LMTV

Is an LMTV the same thing as a FMTV ?

Are any of these going to hit the decommission anytime soon ?

I'm not sure about the first part of the question. However, usually the military has a 15-year or so "service life" of new mil vehicles. Unless a vehicle is massively ripped up, as in a traffic collision, if the vehicle is in nice shape, and under 15 years old, it will be kept up. If it has issues, it will be kept, and used as spare parts for the good ones on the road, in the depot. I remember the HEMTTs were not really surplused out at all until they reached the 15-year point.

FMTV = Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles

LMTV = Light Medium Tactical Vehicles (replacement for the Deuce, 2.5 ton capacity)

MTV = Medium Tactical vehicle (replacement for the 800/900 series; 5 ton capacity).

I think that's right, if I am mistaken, someone please correct me.

I have seen some 'X" model FMTV's at SECO and out of service but I suspect it'll be several more years before they begin decommissioning these and when they do, don't be surprised if they aren't available to the general public (I'd say the days of military surplus vehicles are coming to an end)

LMTV (M1078 through M1081) is a 4X4 Light Medium Tactical Vehicle and belongs to the FMTVs Family of Medium Tactical Vehicle(s). The 6X6 version (M1083 through M1096) is called the MTV Medium Tactical Vehicle.
Surplussing out the later model stuff is getting kinda interesting in that more and more, vehicles are sent back to the manufacturer where they're stripped to bare frames and rebuilt using the newest mods and sent back into the field as zero miles/zero time vehicles. See Oshkosh Trucks "Reset Program".

Clinto is correct. We wont see any FMTV's surplused out ANYtime soon.

And the FMTV is the whole Family.

They have explained it quite well. Here is a diagram to help.

There is one possible variable that is under discussion due to recent activities over in the sandbox. At it's core is the question if whether all mil trucks/vehicles need to be armored to protect the drivers.

Leaving aside the arguement of why thru WWII/the bigone, Korea, Coldwar/Warsaw Pact we never found it appropriate/necessary to do so if may happen. We've armored most of the FMTV cabs in Iraq. Doing so leaves the LMTV with the useful payload of a pickup truck and make the MTV into a Duece. Way more MTVs have been purchased than LMTV (primarily Abn and AASLT units). So if proceed with project armor everything the 6x6 FMTV becomes the new Duece and there is little need for the 4x4.

There has been call to armor trucks in the past. Usually it involved low intensity conflicts or against guerilla operations. US convoys in Vietnam took it on the chin because they didn't armor up more than the gun trucks. The Rhodesians and South Africans had to fight in the bush for a long time and found that armored and mine resistant trucks were highly preferred for the longevity of their soldiers. Peacekeeping forces find armor more useful than not.

Look further back in the past and you'll find that the British tended to armor a lot of trucks, even in an ersatz nature for operations in the colonies and dominions. Many go back to before WWII.

I want a 4 wheeler model.

Like this one.... Im assuming it would be a M1078a1 acording to the diagram posted by dannymoz71

I believe the future of US military operations will be police actions (nation building, peace keeping, etc.) and not "set piece, land battle" operations. I would have to say that pretty much means everything is going to have to be armored from now on.

I will post some pics of the new versions here in the sand box. the cab is of total diffenet design and is made off 2 inch plate, not bolt on armor but an actual armor cab

Clinto, you would expect that, but the problem is that as soon as you get everything setup for just that sort of low intensity conflict we'll get hit with another major land war type battle and our troops will take it on the chin because we've ditched all the heavy forces (turned them into reefs or pots and pans!).

JAsher45 said:

I will post some pics of the new versions here in the sand box. the cab is of total diffenet design and is made off 2 inch plate, not bolt on armor but an actual armor cab

Click to expand...

Beat you to it.

That is Retarded looking.

Not so retarted looking when your inside it and people are shooting at you.

Sorry, I don't think that cab can withstand much in the way of an RPG rocket.

So it's still retarded.

If you want protection, ride a track. That CoverGirl armor on a truck just reduces the amount of cargo it can carry. Are there any M548s in the sandbox right now? With armor, those might be useful in the way of protection AND cargo capacity.

Just my two cents...

agreed, It needs to look cool too.... but im just selfish j/k

I think the 4x4 versions are too short looking, kind of stubby if you ask me, but that's just my $0.02 worth. I personally like the looks of the unarmored M1089 but angain that's just my $0.02 worth
so now I'm up to $0.04 I better stop before I go broke.

maddawg308 said:

Sorry, I don't think that cab can withstand much in the way of an RPG rocket.

Click to expand...

Will it stop the "jet" from penetrating. Most likely not. Will it protect the crew from the secondary blast effects from a near miss with an RPG? Sure will. Say the RPG round hits the tires or the cargo bed or just the ground, that armored cab will spell the difference between a hard knock and likely deadly fragments and blast effects from the shaped charge explosion. Shaped charges divert a lot of energy into the cone, the "jet" as it were. But there's still a significant blast around the entire grenade that can kill as well.

There's also the factor of road side IEDs and smaller VBEDs (car bombs) as well as mines. The armor package also includes panels over critical components like the air tanks that will help a crew get out of the ambush area of they're popped.

Those armor kits also protect the crew from small arms fire.

If you want protection, ride a track. That CoverGirl armor on a truck just reduces the amount of cargo it can carry. Are there any M548s in the sandbox right now? With armor, those might be useful in the way of protection AND cargo capacity.

Click to expand...

M113s couldn't carry a reasonable cargo weight and enough armor to protect against RPGs and carry a useful speed. The israeli M113 Zeldas can shrug off RPGs with their reactive armor kits, but they're not nearly as fast, certainly not what you want for a logistics cargo carrier.

Think of the daily logistics movement needed to move through indian country to FOBs up the MSRs (Main Supply Routes). You'd never move enough tonnage if you switched everything over to tracks. The Direct Support, fuel costs and speed limits of tracks over wheels would kill you inside a month.

Talking to several friends who've been over there on deployments, its my understanding that convoys routinely sustain 50-60mph on highways and the M113s and other tracked carriers would never keep up. The ONLY armored vehicles that can keep pace are the Armored Trucks, the armored cars (M1117s and Strykers) and rotary wing aircraft which escort on occasion.