgia Tech (I think they're both based off of current ford chassis): The first is the ULTRA AP



Then there is the ULTRA 3T (below)



PS: I found a list of vehicles on another website and have no idea if it's accurate (but it shows what else is out there).
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       10/28/2006 10:36:43 PM
"Yeah, sure, budgets will go wild as with all new procurement (nothing new there). The real question should be: can we afford NOT to?"
Brutally honest?  My answer is yes.    Mostly because I don't believe we can afford to make every vehichle in the US inventory weigh in start at 8 or more tons.  Probably cruising towards 15-20 if you want to proof them against a lot of the threats out thier.  Look, budgets are not unlimited.  Even if a whole new fleet of up-armored vehichles did come into existence. The long term expense of maintaining and deploying them will eat into training dollars.  It will make future deployments that more difficult.  The level of support needed to maintain troops abroad will be greater.   
 
"Any cost in defense budget would be immediately repaid in the political" - see my previous comment.  New congress, or war ends, or federal budget needs to make some cuts.  Dollars get cut from the military and we have a heavy force that we can't adequately maintain or train with.  When looking at new systems, the DoD has to look at current as well as future issues. 
 
 "and operational gain by a military that is 1) better capable" - I beleive that is debatable.  See my concerns regarding deployability and support.
 
 
 "2) increased moral from better protection and" - I see this as a yes and no sort of thing.  Certainly more protection is a good thing and breeds more confidence in the vehichle.  However, I have some minor worries about the idea.
 
 
 "3) lives saved from IED attacks, decreasing political pressure and thus frustrating the enemy."  Short of the M1A1 idea,  I don't think this is long term fix.  The enemy will adapt.
 
 
Now,  I'm not totally in disagreement with you. We have to look at these issues when designing new vehichles.  However, I'm not convinced that creating a fleet of heavily armored vehichles is a workable solution.
 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy