The Gurkha is coming (& it kicks the Hummer's ass!)

x-no-archive:yes

"Dave Welsh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:asYKg.2485$AP2.982@fed1read10...
: What fuel consumption rate does this monster have?
:
: Does it have an off road capability?

Read the article, it has pictures. It is a Hummer on steroids. Fully armored
off road machine. I doubt that it has good fuel consumption.

But the Hummer was designed to replace commercial vehicles for logistical
support. It was not designed as a light armored vehicle. Better to have an
armored vehicle then use something like the Land Rover Defender for support work
in protected territories.

> : story & pictures at
>
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...11222&call_pageid=968332188492&StarSource=RSS

"Shmaryahu b. Chanoch <[email protected]>" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> "Dave Welsh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:asYKg.2485$AP2.982@fed1read10...
> : What fuel consumption rate does this monster have?
> :
> : Does it have an off road capability?
>
> Read the article, it has pictures. It is a Hummer on steroids. Fully
> armored
> off road machine. I doubt that it has good fuel consumption.
>
> But the Hummer was designed to replace commercial vehicles for logistical
> support. It was not designed as a light armored vehicle. Better to have
> an
> armored vehicle then use something like the Land Rover Defender for
> support work
> in protected territories.

The HMMWV (it's a Humvee in military use; civvies use the twee name of
Hummer for their vehicles) was designed as a replacement for the jeep, the
M718A1 ambulance, the Mule, the Gamma Goat, and the M792 ambulance
(http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/hmmwv/index.html). Logistical support
is a bit too narrow as a mission description; the Army fact file says that
it can be configured for troop carrier, armament carrier, S250 shelter
carrier, ambulance, TOW missile carrier, and scout vehicle missions. More
generally, C&C, mounting weapons systems, ammo/troop/cargo transport, and
ambulance duties might be the best description.

It's true that it's not an APC - it was never designed to be one. Apart from
making some design mods (defense against light bullets, fragments, and
not-too-big explosions), it really shouldn't be used in some environments.
But it would be a mistake to start using APCs or armoured cars willy-nilly;
I'd lean towards foot patrols in really dangerous urban areas instead, with
rapid response armoured cars in backup. It's been demonstrated time and time
again that buttoning up and going inside armour is not exactly what you want
a *patrol* to do - that tactic is OK when advancing to contact on a
conventional battlefield, not so fine in urban warfare.

It's worth pointing out that nobody has a problem with towed howitzer prime
movers being soft trucks, with the whole gun crew exposed like all get out.
Reason being, on a road march that's the best way to keep eyes on all
sectors, and also uncovers as many weapons as possible for counter-ambush.
Similarly, you want to do urban patrols the way the British army often did
them in Northern Ireland - on foot, or in relatively soft light trucks with
troops facing outwards (yes, they used armoured cars too, but every so often
maybe you have to).

I wouldn't exactly get all gleeful over Land Rover Defenders. Those are, in
fact, very comparable to a HMMWV. The exact same criticisms levelled at the
HMMWV have been levelled at the Defender in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact,
over a quarter of British deaths in Iraq have been during insurgent attacks
(RPG, IED etc) on unarmoured or lightly armoured Land Rovers.

AHS

Arved Sandstrom proclaimed:

> "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch <[email protected]>" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>
>>x-no-archive:yes
>>
>>"Dave Welsh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:asYKg.2485$AP2.982@fed1read10...
>>: What fuel consumption rate does this monster have?
>>:
>>: Does it have an off road capability?
>>
>>Read the article, it has pictures. It is a Hummer on steroids. Fully
>>armored
>>off road machine. I doubt that it has good fuel consumption.
>>
>>But the Hummer was designed to replace commercial vehicles for logistical
>>support. It was not designed as a light armored vehicle. Better to have
>>an
>>armored vehicle then use something like the Land Rover Defender for
>>support work
>>in protected territories.
>
>
> The HMMWV (it's a Humvee in military use; civvies use the twee name of
> Hummer for their vehicles) was designed as a replacement for the jeep, the
> M718A1 ambulance, the Mule, the Gamma Goat, and the M792 ambulance
> (http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/hmmwv/index.html). Logistical support
> is a bit too narrow as a mission description; the Army fact file says that
> it can be configured for troop carrier, armament carrier, S250 shelter
> carrier, ambulance, TOW missile carrier, and scout vehicle missions. More
> generally, C&C, mounting weapons systems, ammo/troop/cargo transport, and
> ambulance duties might be the best description.

The military vehicle has, other than general appearance, nothing at all
to do with the civilian version.

>
> It's true that it's not an APC - it was never designed to be one. Apart from
> making some design mods (defense against light bullets, fragments, and
> not-too-big explosions), it really shouldn't be used in some environments.
> But it would be a mistake to start using APCs or armoured cars willy-nilly;
> I'd lean towards foot patrols in really dangerous urban areas instead, with
> rapid response armoured cars in backup. It's been demonstrated time and time
> again that buttoning up and going inside armour is not exactly what you want
> a *patrol* to do - that tactic is OK when advancing to contact on a
> conventional battlefield, not so fine in urban warfare.

Tanks without infantry support have been vulnerable ever since there
were tanks.

"Lon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Arved Sandstrom proclaimed:
>
[ SNIP ]
>> The HMMWV (it's a Humvee in military use; civvies use the twee name of
>> Hummer for their vehicles) was designed as a replacement for the jeep,
>> the M718A1 ambulance, the Mule, the Gamma Goat, and the M792 ambulance
>> (http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/hmmwv/index.html). Logistical
>> support is a bit too narrow as a mission description; the Army fact file
>> says that it can be configured for troop carrier, armament carrier, S250
>> shelter carrier, ambulance, TOW missile carrier, and scout vehicle
>> missions. More generally, C&C, mounting weapons systems, ammo/troop/cargo
>> transport, and ambulance duties might be the best description.
>
> The military vehicle has, other than general appearance, nothing at all to
> do with the civilian version.

I'm aware of that - I have been a driver for the M998 and M1097 types, and
spent time inside M1025 variants. I've never been inside a civilian Hummer,
but it's easy to figure out that civilians wouldn't be overjoyed with a
military HMMWV.

>> It's true that it's not an APC - it was never designed to be one. Apart
>> from making some design mods (defense against light bullets, fragments,
>> and not-too-big explosions), it really shouldn't be used in some
>> environments. But it would be a mistake to start using APCs or armoured
>> cars willy-nilly; I'd lean towards foot patrols in really dangerous urban
>> areas instead, with rapid response armoured cars in backup. It's been
>> demonstrated time and time again that buttoning up and going inside
>> armour is not exactly what you want a *patrol* to do - that tactic is OK
>> when advancing to contact on a conventional battlefield, not so fine in
>> urban warfare.
>
> Tanks without infantry support have been vulnerable ever since there were
> tanks.

Normally yes. I'm not sure how this relates directly to a discussion of
light trucks in various threat environments.

AHS

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 16:14:13 -0700, Lon <[email protected]>
wrote:


>The military vehicle has, other than general appearance, nothing at all
>to do with the civilian version.
>

The HMMWV and the H1 (not the H2, H3 or any other *GM* vehicle) are
identical mechanically. Period. Built on the same line, at the same
time. The electrical systems are different (12V vs 24V), and the H1
has a nicer interior and some comforts.

On 5 Sep 2006 15:23:53 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>PeterD wrote:
>
>> The HMMWV and the H1 (not the H2, H3 or any other *GM* vehicle) are
>> identical mechanically. Period.
>
>No CTIS on the H1 though, AFAIR. There are other detail changes too.

HUH? Most (95% or better) of the H1s have CTIS. The military HMMWVs
usually don't have CTIS (about 15 to 20% I'd guess).

"PeterD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 5 Sep 2006 15:23:53 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>PeterD wrote:
>>
>>> The HMMWV and the H1 (not the H2, H3 or any other *GM* vehicle) are
>>> identical mechanically. Period.
>>
>>No CTIS on the H1 though, AFAIR. There are other detail changes too.
>
> HUH? Most (95% or better) of the H1s have CTIS. The military HMMWVs
> usually don't have CTIS (about 15 to 20% I'd guess).

One article I found states that no military HMMWV prior to 1995 had CTIS.
The first ones (A2s) didn't exactly have it - they were CTIS-ready (CTIS
field installable with a kit). The latest HMMWVs, like the M1113, have CTIS
installed.

In any case, all after my time.

AHS

[email protected] wrote in news:1157495033.500440.276570
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> PeterD wrote:
>
>> The HMMWV and the H1 (not the H2, H3 or any other *GM* vehicle) are
>> identical mechanically. Period.
>
> No CTIS on the H1 though, AFAIR. There are other detail changes too.
>

Military has metal run-flat inserts, civil has rubber....)

Both had CTIS (available/optional?) though.

--
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand

<[email protected]>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]