Humvees are not combat vehicles. They are the modern equivalent of the original Jeep. Doctrine failed the Humvee, not the other way around. Humvees proved capable in roles they were never intended for, due to the strength of the design. Simply put, the military tried to use the modern equivalent of a Willys Jeep to fill a role that belongs to a modern equivalent of the M3 Halftrack. And the Humvee was so good that it almost worked.
@@sirshotty7689 True, but I'd contend that the Willys Jeep is equally if not more cheap, reliable, interchangeable, and usable in numerous different climates.
"Why is it still in service". I'm confused, *why shouldn't it be in service?* It's a military all-terrain light truck. It's well suited for that role. It isn't and was never supposed to be an armored fighting vehicle. Fighting with dismounts is what APCs and IFVs are for.
@@masterterrorman just to check a point, have you any suggestions for a replacement as this was only designed as a lightweight vehicle for scouting duties and not armoured combat as it is used for.
It sucks for maintaince, it can’t use any civilian parts such as jumper cables, the controls suck and lack power steering and the seats cause back problems. The Humvee needs to go.
@@megumin1054 t is a military vehicle so what do you expect from it. It was designed for crosscountry not paved roads. Sure there are problems with it but it does the job it was designed for if you take off all the armour that was added after the vehicle went into combat as an armoured vehicle.
Andrew Kuhne I expect a general purpose vehicle that can be maintained with ease (for example with commercial off the shelf parts), can be given to fresh E3s with minimal training (simple buttons and controls rather than that stupid toggle bar that requires a TM to understand) and doesn’t kill the backs of the people using it seeing how people will be using it for several hours at a time. If you don’t need the protection of an MRAP or LMTV then give troops a F-350 or a ford ranger. There is no reason to use a humvee when better options exist.
For that you could develop a modular, efficient and easy to equip Hard Kill Active Protection Systems for tanks, APCs, humvees, MRAPs etc. Imho that'd be the best option to protect your troops from all the modern anti-tank/vehicle missiles
@@RaptorTroll360 yeah, I recall some 'journalist military expert' complaining that the Bradley was fatally flawed because it couldn't resist strikes from 'Anti Tank Weapons'; also he said that halftracks were better troop carriers because 'In Vietnam: troops inside M113s were often badly wounded when AT weapons and mines were used against them but during the 6 Day War and the Yom Kippur War, old WW2 half tracks had less casualties because their 'open tops' allowed mine blasts to dissipate'---said 'expert' didn't bother to discuss the effects of air burst artillery on half tracks vs M113s.
@@RaptorTroll360 Yeah, APS tend to kill soldiers in the vicinity of the vehicle launching them, not great. That is their weakness -- you don't control when the weapon is deployed, the other guy does.
@@2ndsunrise_ Still what is it, 16k Humvees around? That's mighty expensive to replace them all. I can understand frontline vehicles being replaced by South African mineproof vehicles, but they might as well just leave the Humvee for 'behind the line's duties.
@@2ndsunrise_ That's true. But no service in the entire us military is 100% replacing the humvees with jltv:s or others. Not with current info. And also the 58k amount for the army, will very likely be lowered, due to high costs and other problems with the jltv.
@@XenomorphLV426 Since I was never a humvee mechanic, I wouldn't know. But I know a few people who complained a lot that they were always working on humvees.
I think that's general for all military 4x4's I remember hearing a bunch of mechanics in the Dutch military that the old Defender needed fixing as soon as you looked at it. The Mercedes G wagon less tho.
Old guy here again. I served in the army in a scout troop (1/17 Cav, 82nd Airborne) long before the change to brigade structure. Our recon sections were: 1 M151a1 jeep with an M60 Machine gun, and 1 M151a1 jeep with a TOW missile launcher. there was absolutely no protection for anyone (other than the ability to hide it in the weeds), and it maxed out at about 40-45 MPH. On a positive note, the crew could literally pick the jeeps up and move them if they got stuck in the mud. The HMMWV was a massive step forward to us when we received them. It is interesting to see their life cycle being evaluated like our old Jeep's were. I think I am getting old.
Was there much change in terms of airmobility after the transition? Seems like you could get a whole recon section in the back of a Chinook when you had Jeeps.
@@stevenpremmel4116actually we never put them inside the chinooks at least while I was there. we sling loaded them. just like we did with the HMMWV's. I can say they were a lot easier to sling load and also a lot easier to unpack them after we heavy dropped them. just a lot easier to manhandle in all ways than the new carriers. maintenance was pretty simple too. i'd post some pics for you of both if I could do that here. :)
Malik Martin how do we fix this? How do we reform this old outdated system? Soldiers during WW2 had even less contact with their wives, and many wives at home became prostitutes while their husbands where away
I'm pretty sure it's essentially "user error" The HMMWV series was designed to be a utility vehicle and replacing the Jeep and other utility vehicles, it was never meant to be an IFV, but now it's overweight and underpowered because it's been forced into combat roles against irregular forces
You are correct, but the environment has changed. These small patrols, transporting jobs are what utility vehicles are meant to be doing. The insurgents are placing IEDs on these exact areas. Utility vehicles are running in to them. Given the humvee has also been sent in to combat situations where it shouldn't have. However that is due to a lack of suitable vehicles. US currently is acting as a peacekeeping force, IFV and APC is too miltarized and local populations do not like that. Humvee are closer to police than weapons of war. IFV and APC are also loud, another thing local populations do not like. IFV and APC are heavy and big. They can't cross as much bridges as the humvee can. In a small village, all you might have is a wooden bridge. The larger size also makes it hard to make tight corners during these urban patrols. Traditional militaries rarely have a vehicle suitable for this. The humvee was the closest the US have at the start of the 'war on terror.' Now, we have new vehicles to fulfill these tasks, but V-hulls moves CoM higher and means less stability. It is a trade off but shouldn't be a huge issue if you aren't climbing steep slopes and rocky terrain. However sometimes to destroy a insurgent hold out, you might need to go to those type of areas. Picking the right vehicle for the right job is not easy.
Man real question, im really ignorant and Im not joking, is fine if yall call me stopid and shit, I know, here goes. Is the HMMWV considered an APC? Ive seen articles into quora saying "An APC is an APC and a HMMWV is a HMMWV they are different AND THEY ARE NOT THE SAME" but a bunch of my friends AND OTHER ARTICLES say that a HMMWV IS IN FACT AN APC. Since APC Stands for Armored Personel Carrier does that mean a HMMVE is an APC? Or they both are completely different classifications? I mean.. here is an example: A HMMWV, Does it counts as an APC? HMMWVs are supposed to be already armored right? So with that being said, Lets get a HMMWV and armor the shit out of it or Get a Diferent version of HMMWV that has additioal armor, Does it make it an APC? or or A HUMMWVis just a HMMWV and NOT an APC even if we talk about "Extra" armored HMMWVs cause as I said they are supposed to be ALREADY armored. And confuses me: www.quora.com/Does-an-APC-classify-as-a-Humvee
I don't know why but I really like the look of humvee and it's something I've come to recognize as "that vehicle the military uses" - despite it not being its intended purpose
Actually, it was specifically designed for military use, the wider frame of the Humvee was to stop rollover from IEDs which Jeeps were vulnerable to. It went into civilian use after. What people are saying is that it wasn't meant for actual combat, but to fill a reconnaissance role in the military, but the military tried to use it the same way they might with a Bradley or Stryker, but it had none of the armor those did. So they then tried to put more armor on then which severely hampered their offroad capabilities. So it really failed in the new role they tried to put it in.
The m2 hmg is quite long range, capable of annihilating suitable targets from safe distance. No way assault rifle armed infanrymen could fire back at you. Now why would you use the Humvee (esencialy an off-road vehicle) in an urban enviroment? Arent there more suitable vehicles for such a role?
@@tbrowniscoolThe Battle of Ap Bac (S. Vietnam, 1962) also comes to mind. ARVN troops in M113's assaulting dug in V.C. The M113's had no shields for the MG's. The V.C. hidden in their bunkers picked off anyone brave enough to man the MG. Without suppressive fire anyone who came out from behind a M113 didn't last long.
I was a Bradley mechanic and a Recovery operator in the US Army. I did 3 tours to Iraq. 2 of them during the worst times over there. I was there when the Insurgency kicked off and later for the US troop surge. I have seen Hummers that had additional bolt on armor added shredded by nothing more than nuts and bolts sent flying by an IED. The trucks look like someone took bird shot and fired at paper targets. The metal bits just fly right through the armor, anything inside and exited through the roof. During my 2nd deployment I had to load 8 Hummers damaged by IEDs onto flat wracks. Even though the unit there had only been in place 2 months. At that same FOB those troops got Bradleys in order to have something with armor to protect them. Out of the 13 Bradleys they had, 11 of them were coded out for IED damage. During my 8 months with those guys I recovered nearly all of those Brads that were destroyed.The insurgents must have figured out where the bottom fuel cell on the Bradley is. Because they were timing the IEDs to go off directly under the turrets. While many of these IEDs might have failed to pierced the hull armor. They did callapse it enough to smack into the lower fuel cell sitting under the turret. Thus causing the fuel cell to burst and send fuel flying. I saw many examples of this, and I ain't saying anything that a google search wont land you with finding the published repair manuals online. Manuals that have been available online for MANY years lol. I used to down load them myself for work back in the day. But thanks to the armor of the Brads only 1 person died and it was from burns. If those guys had been rolling around in Hummers still. Then we would have been doing funerals for definitely more than 1 person. In Kuwait there was a boneyard (vehicle collection point) full of destroyed vehicles by type and models. The Hummer section was the largest and I had been sent there to strip parts to get other trucks going. That boneyard was just huge. And it was like looking at a mosaic of ways people died or were maimed by IEDs. To me and other soldiers going outside the wire in a Hummer was like rolling the dice and praying today wasn't your day. The Hummer is a coffin on wheels and anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy. VA hospitals as filled with the stories of friends dying and limbs being blown off because of the Hummer. But all of the vehicles could have led to a possible death and injury. I have seen Abrams welds split and drivers control panels pushed in to kill someone I knew. I couldn't identify him even as I put his body in a body bag. It was later his commander told me it was him. Bradley's also suffered from IED's I feel like I have seen some things that people just don't ever talk about, and generally I don't either. Iraq completely destroyed my faith in the protection of our vehicles. Even after the MRAPs came out (while safer) they still could fail you. I felt only somewhat safer riding around in my M88a1 because the hull is thick steel and not aluminum alloys that burn so hot that the entire turret and upper area melts into the hulls. I have pictures of the Brads I recovered and some where still burning as I towed them in. Loot and scoot was my mantra. Never stay too long if possible and invite oppertunity attacks. I feel bad for our soldiers still riding in Hummers. Maintenance wise its not that bad a vehicle even after all the additional crap its added over the years. But in terms of keeping you safe from a blast? Yeah zero faith. Also RPG's just zip right through Hummers no problem. The ballistic glass is the one thing that did its job to give some feeling of hope. I know because ballistic glass is why I am still alive right now. Its stopped a chunk of Bradley track from zipping right through my dome. Edit: The 1151's are just upgraded 1114's they still suffer the same risks that previous models.
The hmmwv was and is a logistics vehicle it was never intended to be an APC with that and the modularity of the platform in mind there is nothing wrong with the vehicle.....also some people act like we're only going to be fighting Isis or something facing IEDs.... but a war with russia or China the hmmwv is one of the best vehicles because of its modularity and mobility... And JLTV looks like the dog van Dumb and Dumber
And the morons who put it in front line service really deserve to punishment. Of course they won't get it. But that sure caused many unecessary deaths.
@@insanity4082 depends on role... yes as a frontline/ combat/ war zone vehicle the mrap is best.... but as a all-around/ utility/ logistics vehicle the hmmwv is best.....
There is no war with Russia or China, except proxy war or nuclear war. Nothing in-between. Even conventional war today, light armoured vehicles, anything less than a tank armour will be destroyed by top attack artillery weapons.
It’s cheap, decades of Troops know how to work on it, it’s can be easily modified for multiple missions, will fit in any of the air forces heavy lift transports, can be moved via sling load by helicopter, Can be air dropped via parachute, etc. The HUMMV was never meant to be a “front line” combat vehicle. It WAS meant to be a hi mobility utilitarian vehicle meant for operations just behind the front lines. There’s nothing wrong with it and has decades of military service left in it!
The HMMWV started hitting active units in 1986. I was the lead mechanic on the Camp Lejeune Fielding Team for the HMMWVs. We unloaded them from the trains, drove to our unit's storage yards, inspected them, made the first maintenance records, fixed any problems and worked with the factory reps on problems. The HMMWV has had a boat load of problems since the first batch were unloaded off the trains. Took us months to get longer starter bolts. Starters were falling off left and right.......turns out starter bolts were too short. We had glow plug controller box issues, alternator mounting ears breaking off, run-on-flat wheels and grease pack problems, glow plug problems, turbo-400 transmission problems. And these weren't just a few isolated parts, we had huge piles of parts waiting to be shipped back. The turbo transmissions...........we were told it was cheaper to replace them than ship them back for rebuild, ( we're talking well over a hundred transmissions), and toss the bad ones especially in a dumpster. Of course all the mechanics wanted a couple of them.......hell, as a hobbyist hot rudder, I wanted as many as I could get. The first night the trains were in the dumpster, the OIC got a call from the MPs and they had run numerous others out of the dumpster already. OIC called me, I had to assign a armed guard around the dumpster until the next morning. When factory reps came in, we told them what happened , they instructed us to smash holes in the cases with sledge hammers. During Desert Storm, nothing but glow plug problems and wiring harness problems. In Iraq, low power problems, and contaminated fuel issues, and overheating problems. Afghanistan, low power, constant tire damage, ball joint and tie rod damage, coil spring collapse. After 30+ years in the military as lead mechanic and shop chief, I can tell you from experience, the HMMWV has had problems since it first arrived for military use 85/86.
@@megumin1054 USMC 2004 / 2008... I've used them plenty. I never said it wasn't a pile of shit, I just said it does what it was built for, and yes at times it can be a real pain in the ass, more so those that have been rebuilt half a dozen or more times now. Still the best thin skinned (general purpose) combat vehicle out there.
Why some people think it would be possible to make a hummer with enough armour to resist all attacks is a complete mystery to me. If you can't make a tank 100% impervious, then making a hummer impervious is an exercise in futility.
I was in an infantry heavy weapons company and we had like 25 of these. One time, I was in the field with another soldier and we had to go back to the base, grab something and head back to the field. The driver was sick of being in the field, so when we got to the base, he decided he was going to make the humvee "break down" so he wouldnt have to go back. He started pulling off wires and hoses while I was getting our shit. The truck didnt break down, and it got us back to the field. Then 2 days later we were about to go back home and his truck didnt start. That dipshit had to stay in the field another day and a half with his truck so they could get a wrecker to come pick it up. lol karma. Dude later got discharged for drug use.
Do you need to move troops, guard convoys, provide a mobile gun platform, or expect to face light or no combat? Humvee Expecting to face heavy fire or IEDs? MRAP If it’s used right the Humvee is great at what it does. You can’t expect to throw a recon/transport truck into a heavy fight and expect it to last long
What first came to my mind. The Humv was NEVER designed to be used as an APC or IFV. It was a support vehicle, like any truck. The problem has been the military and policy failure. They have been obsessed with "lightitis" since the Clinton administration. Instead of sending in tanks armored "gun trucks" and APCs, the government has constantly sent in light vehicles to be a mainline combat weapon. Think Black Hawk Down.
I get what you mean but I'm compulsed to mention they used Hmmwv because they were trying to keep speed up. Once they realized they couldn't just blitz the problem, they pulled the HMMWVs out and sent in tanks and APCs.
It might make sense to prioritize armor and mobility but legroom is quite important for the troops. Soldiers aren't always fighting, in fact most of the time it is waiting around. And no one wants to wait around in a small box for any long periods of time.
Yeah it is a combat vehicle, but they also realized in Iraq it wasn't meant to be taking hits from old artillery shells underneath it. What are you going to do? replace them all with Bradleys? Good luck
I remember when they were replacing the M 151 Jeep in the late 80's while stationed in Germany with the US Army. It was a solid replacement for the Jeep. This was during the Cold War.
Honestly it sounds like a strategic issue, during occupation, it would be a better idea to use something like an MRAP to reduce losses by mines/IED's, and infantry fire; while a Humvee would do better on the front lines for it's speed and maneuverability, something an MRAP is less effective at (already mentioned in the video, it's big, slow, and very heavy) Plus, the Humvee is so iconic, it would be a heart break to see it go
@Andycoulloun 1 I mean that's pretty obvious. A Hilux, Land Cruiser or whatever technical is built on was designed for Civilian purposes and has no armor whatsoever and costs less than 1/10th a Humvee does. Technicals are so popular in less developed countries and terrorist groups because they're very very cheap but get the job done with their reliability.
I like to compare the Humvee to U.S. WWII vehicles. The Humvee is the new age Jeep, smaller and lighter but not best for prolonged contact, the Half-track would be today’s APC, vehicles designed to support, carry, and protect friendlies. Maybe we could use Humvees similarly to the SAS desert raid jeeps, light, fast, and deadly vehicles. Vehicles which are less likely to be hit.
I was a Humvee driver for a year and a half. I’ll say this, it kept me warm during the cold winter months in upstate NY. In my book, it’s a good, rugged machine.
Matsimus again touches on a subject that has very wide implications. HMMWW was designed for a cold war scenario that actually shoehorned the vehicle to the standard European flatbed railway carriges - those have not changed. The problem is however not so much the physical dimentions: It is getting a common European timetable. The crucial part of ANY railway system is the Timetable Planning Offices. NOBODY interferes with that - God himself will allways be referred to the public timetable. Having a passing experience with Railroad Planning I KNOW how difficult they are. Their job is also not the easiest. The second thing is - as mentioned - that mines or IED's was not really a consideration during the cold war, as it was planned to be a defensive war and supposed control over the terrain - and not have terrorists digging the damned things into causeways. The thing about mines and IED's is: The proper way to counter them is to have a reliable local Home Guard. In the Baltic countries the Home Guard works - even when the regular army was abyssmal. But as long as you have that, an awfull lot of Afghanistan considerations aren't applicable. You can see that in the STANAG NATO 4569 definitions of armour protection that generally has 3 levels: Light, medium and heavy - with the even numbered ones including mine/IED protection - accordingly.
Armor protection levels: light means armor is fuck all they zoom zoom go fasts you’re protected by imagination armor and speed medium also zoom zoom go fasts but small arms bounce off it and it can take one rpg Heavy nothing can kill it but other heavies and maybe one lucky sob with a good angle
you're closer to landmine i guess... also, the humvee is rather wide and flat whcich doesn't really deflect enough from the explosion that could come from beneath.
I do love how some things never change. WW1 hey this thing needs more protection, lets slap on more armor! WW2 hey this thing needs more protection, lets slap on more armor! Current Day hey this thing needs more protection, lets slap on more armor!
Drove them for 28 years. They were a worthy successor to the jeep. However they have been up armoured to the point where the mobility has been severely limited. It's been done to show American mommies that their child is oh so ever safe and secure. It's a transport vehicle, light is better.
Well, until you get hit with an IED by one of them, and instead of the canvas shredding along with your body, the up-armored actually works. We're not going for 100% protection, here. It just has to get down roads and not get everyone killed inside by the thoughts and prayers that is canvas and a thin sheet of metal.
I drove several up armored variants in Iraq, 05-06 including the ones with sand bags on the floor boards. I always thought that the Army simply piled more stuff on top and that it was a truck that would simply collapse under it's own weight.
@@brittsmith8260 It had to suffice, at the time. Actual, viable small arms and fragmentation protection from indirect explosions was certainly better than having that shit go right through canvas and a little sheet metal. Those non-armoreds weren't even allowed to roll outside the wire, after a while. If anything, the up-armoreds were a rolling light bunker with a mounted weapon that could take being sneezed at by the insurgency.
@@JS-kr8fs You're right, they had to suffice. Remember we went to war with what we had, not what we wanted. Used to roll outside the wire with the pucker factor high where my feet and legs were concerned.
The HMMWV was meant as a utility truck not an armored vehicle. It was just what we had to work with when GWOT kicked off, so we made it work. The bottom line is that for a military the size of the US's it is massively expensive and time consuming to replace something as widespread as the HMMWV. When it still works for a large majority of tasks it is asked to do it is harder to justify the cost, and the timeline draws longer. Eventually the JLTV will be used in most combat scenarios but there will still be many HMMWVs used in more administrative roles.
The Humvee was meant to replace the M151 jeep and CUCV military Blazer. A job it did very well. It can continue in those missions in rear echelon units.
Exactly. The orginal hmmwv was never designed or intended to be a armament carrier/ ifv. It was designed for troop transport, vip transport, c2 operations, and frontline logistic delivery. It is still extremely capable at this mission
The Humvee is definitely at the edge of its growth capacity. I wholeheartedly endorse its replacement with JLTVs and the like. Every effort to save lives is worth it. That being said, the awesomeness of the Humvee wasn't fully explained in this video. The 1980''s awesomeness of the Humvee lies in US Army history. Before the Humvee there was the M151 jeep and the CUCV dodge pickup truck. If you look at those 2 vehicles you can see how much better suited the Humvee is to being stretched into an armored weapons carrier. Its a stretch but its also a stretch that the Humvee does so much better than those other 2. Desert storm in 1991 was the war the US had ever had that they were allowed to win without taking significant casualties. That incredible victory created expectations that had never existed before. When you consider that, the Humvees ability to take armor and be survivable as it is,...it was a huge improvement. Humvee's armor really isn't the best available and never has been, but it was a huge breakthrough in military technology when adopted. If you look at other armies around the world its evident how well people liked them.
HMMWV was designed to be an upgrade for the Jeep. I drove Jeeps in the Military. Could you imagine using jeeps in Iraq in 2006? Absolutely nothing wrong with a Hummer in its intended role. No need to throw out the thousands we have. Just use them in their intended role. Take an armored vehicle when you need an armored vehicle.
The HMMWV was designed to be a recon vehicle. Its being used for things it wasn't designed to. Some of the explosives the the insurgents used was so powerful that they can make M1 Abrams tanks flip over and fly by the amount of explosives use in the war. Also funny story from a buddy of mine dealt with the after actions from IEDs. A infantry patrol was out and hit an IED and an ambush by insurgents. The funny part was the IED was buried in the to far when it went off. The explosion sent Marine flying in the air. When he hit the ground he was knocked out. When he came to. He realized he was in an ambush situation and started fighting back. He survived the explosion and ambush, because the explosive was too far into the ground.
It's a great vehicle , I served with 45th Infantry Brigade, 1/180th . Mortar platoon , in Afghanistan. Combat. I was also a gunner in turret. It was never designed to be IED, mine resistant. It's an excellent vehicle Heavily modified....built superbly Anerican Ingenuity . I also served in Iraq and Afghanistan as well , various vehicles , Humvees, MRAPS, Cougars all kinds , designed vehicles for a certain battle field . Anyway a truly revolutionary vehicle , Armed and well made. Not sure what the point is here. It's kind of oblivious its power, use, and why . Its heavily modified . Why because its superb !
A lot of people have commented on the obvious. I agree with them. It’s a damn fine vehicle when used for it’s stated mission. The only upgrades that I can see as useful are making the engine more fuel efficient while keeping the power up and maybe another gear or two in the transmission
I'm sorry but you're never going to find a LIGHT wheeled vehicle that is going to be really survivable on any modern battlefield! The humvee is the best light wheeled vehicle every made for any military because of how reliable and rugged it is. I spent 11 yrs in the US army with 2 tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. During my first tour in Iraq I was riding around in a very lightly up armored humvee and in my next two tours I was in an MRAP and M117. The humvee was design to be a multi purpose vehicle to get military personal around on the battlefield and around military installations. I would love for someone to show me a better light weight multi purpose vehicle that is cheap that is better than the humvee? Most people don't realize that modern warfare is very different from the guerrilla (insurgentancy warfare) warfare the US was fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can be rolling around and patrolling streets in cities with tanks all the time. Also there is no front line on the battlefield and the terrorist don't fight us straight up. They hide behind women and children and plant their IEDs on the roads to try and kill us. Fighting an insurgancy war is by FAR the most difficult warfare and all those idiots that think the US lost in Iraq and Afghanistan are IDIOTS. They have no idea what is going on in those countries.
Dr Sweat - Yes the insurgents are cowards and some of them do show signs of intelligence. But I diffenently would say that all of them are smart because 90% of them have some form of mental retardation.
@@mississippirebel1409 they're not cowards. They're just doing whatever they can to make a dent. It makes us angry, but remember the militias of the revolution. They may not have had explosives, but the hit and run attacks they pulled off enraged the British. And if by some miracle, some alliance of nations manages to pull off an invasion of the US, the invading forces will face the largest guerrilla force ever to muster, I suspect. Especially in the south!
US Army mechanic here. there are actually 2 engines available: a 6.3 n/a diesel and a 6.5 turbo diesel found in the up armored variations. also, the parts absolutely do not same tax payer money. a brush guard can cost a unit up to $3000 for a piece that costs about $100 in raw material. and many parts are specific to one variation or basically to a "model year". The MRAP is shipped to and from theater via cargo plane by removing the gunner turrets and wheels and strapping them to a cargo sled, making them overall a smaller package
Because it’s a very good vehicle that we have a metric butt ton of..like 100k plus. They’re totally ubiquitous. Everyone has them. There’s nothing else to replace them At this point.
I think the Army should buy Toyota pickup trucks fitted with an "ID friend or foe" system. Then the insurgent forces would be like "is that one of ours?" In addition, you can abuse the hell out of them and parts are available worldwide.
@@swaghauler8334 those indestructible trucks you speak are not equipped with the special layout the hmmwv has, humvees are already plenty reliable. Have fun breaking CV axles on rocks when climbing
@@invertedv12powerhouse77 You've obviously never been to Africa or Asia. You will find Toyota trucks in 2WD and 4WD configurations doing all of those things just fine. The most common issue with Toyotas is rotting body panels, but that never stopped the 3rd world. I like the Hummer and am WELL AWARE of its superior capabilities, but you can buy two Toyotas for the price of ONE Hummer. We are talking about replacing Hummers with something * That's cheap and readily available. * Very reliable. * That's easily repairable anywhere in the world. * And gets good Fuel economy This is why Toyota rules in the 3rd World, not because they are better than Hummers but because they meet the above requirements.
First time in Iraq I used M998 Humvees with strapped on armor cut from old soviet era APCs and WW2 era pedestal mounts/gun shields mounted in the cargo area. No A/C - used the heater on high to cool down. Suspensions and engines were stressed to the max - many oil pans were replaced due to bottoming out. Plus side was absolutely great situational awareness with the Mark I eyeball, ears and armor that came up to your knees. Later times used the M1114 and M1151 series - more factory armor and bigger engine/suspensions and A/C. Even later came the Maxxpro Plus and then the M-ATV and finally Stryker. Down side of all the better armored and survivable vehicles was the loss of looking people in the eyes when driving around town.
The Humvee DEFINITELY needs protection against 100mm main gun at 2 km if not better. Absolutely necessary for a High Mobility Logistics/Utility vehicle. The Humvee armament carrier should have also some added reactive armour. And finally the Humvee TOW carrier should have the ability to engage MBT's head-on of course. But only if necessary, there's no need to make the Humvee too heavy. Am I right? And let's not forget to give more protection to the M35 utility truck (against older ATGMs would be quite sufficient), also the Desert Patrol Vehicle deserves some RPG protection at least and finally, why not make canvas bags and tents out of kevlar ? could actually save lives ...
I'm so glad your still doing these videos after everything you have had to go through recently. Stay strong brother. As a former USAR Soldier, I look forward to your stuff all the time, and remember always to keep calm and return fire.
your video is super insightful and this comment section is really on fire with this particular topic. very interesting ideas being shared. this is one of the more impressive videos/comment section i've seen in recent months.
@Matsimus A few points here: The RPG-7 is not new or innovative, as you said twice. The basic design is from the sixties. There is not one engine for all Humvees, there are three I know of: 6.2 litre naturally-aspirated, 6.5 litre naturally-aspirated, 6.5 litre turbo-charged. You asked if it would be possible to use the basic design for a modern-day version. It is possible, but not reasonable at all. It would cost the same amount of money (if not more) because everything on it was designed to be fast, agile and very mobile even in harsh conditions. Also it is very light and therefore transportable by air, hoovercraft etc.. To get it up to date, you would have to change everything. Really everything. Chassis, frame, engine, gearbox and so on. I personally would design something new as soon as the innovative high-efficency DARPA opposed-piston engine is ready for use.
Saying this vehicle is a bad because it's not IED-proof, is like saying that a screwdriver is bad because it sucks as a hammer. Of course it sucks as a hammer! It's not a hammer! The Humvee is not an MRAP, and I think you did an excellent job of conveying that. It's just one more reason I appreciate your channel. 👍
@@Chopstorm. because, I was recommended to watch pentagon wars the first time during a conversation about the F-35's development. You got me there on the part about controversy.
My old man used to bust up road blocks in Korea with a Jeep and a .50 cal. - they had a bar across the front end to cut wires laid across roads. They were lucky to have just that one added protection.
@@robertkalinic335 Well yeah it kind of does. If you are too lazy to do a 2 second proofread of your own work, use spell check, or you can't spell simple 4th grade words, and lack so much dignity and self respect that you don't mind putting your ignorance on display in a public forum then you shouldn't be taken seriously.
@Matsimus, you are also missing a huge amount of information. In the army we have 4 types of combat units: light, mechanized, heavy and armored. In armored units you have tanks and usually Bradley’s, in heavy units you have all Bradley variants, in mechanized units you have all strikers, in light units you have all humvees. I can from the 101st abn, they are a light unit and also an air assault division. The Humvee is the only vehicle that is allowed to be “slingloaded” to change-47’s aka chinooks. So let’s look a little into doctrine with the 18th airborne Corp. the 4 main combat units are 101st abn, 82nd abn, 10th mountain that are light and are designed to be inserted behind the enemy while 3rd ID(infantry division) has heavily armored infantry like tanks and etc. to engage the front of the enemy while the other 3 as stated before will bottle the enemy in to destroy. It’s still here because we don’t have a more reliable light combat vehicle that can be attached to helicopters for example. The jlmt and mrap are good Vics, but they were designed for anti ied’s. Because the underbelly essentially is a V shape unlike the humvee and just lets the ied blast deflect as you heard in the video. Also in all units we do use Humvee variants like nicknamed high backs for troop and equipment transport. But the up armored humvee’s are still used in light designated units for mobility and airborne/air assault operations.
The "problem" with the HMMWV is it was designed to be the Jeep 2.0(general purpose utility, vehicle), but ended up being used (and upgraded to) a light APC. The end result being a sh&ty APC, and a utility vehicle with the maintenance of an APC/tank. Honestly, the best thing to do is split it into 2 different vehicles. One being a utility vehicle that is basically an small off road truck (think off road Ford Ranger/Toyota), that is designed to be light, fuel efficient, and low maintenance. It would be unarmored, save for the crew quarters(which would have enough to stop any small arms and absorb small IED explosions), and engine (armored just enough to stop standard 308 level rounds). This is designed to be the true Jeep 2.0. The second vehicle would would be an intentionally designed light APC, about as big as the half track. Able to carry a decent amount of troops to the front line, and have enough armor to protect against all small arms, and all but tank sized IED/mines. This would be the army's front line troop transport and support vehicle.
I guess it's the same reason that the British still use variants of the Snatch Land Rover. There are better protected and heavier armed patrol vehicles around, like the Foxhound or MRAP but they are not always needed. Sometimes you just need something reliable and reasonably well protected for general duties. Why pull heavy duty vehicles off the front lines when something like this will do the job just fine. They are also much less "scary" to civilians than tanks or tracked IFV's so are useful for winning hearts & minds.
And with the landys they can be driven on public roads between bases whereas with MRAPs most of the time ive seen them is on the backs of trailers, sometimes I see them going to the shops
I've actually made welding fixtures for the new JLTV! I can't say what it is I've made because of ITAR, but if I ever see one in person, I can point to the exact parts that were made in one of my fixtures
I'm thinking the possibility to modify it as electricity powered vehicle,,like Tesla,,keep the same frame,,,but no more tedious diesel engine maintenance.
but you’d have to have recharging areas or recharging ability at the very least. That would probably be expensive and diesel is easy to transport (fuel cans and the like), it’s locally available, and converting all the existing hummves would be expensive as fuck.
Still haven't worked all the bugs out of electrical vehicles. Will take complete new training of mechanics and drivers. Will take a complete replacement of mechanic tools and equipment. Every electrical system and motor will have to be 100% water proof, military vehicles frequently ford deep water.
I talked to my dad about this video, and he did have a few interesting things to say. He served in Iraq as a combat engineer, so he worked with humvees very often, but him and his group could be called for infantry situations if necessary. On normal circumstances, the infantry would have Bradley’s or strikers to support them, but they weren’t always available (mostly due to costs). What they did have was humvees, so might as well rig them up to be an apc since they didn’t always get them. They even turned a dump truck into an apc just Incase they needed it. They were the first to admit that putting all that weight on the humvee and driving it into battle is a bad idea, but they had to get by on what they had available at that moment. He agrees with this video saying that the humvee was not made for combat, so it’s performance suffered accordingly. The humvee is a great logistical and light support vehicle, but sometimes you need to force it into a combat role whether it was built for that or not. Just thought I’d share that.
@@billpojas7126 Man real question, im really ignorant and Im not joking, is fine if yall call me stopid and shit, I know, here goes. Is the HMMWV considered an APC? Ive seen articles into quora saying "An APC is an APC and a HMMWV is a HMMWV they are different AND THEY ARE NOT THE SAME" but a bunch of my friends AND OTHER ARTICLES say that a HMMWV IS IN FACT AN APC. Since APC Stands for Armored Personel Carrier does that mean a HMMVE is an APC? Or they both are completely different classifications? I mean.. here is an example: A HMMWV, Does it counts as an APC? HMMWVs are supposed to be already armored right? So with that being said, Lets get a HMMWV and armor the shit out of it or Get a Diferent version of HMMWV that has additioal armor, Does it make it an APC? or or A HUMMWVis just a HMMWV and NOT an APC even if we talk about "Extra" armored HMMWVs cause as I said they are supposed to be ALREADY armored. I dont know whats the true answer, and what to believe anymore.
@@localdude2979 Humvees are lightly armored unlike these JLTvs required by the Us military yes, you are right by technicalities but on practical usage of the vehicle itself its somehow counter intuitive that knowing these vehicles cannot protect troops on IEDs and enemy fire.
@@billpojas7126 wait hold on, so a HMMWV is a class of "light" APC? I mean the oficial answer would be a yes or a no? im confused when you said "[...]Technicalities but on practical[...]"
AIT is not sufficient for those without a Mechanical background. The M1097 is Perfect for the fresh face privet to learn the fundamentals on back in the rear.
Are you kidding me? Drive a stock mil-spec jeep or, better yet, a damned Gammagoat offroad or on road and THEN come back and tell me the Hummer's hard to drive. If you cannot see outside the windows, take the doors off.
@@swaghauler8334 Humvees are great big pain to drive on the highway, esp. when there's traffic on the road. They're so wide that making lane changes to the right are difficult because it's hard to see clearly to the right because of their width. I'm just glad that Marine Corps regs always required that you had to have an A(ssistant) Driver whenever driving a Humvee because they made life much easier when driving because they could spot for you whenever you needed to make lane changes. Seeing behind you is difficult because they lack rear view mirrors (I think, it's been a long time since I last drove a Humvee), it's a long way back, and even the rear "windshield" of the soft top models are hard to see out of, forget about seeing out of the back or the hard top versions. To make matters worse, they're slow, you practically have to floor the gas pedal in order to get those things up to freeway speeds and this was back when the speed limit was still just 55.
@@Riceball01 Didn't your hummers have side mirrors? Hummers are exactly the DOT prescribed 102" wide, the same as a semi, commercial box truck, The 5-Ton, or the HEMTT. You can drive any of those, can't you? The hummer IS slow but it's geared for offroad not highway use. Most jeeps didn't accelerate any faster and were WAY MORE "squirrely" at highway speeds than the hummer is. The "tire sing" that gives the hummer its name was about the same. If you think the hummer's bad, try driving a GAMMAGOAT with its articulated trailer and 45mph maximum highway speed. That will change your mind if you think the hummer is bad.
@@swaghauler8334 It did have side mirrors, but it was still a pain looking across that far at them, don't mention doing an over the shoulder look to check the blind spot, which was massive in the soft top version that I regularly had to drive. As far as 5 tons and other vehicles go, those required a separate license and I never got licensed for them. Late in my time in we got a new version of the Humvee which had a big box containing a radio shed and it had a trailer holding a portable shelter (and other stuff) and I had to get licensed specifically for this version of the Humvee. So, everything in the Marine Corps, from my limited experience, seems to require a separate license.
I own a Hummer H1, which is the civilian version of the Humvee. It really doesn't really drink as much diesel as people think. Mine gets 13 around town, 14mpg on the highway. It's not much worse than a full size heavy duty pickup. Also "it sits low to the ground" - I had to lol at that.
Exactly. While being big mraps make sense in towns and cities because they can handle explosives. Or as a command vehicle in small convoys, humvees are just bulletproof troop transports which is perfect just that alone. But the people expect humvees to handle RPGs.... Lol
I never felt like the Humvee was meant to be armored. Theyre utility vehicles and their strong point is probably more in their maneuverability, versatility, and speed, especially in a non guerrilla war. They're like the jeeps of Korea and ww2. They aren't meant to be tough. They aren't meant to be invulnerable. And if a major war were to break out we would almost definately loose alot of them, buts that part of war.
The HMMWV actually replaced the M151 Jeep and the CUCV (Chevy Blazers and Pickups with the addition of blackout lights, radio mounts, but largely the civilian vehicle) I joined the National Guard in 1980, in a time when we still used the Jeep for its original purposes, command car, scout car and weapons carrier. For these it was really better than the HMMWV. It was quieter, faster, more agile, and narrower. I could take it through fairly dense frest which, we found, tended to remove the mirrors from HMMWVs. And it was quiet and offered excellent visibility, especially if you removed the canvas, though it became extremely uncomfortable in rain or snow. One of the things they teach us is to maintain situational awareness so we can spot trouble before we get stuck in it. For this, the HMMWV sucks, especially when they added the armor. It is loud, so you cannot hear trouble, indeed it is hard to talk too each other. The windows are thick and tiny, so it you lose a great deal of visual awareness. When you are sealed in that armored compartment you cannot smell anything. In short, for all the vulnerabilities, if I were doing recon, I would prefer the jeep. On the negative side, the narrowness of the jeep did make it prone to flip in high speed turns. However, at the end they added a robust rollbar. One other thing that they do not tell you is that the blasted armored doors weigh something close to 300 pounds. If you park on a steep hill, good luck opening doors on the up hill side or closing them on the down hill side. And do not let it slide into a river or canal, where the weight of the doors can turn it into a death trap It has great ground clearance, but again, if you are trying to climb into one from a ditch, it is going to be a lot of work. All in all, I would prefer to take my chances with a jeep about 4 inches wider and 3 feet longer.
