R.I.P

Messages
11,284
Location
Spring HIll
I love how the environmentalists get 'credit' on the news...saw this last night on TV. I wonder how many environmentalits smoke? I'm thinking smoking does more to harm the individual, the surrounding people who inhale the smoke, and the atmosphere than any new vehicle does! More hypocrisy. The Hummer is dead. Long live the Hummer.
 
Messages
2,724
Location
Herndon, Virginia
Ah, the Hummer is the ultimate "S" stain on the surface of the highway. Instead of developing one for OUR roads, the smarmy *ba*tards shoulda designed one for IRAQ's roads. Folks are free to buy these things, and I am free to hold them in complete contempt. Ain't freedom a wunnerful thing? Good riddance to bad rubbish. To the crusher with all of em. But that's just me. As always, YOUR mileage MAY vary!
 
Messages
8,937
Location
SC
The H1 was (and is) the perfect vehicle for its indended purpose, which is military personnel transport in all terrains and conditions. It was never designed or intended for use by the public on public roads. To indict the design for being too big, thirsty, or whatever like every other SUV that WAS designed with soccer moms and urban jocks in mind is totally off base IMO.
 
Messages
849
Location
WA
Perfect vehicle...ha-ha! They're "perfect" if you mean changing a tire takes forever, the glowplugs are a basketcase, the hoods & doors crack and flake when somebody sneezes, the weather stripping SUCKS and you can't back one up without a ground guide. IMO, they are genuine pieces of S#!T! I've always been amused by the guys that think the HUMVEE is this rugged, tough vehicle...especially considering most of them have never driven nor pulled PMCS on one. If transporting military personnel means an anemic heater, water pouring in from above, and spending downtime pulling silly maintenance on them, then by all means, they do their job well. I won't even mention their woeful inability to protect occupants from IED's or even small arms fire (we're talking 7.62, not 50 cal). And *** help you if somebody has a TOW or even an old LAW pointed at you. Sure...they're just "perfect." [Roll Eyes]
 
Messages
172
Location
Louisiana
Run a few military surplus HMMWV's as surveyor and environmental engineer vehicles at the mine where my dad works. They sure as **** put the Broncos and Blazers to shame and the mechanics like working on them. For there intended purpose they are fine vehicles and I certainly wouldn't mind having a stripped down hardtop to play with.
 
Messages
111
Location
Levittown, PA
quote:
Originally posted by Mustang_Cougar: Perfect vehicle...ha-ha! They're "perfect" if you mean changing a tire takes forever, the glowplugs are a basketcase, the hoods & doors crack and flake when somebody sneezes, the weather stripping SUCKS and you can't back one up without a ground guide. IMO, they are genuine pieces of S#!T! I've always been amused by the guys that think the HUMVEE is this rugged, tough vehicle...especially considering most of them have never driven nor pulled PMCS on one. If transporting military personnel means an anemic heater, water pouring in from above, and spending downtime pulling silly maintenance on them, then by all means, they do their job well. I won't even mention their woeful inability to protect occupants from IED's or even small arms fire (we're talking 7.62, not 50 cal). And *** help you if somebody has a TOW or even an old LAW pointed at you. Sure...they're just "perfect." [Roll Eyes]
Roger that! Anyone whose tried to operate in one of these things in a forward area with a full ruck and anything bigger than an M4 knows how bad these things suck.
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Messages
46,137
Location
New Jersey
quote:
Originally posted by Mustang_Cougar:
quote:
Originally posted by JHZR2: I have to gues working ona 6.5L TD HMMWV is easier than working on the 6.5 in the old K-blazer/tahoe, suburban, or C/K pickups... JMH
Why do you say that? You ever replaced the glow plus in a HUMVEE? Spent anytime swapping cracked Kevlar hoods? Went through the "goat rope" that is removing, caging and changing a tire? [LOL!]

You're right, I havent don any of those things... but being an engineer who designs advanced poweplants for Navy ships, I understand a lot of the maintainability and servicability issues that go into most anything. That said, if you simply assume that the 6.5 TD is a 6.5TD, regardless of application, then look at the width and size of the engne bay of a HMMWV vs a K2500 truck... Id venture to guess that there is more space under the hood of the HMMWV. Note that I said in my original post that "I'd guess"... this means I dont know for sure because I havent worked on them both, just eyeballed relative sizes. If there is LESS or similar space in a HMMWV engine bay to a C/K truck, or maybe a better comparisson, an old K-blazer (which were used in military applications sometimes), please tell. JMH
 
Messages
4,378
Location
Camas, WA
"What's next? You guys going to start singing the praises of the M16A2/A3?" I always qualifed with the M16A1 out to 500 yards, and saw them used on a regular basis in highpower rifle by Marine team shooters out to 600 yards. Never saw any other service weapon except the M1 Garand or the M14 do better. UK shooters did very well with the Enfields in service ammo matches that I never shot at. One can carry a lot more 5.56 than 7.62, with the obvious trade offs. The M16A2 was designed to penetrate heavy helmets at 800 yards, so it's nothing to sneeze at. Regardless of how well other weapons may do with less maintenance, US forces in Iraq do MUCH better in engaging targets than insurgents do, with the 'crummy M16' and it's variants. When I was in we still used the old M151 (?) jeeps, which had a pretty high accident rate due it's short wheel base. There wasn't much armor on it, you just needed to duck quickly :^), and the armor on the amtracks didn't fare well against RPGs either. I saw the first TOW units get established in our division and they'd open up the existing tanks like tin cans. Tankers didn't like RPGs either, where I saw the M48 get replaced by the M60. About the only thing that seems to fare well with a variety of IEDs are the M1 tanks, but it'll be expensive to use them for transport.
 
Messages
416
Location
San Jose, CA (USA)
1sttruck, I'm glad you were accurate with the M16--you need to put more rounds into someone with the .223 to bring him down! :-) We should have never moved away from the .308, just like we should have retained the .45 for sidearms. SF have already moved back to .308 and .45. Let's hope the next time around the rest of the troops get the same. (I guess the 6.8 SPC would be an acceptable compromise, but I hate to see us ignore the already proven solution of the .308.)
 
Messages
849
Location
WA
quote:
Originally posted by 1sttruck: "What's next? You guys going to start singing the praises of the M16A2/A3?" I always qualifed with the M16A1 out to 500 yards, and saw them used on a regular basis in highpower rifle by Marine team shooters out to 600 yards. Never saw any other service weapon except the M1 Garand or the M14 do better. UK shooters did very well with the Enfields in service ammo matches that I never shot at. One can carry a lot more 5.56 than 7.62, with the obvious trade offs. The M16A2 was designed to penetrate heavy helmets at 800 yards, so it's nothing to sneeze at.
Well, for the last twenty-odd years, maximum qualifying range with an M16A2/A3 has been 300 and 460 meters, respectively. That's like four targets (?) out of forty, most of them being far closer than that. Maybe in the old days they did things differently, but the requirements for qualifying are pretty simple (23/40). Considering the nature of urban combat, I'm not too sure hitting long-range targets is that important anymore. BTW: I'd like to see 100 infantry soldiers line up at 800 yards and fire on a helmet with the A2. I'm willing bet that even on a calm day in the prone firing position, none would hit it. And if one got lucky and did, I doubt a 5.56 would penetrate a Kevlar helmet at that range. Crack it, sure...but rattle around inside, doubtful IMO. As taxpayers, we could do better than both the HUMVEE and M16.
 
Messages
537
Location
California
I remeber when FMC developed the X-35, the predessesor (?spelling?)to the Humvee. The army wanted lots of ground clearance, large diameter wheels, a wide track, and a low profile. That was the mission statement. IMHO the wide track seems problematic, perhaps they had their reasons.It was never meant to be armored, they had the M113 and the Bradley for that duty.After the Russians folded in 1990 we have not developed for the new war zones. THe Humvee is still a carry over from the cold war.
 
Messages
849
Location
WA
I was in an MP unit in Germany back in the early-90's and I think we still had first generation HUMVEEs. It's was pretty bad...we had to cannibalize hoods and doors from other platoons' vehicles when we had inspections or had to go to the field for an exercise. It was rediculous...we just could not get replacement parts, and when we did, they either got stolen in turn or cracked within weeks of putting them on. But the worst part was going to the field in winter or spring, since it rained a lot. We'd be driving 100kph (**** governor) and the water would just pour in through the upper hatch or the rear hatch. And the general rule in our brigade/batallion was that when we weren't on priority roads, the 60 gunner had to get up in the hatch. It was stupid... But hey, what do those have in common with the bright yellow, polished chrome trailer queens I see being driven gingerly around town? [Wink]
 
Messages
6,435
Location
New Braunfels
For anyone who has served with the HMMWV and then seen the luxury queens that the H1 is that is sold to civilians can always get a chuckle. I remember being happy to see one deliver some hot soup during some cold weather training. I knew the driver and hopped in hopping for a brief respite from the cold, silly me, all I got was a wet rear end. [LOL!]
 
Messages
2,724
Location
Herndon, Virginia
quote:
What's next? You guys going to start singing the praises of the M16A2/A3?
No, they'll sing the praises of the Miami built Baretta 9MM semi-auto handguns with the fragile slide blocks they replaced the .45 with. Lotta cops, soldiers and civilians got their dental work re-written for that..
 
Messages
4,378
Location
Camas, WA
"Well, for the last twenty-odd years, maximum qualifying range with an M16A2/A3 has been 300 and 460 meters, respectively. That's like four targets (?) out of forty, most of them being far closer than that. Maybe in the old days they did things differently, but the requirements for qualifying are pretty simple (23/40)." ??? I guess the current scoring uses a 1 point targets while I recall using 5 pt targets. I always qualified expert, most of us did, as the Marines confirmed that scores with the M16 were better than with other rifles. A very good shooter can do better with an M1 Garand or M14 out to 1000 yds, even a bit beyond, but they're harder to shoot well out to either the typical military KD 500 yd range or the highpower 600 yd range. When I shot either the M16 in the military or my bolt gun in highpower my best scores were always at the maximum range as it's a prone position, and one just needs to pay attention to wind; I think that's typical for most. People always like to pooh-pah accurate long distance rifle fire, but they typically join everyone else in getting under cover when engaged by someone who can deliver accurate long distance rifle fire. http://www.usmcweapons.com/articles/m16/m16%20Qual/currentcourse/currentm16qual.html The scoring for the range runs like this: Expert: 40-65 Sharpshooter: 35-39 Marksman: 25-34 http://www.usmcweapons.com/ For that facility, at that time, the scores were Marksman 190, Sharpshooter 210, Expert 220. This was all out of a possible 250.
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Messages
46,137
Location
New Jersey
I have to gues working ona 6.5L TD HMMWV is easier than working on the 6.5 in the old K-blazer/tahoe, suburban, or C/K pickups... JMH
 
Messages
9,427
Location
Pensacola & Vero Beach FL
I spent my first three years in the reserves as a Motor-T officer, with our MT company in Orlando FL (two hours south of where I was attending law school during the week). I am forever amused by the poseurs who purchase these H1s. While my evalaution of the HMMWV isn't as harsh as Mustang's, he's got some good points, IMO. Ours were notoriously unreliable, uncomfortable, un-everything, except when it came to performing their utilitarian mission in a minimalist fashion (except with respect to cost-per-mile or hour of operation). I rode in, and tolerated them as necessary, and only as required. Today, I might considering owning an H1 if and only if you paid me something like its asking price as a dowry to take it off your hands. What a foolish vehicle for any civilian to own. There are any number of vehicles that can meet any and all civilian off-road demands as well or better than the H1 for a far lower purchase price and at far lower operating cost. In a way, I pity those who purchase these vehicles. I get infinitely more of what they seek every morning when I put on the uniform of a real United States Marine.
 
Messages
849
Location
WA
I guess the "intended purpose" was to get an American defense contractor a series of big contracts to supply vehicles that are poorly armored, relatively slow, notoriously unreliable and difficult to maintain in the field. [Razz]
 
Messages
849
Location
WA
quote:
Originally posted by JHZR2: I have to gues working ona 6.5L TD HMMWV is easier than working on the 6.5 in the old K-blazer/tahoe, suburban, or C/K pickups... JMH
Why do you say that? You ever replaced the glow plus in a HUMVEE? Spent anytime swapping cracked Kevlar hoods? Went through the "goat rope" that is removing, caging and changing a tire? What's next? You guys going to start singing the praises of the M16A2/A3? [LOL!]
 
Top