Why we need humvs.

[Doug VT]

We don‘t "need" Humvee‘s. This is a senseless argument. The iltis may be getting a bit of a hard time, but it gets the job done. In fact, we wouldn‘t be able to use anything bigger in the cramped alleys of Afghanistan. The G-wagon is a good buy and will fit our role nicely, in pretty much any theatre. Canada will never buy hummers, besides, they‘re not that cool, and the "cool factor" is not a specification. Grow up and realize that there is a lot more to being a soldier then "looking cool". That one of the biggest problems with our army today, fighting to be "cool"
There are more important issues facing us, equipment wise, then what new vehicle we get. I mean, the new MNVG‘s are great, but poorly constructed, durability wise. The new PRR is a valuable tool, but there‘s nothing to replace it if it breaks, too bad for you. And what‘s with the winter jackets that we have? What a waste of money, don‘t get me wrong, I like CADPAT (that‘s right, it‘s called CADPAT, not CANPAD or CANPAT) but what were they thinking? Like a respectful friend of mine said, "It‘s great for walking from the car to the building, but that‘s about it" Anyone who knows outdoor clothing knows what I‘m talking about. And the new gloves? Come on....useless, but I‘m sure they cost a lot of money. Time to replace the sleeping bag with something a little more modern as well. The Tac Vest would have been 100% better if it was made completely modular, but we all have to look the same, right? What a load of crap! Too many "people" at the top without any forward vision. So sad.....so sad.......

 

[Da_man]

i know being a soldier isnt about being "cool" , but it does help with recruiting.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Ah yes.. let‘s base all of our equipment procuring on the basis of increasing recruiting!! That makes a lot of sense!! Hey, if we paint all of our vehicles in the latest "cool" colours, we might even get more recruits!! I am sorry, that is a weak argument for buying the HMMWV.

Bzz

 

[hoganshero]

I don‘t really know if the size comparison holds up for not replacing the iltis with the hmmwv.
according to iltis.ca the size of th eiltis is as follows:
H:1.84m
L:3.97m
W:1.52m
Not huge by any stretch.
According to global security.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m998.htm)
the size for the Hmmwv is as follows:
H:1.83m (reducible to 1.37m apparently)
L:4.52m
W:2.16m
the diferrence is roughly 60cm to the width and the length.
I measured the width out as after all thta is what people are really arguing about with the size from the sounds of it. If I were to walk side by side with an iltis with about 6 inches of clearance between me and it together we would be as wide as a Hmmwv. Although this can make all the difference when attempting to navigate a tree filled forest then under that same argument a motorbike is apparently the perfect vehicle for military operations.
Perhaps someone can set me straight however it is my belief that if the coyote is our best tool for reconaisance and it is also very large yet very successful... it stands to figure that the size trade-off between the hmmwv may well be worth it.
It would replace both the LSVW (which is universally loathed) and the Iltis which is past prime and as "da_man" said would serve a valuable PR function. At no point was anyone suggesting that it was worth switching because of the cool factor alone. I think what he was suggesting is that it is an extra benefit.

 

[kurokaze]

Originally posted by axeman:
[qb] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m119-specs.htm
This will clear up if a hmmv will tow a gun or not . It will . [/qb]

This isn‘t the same gun as a C3 (it‘s closest match), which is a full 300kg heavier. Also, the M119 was manufactured by Royal Ordnance, Nottingham, England and the C3 by RDM Manufacturing of Rotterdam Netherlands.

Besides, it‘s a moot point, since the hummer doesn‘t have the internal capacity to carry all the rounds that an ML can, which means we would need a second truck for ammo and crew.

And from what I‘ve seen of civilian hummers (they are the same size correct?) they don‘t have the same internal capacity to setup a command post like the LSVW (at least not as comfortably).

So at the very least, we‘re stuck with LS and MLs in the artillery.

 

[Cadet810]

Why focus on Hummers when are Armoured vechicals can‘t function. What is the real use of a Hummer ?
Transportation?

How are you going to move in the battle field?

How are you going to distroy charlie?

Unless we get better combat equipment or essental equipment such as functioning ships , airplanes and Armoured vechicals why have hummers.

I love the hummers and I think that it would be great to have but not in the situation the military is in now.

With respect of the two soldiers who died in the land mine in 2003 Sgt Short and Cpl Beerenfenger .

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Destroy charlie? I think you have been watching Tour of Duty far too much.

 

[Cadet810]

Originally posted by Ex-Dragoon:
[qb] Destroy charlie? I think you have been watching Tour of Duty far too much. [/qb]

Unfriendly‘s , meanies ,crazy people and charlie
is what my old Army Cadet Corps used because we are not allowed to say the enemy on FTX .

 

[jrhume]

This is an interesting thread. Given the differences of opinion, it‘s easy to see why procurement groups never seem to buy the ‘right‘ equipment. As an equipment buyer, I can sympathize.

During my time in the Army, I routinely drove the M-151 jeep, which we disliked because of its tendency to roll (due to the swing-axle design) and because it had some chronic engine problems (I can‘t recall any specifics about those).

I also drove the 1-1/2 ton and 5-ton trucks and tractors. The duece-and-a-half was probably the single best vehicle the Army procured in the 50s and 60s, bar none. I‘ve seen it walk away with fantastic loads and take all the abuse your average GI could dish out and survive.

At that time we still had the old Dodge 3/4-ton carryalls. The Hummer was designed to replace the jeep and the old carryall -- along with other misc vehicles. The Hummers had and still have some drawbacks, depending on your needs and the particular situation, but the Army has fiddled with the original design long enough to have worked out the bugs and adapted it to a multitude of uses, as others have mentioned. It‘s a good vehicle.

That said, I think the more basic issues have to do with investment, practicality and operational requirements. The US Army can and does purchase all sorts of vehicles. While some don‘t work out, those that do are constantly undergoing modifications and changes designed to suit them for new uses or to improve existing capabilities. My impression is that Canada can‘t afford to purchase several different vehicles in the hopes that one or more might eventually work out. While that approach is certainly not official strategy in the US Army, they are in a position to take more chances than the CF is.

The Hummer would almost certainly perform most of the CF functions and it is a proven unit. I‘m not familiar enough with some of the other rigs mentioned here to know for sure, but some of them must have been around long enough to be considered fairly mature, developed vehicles. It seems to me that Canada would be best served by selecting one or two good vehicles which other services have worked the bugs out of and standardizing on those -- whatever they may be.

Even then, I‘m sure, as the artilleryman pointed out, there will still be a need for some special vehicles for uses the standard rigs can‘t handle. The idea would be to minimize those odd units by adapting standard vehicles to as many roles as possible.

One thing should be clear just from the discussions on this board. No single vehicle, nor any two or three vehicles will ever be able to satisfy the requirements of all users. Like the 2-1/2 ton trucks we used in Vietnam -- many rigs will have to be field adapted for special purposes. There‘s no such thing as one size fits all in anything military -- though so-called professional military planners will persist in trying to find such an animal until **** freezes over.

Jim

 

[Cadet810]

Well said.

 

[Slim]

Jim
That is one of the most well thought out posts that I have read to date. Thanks you for your post.
Slim

 

[combat_medic]

Cadet810: Since you are neither in the army, nor old enough to get a driver‘s lisence, it really doesn‘t matter if you like them, since you‘ve never driven one, have never driven an Iltis or any other military vehicle, and therefore have no experience of basis of comparison on which to draw.

And as for referring to the enemy as "Charlie"; we are neither Americans, cadets, nor are we in the Vietnam war, or making a movie. If you want people to respect your posts, then try to keep in mind what your genuine military experience is, and speak from that. If you keep up the way you‘re going, people will just think of you as an ignorant child, and will ignore or burn you.

 

[Slim]

Originally posted by combat_medic:
[qb] Slim: Having a Hummer doing Recce is like shoveling your driveway with a snowplow. It‘s large and cumbersome, and (I believe) even wider than a Coyote, which is only a long range Recce vehicle.

[/qb]

Medic
I‘m not slamming you but you‘re off a bit. the Armoured corps used to do recce in Lynx and m113‘s b4 the lavs came along ( Lavs are way bigger than hummers). Those vehicles are both bigger than hummers. the hummer would be great for recce as they could carry way more kit and ammo ( I know they‘re not supposed to fight but I wouldn‘t bet my life on it!)
As for using them for cp‘s and box ams, well the U.S seems to do just fine with them. The modular concept is a good one.
this is my opinion...feel free to jump on it with both feet.

 

[Staff]

Don‘t forget, there are two types of recce. The armored recce squadron are the eyes or the brigade. Recce platoon are the eyes of the battallion.

Recce squadron does almost all of it‘s work with coyotes. They cover the AO of an entire brigade an their take goes directly to the brigade commander. They require the big stuff. I don‘t think size is really a factor for them. (Insert joke here).

Recce platoon does most of it‘s work by inserting small sections on foot to get "eyes on" for specific targets or AOs. They are usually dropped off somewhere relatively close and walk in.

I know most of us know this, I just thought i‘d point this out to the people here who think that recce is all snoop and poop.

 

[axeman]

kurokaze I do not know why you want the hmmer to pull the guns anyway , as the LS and Iltis do not
anyway. the BV206 the MLVW and a few others are considered the Prime movers for the guns other then moving them by heli mode which is really stupid as you need 3 lifts to move 1 gun. but if required do so . but right now , the arguement is that it wont move the guns well yes that is correct it will haul alot more then a LSVW. and is a lot more user friendly then either the LSVW
which is a hunk of well every one has an opinion and the ILTIS wich is just worn out .

 

[kurokaze]

axeman, I agree. I was re-inforcing medic‘s opinion that a hummer would not be a good platform to tow the 105.

I personally have nothing against the hummer. I see it as a good, general purpose jeep. As for whether or not we need them, well I‘m not going to comment on anything outside my area of interest, since I‘m not well-versed enough to do so.

 

[chrisf]

Originally posted by combat_medic:
[qb] And as for referring to the enemy as "Charlie"; we are neither Americans, cadets, nor are we in the Vietnam war, or making a movie. If you want people to respect your posts, then try to keep in mind what your genuine military experience is, and speak from that. If you keep up the way you‘re going, people will just think of you as an ignorant child, and will ignore or burn you. [/qb]

I used to know this guy... named Herman...

 

[combat_medic]

I was trying to point out that a HMMV is nearly twice the sixe of an Iltis, so replacing it (in Recce purposes) would not be a fair comparison, as it‘s the size of a small APC. Using a HMMV in a similar vein to a LAV or Coyote would be a fair comparison, but I was comparing it to the Iltis, as far as recce.

I would be all for replacing the LSVW with the HMMV, but it was suggested that the CF replace all the Iltis, MLs and LSs with HMMVs, and I was pointing out why that would be a bad idea, and the roles that a HMMV would not be able to fill.

 

[axeman]

I agree with you . I never thought that some one would think that an Hummer would be able to replace the MLVW.the weight capacities are totally differnt a hmmvw would never be able to replace it as a prime move or even asx a ultility veh. theres simply no way , you can replace the versatility of a MLVW. with the multi task of a hmmvw. now i understand where your coming from .
:akimbo:

 

[humint]

Here‘s why the HMMV is not always the best choice for ops.

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/photoarchive/HiRes/%212003/091003/KA2003-A057D.jpg

The Iltis may be tin on wheels, but it fits in the tiny lane ways that we patrol. Good luck in getting the HMMV in there.