login   |    register
Armor/AFV: Modern - USA
Modern Armor, AFVs, and Support vehicles.
Hosted by Darren Baker
M1114
Boggie
Visit this Community
Newfoundland, Canada
Joined: December 08, 2005
KitMaker: 1,364 posts
Armorama: 1,326 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 14, 2007 - 07:53 AM UTC
From the various image sources cited on this group I see this new up armoured HMMWV in both Afganistan with ISAF and in Iraq. The aquarium cupola and the huge lift point (door knobs) being the most obvious evolution. Can some one explain the development of this variant and tell me if in fact those are door openers.
Thanks
Bill

Frenchy
Visit this Community
Rhone, France
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,281 posts
Armorama: 12,071 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 14, 2007 - 09:30 AM UTC

Quoted Text

... tell me if in fact those are door openers.



I've read that the M1114 heavily armored doors tend to jam shut during an attack, trapping the troops inside. As a result, they are being fitted with D-rings, so that another vehicle can rip the door off, freeing the troops inside.

HTH
Frenchy
f1matt
Visit this Community
Manitoba, Canada
Joined: August 13, 2006
KitMaker: 1,021 posts
Armorama: 805 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 14, 2007 - 09:57 AM UTC
Wonder how heavy it is.
USArmy2534
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 14, 2007 - 10:54 AM UTC
Janes recently did an article and new variants are coming out that are not overloaded like most are now, but it really depends on the variant. I'll have to find the article to better describe it.

As far as the new variant, they are constantly being modified, so much so that it is hard to do a humvee model and call it current. What I can tell you for sure as standard is the turret but not all of that turret is standard as far as I know. I know the sand colored part of the turret is standard and is made at the Picitanny [auto-censored]nal. I know Picitanny is making a new turret based on the first one, but I don't know if what this picture shows is really it.

The bumper comes in a kit, but I forget who makes it. A standard tactic I've seen used is for the lead vehicle to bump civilian cars in the rear to get them to pull over so a reinforced bumper was needed. The doors are part of the Frag 5 kit which is also an addon. It is meant to continue to counter the evolution of IEDs and to protect weak points in the door.

All of these addons do increase the load on the vehicle and reduce the available payload but like I said new up-armored models are getting increased engines and the frame and suspension is getting reinforced to deal with the load.

I see what more I can find on Monday when I head back to my school's library.

Jeff
Hot-wheels
Visit this Community
Ohio, United States
Joined: April 28, 2007
KitMaker: 164 posts
Armorama: 100 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 14, 2007 - 11:13 AM UTC
Hi guys

Mathew, you sound like you thinking the same thing I am. If those doors are not overly heavy, why not set the hinges up something like the hinges on house door { A open topped hing}. Add two or three grips on the inside of the door. When the problem happens and the doors handles jam, the doors could then be grabbed from the inside lifted off the hing, and removed.
It seems to me if a vehicle is in a ambush or is hit by a IED you need to get your people out of the vehicle as quickly as you can. The idea of waiting on another vehicle to assit does not seem the best option. That is providing another vehicle is there or able to assist..

William, I am very sorry for jumping on your post that way. I beg forgivness from you and the powers that be on the site. Sometimes when an idea hits me I'm moving, and acting before thinking about if I should or not.
I don't want to say much about the the way this version of the Hummer came about. All my information on the topic is second and third hand at best. This site has many members who have and continue to have first hand information on that topic. Keep in mind in March of 03 the first Hummers in Irag had no armor at all. An idea so incredibly stupid I can't even write about. With that as the starting point. I'll let others take it from there. Again I am very sorry for jumping on your post.
Harry
Darktrooper
Visit this Community
Delaware, United States
Joined: November 05, 2004
KitMaker: 581 posts
Armorama: 351 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 14, 2007 - 01:12 PM UTC
We carried Haligan bars on our trucks in A-stan to get the doors open on our M1114s if they were jammed shut. Thankfully we never had to find out for real.

We put the turrets with the Ballistic glass on our M114's so that our gunners can be in the turrets and be able to keep a look out, and try to bat away anything that someone could try and throw in our trucks. My unit was one of the first to get those at Bagram, and every was coming by to check them out. SF tried to pinch one of our trucks once but we foiled their plans

We had those bumpers too, came from the same manufacturer that made the turrets. I can't remember the name, they always had ads in Stars and Stripes (I wanna say Rhinotek?)..... We also attaced long metal poles with wire cutters to one of those bumpers.
troubble27
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: October 10, 2003
KitMaker: 783 posts
Armorama: 637 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 14, 2007 - 03:20 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Wonder how heavy it is.



Not sure how heavy these are, but being a transmission mechanic, the sight of these is getting scary. Everything you do to a vehicle always effects something else. With all the added necessary armor, turrets, bulletproof glass, etc, your adding extra weight which now makes the vehicle require more frequent service, better cooling systems, etc. Plus the heat in Iraq and Afghanistan will take its toll on a vehicle. I see these and have to wonder if theyre breaking down more often and becoming less reliable. from the transmission stand point (my specialty), the 4L80E transmission in the humvee has a tendency to wipe out the planetary gears under heavy loads. they also break the reverse band causing a no reverse condition. My suggestion to any of you guys who drive these would be, take it easy backing up, and dont beat the thing drivintg in forward. You dont want to get yourself stuck in a situation where the enemy is shooting at you and your humvee dont move!
Frenchy
Visit this Community
Rhone, France
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,281 posts
Armorama: 12,071 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 14, 2007 - 05:47 PM UTC

Quoted Text

We had those bumpers too, came from the same manufacturer that made the turrets. I can't remember the name, they always had ads in Stars and Stripes (I wanna say Rhinotek?).....



What about Ibis Tek ?
Ibis Tek website

Frenchy
Darktrooper
Visit this Community
Delaware, United States
Joined: November 05, 2004
KitMaker: 581 posts
Armorama: 351 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 14, 2007 - 10:55 PM UTC
Yup, it was Ibis Tek.
Boggie
Visit this Community
Newfoundland, Canada
Joined: December 08, 2005
KitMaker: 1,364 posts
Armorama: 1,326 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 15, 2007 - 12:37 AM UTC
These forums, with posting involvement from the world community, are a fabulous thing. As a modeler interested in modern armor (Afghanistan in particular) the information about the vehicle helps me to understand how it works in the real world. This discussion illuminates how the soldiers in the vehicles are testing prototypes based on evaluations and manufactured far away from the actual heat. It looks to me that the original HMMWV is morphing into another type of vehicle. Once a relatively light vehicle to a more armoured car type vehicle as a reaction to the new threat and most lethal IED's. Where is the design going?
AJ what is an Haligan bar, do you have a link to one?
Thanks to you all for this informative thread.
USArmy2534
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 15, 2007 - 11:09 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Where is the design going?



Quite simply the design is running out. Nearly all of the addons being fitted are what is considered interim. The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) project is increasing its pace to replace the humvee in the role that it is currently being used in. Don't expect that to happen anytime soon, so in the mean time, just as the Stryker is an interim vehicle to the Future Combat System (FCS) vehicles, the new MRAP vehicles getting so much press will be the interim vehicle between the humvee and when the JLTV is introduced. I've looked at the requirements for the JLTV and they are quite something. I'll see if I can find them.

Jeff
Darktrooper
Visit this Community
Delaware, United States
Joined: November 05, 2004
KitMaker: 581 posts
Armorama: 351 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 15, 2007 - 12:14 PM UTC
http://www.answers.com/topic/halligan-bar
USArmy2534
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2007 - 04:50 AM UTC
If you get a chance to check out the June 2007 issue of Janes Defense Review p67-72 there is a story on the weight issues of the humvee and on the future of the project. Here are some highlights of the article to address some concerns raised here. I've put the parts in the article in quotes and italicized my own comments to give clarity/context to it.

"When it comes to describing the HMMWV, 'ubiquitous' seems insufficiently narrow...Ironically, perhaps, it is this success that has contributed to some of the system's greatest challenges...recent years have seen a great proliferation of tactical payload strain exacerbated by the mandates of add-on ballistic armour packages.

"LTC Samuel Honsey, US Army Project Manager for Light Tactical Vehicles, notes that the gross weight (GVW) rating of the M1114 is approximately 12,100 lbs, but 'they are rolling out of the gate at about 15,400 to 15,600 lbs' he says.

"LTC Honsey recently observed that the Humvee has become 'a zero sum game, ' with the addition of any new item mandating the remval of some existing element.

"The US is currently focusing its efforts in several arenas, including: expanded fielding of the latest enhancements to the Humvee; continuing the introduction of near-term and mid-term improvements to the current platform design; accelerated fielding of interim 'gapfiller' Mine Resistant Ambush Protection (MRAP) vehicles; and an emerging objective programme for a new vehicle known as the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV)

"Current Humvee production efforts encompass the new M1151, M1152, and the M1165-series vehicles. The new platforms comprise a slant-back armament carrier, two-man armoured cab, and four-man armoured cab respectively." Meaning that the M1114 as we know it is not being produced, but keep in mind the difference between a vehicle designation when talking about a humvee is usually subtle. The original difference between an M1025 and M1026 is a winch

"Unlike the permanently up-armoured M1114-series, these three platforms were designed specifically for the application of additional armour packages over their base protection levels.

M1114s were originally sufficent to protect the soldier but the Army soon mandated new requirement to facilitate additional armor, issued out in what were known as "Frag kits"
"Three Frag Kits are currently being produced for the latest models. Frag Kit 1 covers the sides of the vehicle, minus the doors; Frag Kit 2 covers the frontal areas, and Frag Kit 5, the doors themselves. Frag Kits 3 and 4 have reportedly been developed but are not currently in production...[improvements] are constantly evolving and the recent features include a new fire-suppression system, improved air-conditioning, a new turret gunner restraint system, improved quick-release seat belts and an enhanced intercom system.

"Robert Gula, [senior vice-president of engineering and product development at AM General] also identifies a number of near-term Humvee improvements that will be incorporated into production over the next few months, including the new Objective Gunner's Protection Kit (O-GPK).

"Developed at the US Army's Picatinny [auto-censored]nal in New Jersey, the O-GPK...provides a motorised traversing operation (with battery backup), while safeguarding the gunner with a combinatino of greater protection and increased situational awareness.

Here is a picture of the O-GPK. The current official shield looks for the most part like this but without all of the ballistic glass


"Gula goes on to highlight the overloading of the Humvees caused by the additional armour...'As the armour got improved and increased it just at up more payload. But the missions didn't change, so they still have the same amount of people, equipment and supplies to carry. And the end result is overloads.'

"He refers to a number of reliability enhancements implemented by AM General to address this problem, namely an improved frame (new higher-capacity construction), enhanced suspension (including springs, shocks, control arms and ball joints), improvements to the driveline, higher-capacity wheels and tyres, and improved engine cooling.

"Looking at beyond 2007, Gula highlights "further capability improvements in the vehicle that would raise the GVW to probably in the 16,000 - 17,000 range"

"These enhancements provide significantly improved crew space, creating room for communications equipment; offer improved maintainability with a much quicker engine-exchange process; provide enhanced electonics/diagnostics and further improved ballistic protection; and produce considerably increased engine power, while still running on JP-8. "And when you get done with all of that, the goal is, with all of the additional capability and armour weight, we will still get back to the same payload that an M1151, M1152 or M1165 had, befoer you put any armour on it," he says."

The article goes onto where the JLTV project stands and considering I just wrote probably the largest forum post on Armorama I will suggest you read the rest of the article. Gary, the article doesn't say much about the transmission so I hope what I gave helps in understanding.

As for those JLTV contract requirements, check this out
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/jltv.htm

Jeff
Boggie
Visit this Community
Newfoundland, Canada
Joined: December 08, 2005
KitMaker: 1,364 posts
Armorama: 1,326 posts
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2007 - 06:25 AM UTC
Jeff, we live in interesting times. Good to your word you provided this forum with an up to date accounting of this "ubiquitous" vehicle... at least for today. I was going to ask if the turret was motorized liked the British Land Rover Wolf and 110 (with weapons ring), but you answered that. With that in mind is the turret driven from the floor of the 1114 or is it supported by the roof/roll bar configuration? With regards to modeling this version I guess you pick the one version that you can accumulate the most information/images of. I have seen some high angle images but not from directly above so it will be hard to see the relationship of the gunner to the interior space. I may be naive but wouldn't a RWS be better suited? Perhaps the situational awareness of the soldier is quicker and more discerning that a computer monitor in the depths of the vehicle. I would think that having this turret, which is open to the interior while occupied, would now become a target from above with primitive ordnance, why not put a roof on it?
In a recent forum some one posted a link to a site with many images of the lighter/narrower Toyota Hi-Lux and Tacoma's being used for the narrow roads and more stealthy approaches in Afghanistan. In your article it was implied that they would have a fuller range of up armoured vehicles to fit specific tasks.

"Unlike the permanently up-armored M1114-series, these three platforms were designed specifically for the application of additional armor packages over their base protection levels."

Clearly this monster that's evolving for the urban war is specific for this task as any cross country travel they would need a fuel tanker following close by (and a fleet of transmission mechanics).
If anyone has an image that shows the interior of one of these 1114's sporting the newest motorized turret I'd like to see it. I'm interested to see if the ring is geared and a electric motor drives it or it the gunner stands in a basket like the Bradley/Warriors.

Thank you Jeff, this is very thought provoking.
And thank you AJ for the link to the Halligan bar, should be easy enough to model this important detail.

matt
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: February 28, 2002
KitMaker: 5,934 posts
Armorama: 2,945 posts
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2007 - 06:55 AM UTC
1/32 scale halligan bar (with other tools)
Trisaw
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: December 24, 2002
KitMaker: 3,962 posts
Armorama: 2,367 posts
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2007 - 07:04 AM UTC
The main issue with OIF is that it's a "monkey's wrench" in the Army's inventory. As a defense article stated, you wouldn't see a MRAP or 5-Ton guntruck driving around the streets of the U.S. or New Orleans because of the bad rep that would give the Army. You'd see a Humvee instead. And that's one bug-a-boo the Army always has. It needs armor for combat missions, but then it needs "Plain Jane" 4X4 trucks too to work domestically.

This dictates the need for the JLTV and the "add-on" armor. The Marines, since they're mostly on ship, wouldn't mind a totally armored JLTV since the Marines are more combat-oriented overseas. But the Army, having the NG and Reserves domestically, prefer "add-on" armor just in case the trucks are needed domestically...doesn't make sense deploying armored vehicles for disaster relief or to fight wildfires. The problem with add-on armor on trucks is that most times the armor doesn't cover 100% of the truck. The JLTV requirements attempt to change this, but that remains to be seen.

The M1114 and M1152s have so many tack-on devices that there's no real room for expansion. The Army and AM General explored the Otokar Cobra design once, but I don't know what came of that study. Now there's talk of V-hulling the M1114s.

Until the services figure out the JLTV, the Army is cranking out more M1117 ASVs. The only problem with this is that the M1117 can't haul troops. All in all, the issue I find is that both the USMC and Army are trying to come up with ONE vehicle to fit a whole host of bills when in fact perhaps two or three vehicles are needed instead.

The USMC and Army are kind of having "beefs" with the JLTV requirement. The USMC wants (at least back then, not sure about now) an armored car that can haul more troops, has a fully-enclosed armored turret, has full-armor protection, and with IED protection---all lessons learned from OEF and OIF and without the LEGO add-on effect of the Humvees, meaning the USMC wants an *improvement* over the Humvee and more combat-oriented; the USMC wants a fighting (offensive) 4X4 truck. The Army just wants a new truck that can haul more cargo and is designed to take armor, meaning the Army just wants a *new truck* because of the domestic cargo-hauling duties the Army constantly has; the Army still wants a hauling 4X4 truck with some defensive armor capability. Of course the Marines don't like that....they see the Army's JLTV vision as not much improvement over the existing Humvee. This is probably why the USMC is wrestling control of the MRAP and JLTV programs from the Army.
USArmy2534
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2007 - 07:41 AM UTC
William, the image you posted is another angle (and a good one at that) of the O-GPK that the article was talking about. I'm not sure how it is gear or where the motor is, though there is a small box on the back side of the shield. I can't tell if its a motor housing or a storage box, but if its a stowage box, its in a bad place because the gunner would have to reach out of the turret to get it. On early humvees and up to at least the M1114, the gunner would stand...sort of. His position is between the driver and truck commander and just a bit behind those seats. He stands on a height-adjustable platform that allows shorter Soldiers to be at the same height level as taller ones. There is also a strap that can be attached from one part of the turret ring to the other, and he would sit on it, so that he isn't standing throughout the entire mission. I'd imagine this would make his profile taller and thus more vulnerable, but I know what standing for long hours on a moving vehicle feels like and I'm sure the strap helps.

As for how the turret would move prior to a motor being installed, I'm not sure. Some pictures and videos seem to show that the gunner could just turn the entire turret with nothing more than muscle, but I think now with the all around shields (and the weight that comes with something like that) that it has a traversing wheel that the gunner turns to rotate the turret. The weapon itself is on a pintle that can be independently moved to make some adjustments, and since gunners are given specific sectors to cover, the need to instantly turn the entire turret wouldn't be routinely necessary. But I don't know for sure.

The M151 RWS (as seen on the Strykers) has not been used on Humvees though I would not be suprised if they had tested it. They have, however, use what is known as CROWS which is simple a scalled down version of the RWS. It mounts anything from a SAW to a Mk19 and has a thermal sensor remotely controlled by a Soldier sitting behind a console in one of the back seats. It has been fielded in Iraq, but not on a mass scale. I'm not sure of the reason, but despite some of the advantages, I don't think it will replace the individual gunner - at least not yet.

When we went into Iraq, few if any could see where the humvee was going and the role it'd play in the conduct of warfare as we know it today. Newer and more powerful IEDs are being constructed to counter the armor that we add to the humvees. These EFPs are serious contenders and seem to be causing a scramble to react to them. The point is, if we couldn't see 4 years ago where we'd be today, then we sure as heck aren't going to be able to see where we are in the next 4, 8, 12 years, much less what the requirements are going to be. So they leave space open to add on whatever will need to be add on.

Peter, thats the irony of "Joint" programs. Both sides have specific needs and they are going to have to compromise and in doing so both sides in the end are going to get screwed. Then it'll be the resiliency of both Soldiers and Marines to suggest improvements. Buts thats just the reality of equipment acquisition. Thus ends my rant on that.

But I do agree with your position on the visable profile and psychological impact some of these systems have on a domestic population, but I'll add to it. The military trains the world's armies more than they fight wars. Most countries that we train have nothing more than an AK-47 or an old G-3 rifle. When we roll in with all this advanced stuff - however useful it is - it sends a bad impression to the host country. This is one - of many - reasons why Special Forces use vehicles like the Hi-Lux or I've even read minivans. Of course the beauty of arms dealership, is that once we acquire all these high-tech JLTVs and what not, guess what happens to all of those humvees? And therein is another chapter in the evolution of war.

Jeff
Boggie
Visit this Community
Newfoundland, Canada
Joined: December 08, 2005
KitMaker: 1,364 posts
Armorama: 1,326 posts
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2007 - 09:35 AM UTC
Jeff
Interesting perspective Peter has, the politics of which I'm not at all aware of. Recently Canadian troops had an incident which involved a the Nyala vehicle with a ved bottom (for anti mine) struck an IED with fatal consequences.

Canada too is searching for that all in one vehicle (anti mine anti IED) but it appears elusive or non existent.
One simple issue about the glass armor turrets is evident here in this photo. I guess the next variant will have windshield washers, like tanks vison blocks, one for each glass.

Bill
Boggie
Visit this Community
Newfoundland, Canada
Joined: December 08, 2005
KitMaker: 1,364 posts
Armorama: 1,326 posts
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2007 - 09:48 AM UTC
I spoe too soon about the roof.......

Bill
USArmy2534
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Monday, July 16, 2007 - 10:36 AM UTC
Yea, I've seen that photo too, but as far as I know its not an offical project, though it might be a test bed. Ballistic glass is heavy and I can't imagine what that thing weighs. Overhead cover has been a concern in an urban environment for some time, but - and the article clearly points this out - armor should be a last resort. Armor is for when all the tactics, techniques, and procedures fail. Armor hinders mobility and mobility makes it harder for accurate fire to be used. So while there is clearly a need to keep pace with weapons technology there is a balance between needs and practicality.

Jeff
Trisaw
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: December 24, 2002
KitMaker: 3,962 posts
Armorama: 2,367 posts
Posted: Friday, July 20, 2007 - 12:49 PM UTC
OK, I read that Jane's article too just now. Jeff did a good job summarizing it. The article did seem to state the conflict between the USMC and US Army in that the Marines want a heftier vehicle whereas the Army wants a vehicle of the same size as the Humvee, but armored, powerful, and able to haul more cargo. Industry said that's a challenge because an armored vehicle to match the Army's weight desire will be heavier than what the Army wants unless there's some breakthrough in armor technology, which of course means composite armor = $$$ = perhaps too expensive for such a utility vehicle.

There were photos of some possible JTLV contenders. Ironically enough, many look like the Humvee, except rounded and sleeker with a rounder bottom hull (like the Hummer H3 compared to the Hummer H1), meaning they may have the same issues of no gunner protection except the rear hatch flipped up and no dedicated V-hull. But the judge and jury haven't decided on the JTLV yet and the Request for Proposal has to be met.
airbornematt
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: September 10, 2005
KitMaker: 119 posts
Armorama: 93 posts
Posted: Friday, July 20, 2007 - 08:36 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Wonder how heavy it is.



they're pretty heavy. I'm a pretty big guy (6'2" 230lbs) and it's a pretty good effort to open those suckers. We're using M1114's similar to that over here in Iraq, but all have more junk piled on depending on where you're at. I'll try to get some pics of our Mad Max wannabe for ya'll
Boggie
Visit this Community
Newfoundland, Canada
Joined: December 08, 2005
KitMaker: 1,364 posts
Armorama: 1,326 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 12:21 AM UTC
Matthew
Good to hear from the man inside...the M1114. I'd like to see a real close up of those huge door knobs. Is the rig you're in the ones with the aquarium tops? I'd be interested to see a view from inside the cupola to see how the MG is attached, and the general layout of armor attachments to the weapons ring. There are few pictures from an insiders point of view in the 1114's so anything thats not restricted would help a modeler build one more accurately would help.
Are you using the SINCARS radio as well? I've seen a few current images the use of laptop type screens in the console area, I suspect the navigation communications set up is pretty fancy these days.



Play safe
Bill
USArmy2534
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 12:28 PM UTC
All US military humvees have SINCGARS. The screen isn't a laptop, its hardwired into the vehicle. What it is called FBCB2 or Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade-and-Below. In laymens terms, its the internet for the battlefield. It incorporates wireless technology, email, text messaging, and a graphic interface to allow maneuver units to transmit data in real-time back and forth. Its really cool. If a unit is in contact, in real-time they can tell the rest of their team where the fire is coming from and the leader can issue orders to defeat the threat. You will usually find one of these in nearly every leadership vehicle from the squad leader to the brigade commander. I think almost all stryker's have one, since they hold a squad each. But for a humvee since about 3-4 humvees hold a squad, you'll find one in about 4 vehicles have one.

Jeff
USArmy2534
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 01:15 PM UTC
I went through my humvee image database (yea, I really have that many images...I can't believe it) and found some stuff that might be interesting to you.

Here is another shot of that SF vehicle in your other forum post.


Here are some interior shots and some shots of the FBCB2 setup, which is on the TC - truck commanders - seat in the front passenger area.









And some images of the turret area. The weapon system is attached to a pintle mount. The heavier weapons, such as the Mk-19 and M2 .50cal. have a traverse and elevation mechanism attached, while smaller weapons such as the M240B and the M249 have their own mount. All mounts attach to that rod on top of the turret ring. The turret obviously rotates and the weapons themselves have a bit of movement independent of the turret ring, but with the frontal armor, that is limited and only needed for small corrections.

This is from a page in the M1114 maintaince manual (don't worry, its not classified)






And since you were inquiring about how they take the doors off, here you go. Note that this door isn't part of the new frag 5 kit. Its has an uparmored door with an additional armor plate attached over the main door but thats about it. These plates were put on with a couple inch gap between the main door and the additional plate for stand-off distance and were done shortly before frag 5 was fielded.



And this is a bumper that I thought you'd find interesting.



Jeff