muddymatt1973 wrote:Your passenger is in a different time zone to you separated by a trans tunnel.
Its definately a case of function following form. As you know, the running gear is tucked up high in the chassis rails (hence the trans tunnel) which is why the vehicle has such tremendous ground clearance.
They are huge so they follow in a tank tracks.
Thats because of its over-square physical dimensions. In order to achieve such a low centre of gravity (and maintain massive ground clearance), it has to be wide and short. Since it wasn't designed for bashing around bogholes out at the Waimak, this works extremely well for its intended purpose.
You can drop anything you like from a plane............ what state it's in afterwards is debatable
Exactly. A HMMWV can be dropped from greater heights and at higher speeds, without landing supports than most any other military vehicle in its class. This is purely due its independent suspension - ie lack of unsprung weight. The laws of physics will simply prevent you from doing the same to a Unimog. Thats another example of mobility, a key requirement for military applications.
They still break lots.
The early ones went through suspension ball joints - approx 10,000 miles per set - until the supplier revised the balljoint design. The later generation balljoints are known to go for 60-80,000 miles, ie over 100,000km. Moreover, the geared hubs take all the stress off the CVs and differentials, so unless you're being an absolute lunatic with excessive BTMing, you are doing really well to break an axle. Halfshaft replacement takes about 15 minutes with hand tools. I seem to remember something about the steering centre link being upgraded at some point too, and also reinforcements to the upper control arms added around where the upper balljoint mounts. Sure you could probably go on Google and find some accounts of breakages - the accuracy of which of course is debateable - but the original HMMWV design has been in service since 1983, virtually unchanged for over 30 years, they must be doing something right
If up-armored they need to turbo the v8 to actually move.
I agree that the 6.2 V8 is a pretty archaic engine and doesn't make anywhere near as much power as it should, but it is reliable. With all the compounded gearing in the vehicle, I feel that your statement greatly exaggerated. The 'reliability enhanced' model however, equipped with the more modern 6.5L turbo engine, was designed for special applications - armament, heavy loading etc - and provides considerably more power than the 6.2 NA.
They are simple to operate and simple to work on because they have to be so the US grunts can cope.
Sorry but thats not an argument, its just a discriminatory Anti-American opinion. Another key requirement for military vehicles is serviceability. Just like your Land Rover was designed, they need to be easy to work on in the field, by almost anyone. This is a vital factor as all machines require maintenance.
It's so noisy and hot that getting out and shot is a relief.
Thats definately comical and sounds like something Jeremy Clarkson would say, but it doesnt really further your argument.
