Hmmwv is so unique. But I wonder why a few things

Steel Soldiers is supported by:

Skrilex

Banned
356
0
0
Location
Portland Oregon
Way back when the HMMWV was proposed (IE., before the contracts were signed), one of the 'reasons' was that the jeep/mutt left a narrower track than the trucks and an observant enemy could learn a lot of useful information by the number of jeep/mutt tracks in off-road areas. As in what type of unit came through. The HMMWV was designed with the same footprint width as the cargo trucks to help obscure that type of information. Not that it was perfect by any means, but it generally meant that only the last vehicle or two could be made out clearly, and all the rest of the tracks were difficult to decipher.2cents
Ha! Very cool!
So it seems we have dispelled the idea that it was anything to do with tanks, but could have been something to do with other trucks widths, but also to accommodate the running gear and be generally bad ass.

Running my suzuki around the woods here in the PNW I can say that extra width will prevent access to a lot of areas but then again this isn’t war zone and it certainly isn’t a desert environment.
As for aluminum yes why not, but then again it’s not common in other mil vehicles is it? The air slinging I’m sure dictates minimum weight.

This might sound like a dumb dumb question but do they ever airlift them full of people ready to hit the ground driving?
 

suzukovich

Active member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
357
73
28
Location
Gibsonton Fl
Ha! Very cool!
So it seems we have dispelled the idea that it was anything to do with tanks, but could have been something to do with other trucks widths, but also to accommodate the running gear and be generally bad ass.

Running my suzuki around the woods here in the PNW I can say that extra width will prevent access to a lot of areas but then again this isn’t war zone and it certainly isn’t a desert environment.
As for aluminum yes why not, but then again it’s not common in other mil vehicles is it? The air slinging I’m sure dictates minimum weight.

This might sound like a dumb dumb question but do they ever airlift them full of people ready to hit the ground driving?
Sling loading the Humvee, troops road in the Helicopters mainly for safety reasons. Also if the Helicopters had issues or has suffered damage from ground fire the could release the Humvee or any other cargo being sling loaded.

Air dropping same thing no troops in the vehicle.

Width of was dictated by requirements to fit within a C130s 108 in wide. Same decision as the 463L pallets 108in wide 88 in length .

Sent from my SM-J727U using Tapatalk
 

suzukovich

Active member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
357
73
28
Location
Gibsonton Fl
First the brush guard was an option units put on, ours in the 80's were fielded with out them. There was one built by louverine, and another one built out of angle iron that were first put to gather off drawings at 3rd shop and later were contracted out, the louverine guards are the one you want they were heavy and did a good job. the hmmwv sits the way it does for a low silloett and to maintain that and keep the powertrain above the frame the powertrain must sit between the operator and tc. I remember reading some place overall width couldn't exceed 88 inches to allow for passing through Europeon rr tunnels. As for aluminum why not its light wont rust out and is extremely rigid also non magnetic.
The louerine Bush guards came out way after the crappy Bush guards that was fielded in the late 80s. (The bent pretty easy). They were also commonly found on NG unit vehicles then the Active Army units. Yes the louerine units were way better but for some reason we had a hard time acquiring them. I know this because my unit at Ft Hood tried to get them. Cost was one factor and were harder to repair in the field. The later Bush guards fielded in the mid 2000s were made of tubular steel and were a lot stronger.

Sent from my SM-J727U using Tapatalk
 

Action

Active member
1,961
10
38
Location
SW Florida
Sling loading the Humvee, troops road in the Helicopters mainly for safety reasons. Also if the Helicopters had issues or has suffered damage from ground fire the could release the Humvee or any other cargo being sling loaded.

Air dropping same thing no troops in the vehicle.

Width of was dictated by requirements to fit within a C130s 108 in wide. Same decision as the 463L pallets 108in wide 88 in length .

Sent from my SM-J727U using Tapatalk
So if ot didnt have to fir a c130, it would be 10 ft eide? Anything smaller would fit too.
 

suzukovich

Active member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
357
73
28
Location
Gibsonton Fl
Found this on you tube, the Humvee was made to go where an M1 went and to access tunnels in Europe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZvm65VzO8U
Video has many inaccuracies. The M151 was devolped in the late 50s. The H2 was built for the street not for off road use. Built on the suburban frame, drive train, and engine options to save money and increase profit margins. Both were useless off road other than dirt roads unmodified.

Land mine incident. SFOR and KFOR both involved the M1114s which had level one armor. Had they been the soft skin M998 or M1025/26 they would of been destroyed. The armor worked, but soldiers were injured or died do to the fact that equipment inside was not tied down properly.

Suspension improvements. With the introduction of the M1097A2 of which the M1113/14/16(air force) were based on started the improvement of Amor protection. But also made the less capable of road in the mud. As they started adding more armor on them in Iraq eventually the suspension couldn't hold the weight. Even with the introduction of the M1151s they eventually were just about maxed out with combat equipment and more armor. Really degrading the off road capability. Same as the turbo charged engines. Not for speed but to pull more weight. Seat belt improvements were because of accidents and or survivability ( M1151 ).

Sent from my SM-J727U using Tapatalk
 

dhaumann69166

Member
175
1
18
Location
Hyannis, Nebraska
H2 isn’t built on a suburban drive train. It’s a combo of 3/4 pickup rear suspension and a beefed up version of the Tohoe front end with a frame just for the H2. I used to think the H2 was stupid suburban house wife vehicle until I got to drive one off road. After taking it 95% of the place my Humvee will go and doing a LOT of research on them I now own one.
Lots of people complain about the 6.2 and 6.5 being under powered in the Humvee and ask why that motor? For starters AM General is a division of GMC so they were limited to the motors produced by GM at that time. Why not switch later to a Cummins or Powerstroke? To few of production numbers to justify the price to Dodge or Ford would have charged to let them use the motor. Why not go duramax? The military had already purchased X number of 6.2 and 6.5 diesels, bought parts for them, taught soldiers how to fix them, have manuals for them AND the Duramax is almost impossible to make full mechanical.
 

suzukovich

Active member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
357
73
28
Location
Gibsonton Fl
H2 isn’t built on a suburban drive train. It’s a combo of 3/4 pickup rear suspension and a beefed up version of the Tohoe front end with a frame just for the H2. I used to think the H2 was stupid suburban house wife vehicle until I got to drive one off road. After taking it 95% of the place my Humvee will go and doing a LOT of research on them I now own one.
Lots of people complain about the 6.2 and 6.5 being under powered in the Humvee and ask why that motor? For starters AM General is a division of GMC so they were limited to the motors produced by GM at that time. Why not switch later to a Cummins or Powerstroke? To few of production numbers to justify the price to Dodge or Ford would have charged to let them use the motor. Why not go duramax? The military had already purchased X number of 6.2 and 6.5 diesels, bought parts for them, taught soldiers how to fix them, have manuals for them AND the Duramax is almost impossible to make full mechanical.
AM General is not a Division of GM and never was. AM General used to be part of American Motors.. GM had bought the rights to the Hummer brand, but not the H1 or the Humvee. AM General still owns the rights to the H1. Vehicle being produced and sold in China is under a licencing agreement. H2 unmodified is crappy off road and is no comparison to the H1 or the Humvee. Now on the other hand the H3 which is based on the Colorado Chassis was purpose built for off road use by GM. The H3 is far superior to the H2, only draw back was the engine.

Sent from my SM-J727U using Tapatalk
 

dhaumann69166

Member
175
1
18
Location
Hyannis, Nebraska
AM General is not a Division of GM and never was. AM General used to be part of American Motors.. GM had bought the rights to the Hummer brand, but not the H1 or the Humvee. AM General still owns the rights to the H1. Vehicle being produced and sold in China is under a licencing agreement. H2 unmodified is crappy off road and is no comparison to the H1 or the Humvee. Now on the other hand the H3 which is based on the Colorado Chassis was purpose built for off road use by GM. The H3 is far superior to the H2, only draw back was the engine.

Sent from my SM-J727U using Tapatalk
I stand corrected. I was guessing GM owned them based on the sticker that say MFG by AMGeneral for General Motors. My bad. Never been around an H3 but now I kinda want to go try one. I have always heard bad reviews of them. Still pretty impressed with what my H2 can do.
 
Last edited:

riderdan

Member
304
5
18
Location
Central Kansas
Back when the 82nd still had Sheridans I watched one of those burn in. Man it made a sound when it hit the ground. That was back before cell phones so I don't have a video of it, but it was VERY memorable.
 

NEIOWA

Well-known member
1,157
34
48
Location
NE IOWA
Old thread that popped up when searching "463L"

I was in 9ID Mtz in spring 86. Still the "Experimental Test Bed" and was receiving the 1st big batches of M966/M998. None had grill guard (or spare tires). Not a problem at Yakina but we were tearing the heck out of those huge expensive hoods. The only BIG consistent problem I recall with the early trucks, was breaking of alternator shafts (solved but a specific installation/torque procedure (READ THE TM)). And glowplugs. As mentioned above the engine came from the CUCV.

The M998 width/size was primarily dictated by the requirement of a TOW section. M151 TOW section consisted of firing Jeep and an ammo resupply jeep w/trailer. 4men (when full strength). Was entire system and ammo on one vehicle. Thus the M966 with large/wide but poor GVW for the size. Running crew reload missile drill required walkway/access to the right of the M966 TOW ammo rack. The whining about the wide of the HMMWV was huge "can't fit between the trees". The old farts LOVED their M151.

Secondary intent was to get rid of trailers. Or at least an infantry co level. The HMMWV being large enough to haul all the 1st Sgt's stuff. He formerly had a M151 w/M416. The 1st LOVED their M151 (badge of authority). Well that no trailers plan worked for about 3 minutes, then someone hooked up an M101 and now the 1st Sgt and XO could haul LOTS more stuff to the field.. Crap that we didn't take before/left at home station. So 9ID scouring the Army for every M101 could get their hooks on. Apparently this was a limited # as it was only used behind the old (obsolete) Dodge weapons carriers. And in 3 minutes more we were tearing the hell out of the M101 going cross country behind a HMMWV. SO needed a new trailer. Which I guess it took the Army a decade to get what is an awesome trailer.
 

sue

Active member
242
29
28
Location
tulsa OK
Old thread that popped up when searching "463L"

I was in 9ID Mtz in spring 86. Still the "Experimental Test Bed" and was receiving the 1st big batches of M966/M998. None had grill guard (or spare tires). Not a problem at Yakina but we were tearing the heck out of those huge expensive hoods. The only BIG consistent problem I recall with the early trucks, was breaking of alternator shafts (solved but a specific installation/torque procedure (READ THE TM)). And glowplugs. As mentioned above the engine came from the CUCV.

The M998 width/size was primarily dictated by the requirement of a TOW section. M151 TOW section consisted of firing Jeep and an ammo resupply jeep w/trailer. 4men (when full strength). Was entire system and ammo on one vehicle. Thus the M966 with large/wide but poor GVW for the size. Running crew reload missile drill required walkway/access to the right of the M966 TOW ammo rack. The whining about the wide of the HMMWV was huge "can't fit between the trees". The old farts LOVED their M151.

Secondary intent was to get rid of trailers. Or at least an infantry co level. The HMMWV being large enough to haul all the 1st Sgt's stuff. He formerly had a M151 w/M416. The 1st LOVED their M151 (badge of authority). Well that no trailers plan worked for about 3 minutes, then someone hooked up an M101 and now the 1st Sgt and XO could haul LOTS more stuff to the field.. Crap that we didn't take before/left at home station. So 9ID scouring the Army for every M101 could get their hooks on. Apparently this was a limited # as it was only used behind the old (obsolete) Dodge weapons carriers. And in 3 minutes more we were tearing the hell out of the M101 going cross country behind a HMMWV. SO needed a new trailer. Which I guess it took the Army a decade to get what is an awesome trailer.
Hmmwv were designed to fit in a chinook chopper,
When they go out the ramp there does not seam to be a 1/4” gap all around.
Yes I would think that making them 6”? Narrower would have been more prudent, especially in a European environment.
 

TOBASH

Father, Surgeon, Cantankerous Grouch
Steel Soldiers Supporter
1,330
186
63
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Hmmwv were designed to fit in a chinook chopper,
When they go out the ramp there does not seam to be a 1/4” gap all around.
Yes I would think that making them 6”? Narrower would have been more prudent, especially in a European environment.
You need to understand the origin of the HMMWV width. In order to create more ground clearance, the engine and transmission and transfer case were elevated. That creates the large hump between left and right seated passengers. Cutting 6" off the width would have rendered the vehicle unusable for service men and women dressed for battle while carrying necessary weapons and projectile resistant body armor and such.

European streets were designed centuries ago for horses, and would require differing vehicles, like scramblers, and 2 wheeled vehicles.
 

Coug

Well-known member
677
285
63
Location
Olympia/WA
I was once told the HMMWV width had to do with being support vehicles for tanks and the like, with the wider wheel track it could drive in the ruts left by the tank, with only slight contact due to the suspension/hubs the way they are.
As for fitting in Chinooks, I never once saw or heard of anyone trying to put one inside, but they did regular sling load training with them (I was in a Chinook unit for 3.5 years)
 

NEIOWA

Well-known member
1,157
34
48
Location
NE IOWA
Hmmwv were designed to fit in a chinook chopper,
When they go out the ramp there does not seam to be a 1/4” gap all around.
Yes I would think that making them 6”? Narrower would have been more prudent, especially in a European environment.
I spent time as the S-3Air for an 9ID CAB-H Inf Bn (HMMWV), AS-3 of an Air Assault Bn, Co Cdr of an Air Asslt AT Co (HMMWV). NEVER did the idea of sticking a HMMWV inside a CH47 arise. Certainly no ones doctrine. I don't think could be done. Certainly not practical.

Sling load, tandem sling load (2x side by side) lots. When you hit an LZ you want to be gone from that big old noisy target fast. Not fooling around trying to squeeze 8lb of HMMWV out the rear door of a shithook. And pretty sure the aviators would feel the same (be gone from my LZ quick). You're lucky if the tires are on the ground before they drop the hook, slide over and drop the crew off.

They really are (or were) a pretty amazing offroad. Todays Heavy HMMWV would have to be total pigs offroad with all the armor, sensors, spare tires and misc crap that are hung on the things today. "A Soldiers Load" would apply to vehicles aslo.
 

NEIOWA

Well-known member
1,157
34
48
Location
NE IOWA
You need to understand the origin of the HMMWV width. In order to create more ground clearance, the engine and transmission and transfer case were elevated. That creates the large hump between left and right seated passengers. Cutting 6" off the width would have rendered the vehicle unusable for service men and women dressed for battle while carrying necessary weapons and projectile resistant body armor and such.

European streets were designed centuries ago for horses, and would require differing vehicles, like scramblers, and 2 wheeled vehicles.
Right you are. See the German solution - the Weasel
 

DREDnot

Active member
504
137
43
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Lots of crazy conjecture in this thread.

The HMMWV was designed to replace the MUTT, and the CUCV.
The MUTT was great offroad, but couldn't carry much and had a dangerous rollover propensity.
In order to carry the 1 1/4 ton load of the CUCV it would have had to have a really high center of gravity and be even more dangerous than the MUTT so it was made really wide to have the sidehill stability be acceptable with a shelter box.
The width and height parameters had to do with fitting in the C130 and sling loading under helicopters

It needed to have BETTER offroad performance that what it was replacing so to get the ground clearance needed, the drivetrain needed to be raised up in between the frame rails and portal axles used.

The main reason for the aluminum construction was to extend the service life of the now wildly expensive new vehicle to 25 years vs. 10-15 for the steel CUCV.
Weight savings was secondary and not substantial

The inefficient slanted radiators was only way to have minimum sufficient cooling with the high ground clearance and low silhouette.

The seats are so far apart to heep them down low. So they need to be outboard of the high frame rails

Having the trailer be identical in track to the pulling vehicle with common tires is a common practice. Mainly to ease pulling by not making fresh ruts. M101 trailer was developed for the old dodge M37 3/4 ton. Same track, same wheels. M101A2 was modified to fit the CUCV track and take CUCV wheels. M101A3 had a wider axle to match the track of the HMMWV and cover its wheels with wider fenders. Then the M1102 trailers out of aluminum to match the HMMWV and replace the rusting out M101 series.

The 6.2L Diesel was chosen for commonality of parts with the CUCVs already in stock and for commonality of fuel.

The tank track theory is not a thing.
The only thing that had to do with the M1 Abrams is that it had to be able to keep up.

The brushguards came along to try to keep the lightweight fiberglass hoods from getting tore up.

The whole truck is loaded with compromises to be able to achieve the crazy demands of the design specs.
 
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website like our supporting vendors. Their ads help keep Steel Soldiers going. Please consider disabling your ad blockers for the site. Thanks!

I've Disabled AdBlock
No Thanks