A
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
R
Roger
Guest
"aghasee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news
[email protected]...>
> Judge for yourself...
> http://www.micom.net/oops/Hummer.jpg
Too wide, too heavy, too thirsty, too unreliable, too expensive.
A
Alex
Guest
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:36:58 GMT, "Roger" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"aghasee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>>
>> Judge for yourself...
>> http://www.micom.net/oops/Hummer.jpg
>
>Too wide, too heavy, too thirsty, too unreliable, too expensive.
>
Mm, but you can roll any vehicle if you try hard enough...
Alex
wrote:
>
>"aghasee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news
[email protected]...>>
>> Judge for yourself...
>> http://www.micom.net/oops/Hummer.jpg
>
>Too wide, too heavy, too thirsty, too unreliable, too expensive.
>
Mm, but you can roll any vehicle if you try hard enough...
Alex
R
Richard Brookman
Guest
Alex wrote:
|| On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:36:58 GMT, "Roger" <[email protected]>
|| wrote:
||
|||
||| "aghasee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
||| news[email protected]...
||||
|||| Judge for yourself...
|||| http://www.micom.net/oops/Hummer.jpg
|||
||| Too wide, too heavy, too thirsty, too unreliable, too expensive.
|||
||
|| Mm, but you can roll any vehicle if you try hard enough...
||
|| Alex
The roof stayed where it was supposed to be. That's something you should
expect from a vehicle designed for the military, though.
--
Rich
==============================
Take out the obvious to email me.
|| On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:36:58 GMT, "Roger" <[email protected]>
|| wrote:
||
|||
||| "aghasee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
||| news
[email protected]...||||
|||| Judge for yourself...
|||| http://www.micom.net/oops/Hummer.jpg
|||
||| Too wide, too heavy, too thirsty, too unreliable, too expensive.
|||
||
|| Mm, but you can roll any vehicle if you try hard enough...
||
|| Alex
The roof stayed where it was supposed to be. That's something you should
expect from a vehicle designed for the military, though.
--
Rich
==============================
Take out the obvious to email me.
A
Alex
Guest
>||||
>|||| Judge for yourself...
>|||| http://www.micom.net/oops/Hummer.jpg
>|||
>||| Too wide, too heavy, too thirsty, too unreliable, too expensive.
>|||
>||
>|| Mm, but you can roll any vehicle if you try hard enough...
>||
>|| Alex
>
>The roof stayed where it was supposed to be. That's something you should
>expect from a vehicle designed for the military, though.
So did the roof on my Series IIa when i rolled it. and no, it didnt
have a roll cage fitted.
Alex
A
aghasee
Guest
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 00:46:08 +0100, Alex <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ||||
>> |||| Judge for yourself...
>> |||| http://www.micom.net/oops/Hummer.jpg
>> |||
>> ||| Too wide, too heavy, too thirsty, too unreliable, too expensive.
>> |||
>> ||
>> || Mm, but you can roll any vehicle if you try hard enough...
>> ||
>> || Alex
>>
>> The roof stayed where it was supposed to be. That's something you
>> should
>> expect from a vehicle designed for the military, though.
>
> So did the roof on my Series IIa when i rolled it. and no, it didnt
> have a roll cage fitted.
I'm pretty confident Land/Range Rovers will do very well in case of a
rollover, even whithout rollcages fitted.
>
>> ||||
>> |||| Judge for yourself...
>> |||| http://www.micom.net/oops/Hummer.jpg
>> |||
>> ||| Too wide, too heavy, too thirsty, too unreliable, too expensive.
>> |||
>> ||
>> || Mm, but you can roll any vehicle if you try hard enough...
>> ||
>> || Alex
>>
>> The roof stayed where it was supposed to be. That's something you
>> should
>> expect from a vehicle designed for the military, though.
>
> So did the roof on my Series IIa when i rolled it. and no, it didnt
> have a roll cage fitted.
I'm pretty confident Land/Range Rovers will do very well in case of a
rollover, even whithout rollcages fitted.
D
Dougal
Guest
Richard Brookman wrote:
> Alex wrote:
>
> || On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:36:58 GMT, "Roger" <[email protected]>
> || wrote:
> ||
> |||
> ||| "aghasee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> ||| news[email protected]...
> ||||
> |||| Judge for yourself...
> |||| http://www.micom.net/oops/Hummer.jpg
> |||
> ||| Too wide, too heavy, too thirsty, too unreliable, too expensive.
> |||
> ||
> || Mm, but you can roll any vehicle if you try hard enough...
> ||
> || Alex
>
> The roof stayed where it was supposed to be. That's something you should
> expect from a vehicle designed for the military, though.
There's Hummers and there's hummers - isn't that the civilian 'copy'?
> Alex wrote:
>
> || On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:36:58 GMT, "Roger" <[email protected]>
> || wrote:
> ||
> |||
> ||| "aghasee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> ||| news
[email protected]...> ||||
> |||| Judge for yourself...
> |||| http://www.micom.net/oops/Hummer.jpg
> |||
> ||| Too wide, too heavy, too thirsty, too unreliable, too expensive.
> |||
> ||
> || Mm, but you can roll any vehicle if you try hard enough...
> ||
> || Alex
>
> The roof stayed where it was supposed to be. That's something you should
> expect from a vehicle designed for the military, though.
There's Hummers and there's hummers - isn't that the civilian 'copy'?
I
Ian Rawlings
Guest
On 2006-09-23, Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> There's Hummers and there's hummers - isn't that the civilian 'copy'?
No, the civvy has beam axles. The real humvee is an oversized whale
with some nice features, the civvy copy is just an oversized whale!
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
> There's Hummers and there's hummers - isn't that the civilian 'copy'?
No, the civvy has beam axles. The real humvee is an oversized whale
with some nice features, the civvy copy is just an oversized whale!
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
D
Dougal
Guest
Ian Rawlings wrote:
> On 2006-09-23, Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>There's Hummers and there's hummers - isn't that the civilian 'copy'?
>
>
> No, the civvy has beam axles. The real humvee is an oversized whale
> with some nice features, the civvy copy is just an oversized whale!
Looking at the wheels thrust skywards? I didn't notice that. The
wheels have remained remarkably parallel, too, as you would expect
with a beam axle - perhaps I'm not yet convinced!
> On 2006-09-23, Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>There's Hummers and there's hummers - isn't that the civilian 'copy'?
>
>
> No, the civvy has beam axles. The real humvee is an oversized whale
> with some nice features, the civvy copy is just an oversized whale!
Looking at the wheels thrust skywards? I didn't notice that. The
wheels have remained remarkably parallel, too, as you would expect
with a beam axle - perhaps I'm not yet convinced!
I
Ian Rawlings
Guest
On 2006-09-23, Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> Looking at the wheels thrust skywards? I didn't notice that. The
> wheels have remained remarkably parallel, too, as you would expect
> with a beam axle - perhaps I'm not yet convinced!
OK, then just go and look at some pictures of the H1 and the H2, they
are very different, it's easy to see that the one on its roof is the
H1, the front, the ramp-over angles, the single cab and pickup body
etc. Look at the styling on the two types of truck and see for
yourself.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
> Looking at the wheels thrust skywards? I didn't notice that. The
> wheels have remained remarkably parallel, too, as you would expect
> with a beam axle - perhaps I'm not yet convinced!
OK, then just go and look at some pictures of the H1 and the H2, they
are very different, it's easy to see that the one on its roof is the
H1, the front, the ramp-over angles, the single cab and pickup body
etc. Look at the styling on the two types of truck and see for
yourself.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
A
Alex
Guest
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 07:43:18 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2006-09-23, Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Looking at the wheels thrust skywards? I didn't notice that. The
>> wheels have remained remarkably parallel, too, as you would expect
>> with a beam axle - perhaps I'm not yet convinced!
>
>OK, then just go and look at some pictures of the H1 and the H2, they
>are very different, it's easy to see that the one on its roof is the
>H1, the front, the ramp-over angles, the single cab and pickup body
>etc. Look at the styling on the two types of truck and see for
>yourself.
The H2 is simply a hummer look-alike body on one a standard american
truck/pickup chassis. The H1 is a glossy version of the HMMVW, which
is rather more robust than the H2.
Alex
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2006-09-23, Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Looking at the wheels thrust skywards? I didn't notice that. The
>> wheels have remained remarkably parallel, too, as you would expect
>> with a beam axle - perhaps I'm not yet convinced!
>
>OK, then just go and look at some pictures of the H1 and the H2, they
>are very different, it's easy to see that the one on its roof is the
>H1, the front, the ramp-over angles, the single cab and pickup body
>etc. Look at the styling on the two types of truck and see for
>yourself.
The H2 is simply a hummer look-alike body on one a standard american
truck/pickup chassis. The H1 is a glossy version of the HMMVW, which
is rather more robust than the H2.
Alex
P
Pantelis Giamarellos
Guest
People Hi,
HAving had the chance to drive a Hummer H1 back in 1996 for a short time in
Beirut I can only say that Landies are far better as everyday life and use
vehicles.
The only true advantage of the H1 (and the H2) is the looks. It is
extremely impressive and has a phenomenal ability to open the road in front
of it and the military checkpoints.
Two offroading related advantages are that due to its humongous width it is
also very stable and it was excellent approach and retreat angles
It is not fast (travels at around 110 Km/h and if you go faster than that it
starts to rattle and shake due to the portal axles design)
It is VERY thirsty even on its diesel versions
It is extremely cramped inside (four adults have minimal space with each
passenger seating in his seat with a HUGE flat space (the arms platform)
between them.
Loading space is minimal also, it is flat and wide but not so deep and very
short (on station wagon bodied vehicles, unlike the tipped one in the photo)
It is VERY heavy and this has resulted into having three flat tyres on the
same time on the same spot where even ordinary Toyota Corollas could pass
through with their ordinary tyres (namely a field with just a few thorny
bushes)
The on board inflation system is TOTALLY useless and the ran flat tyres
simply got torn apart in less than 15 kms (they are supposed to be able to
hold on for 50 km at a 50 Km/h speed.
Would I buy one? NO !!!!
Would I use one? YES if they were paying for the gas and the car itself (as
they did when I was in Beirut)
Take care
Pantelis
"Alex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 07:43:18 +0100, Ian Rawlings
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On 2006-09-23, Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Looking at the wheels thrust skywards? I didn't notice that. The
> >> wheels have remained remarkably parallel, too, as you would expect
> >> with a beam axle - perhaps I'm not yet convinced!
> >
> >OK, then just go and look at some pictures of the H1 and the H2, they
> >are very different, it's easy to see that the one on its roof is the
> >H1, the front, the ramp-over angles, the single cab and pickup body
> >etc. Look at the styling on the two types of truck and see for
> >yourself.
>
> The H2 is simply a hummer look-alike body on one a standard american
> truck/pickup chassis. The H1 is a glossy version of the HMMVW, which
> is rather more robust than the H2.
>
> Alex
HAving had the chance to drive a Hummer H1 back in 1996 for a short time in
Beirut I can only say that Landies are far better as everyday life and use
vehicles.
The only true advantage of the H1 (and the H2) is the looks. It is
extremely impressive and has a phenomenal ability to open the road in front
of it and the military checkpoints.
Two offroading related advantages are that due to its humongous width it is
also very stable and it was excellent approach and retreat angles
It is not fast (travels at around 110 Km/h and if you go faster than that it
starts to rattle and shake due to the portal axles design)
It is VERY thirsty even on its diesel versions
It is extremely cramped inside (four adults have minimal space with each
passenger seating in his seat with a HUGE flat space (the arms platform)
between them.
Loading space is minimal also, it is flat and wide but not so deep and very
short (on station wagon bodied vehicles, unlike the tipped one in the photo)
It is VERY heavy and this has resulted into having three flat tyres on the
same time on the same spot where even ordinary Toyota Corollas could pass
through with their ordinary tyres (namely a field with just a few thorny
bushes)
The on board inflation system is TOTALLY useless and the ran flat tyres
simply got torn apart in less than 15 kms (they are supposed to be able to
hold on for 50 km at a 50 Km/h speed.
Would I buy one? NO !!!!
Would I use one? YES if they were paying for the gas and the car itself (as
they did when I was in Beirut)
Take care
Pantelis
"Alex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 07:43:18 +0100, Ian Rawlings
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On 2006-09-23, Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Looking at the wheels thrust skywards? I didn't notice that. The
> >> wheels have remained remarkably parallel, too, as you would expect
> >> with a beam axle - perhaps I'm not yet convinced!
> >
> >OK, then just go and look at some pictures of the H1 and the H2, they
> >are very different, it's easy to see that the one on its roof is the
> >H1, the front, the ramp-over angles, the single cab and pickup body
> >etc. Look at the styling on the two types of truck and see for
> >yourself.
>
> The H2 is simply a hummer look-alike body on one a standard american
> truck/pickup chassis. The H1 is a glossy version of the HMMVW, which
> is rather more robust than the H2.
>
> Alex
S
steve
Guest
Don't know if its true, but the 101FC met the Hummer in Gulf war I, and
hammered the Hummer in terms of reliability and off-road
manoeuvrability. I'd love to know if that is in fact true !
Steve
hammered the Hummer in terms of reliability and off-road
manoeuvrability. I'd love to know if that is in fact true !
Steve
D
Duracell Bunny
Guest
Pantelis Giamarellos wrote:
> People Hi,
>
> HAving had the chance to drive a Hummer H1 back in 1996 for a short time in
> Beirut I can only say that Landies are far better as everyday life and use
> vehicles.
>
> The only true advantage of the H1 (and the H2) is the looks. It is
> extremely impressive and has a phenomenal ability to open the road in front
> of it and the military checkpoints.
>
> Two offroading related advantages are that due to its humongous width it is
> also very stable and it was excellent approach and retreat angles
>
> It is not fast (travels at around 110 Km/h and if you go faster than that it
> starts to rattle and shake due to the portal axles design)
> It is VERY thirsty even on its diesel versions
> It is extremely cramped inside (four adults have minimal space with each
> passenger seating in his seat with a HUGE flat space (the arms platform)
> between them.
> Loading space is minimal also, it is flat and wide but not so deep and very
> short (on station wagon bodied vehicles, unlike the tipped one in the photo)
> It is VERY heavy and this has resulted into having three flat tyres on the
> same time on the same spot where even ordinary Toyota Corollas could pass
> through with their ordinary tyres (namely a field with just a few thorny
> bushes)
>
> The on board inflation system is TOTALLY useless and the ran flat tyres
> simply got torn apart in less than 15 kms (they are supposed to be able to
> hold on for 50 km at a 50 Km/h speed.
>
> Would I buy one? NO !!!!
> Would I use one? YES if they were paying for the gas and the car itself (as
> they did when I was in Beirut)
>
> Take care
> Pantelis
>
> "Alex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 07:43:18 +0100, Ian Rawlings
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 2006-09-23, Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Looking at the wheels thrust skywards? I didn't notice that. The
>>>>wheels have remained remarkably parallel, too, as you would expect
>>>>with a beam axle - perhaps I'm not yet convinced!
>>>
>>>OK, then just go and look at some pictures of the H1 and the H2, they
>>>are very different, it's easy to see that the one on its roof is the
>>>H1, the front, the ramp-over angles, the single cab and pickup body
>>>etc. Look at the styling on the two types of truck and see for
>>>yourself.
>>
>>The H2 is simply a hummer look-alike body on one a standard american
>>truck/pickup chassis. The H1 is a glossy version of the HMMVW, which
>>is rather more robust than the H2.
>>
>>Alex
>
>
>
The local prisons had some Hummers for a while as perimeter security
vehicles - they were scrapped (literally) a year later, totally
unreliable & uneconomic. I think the gearboxes were the biggest failure,
from what I recall. They were way too heavy ...
--
Karen
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible
warning.' Catherine Aird
> People Hi,
>
> HAving had the chance to drive a Hummer H1 back in 1996 for a short time in
> Beirut I can only say that Landies are far better as everyday life and use
> vehicles.
>
> The only true advantage of the H1 (and the H2) is the looks. It is
> extremely impressive and has a phenomenal ability to open the road in front
> of it and the military checkpoints.
>
> Two offroading related advantages are that due to its humongous width it is
> also very stable and it was excellent approach and retreat angles
>
> It is not fast (travels at around 110 Km/h and if you go faster than that it
> starts to rattle and shake due to the portal axles design)
> It is VERY thirsty even on its diesel versions
> It is extremely cramped inside (four adults have minimal space with each
> passenger seating in his seat with a HUGE flat space (the arms platform)
> between them.
> Loading space is minimal also, it is flat and wide but not so deep and very
> short (on station wagon bodied vehicles, unlike the tipped one in the photo)
> It is VERY heavy and this has resulted into having three flat tyres on the
> same time on the same spot where even ordinary Toyota Corollas could pass
> through with their ordinary tyres (namely a field with just a few thorny
> bushes)
>
> The on board inflation system is TOTALLY useless and the ran flat tyres
> simply got torn apart in less than 15 kms (they are supposed to be able to
> hold on for 50 km at a 50 Km/h speed.
>
> Would I buy one? NO !!!!
> Would I use one? YES if they were paying for the gas and the car itself (as
> they did when I was in Beirut)
>
> Take care
> Pantelis
>
> "Alex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 07:43:18 +0100, Ian Rawlings
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 2006-09-23, Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Looking at the wheels thrust skywards? I didn't notice that. The
>>>>wheels have remained remarkably parallel, too, as you would expect
>>>>with a beam axle - perhaps I'm not yet convinced!
>>>
>>>OK, then just go and look at some pictures of the H1 and the H2, they
>>>are very different, it's easy to see that the one on its roof is the
>>>H1, the front, the ramp-over angles, the single cab and pickup body
>>>etc. Look at the styling on the two types of truck and see for
>>>yourself.
>>
>>The H2 is simply a hummer look-alike body on one a standard american
>>truck/pickup chassis. The H1 is a glossy version of the HMMVW, which
>>is rather more robust than the H2.
>>
>>Alex
>
>
>
The local prisons had some Hummers for a while as perimeter security
vehicles - they were scrapped (literally) a year later, totally
unreliable & uneconomic. I think the gearboxes were the biggest failure,
from what I recall. They were way too heavy ...
--
Karen
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible
warning.' Catherine Aird
T
Torak
Guest
steve wrote:
> Don't know if its true, but the 101FC met the Hummer in Gulf war I, and
> hammered the Hummer in terms of reliability and off-road
> manoeuvrability. I'd love to know if that is in fact true !
Well, would anyone really be surprised?
> Don't know if its true, but the 101FC met the Hummer in Gulf war I, and
> hammered the Hummer in terms of reliability and off-road
> manoeuvrability. I'd love to know if that is in fact true !
Well, would anyone really be surprised?
D
David G. Bell
Guest
On Wednesday, in article
<[email protected]>
[email protected] "Torak" wrote:
> steve wrote:
> > Don't know if its true, but the 101FC met the Hummer in Gulf war I, and
> > hammered the Hummer in terms of reliability and off-road
> > manoeuvrability. I'd love to know if that is in fact true !
>
> Well, would anyone really be surprised?
There are features of the HMMWV Hummer which make a lot of sense when
on the front line with the US Army in a NATO vs. Warpac war.
It's quite arguable that the result is less useful in the sorts of war
the US army fights today, and of little or no use in a civilian
environment.
It might be considered as the equivalent of an Austin Champ, competing
with a Land Rover, in the 1950s.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
<[email protected]>
[email protected] "Torak" wrote:
> steve wrote:
> > Don't know if its true, but the 101FC met the Hummer in Gulf war I, and
> > hammered the Hummer in terms of reliability and off-road
> > manoeuvrability. I'd love to know if that is in fact true !
>
> Well, would anyone really be surprised?
There are features of the HMMWV Hummer which make a lot of sense when
on the front line with the US Army in a NATO vs. Warpac war.
It's quite arguable that the result is less useful in the sorts of war
the US army fights today, and of little or no use in a civilian
environment.
It might be considered as the equivalent of an Austin Champ, competing
with a Land Rover, in the 1950s.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
T
Torak
Guest
David G. Bell wrote:
> On Wednesday, in article
> <[email protected]>
> [email protected] "Torak" wrote:
>
>
>>steve wrote:
>>
>>>Don't know if its true, but the 101FC met the Hummer in Gulf war I, and
>>>hammered the Hummer in terms of reliability and off-road
>>>manoeuvrability. I'd love to know if that is in fact true !
>>
>>Well, would anyone really be surprised?
>
>
> There are features of the HMMWV Hummer which make a lot of sense when
> on the front line with the US Army in a NATO vs. Warpac war.
Such as?
(Not disagreeing - just curious. I've never really paid much attention
to the Hummer.)
> On Wednesday, in article
> <[email protected]>
> [email protected] "Torak" wrote:
>
>
>>steve wrote:
>>
>>>Don't know if its true, but the 101FC met the Hummer in Gulf war I, and
>>>hammered the Hummer in terms of reliability and off-road
>>>manoeuvrability. I'd love to know if that is in fact true !
>>
>>Well, would anyone really be surprised?
>
>
> There are features of the HMMWV Hummer which make a lot of sense when
> on the front line with the US Army in a NATO vs. Warpac war.
Such as?
(Not disagreeing - just curious. I've never really paid much attention
to the Hummer.)
B
beamendsltd
Guest
In message <[email protected]>
Torak <[email protected]> wrote:
> David G. Bell wrote:
> > On Wednesday, in article
> > <[email protected]>
> > [email protected] "Torak" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>steve wrote:
> >>
> >>>Don't know if its true, but the 101FC met the Hummer in Gulf war I, and
> >>>hammered the Hummer in terms of reliability and off-road
> >>>manoeuvrability. I'd love to know if that is in fact true !
> >>
> >>Well, would anyone really be surprised?
> >
> >
> > There are features of the HMMWV Hummer which make a lot of sense when
> > on the front line with the US Army in a NATO vs. Warpac war.
>
> Such as?
>
Being too wide to fit down many rural roads ;-)
> (Not disagreeing - just curious. I've never really paid much attention
> to the Hummer.)
Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
Torak <[email protected]> wrote:
> David G. Bell wrote:
> > On Wednesday, in article
> > <[email protected]>
> > [email protected] "Torak" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>steve wrote:
> >>
> >>>Don't know if its true, but the 101FC met the Hummer in Gulf war I, and
> >>>hammered the Hummer in terms of reliability and off-road
> >>>manoeuvrability. I'd love to know if that is in fact true !
> >>
> >>Well, would anyone really be surprised?
> >
> >
> > There are features of the HMMWV Hummer which make a lot of sense when
> > on the front line with the US Army in a NATO vs. Warpac war.
>
> Such as?
>
Being too wide to fit down many rural roads ;-)
> (Not disagreeing - just curious. I've never really paid much attention
> to the Hummer.)
Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
D
David G. Bell
Guest
On Wednesday, in article
<d55416d4e%[email protected]>
[email protected] "beamendsltd" wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> Torak <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > David G. Bell wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, in article
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > [email protected] "Torak" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>steve wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Don't know if its true, but the 101FC met the Hummer in Gulf war I, and
> > >>>hammered the Hummer in terms of reliability and off-road
> > >>>manoeuvrability. I'd love to know if that is in fact true !
> > >>
> > >>Well, would anyone really be surprised?
> > >
> > >
> > > There are features of the HMMWV Hummer which make a lot of sense when
> > > on the front line with the US Army in a NATO vs. Warpac war.
> >
> > Such as?
> >
>
> Being too wide to fit down many rural roads ;-)
>
> > (Not disagreeing - just curious. I've never really paid much attention
> > to the Hummer.)
The width matches an M1 tank, so you can follow the tank through a
minefield without detonating any more mines. This isn't quite silly, the
idea was to fit the leading tank with a mine-clearing attachment, a sort
of plough.
There's a slight problem. If the 3rd Shock Army came through the Fulda
Gap, all the minefields would be American, and the Americans wouldn't be
making gaps.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
<d55416d4e%[email protected]>
[email protected] "beamendsltd" wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> Torak <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > David G. Bell wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, in article
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > [email protected] "Torak" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>steve wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Don't know if its true, but the 101FC met the Hummer in Gulf war I, and
> > >>>hammered the Hummer in terms of reliability and off-road
> > >>>manoeuvrability. I'd love to know if that is in fact true !
> > >>
> > >>Well, would anyone really be surprised?
> > >
> > >
> > > There are features of the HMMWV Hummer which make a lot of sense when
> > > on the front line with the US Army in a NATO vs. Warpac war.
> >
> > Such as?
> >
>
> Being too wide to fit down many rural roads ;-)
>
> > (Not disagreeing - just curious. I've never really paid much attention
> > to the Hummer.)
The width matches an M1 tank, so you can follow the tank through a
minefield without detonating any more mines. This isn't quite silly, the
idea was to fit the leading tank with a mine-clearing attachment, a sort
of plough.
There's a slight problem. If the 3rd Shock Army came through the Fulda
Gap, all the minefields would be American, and the Americans wouldn't be
making gaps.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
F
Fred Labrosse
Guest
Alex wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:36:58 GMT, "Roger" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"aghasee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Judge for yourself...
>>> http://www.micom.net/oops/Hummer.jpg
>>
>>Too wide, too heavy, too thirsty, too unreliable, too expensive.
>>
>
> Mm, but you can roll any vehicle if you try hard enough...
Very difficult with a 2CV.
Fred
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:36:58 GMT, "Roger" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"aghasee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news
[email protected]...>>>
>>> Judge for yourself...
>>> http://www.micom.net/oops/Hummer.jpg
>>
>>Too wide, too heavy, too thirsty, too unreliable, too expensive.
>>
>
> Mm, but you can roll any vehicle if you try hard enough...
Very difficult with a 2CV.
Fred
