Posted on Apr 13, 2017
How The Humvee Failed On The Battlefield And Sparked A Culture War Back Home
3.06K
19
16
4
4
0
11B's, 19D's and everyone who rode the HMMWV chariots into battle, an interesting article from Task and Purpose on the birth, life and death of the HMMWV. Very informative, and takes me back to my days in the "Hillbilly Armor", and the transition over to what we believed would be the answer to the weighted down improvised armor 1026's; the M1114's. We would later find that we were just getting a newer IED magnet. Fortunately, they received the first shipment of the MRAP's while I was still in country, unfortunately it was exactly 1 week before we flew out.
Always a day late and a dollar short, but at least I got the T-shirt!
Always a day late and a dollar short, but at least I got the T-shirt!
How The Humvee Failed On The Battlefield And Sparked A Culture War Back Home
Posted from taskandpurpose.com
HMMWV Gunner
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) - Afghanistan
Cavalry Scout (19D)
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
6
6
0
As much as you may complain about the Humvee, it was better than the GM truck and the Blazer that they had back in the 80's. Imagine riding in one of those.
(6)
(0)
SGT Michael Thorin
Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. I think the biggest complaint was that it was being used for a purpose that it wasn't designed for. Those things are awesome with no armor, but add the armor and you got a brick on wheels.
However, you are right. When I got assigned my first 1114 from the 996 we through our own armor on, it was a Cadillac to us.
Once again, it's about perspective, and I agree 100% with your perspective on this issue. It wasn't great, but it was better than we had.
However, you are right. When I got assigned my first 1114 from the 996 we through our own armor on, it was a Cadillac to us.
Once again, it's about perspective, and I agree 100% with your perspective on this issue. It wasn't great, but it was better than we had.
(1)
(0)
SPC Craig Cicerello
They weren't designed to be driven into combat. They were intended to replace jeeps, which weren't combat vehicles either, not 113s or Bradleys.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I totally disagree with the entire article. The civilian version was a flop because gas went from $.89 to $2.50 almost over night. Nobody saw it coming. Chevy scaled back on it's truck production and dumped the Caprice (for all of us cops it was a sad day).
On the military side the HMMWV kicked ass in the Gulf War. It had not been for the 998's the war would have lasted months, not days, costing many more American lives. The infantry kept up with the armor and the Iraqi's could not even keep up with where we were at.
In Iraq I had the privilege of being there when we realized the HMMWV was not what was needed. In Feb of 2004 the war was over and we were rolling around in 998s and 1025s outside the wire. Iraqis were happy to be rid of Saddam. Then like a light switch was turned on in March with ambushes and IEDs like crazy. Nobody saw it coming and we have never fought a war like this. The HMMWV did everything it was advertised to do then we decided to try an make it something it was not to save money. 7 years later we realized this was not going to work then it was scramble mode and along comes the MRAP. Iraq - great on the highway, sucks in towns. In Afghanistan they were way too big for the mountains. We have nothing that even comes close to the HMMWV that allows access and mobility that is required in the mobile fight that we are in now.
On the military side the HMMWV kicked ass in the Gulf War. It had not been for the 998's the war would have lasted months, not days, costing many more American lives. The infantry kept up with the armor and the Iraqi's could not even keep up with where we were at.
In Iraq I had the privilege of being there when we realized the HMMWV was not what was needed. In Feb of 2004 the war was over and we were rolling around in 998s and 1025s outside the wire. Iraqis were happy to be rid of Saddam. Then like a light switch was turned on in March with ambushes and IEDs like crazy. Nobody saw it coming and we have never fought a war like this. The HMMWV did everything it was advertised to do then we decided to try an make it something it was not to save money. 7 years later we realized this was not going to work then it was scramble mode and along comes the MRAP. Iraq - great on the highway, sucks in towns. In Afghanistan they were way too big for the mountains. We have nothing that even comes close to the HMMWV that allows access and mobility that is required in the mobile fight that we are in now.
(1)
(0)
SGT Michael Thorin
I agree with you, but our problems with mobility stemmed from the armor. You're right, MRAPS on the highway were awesome, and for tight areas sucked.
However, I didn't send near as many friends home who were in MRAPS as I did the 1114's. They did lose a bit of the mobility with the armor. What wouldn't? When you over double the weight of the beast and don't change the motor, and still expect it to haul 2 combat loads and all your gear, what wouldnt suffer.
I think that may be one part that we disagree with. On the one hand, before IED's and 105's, HMMWV's were the cats pajamas.
After they started using them, it started taking its toll.
However, getting back to what a couple of others have said; it is what it is, and all I know is that when my hillbilly armored 1026 got replaced with my first 1114, we were in hog heaven.
I'm not sold out into thinking that the HMMWV was the best we "could have had," but I do firmly believe that it was absolutely the best that we were provided to work with.
We had nothing, and essentially still don't have anything that would provide us with the maneuverability we needed to perform the types of operations we were performing.
As far as the civilian side goes; I saw that one taking a nose dive quick after the first release had a fuel consumption of 10, LOL.
However, I didn't send near as many friends home who were in MRAPS as I did the 1114's. They did lose a bit of the mobility with the armor. What wouldn't? When you over double the weight of the beast and don't change the motor, and still expect it to haul 2 combat loads and all your gear, what wouldnt suffer.
I think that may be one part that we disagree with. On the one hand, before IED's and 105's, HMMWV's were the cats pajamas.
After they started using them, it started taking its toll.
However, getting back to what a couple of others have said; it is what it is, and all I know is that when my hillbilly armored 1026 got replaced with my first 1114, we were in hog heaven.
I'm not sold out into thinking that the HMMWV was the best we "could have had," but I do firmly believe that it was absolutely the best that we were provided to work with.
We had nothing, and essentially still don't have anything that would provide us with the maneuverability we needed to perform the types of operations we were performing.
As far as the civilian side goes; I saw that one taking a nose dive quick after the first release had a fuel consumption of 10, LOL.
(1)
(0)
SGT William Howell
SGT Michael Thorin - You are correct. The MRAPS are so much safer, but the story is about how the HMMWV failed. It never failed. We tried to make into something that it was not meant to be. We took a support vehicle and turned it into a offensive front line vehicle and when that was a failure we blamed the HMMWV. When the truth is the only failure was on the part of the DOD not to have recognized that IEDs were going to kill more people than bullets and not done something about it. The truth is without the HMMWV we would have lost even more Americans because of poor top tier leadership and planning.
(0)
(0)
SGT Michael Thorin
I see what your saying, and believe it or not, I read an article yesterday that it would be replaced with a Jeep platform modified to run on JP8. There arecurrently 3 manufacturers bidding on it.
The Pentagon says that it will not be armored and will be used as a reconnaissance platform for Scouts and also for infantry units.
So, in summary, the military said the HMMWV failed, but it was because it was not set up to handle the heavier armor and wasn't IED resistant underneath. So, their solution is buying a vehicle which will not have armor and would not be able to travel any faster than a HMMWV with armor, if they decided to put armor on it.
I honestly do not understand the logic behind that.
The Pentagon says that it will not be armored and will be used as a reconnaissance platform for Scouts and also for infantry units.
So, in summary, the military said the HMMWV failed, but it was because it was not set up to handle the heavier armor and wasn't IED resistant underneath. So, their solution is buying a vehicle which will not have armor and would not be able to travel any faster than a HMMWV with armor, if they decided to put armor on it.
I honestly do not understand the logic behind that.
(1)
(0)
SGT William Howell
SGT Michael Thorin - I think they see the MRAPS as the finished product for combating IEDs. Yet, they are just way too big to get around in 3rd world countries. It means we either dismount or find alt routes. I am sure the enemy will exploit either. We actually had Cougars that were built on Kenworth frames. They rode a heck of a lot better than than real MRAPS.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The big thing was, it was not designed for IED's and IED's of the nature we go to know through Iraq was not a concept of war we new of at the time. We never thought that people would take a 105 or 155 shell and use as a Direct fire type weapon. The thing is land minds of the past did not have blast Radius that an IED can have toady. You go to war with what you have at that time. We changed everything when they started in with IEDS' from armor and Body armor and tactics, you adjust and move on. I lived out of my Hummer in 2003 for 6 months and it sucked, but never thought I would roll over a large bomb.
PS. I rolled one in training, it can be done.
PS. I rolled one in training, it can be done.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google