The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 3, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Combat Support Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Is the Hummer a death trap?
TriggaFingaz    6/10/2004 3:40:50 PM
It is very sad to hear that so many Hummers are being butchered almost daily in Iraq by IEDs, small arms, RPGs and rabid mobs. But why has Hummer attrition gotten more attention in the current Iraq occupation compared to other conflicts involving either conventional linear or insurgency dominated non-linear battlefields? British Land Rovers are even more fragile than Hummers but they don't get the same amount of 'death trap' stigma as their unfortunate American counterparts. Vietnam was longer and more violent than the worst Iraq has to offer, but the M151 jeep that is easily flipped and has NO covered body was still used right till the 1980s wasn't it?

I read articles making it out that trucks like the Hummer are finished as a class on the battlefield. I believe this is too hasty. Isn't the attrition of Hummers in Iraq also becoz they are being used for far more roles than the jeep of land rover, thereby exposing them to more hazards?

 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
dudley    RE:Is the Hummer a death trap?   6/10/2004 8:46:51 PM
us military needs mass quantities of vehicles to move around in,otherwise theyre not very mobile.u cant build a vehicle in those numbers with adequate protection and be able to afford it.id rather be in a hummer than a jeep.
 
Quote    Reply

Mark F    RE:Is the Hummer a death trap?   6/12/2004 7:13:50 AM
This alleged bad reputation for the Hummer in Iraq is grossly overblown. One also has to remember that Hummer's for the most part are not fighting vehicles - at least the ones being attacked in Iraq aren't. They are mostly being used by rear-echelon support troops for utility and transport roles. Like any soft-skinned truck they are vulnerable to ambush. You just hear about Hummers more because there are so many of them compared to say, Land Rovers.
 
Quote    Reply

bombard    RE:Is the Hummer a death trap?   6/14/2004 12:04:18 PM
If the brits were using hummers and the US using land Rovers, we'd be wondering if the land rovers are death traps. Its a question of approach, not vehicles.
 
Quote    Reply

TriggaFingaz    Why Hummers rollover   6/15/2004 4:47:21 PM
link Use armour in Iraq like M113A-3 ACAVs!!! Keep the Humvees as trucks, not combat patrol vehicles! HUmmers are actually stable vehicles but the bolt on armour is altering their center of gravity, making them easy to topple when driving over rough areas.
 
Quote    Reply

Eagle601    RE:Why Hummers rollover   12/8/2004 1:56:05 AM
Some M-113s would be good, but Hummvees are needed for many tasks. The M-113 can't keep up with supply convoys moving along highways, plus it requires a lot more aminteanace. Also, Hummvees are faster and more agile. The M-113 would be useful in a place like Falluja though, you could use them to carry infantry as well as provide close up fire support.
 
Quote    Reply

DrCruel    The problem with HMMWV   12/22/2004 1:11:10 AM
...is one mainly of doctrine, although I do not like the "Shinseki tanks" myself. The Brits do have an equivalent, but in the role Hummers are used for they use armored cars, like the Scorpion, probably because of their experiences in British Ireland. The Hummer simply is too light to be used for convoy escort, and too heavy to be used efficiently as a utility vehicle. The weight makes it slow and unmaneuverable - and I remember seeing, in Bosnia, one of them with a front wheel that actually broke off from the extra armour weight. This isn't Rumsfeld's fault. It's the residue of Shinseki's failed ideas on 21st century warfare.
 
Quote    Reply

Eagle601    RE:The problem with HMMWV   12/23/2004 12:37:28 AM
The fault lies with taking a 80s vintage utility vehicle and using it as a general purpose frontline combat vehicle. The Hummvee can succeed at low intensity warfare, it would take heavy modification and redesign though.
 
Quote    Reply

rikopotomous    RE: everything said on this thread   12/24/2004 9:02:39 PM
ROFLMFAO. there is no rear echelon in Iraq. The britts arent getting shot up like we are in the South and what a ridiculous statement "The HMMWV can succeed at low intensity warfare, it would take heavy modifaction and redesign though"...BWUHAHAHA dont you realize youre making a new vehicle? M113 SUCKS you get more protection in an up-armored HMMWV than an M113 with more mobility. yah you'll have a helluva time in an uparmored HMMWV but if youre out on the country side its gonna be conventional war and youre gonna be using Abrams and Bradleys + there will be a rear echelon. so you wont need them in that scenario lol.
 
Quote    Reply

Eagle601    RE:Is the Hummer a death trap?   12/24/2004 10:17:15 PM
The main thing you have to improve is the drivetrain. Bigger engine, better brakes, and stronger suspension are needed to handle the load of the extra armor. You'd also need a turrent of some kind, this allows to fire your weapons without exposing yourself to enemy fire. Finally, fit some kind of active RPG protective system to intercept them before they hit the armor, the ballistic plates will stop rifle and MG rounds, and spall liners, better seats and restraints will improve protection for mines and IEDs. Now you have a better vehicle, not a new one.
 
Quote    Reply

EKG    RE:The problem with HMMWV   5/19/2006 4:07:43 AM
DrCruel hit it right on the head. HMMVs have been receiving bad publicity lately because like it or not, they are being used as combat vehicles on a very regular basis. This is a mistake. Half of the lives lost in Iraq could have been prevented by moving troops from wheeled vehicles like Hummers and Strykers into M113A3 uparmored, upengined tracked vehicles with RPG bird cages. Shinseki wanted to turn the military literally into an all wheeled force, including tanks, which is probably why we canned 500 M113s and brought in less then useless Strykers which can be rendered immobile deathtraps by a gasoline soaked sock and a match. We need guntrucks and Panhard-VBR class vehicles (there are plenty of them, trust me) for convoy escort, but as someone said before, there are no front lines. Bring back the Sheridan and M113 en-masse so we can win this war with as few casualties as possible. Make the Israelis lend us their super-updated and improved M60 tanks. I keep trying to find a role for the Hummer, and the only thing I can think of is stateside disaster relief and base operations. Its not even suitable for foreign peacekeeping operations...
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       9/7/2006 5:06:13 PM
Land Rovers, in all their diverse forms, are getting a slating in the British press too, so it's hardly restricted to Humvees.
In response, the UK MoD is getting a bunch of more heavily armoured vehicles, although I don't expect this will happen soon or make that much of a difference.

While Scorpian is the starter of the CVR(T) family, it's no longer in service. Scimitar is the closest analogue, with Spartan being the APC of the family. These are still vulnerable. A couple of weeks ago one was KO'd in Afghanistan, with some loss of life.
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       9/16/2006 1:05:24 AM

The fault lies with taking a 80s vintage utility vehicle and using it as a general purpose frontline combat vehicle. The Hummvee can succeed at low intensity warfare, it would take heavy modification and redesign though.

The most powerful military in the world taking a retrograde step backwards, taking away their trooper's  M113 armour and giving them Humvees. Remember in the vietnam war, the viet cong came on foot and did not have any means of escape as their feet were all they had to leg it.

Today, your taliban, Al qaeda, insurgents no longer need to leg it all the time. They have the Humvee equivalent the Toyota hilux and land cruisers. As taken from an interview with ex Taliban official " Whenever the taliban needed anything like 10 toyota trucks, they just asked Osama (bin Ladin) and the trucks will just reach Afganistan"

The US army has  humvees and expect to win, but they did not think that Osam Bin Ladin has a Toyota dealership.
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.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