Talk:Humvee/Archive 1

Replicas
A company in Australia called Rhino Buggies www.rhinobuggies.com.au supplies a galvanized steel body (called Hammer) for a Nissan Patrol GU. You can get a Dual Cab H1 and a wagon H1 replica. They also deliver to the US.

Split military and commercial
Is "High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle" the actual brand name for the commercial vehicle? If not, perhaps it should be split into a seperate article.

As "Hummer" redirects here, I added some other meanings at the end of the article; I'm not sure if this is the best format or not. Perhaps a "Hummer (disambiguation)" page is another possibility? -- Wondering simply, Infrogmation 16:33, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Answer: The term "HMMWV" or Humvee is the name of the family of vehicles. It was given that name by the U.S. Army in 1979 - before the actual prototypes were built and contracts were written up. In other words, no matter which variant was to win at that time (AM General, Teledyne, or Chrysler), it was going to be named the HMMWV. --Beastmaster May 10, 2005 04:24 (UTC)

I moved the GM HUMMER brand to a separate page. More Hummers are based on the GM truck chassis (the H2) than have any relation to the HMMWV nowadays. --Sfoskett 03:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Real picture Request
Couldn't we get a picture of a real Humvee instead of a model? Rmhermen 15:35, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

News item
maybe aspects of this news item can be worked into this article. Kingturtle 10:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Armored and Unarmored?
I read in Newsweek a while back that there are armored and unarmored varients. Anyone feel qualified to touch on this?-LtNOWIS 22:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * yes there are aromored and un armored variants. the armord wesions were made to help with te incresing sucide and IED threats facing U.S troops currently deployed to the middle east. the up armore kit was specifly required to be abkle to be put on by the crews them selfs. it fetures srmor plating litleraly everywhere that can be removed and bullet resistance glass.

Wow dude, seriously learn to spell... -Van —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.89.75 (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PR of China used HMMWVs
In my edit, I removed a line mentioning that the PR of China used HMMWVs. I've never read anything like this anywhere else, and I believe it to be untrue. If someone can show me something to the contrary, I'd be happy to put the line back. My updates were based on my knowledge of HMMWVs from my 5 years in the USMC and my time spent in Iraq. Fernando Rizo 01:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * http://www.sinodefence.com/army/transport/hmmwv.asp -- I don't know whether this qualifies as the actual thing or as a copy, though Rama 06:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, that thing is darned similar, but I don't think it qualifies as a HMMWV. You can make yellow spongecake and fill it with creme at home, but that doesn't make it a Twinkie:).  -Fernando Rizo 06:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV re: vulnerability
I did some copyediting to the article, folks. While taking care of that, I removed the following passage which I feel may adversely effect the article's NPOV. Let's talk about it if you disagree.


 * "The M-1114 has proven its worth at increased cost by saving countless lives of American military personnel where the standard 998 and 1025 variants would have been destroyed. At this level of hardening the previous concerns about excess shrapnel during an attack have proven unfounded. The M-1114 has proven its worth at increased cost by saving countless lives of American military personnel where the standard 998 and 1025 variants would have been destroyed. At this level of hardening the previous concerns about excess shrapnel during an attack have proven unfounded."

I don't think the M1114 has been in service long enough to make such bold claims about its effectiveness. Let's wait a while and revisit this issue later. Fernando Rizo 00:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chronology ?
The article isn't chronologoic at all : first Rumsfeld in 2004 and then the Balkans in 1996.... Ericd 00:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

HMMVV that looks like a VBL
I was reading Letherneck and I saw a vehicle that looked like the French VBL then underneath it said it was an advanced HMMVV. could they have coppied the French Dudtz 9/1/05 4:27 PM EST


 * Well, the original HMMVV holds a niche which has no equivalent in the French Army, something in between and obese jeep and a small 4x4 truck. Now that the US Forces are surprised into, forced to or taking the bad habit of engaging their HMMVV in situations where they get shot at, the thing tends to evolve into a light armoured vehicle, so it is natural that the design should tend to rejoin that of vehicles like the VBL. Rama 22:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Text overwriting infobox
Somebody who knows this stuff needs to fix text overwriting the top infobox. Gene Nygaard 10:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Usage in Iraq and Political Implications
I've recently expanded the hillbilly armor article which is linked to in this section. Maybe someone familiar with these vehicles can contribute something there or find something there to improve this section of the HMMWV article. heqs 19:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange units
The body of the text is full of strange units, like in, ft, and lb. Outside of the U.S. most people don't even know what a lb is anyway. To a European this article doesn't yield any clue to the scale of a hmmwv. I'll add S.I. units right away. 82.139.85.48 13:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

When looking at 6 ft (in the infobox) you'd think that the accuracy is to .5 ft or something. But then the same parameter (in it's lowered state) is given as 4.5 ft, presumably accurate to .05 ft. I've assumed two-digits accuracy in all cases, since 1 digit accuracy is ridiculous. Somenone else shoud fix all the ft. 82.139.85.48 14:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Add a section "Strengths"?
Should it be added or would it be unnecessary? I think the HMMWV's mobility allows it to dodge Anti-Tank missiles and such, but this may be logic built purely on a video game. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 04:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'm afraid that ability only exists in the world of fantasy. An RPG-7 round travels 295 meters per second or about 660 MPH good luck outrunning that in a big HEAVY truck. L0b0t

Removing Gun-Vee
Bad info and a jargon of suspicious origin. --MattHunter January 17, 2007 02:19 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's cited and I've found discussions by soldiers from Iraq using the term and even pictures referring to the vehicle by that term. You might not like the slang, but that's what they're calling it. --Petercorless 07:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

One reference does not make it acceptable, also the rest of the entry is flawed there is nothing "informal" about having a crew served weapon. --MattHunter 18:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

70 MPH??????
The info-box says the HMMWV has a top speed of 70 MPH. That is utter nonsense. A stripped down HMMWV (no armor or shell on it) tops out at about 45 or 50 MPH. Our up-armored models are lucky to hit 40 MPH down a steep grade.L0b0t 02:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The info-box also claims a 350 mile range, but only 1 mile per gallon. I don't think they have a 350 gallon fuel tank. L0b0t 03:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The manual says 45 MPH if. I've personally driven several different HMMWVs 70 MPH on the Autobahn in Germany. They don't handle well at high speed so you have to be just a little crazy to drive that fast, but it's definitely possible. (Hun9ryjoe 10:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

Popular culture getting out of hand
I've removed the bulk of the pop culture section as it really is not germane at all to the article. The section is to list media where the subject of the article is a CENTRAL PLOT POINT in the media, not a list of every movie and video game with a HMMWV in it. Keep it simple. L0b0t 14:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the guideline from the Aircraft project in as a comment in the pop culture section, but I agree with you, non-notable apperances should not be listed at all. Now if someone (with alot of time and a film crew on their hands) made a movie about the HMMWV it would have a place in this article, but I doubt that's ever going to happen. PPGMD 15:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that none of you know what your talking about...and just to make you feel and smart as a fuckin door knob.... yes they can go up to 70 mph...and how am I so sure, well I fixed and designed them for 7 years and to top it all off... I also did it while in combat....

"durable?"
In the opening words of the article it says the Humvee is a "highly durable" vehicle, blah blah.

I'm going to remove that as it is a subjective statement, not nessecarily true across the board. If someone would, however, find a cited source in the military (as this is the military Humvee article) attesting to the Humvee's durability, feel free to add it back in and have it cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scryer 360 (talk • contribs)

"...very durable and reliable military HMMWV." http://www.amgeneral.com/vehicles_hmmwv_assembly_plant.php "...proved to be nearly twice as durable as the Army required." http://www.real4wd.com/content/articles/hist-humvee-01.asp "...AM General has produced nearly a million of these durable reliable vehicles, a true testimony to its commitment to quality service and support." http://www.ausa.org/webpub/DeptIndustry.nsf/byid/JSUR-6QBSWJ Exsellion89 11:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Users--U.K.??
Is the U.K. really a user? What happened to all their Range Rovers?


 * I was questioning that as well. Britain still uses Land Rovers and was looking for a tougher vehicle such as the Mastiff PPV, but I have never seen a British Humvee. Chwyatt 12:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is going back a ways but in 1990 my unit did a CATX (Combined Arms Training eXcercise) with ABCA (American, British, Canadian, and Austrailian) forces. The Brits that my unit paired up with, in addition to teaching us some great drinking games, HATED our HMMWV's and compared them quite unfavorably to the Land-Rover.  Cheers. L0b0t 13:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly, when you see the inside of a HMMWV, and how big it is outside, and the fact that it is unarmoured... you really wonder where all that space went. :p Rama 14:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the UK as a user until we get a source that confirms they've given up their Land-Rovers. L0b0t 15:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They might be using something in the range of the HMMWV without getting rid of the Land-Rovers ; the French use the P4, but are considering the Sherpa II nevertheless -- the first one being a light unarmoured all-terrain car, and the second one a light general purpose truck. Rama 16:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In 1989, right before sending us to Panama, the Army took away our beloved Gama Goat and gave us the HMMWV. We were not happy soldiers. L0b0t 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

British Forces using HMMWV's ?? The Brits may be a bit different in their choices of kit, but they are not stupid ! (SM527RR (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC))

Map of users?
I did up a little world map showing all the users of the Humvee worldwide.


 * http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s251/Crank_Yanker_06/humveemap.png?t=1176978699

Does this article need a map like this? I've seen other maps like it in other articles in Wikipedia. CeeWhy2 10:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Seperate Article For Humvee Replacement
I'm thinking yes. Its a pretty complicated subject. What do ya'll think? Tmaull 17:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Call it "HMMWV replacement" or something like that??  -Fnlayson 17:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah that sounds fine. Tmaull 19:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea but it really should be an article about the HMMWV Replacement Process. An article entitled HMMWV Replacement would be expected to evolve into an article about whichever vehicle is eventually chosen and as it is unlikely to be a single vehicle but a family of JLTVs/MRAPs/MMPVs it would be wise to create an article that can live on after the process is complete. The replacement process is the complicated and evolving subject that could do with an article and a title that implied that there will be a single vehicle will just compound the confusion. "HMMWV Replacement Process" would be better IMO. That way it can be written as a chronological account, chronicling the process as it develops and explaining how FTTS and JLTV and the MRAP/MMPV programmes are affecting each other. Also, "HMMWV Replacement" would really be about AMGeneral's ECV2. This is the HMMWV replacement whether the US military chooses it or not. Dino246 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I've started the article in my sandbox. User:Tmaull/sandbox Tmaull 12:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK I've started the article for real, but haven't linked anything to it yet. Let the editting and citing begin. Tmaull 12:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of "Usage in combat and political implications" needed
I think a rewrite of "Usage in combat and political implications" is needed as the content of the section is far wider than the topic heading. I think if the "politics" of HMMWV usage are important to the entry, they should get their own subsection, and information about the HMMWV's performance in combat and subsequent modifications should be separate. I think a good start would be to combine the "Weaknesses" and "Usage in combat and political implications" which would be renamed "Usage in Combat" with the subsections of: Weaknesses, Modifications, and Political Implications. I may start working on it in my sandbox. Thoughts? Tmaull 22:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I went ahead and rewrote it... Tmaull 01:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wear rate
I have heard that the new up armored HMVs break down faster than the unarmored models, the added weight puts strain on the engine, wheels and axles. Does anyone feel qualified to touch on that?

Answer: The uparmored HMMWV's have the 6.5L Turbo Diesel engine in it, giving it more horsepower and torque to move the additional mass of the armor. The stock HMMWV has a 6.2 or 6.5L Naturally Aspirated engine in it. --Beastmaster May 10, 2005 04:18 (UTC)

that probly stems from HMMWVs geting armor upgrades and not getting the suspension beefed up to deal with the added weight. I have seen this happen as recently as sept. 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.88.90.202 (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Swindle
should we write that Swindle from TFA Transforms into a Humvee, he is a pretty nice looking character ! Retroqqq (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User comments
User:Jakestewartcourtney added the following text to the article.


 * the m998 model of the hmmwv, the ambulance humvee, the m1114 up armored humvee, or any other hmmwv ive ever seen or worked on both in iraq or back in the states do not have CTIS or central tire inflation systems, instead they have a 50mile run flat system betweent the wheel and tire. look in the army manual TM 9-2320-280-20.

This needs rewriting, formatting and referenced. I found a 1996 version of that manual online. Looks like M998 series manual, Vol. II, Chapter 8 is the right tire section. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

HMMWV "hum-'vee"
Granted 'humvee' is a word and is often spelled out like that informally, should it really be used interchangeably with HMMWV in the article? Also, if used, is it appropriate to capitalize it 'Humvee'? After all, it isn't a nickname like Huey(although it was derived from an early designation of HU-1) or an acronym, it's just a transliteration of an acronym like 'jeep' from GP, and in military articles, jeep is most definitely not capitalized.--65.6.40.126 (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we should use one or the other term, but I think it's important to be consistent, especially in the captions, where inconsistent use could imply a difference between a HMMWV and a Humvee that does not exist. superlusertc 2009 June 30, 09:22 (UTC)
 * So I decided to be bold and change all the instances to HMMWV. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I figure it's not too bad this way, and hopefully we can use this as a jumping-off point. superlusertc 2009 June 30, 09:31 (UTC)

type
"Type: large SPORTS Utility Vehicle?" The Hummer (commercial version) may be sportish, but the HMMVV? Is US Army bat guano crazy? What kind of sport you need on a military car? Unless you count shooting as sport, but using the term sport for a vehicle I guess has more to do with it's performance at a race... It should be completely Utilitarian vehicle... Not sport... Maybe the page here is right, but the US Army is freaking nuts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.5.137.179 (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * SUVs have a very specific definition that has nothing to do with sports. It has to be a car-like body on a light truck chassis (light truck is further defined by emissions standards).  If the HMMWV meets these criteria, it's an SUV. superlusertc 2009 October 21, 14:46 (UTC)

I believe armored car is the catch-all name.username 1 (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While the HMMWV does meet the car criterion, the HMMWV base model does not seem to be armored, which is probably a prerequisite for armored cars. superlusertc 2009 October 22, 00:18 (UTC)

Production numbers/figures??
The CUCV has got a number listed, but the iconic HMMWV does not? --Dana60Cummins (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle → Humvee — Per WP:Common name. Looks like it's 43,800 for Humvee, 12,500 for HMMWV, and 2,680 for High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle. That we didn't call the M60 Patton the 105 mm Gun Full Tracked Combat Tank, M60. --Marcus Qwertyus   16:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree - spent 22 years in the military and we called them HumVees not High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 17:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd rather use HMMWV, but Humvee/HumVee is alright. -fnlayson (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bye Bye Humvee
I do not know how so I might as well pass this off to someone who can.

http://defensetech.org/2010/02/01/bye-bye-humvee/

As the first paragraph reads: "Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale said at his briefing that 2010 would be the last year that the Pentagon would buy the venerable High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle."

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.180.130.219 (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not buying more doesn't mean anything. 8,000 is a big number (the entire US Air Force doesn't even have that many planes in its total inventory), so I seriously doubt it's going away anytime soon. It's just that there are better and more survivable vehicles for the role of light/medium transport/armament carrier that up-armored Humvees are presently being used in. I would presume these 8,000 vehicles are headed to bases all around the world for more menial duties. Spartan198 (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)