Talk:Humvee

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Hummer H0. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 15#Hummer H0 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hummer H0" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I am kind of surprised that there is nothing about the safety factor. My understanding is that the primary concern that dictated the ultimate layout of the HMMWV was decreasing vehicle fatalities in the US military, which were some ridiculous number like 25% of all casualties in the ETO during WW2, especially jeep accidents. This was one of the primary reasons the military determined to go to all independently-sprung vehicles after WW2, in spite of the common consensus among off-road enthusiasts that solid axles are far stronger and generally more capable off road (for a given level of strength). The M151 was their first attempt at an IS jeep-type vehicle, but it was a failure because of the deDion axles, which could cause loss of control, and the fact that the vehicle was still short, narrow and tall. This is why they went the totally extreme opposite direction with the HMMWV, making it all IS, and incredibly wide, long and as low slung as possible. This is why you have a vehicle that takes up as much room as a 2.5 ton truck, but still only carries 4 personnel, why they sunk the frame right down so the troops are separated by the transmission and driveshaft. They decided they were sick of troops rolling their jeeps constantly, so they made the next vehicle impossible to roll over no matter how recklessly it was driven by unsupervised young males in a combat zone. They say "the lower center of gravity and wide stance increase stability offroad", but that's just to put a better shine on the relatively enormous bulk and weight being NOT as good offroad as a smaller, lighter vehicle. So concern with traffic fatalities basically dictated the form of the vehicle we now call the Humvee, yet this doesn't even mention anything about it.
While I'm here, yes, the HMMWV is obviously a truck more than a car. There are not cut and dried, perfectly defined categories, but the general mode of construction, the utilitarian employment, all lead most people to think "truck" before they think "car". In fact, it's neither or it's both. It's a utility vehicle. A Sport-Utility Vehicle minus the Sport. A generally truck-based people carrier intended to have more offroad and cargo carrying ability than a car, and for more personnel carrying capability than a truck.
I also agree that this article should be called "High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle". No other military equipment pages are titled after the colloquial slang name for the equipment. 
Idumea47b (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent suspension, safety, M151 

message: Produced says 1984, service says 1983. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 16:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Produced/service dates don't match 

message: News-like https://www.mk.ru/politics/2023/05/23/poyavilos-video-unichtozhennoy-v-belgorodskoy-oblasti-tekhniki-ukrainskikh-diversantov.html with small video. Halfcookie (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  in [[Belgorod Oblast]] 

message: This article should be “HMMWV” and Humvee should redirect here. 
It’s inappropriate to have the real name redirect to a slang term 2601:1C2:5000:8CC7:51EB:250F:3C8:87C2 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has rules for article titles, such as WP:COMMONNAME.  An Official name may not be the most appropriate name. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should use the proper name