Hummer obsolete?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

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 ...
Designes in Motion for new com...

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 ...) 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

1 2