Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Universal service vehicle

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I don't suppose I could get the opinion of our two Hmmwv using/experienced members on this?
    "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

    Comment


    • #17
      Most of my experiences with the humvee are from my deployment to kosovo.It was entirely too wide to effectively travel on the back roads of the province and it usually was necessary to wait to allow civvie vehicles to drive past on most two lane roads as well.

      I was often the man on the turret mounted gpmg (m-240)of the "up-armored" weapons carrier ,(I was foolish enough to brag about being a machine gunner in my old unit) this vehicle could hold six men with kit no problem.Driver gunner and one maneuver team of 4.The armor woud stop 7.62 wouldnt care to try on anything more substantial though.The under carriage provided decent protection against land mines.

      The M-1097 was generally used to transport supplies or troops , depending on if you had rucks or not up to 15 in the back at a time.The off road capabilities of both were excellant and I can only recall one time that we needed a recovery vehicle to assist , but that was more a problem of width as the vehicle veered a little too far on a mountain trail and slid down the slope only to become lodged on a tree a few feet down.
      When I breeze into that city, people gonna stoop and bow.
      All them women gonna make me, teach 'em what they don't know how

      Comment


      • #18
        I'm afraid my Hummer experiences are a little more limited. When I wasn't in training status, my assigned vehicle is a tank.. now -that's- wide.

        In fairness, the thing is wide because it has to be in order to have such great off-road abilities. I would also point out that whilst it is wide compared to a Nissan or any civilian vehicle, it's actually not wider than your average Iveco delivery truck that ply their trade around Ireland.

        By way of comparison, a Panhard M3VTT is 2.4m wide, Pirhana III is 2.66m wide, and an AML is 1.90 wide. A MOWAG Eagle comes in at 2.26m, only a foot wider than, say a Mercedes S600.

        Frankly, if Irish roads are wide enough for the in-service vehicles, they're wide enough for Hummers.

        NTM
        Driver, tracks, troops.... Drive and adjust!!

        Comment


        • #19
          So that just leaves the question of fuel consumption, theres life in this dog yet,
          FM whats the unit cost for the pinzgauer?
          "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

          Comment


          • #20
            One of the main ideas for the HUMVEEs width was so that it could comfortably follow in the tracks left by the Abrams tanks.Personally I'd go for a Landrover variant, probably the greatest vehicle ever.The BA was selling of hordes of the armoured ones thatare used in NI before Iraq for absolutely nothing.Perfect vehicles for policing actions or some variant of them.Or those Pinzgauer which are meant to be the best off road vehicle in the world.I've seen them do some amazing things.For those of you interested Arnold Scharwzenegger drives a supped up version as his vehicle of choice.
            Last edited by ForkTailedDevil; 30 March 2004, 11:20.
            Si vis pacem para bellum

            Comment


            • #21
              Actually bumping up this topic is fairly pointless since there are more up to date and relevant ones about more realistc and suitable choices such as the Unimog, Duro or Pinzgauer
              "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

              Comment


              • #22
                I study Transport & Logistics in College and in 2nd year with did all about transport economics.

                This included purchasing decisions and economies of scale. You have to look at the life cycle cost. The life cycle cost is the total costs of purchase, spares, storage, fuel, taxation, training, etc divided by the useful life. Obviously it is cheaper to buy say 1000 units of 3 versions based on one chasis, than it is to buy 500 of vehicle A, 200 of vehicle B, and 300 of vehicle C.

                Current, DF Troop Carrying Vehicle (TCV) procurement is a bit strange. All are 4*4 vehices unless stated, figures in brackets refer to payload:

                16 ACMAT VLRA delivered between 1983 and 1993 (2.5 ton) {unsure of status}

                36 MAN 14.240 FAEG TCVs delivered between 1979 and 1989 (5 ton)

                62 MAN 8:150 / 10:150 various versions (not all TCVs) of 4*2 truck in range delivered between 1989 and 1999 (3.5 / 5 ton)

                10 MAN 8:163 various versions (not all TCVs) of 4*2 truck in range delivered in 1996 (3.5 ton)

                51 Leyland TCVs delivered between 1993 and 1998 (4 ton)

                60 Mecedes-Benz TCVs delivered between 2000 and 2003 (Unknown)

                20 IVECO TCVs delivered from Winter 2002 (5.5 ton)

                This means a total of up to 255 vehicles from 8 families of TCVs with little if anything in common. That means drivers and mechanics have to training on up to
                8 different vehicles, as well as spares for 8 different vehicles having to be purchased, stored and tracked.

                Comment

                Working...
                X