Posted on Aug 26, 2015
It seems the HMMWV is on its way out. What are your thoughts?
44K
236
184
19
19
0
DoD has selected Oshkosh to build the replacement for the HMMWV, the JLTV. What are your feelings on this. What did you think of the HMMWV?
http://www.armytimes.com/story/defense/policy-budget/industry/2015/08/25/oshkosh-wins-jltv-award/32278319/
http://www.armytimes.com/story/defense/policy-budget/industry/2015/08/25/oshkosh-wins-jltv-award/32278319/
Posted in these groups: 
Equipment
Equipment
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 68
17
17
0
Oshkosh is JLTV. Anything else is something less.
When it comes to protecting our troops, there’s no substitute for experience. Based on billions of real-world operational miles, only the Oshkosh Light Comb...
While many will complain about the costs, if it better protects our Soldiers, Sailors, Airment and Marines when asked to put their lives on the line, it is worth the cost. Protecting our Nations most precious resource, our sons and daughters is of the utmost importance! I look forward to seeing this on mission!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oMuGPeiuRo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oMuGPeiuRo
(17)
(0)
10
10
0
I saw on of these when I was in the Stan and wasn't impressed. The Hummer wasn't suited for the mission over there, but it did give mobility where my Cougar gave strength and capability. I'm also biased towards the Cougar with what I was able to carry in terms of cargo, weapons, and ammo, and I also liked the Hummer for some of the same reasons. I'm glad this is going to an American company, that will employ folks in a time where jobs are scarce, and maybe I'll get the chance to drive one of these and change my mind on it.
(10)
(0)
CW4 John Karl T.
I appreciate a soldier who can objectively evaluate his experiences with equipment and have an open mind toward equipment development. An intelligent person person with an analytical bent.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
This has obviously been on the way for a long time. The MRAP was a questionable design for a quick solution to a problem. Wasn't the long term answer though. The problem with the HMMWV (a venerable mule of a system) isn't the HMMWV itself. It could certainly do everything that it was supposed to do back when. The problem lies in the other systems that we have added to it. Think back to the first HMMWV's. They had a HMMWV and a radio...maybe a weapon system. That was it. Now there are DUKES and RHINOS and FBCB2 and PLGGRS, and acoustic sensors and a small goat attached to the thing. The lack of armor doesn't help either, but that's not as big of an issue now. There isn't space in a HMMWV because of what has been added to it. We need to make sure we take that knowledge forward with the JLTV or we will run into the same issues in the future.
(9)
(0)
CSM Charles Hayden
CWO John Karl Turner, My kid brother, an11H in Germany before re-upping for Vietnam told of his 105 MM, Reckless Rifle Jeep being entangled in a forest in Germany. A tree was cut down to all egress. Big "Statements of Charges" were forthcoming. Maybe that is why he went to Nam!
(1)
(0)
CW4 John Karl T.
Why do we send out patrols in light armored vehicles into areas where the opposition constantly utilizes anti-armor munitions? Kinda like going to a flame thrower fight with a water pistol strapped to your waist. As commander I would consider minimum mission essential equipment to be a mine detection/clearing vehicle at the head of each column followed by a armored car command vehicle and APCs (either tracked or wheeled dependent upon terrain) for troop transport. That is the short term tactic which is doomed to failure in the long term. I guess we haven't learned very much from Viet Nam or now from Iraq. Is not Afghanistan the same as Viet Nam or Iraq. The terrain is totally different, but not the mission. Not the basic tactics. How can you win if all you do is drive through hostile territory and get shot at today and repeat each day expecting the opposition to get tired of shooting at you? Is not the definition of idiocy repeating the same action expecting a different outcome? To win you must use a force large enough to to invade, subdue and occupy the area in question and eliminate the oppositions ability to resist. Anything less is futile.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Colonel, allow me to challenge your paradigm. Lets consider this as a classic 20th century armor problem: armor always must be supported by infantry, especially when attacking or contesting ground with dismounted infantry.
If everybody drove M1 tanks then they would build mines large enough to destroy them. Check the history books - the Germans tried the more armor solution (Stalingrad, kursk) and it doesn't work.
I submit that our problem is with our tactics and not our equipment.
If everybody drove M1 tanks then they would build mines large enough to destroy them. Check the history books - the Germans tried the more armor solution (Stalingrad, kursk) and it doesn't work.
I submit that our problem is with our tactics and not our equipment.
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Want to clarify. I like the idea of the JLTV and the HMMWV needs to be replaced. Same thing with the M113, which is being replaced as well with the AMPV. I concur that tactics trumps equipment any day. Any piece of equipment is just a tool to be used. A hammer can be used for more than pounding nails even if it is best at pounding nails. This is a good replacement for the HMMWV, an aging and overburdened quarter horse. My argument to begin with was about why the HMMWV felt too small to some. It's not the original design...it's the stuff that got added to it.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google