It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Merecedeces replacing hummer?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 05:30 PM
I remember abotu 2 years ago I started hearing rumors that Merecedes (sp?) signed a contract with the US Gov to create a truck that would replace the humvee? ANyone else heard this or can anyone elaborate on it?n

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 05:39 PM
I can tell you that the H-2 wont be replacing the Humvee but I doubt anything out now is as versatile as the Humvee we have in service now so I dont think it will be replaced in the near term...

Check 6, check this!

If anything in the future it will be modified Humvees with a sweet sensor suite and plenty of armor.

[edit on 24-12-2004 by ChrisRT]

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 06:51 PM
It's not a hummer though... it's not even by the same company

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 07:00 PM
You got me.

I think we will stick with modified Humvees for a good while. The regular Jeep lasted a great while; the Humvee was put into service in '89... It still has some time.

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 07:04 PM
Hummer was never meant to be used in battle like it is.

It's a support unit for ferrying people about... that is what it was designed for.

All these things like TOW missiles etc and using them for urban warefare in Iraq is ridiculous. The only reason they are used is because the US has no decent APC's and light armoured vehicles.

Something like the warrior equiped with Chobham armour would make an excellent urban unit

Or the LAV

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 07:55 PM
The Humvee was meant to replace the Jeep, I don't think the Jeep was meant for urban battles, so you are right, I don't think the Hummer really is either. However, a decently armored HMMWV (Humvee) with a gun mounted on it is pretty good.

Otherwise, I think tanks are the best thing. You just use the machine guns on them. Lightly armored vehicles are too easy to take out; a tank is difficult if you plan your stuff right and use more than a few.

But hey, I heard one soldier who said they'd go out on patrols with two Humvees WITHOUT the doors on the things (there's protection for ya; a non-armored, doorless Humvee!!)

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 08:14 PM
The Stryker could and problably will fill the role of an armed troop transport more in the near future...
They are just down the street from me.

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 08:19 PM
the stryker is good but they need to get the cost down.

As for the comment about tanks... yes they are very well protected but in an urban inveronment they are sitting ducks... being large and slow as well as having trouble navigating down narrow streets.

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 09:21 PM
Tanks are good in the city too, if they are in teams. Heavy armor is heavy armor; true though, they are big and slower. The thing is anything with lighter armor than a tank is a city is more of a sitting duck, just it can move faster usually.

The Stryker looks good, but I don't think it will fully replace the armored tracked vehicles that carry troops; tracks are always better than wheels for mud and sand.

new topics

top topics


log in