Offroad-Express

lax2wlg wrote:Yeah but the Unimog doesn't have the mobility or survivability factor that makes the HMMWV so legendary.

No doubt its a heavy duty machine and great for schlepping around troops and supplies but poor dimensions and can't be operated at speed (and maintain control) due to the tremendous amount of unsprung weight in the planetary axles. The types of terrain that a HMMWV can be operated in will put a Unimog on its lid at a quarter of the speed.

Also when they add proper ballistic/explosive protection the weight of the vehicle gets to a ridiculous level which again compromises its mobility.

I wonder why, considering the Hummer is so good, how come the American equivalent of the SAS ordered new Land Rover Defenders after the original Gulf War?

coz the yanks are dumb

I wonder why, considering the Hummer is so good, how come the American equivalent of the SAS ordered new Land Rover Defenders after the original Gulf War?

What in the name of Lucifer's fiery balls are you talking about? What's the US equivalent of the SAS? There is no equivalent, the US armed forces are structured completely differently. Are you talking about US Delta? Or the Navy Seals?

You're not trying to compare a Land Rover to a HMMWV as a purpose built war machine, are you?

lax2wlg wrote:Also when they add proper ballistic/explosive protection the weight of the vehicle gets to a ridiculous level which again compromises its mobility.

sounds similar to what happens to a humveee when they decide to protect the occupants by adding armour

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1300281/posts

lax2wlg wrote:

I wonder why, considering the Hummer is so good, how come the American equivalent of the SAS ordered new Land Rover Defenders after the original Gulf War?

What in the name of Lucifer's fiery balls are you talking about? What's the US equivalent of the SAS? There is no equivalent, the US armed forces are structured completely differently. Are you talking about US Delta? Or the Navy Seals?

You're not trying to compare a Land Rover to a HMMWV as a purpose built war machine, are you?

Laugh all you like but the fact is the US went British because the Humvee couldn't hack it .............!!

From Wikipedia .........

Military Defenders[edit]
Defender 110 patrol vehicles 'Wolf'
Land Rover Defender vehicles have been used by many of the world's military forces, including the US in some limited capacity, following experience with the vehicle during the first Gulf War, where US forces found the British Army's vehicles to be more capable and better suited to operation in urban areas and for air-lifting than the Humvee

Laugh all you like but the fact is the US went British because the Humvee couldn't hack it .............!!

From Wikipedia .........

Military Defenders[edit]
Defender 110 patrol vehicles 'Wolf'
Land Rover Defender vehicles have been used by many of the world's military forces, including the US in some limited capacity, following experience with the vehicle during the first Gulf War, where US forces found the British Army's vehicles to be more capable and better suited to operation in urban areas and for air-lifting than the Humvee

Bwaaaahaha
Ralfie you're hilarious! I think I'm going to fall off my chair!
Yes it was probably better in 'urban environments' (!) purely due to the fact that it was smaller (and cheaper)..... but more capable? Anyhow whats an urban environment? The school run? A graded gravel road in a village somewhere in Baghdad?

We all know that the content on Wikipedia is user-generated.

We also all know that that perhaps the most common trait amongst Land Rover enthusiasts is a compulsive need to voice/prove superiority over their competitors (particularly Japanese and American)

Please big pappa, lets put patriotism aside and give some hard and fast facts as to why it is actually better than the HMMWV as a purpose built military vehicle

For the record I'm not hating on Land Rovers. They're great.. they're just not a high mobility multi-purpose war vehicle. (wheeled vehicle)
Trying to call it 'more capable' than the M998 HMMWV (for the intended purpose) is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

lax2wlg wrote:For the record I'm not hating on Land Rovers. They're great.. they're just not a high mobility multi-purpose war vehicle. (wheeled vehicle)
Trying to call it 'more capable' than the M998 HMMWV (for the intended purpose) is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

For the record you seem to enjoy putting people down, especially myself. Not sure why because to the best of my knowledge we have never met.
For the record you take every opportunity to put Land Rover down.
For the record you think you are an expert in everything.
For the record you can't accept facts when put in front of you.
For the record you can't accept it when you are wrong.
For the record you dribble verbal diarrhoea.

lax2wlg wrote:Nahh the M998 HMMWV is a million times more mobile, dependable, reliable and serviceable than the Mercedes. Can tell you first hand they are easy as hell to work on.

The HMMWV was revolutionary purpose built war machine whereas the Mercedes Gelandewagen is just a 4wd with diff locks that capitalises on Mercedes' reputation as a 'premium' automaker.

Name another production vehicle with these features:

-18" ground clearance
-60 percent slope-climbing, 40 percent side slope and 60-inch (thats over 1.5 metres) water-fording capabilities
-2.4 ton payload capacity
-6 feet tall, 7 feet wide, 15 feet long - pretty much impossible to roll over
-Modular design allowing for 15 different configurations
-Inboard disc brakes
-Fully boxed chassis with lightweight aluminum body panels
-A diesel V8 engine
-Positively pressurised and fully sealed drivetrain
-Coil sprung Fully independent double a-arm suspension with hydraulic double acting shock absorbers
-Full time four wheel drive with torque biasing diffs that lock up on demand
-Geared hubs (not complicated planetary type portals) offering a final drive reduction of 2:1 directly at the wheel
-37x12.5 tyres (optional 40" tyres) with Central Tyre Inflation System with run-flat feature

Plus because of the independent suspension, you can drop them out of airplanes.

Its really a silly comparison. The G Wagen is more akin to the military Jeep.

I also have had the "pleasure" of working on and driving these.
They are simple to operate and simple to work on because they have to be so the US grunts can cope.
They are huge so they follow in a tank tracks.
They still break lots.
Unless up-armored the occupants are "protected" by a sheet of ally. I have seen sticks penetrate the floor and the driver!
If up-armored they need to turbo the v8 to actually move.
Your passenger is in a different time zone to you separated by a trans tunnel.
It's so noisy and hot that getting out and shot is a relief.

You can drop anything you like from a plane............ what state it's in afterwards is debatable

Not to mention a hummer would not fit most of our decent tracks! So yea not a practical machine at all.

And that right there is why the Defender was favoured for certain operations. It's dimensions and better manoeuvrability/nimbleness where disirable in the urban environment come pared to the monster Hummer.

Hell, in the majority of the world a Hummer is well over the legal width allowed on the road, our legal width being maximum 2.5m, you couldn't drive one over here as a private vehicle.

Ralfie wrote:

lax2wlg wrote:For the record I'm not hating on Land Rovers. They're great.. they're just not a high mobility multi-purpose war vehicle. (wheeled vehicle)
Trying to call it 'more capable' than the M998 HMMWV (for the intended purpose) is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

For the record you seem to enjoy putting people down, especially myself. Not sure why because to the best of my knowledge we have never met.
For the record you take every opportunity to put Land Rover down.
For the record you think you are an expert in everything.
For the record you can't accept facts when put in front of you.
For the record you can't accept it when you are wrong.
For the record you dribble verbal diarrhoea.

Nah Ralfie I love you, you know that. I just want to know why you think a LR is a more capable military vehicle without going off topic and verbally teabagging me.

What ive noticed is all the countries that america pick on use Cruisers or Luxys same with UN

Lchundy wrote:What ive noticed is all the countries that america pick on use Cruisers or Luxys same with UN

Haha yeah the Taliwagon Hilix ute with a .50 cal on the back.

Having worked both sides of the coin, I also spent a few years modding standard spec 100 series, 78's and luxes for use by the UN/WHO medicines sans frontiers etc....
The average lifespan for the vehicles was 18 months!

I have seen pics of a convoy of fully spec 100 series Cruisers - Warn winches in TJM bars, Rear bars with tyre carriers, ARB air lockers front and rear, Safari snorkels, 7.50x16 MT, VHF and UHF comms and full of spares get taken to Africa.
They needed to cross a river but bridge was out so they strapped empty steel 205L drums to them and floated them across!!
They ONLY lost 6 vehicles which was apparently acceptable losses.

Losing 6 on a river crossing haha probably why there only averaging 18 months
Reading that reminded me of this video who needs 44gallon drums to strap to the side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiPg5DHeyNU

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.

I think no one here gives a shit about the hummer lax, but your posts are good amusement factor.

Im not trying to be a schlong worshipping knowall, I just wish you guys could see how awesome these Hummers are

Alright so you know everything about Nissan's aaaannnndddd hummers..... Move on

You know its a real shame that you are lowering yourself back to that level JDub.

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.[/quote]

I will take that as a compliment

I wasn't aware we were having an argument. I have spent many long hours in a military Landrover freezing my arse off cos the heater was rubbish and cursing the utter lack of pulling power of the 2.5NA diesel.

Humvees have their place and are totally fit for the purpose they were designed for - high speed across a sand surface in support of armored machinery.

Landrovers have been chosen by several armed forces for exactly the same reason - they fit the purpose.

Nothing is perfect (except my wife - apparently) and we all have our preferences.

If I win lotto then an AMG G wagon wouldn't make the shopping list and a Humvee wouldn't either, a Landrover special vehicles division Discovery4 with the supercharged V8 from the Rangerover would tho'

Debate...theres no malice or anything personal ... just debating an interesting topic.