Talk:Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck

Untitled

Just wanted to point out that neither of the pictured vehicles are HEMTTs. Both pictured vehicles are PLSs. The primary visible difference between the HEMTT and the PLS is that the HEMTT is an 8x8 and the PLS is a 10x10. The THAAD system is mounted on a PLS mover, not a HEMTT. The vehicles have a similar appearance and can be easily confused. (A good friend of mine drives both vehicles and pointed this out to me.) Sperril 19:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I never noticed that!. The top pic is a M1075 PLS with M1076 trailer. The THAAD is mounted on a modified M1075 [1]. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 04:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the two incorrect PLS photos and added a photo of my own. --The Duct Tape Avenger 23:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Missed an "M"

Unless I am TOTALLY off base, the full acronym is HEMMTT, for Heavy Expanded Mobility Multipurpose Tactical Truck, as the DOD really like to emphase the usefulness of their toys. I don't have acess to the manual right now so I will not edit the article, but I remember this from the driver training course. Surrogate Spook 22:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck, no Multipurpose. SpigotMap 09:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! I'm totally off base. Can I be allowed to drink booze now?Surrogate Spook 23:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of the two M's in HMMWV (High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle). Don't worry, I won't report you to the AAAAA (Army Acronym Abuse and Aberration Agency)... this time. The Duct Tape Avenger 04:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Crew

It states that the HEMTT supports 4 crewmembers or 4 are able to sit in it, one or the other. Issue is that these vehicles are only 2 seaters, there are no seats anywhere else on the vehicle other than the two inside the cab, It's not a bench seat, they've got very springy seats (cab is quite bouncy). A wrecker team consists of 2 people and more if need be, however that would take more vehicles. Anybody care to explain this if possible?Loquat15 08:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it. I don't know if they mean 4 crew members to run the truck for whatever purpose it needs or not, but the cabs of these trucks are physically unable to hold 4 people. SpigotMap 09:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Marines

The article mentions that it was developed "the United States Army and Marine Corps", but I've never seen or heard of them being used in the Corps, ever. The Table of MARES-reportable equipment does not list any variation. I was wondering if the editer confused the HEMMT with the LVS (they look incredibly similar), or if the Corps was origionally going to acquire some but later diceded not to. Bahamut0013 14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Nick name

would just like to point out, that the origanal Dragon Wagon was the M-26 tank recovery vehicle. from WWII. Brian in denver (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I was about to point out the same issue. So a "disambiguation" instead of a "redirect" for the nickname should be created. Can anyone help with that? (I don't know how to do it...)
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of Open Source Software

The Oshkosh A3 HEMTT runs Linux on an ARM9E processor, along with the db.* database from ITTIA. Source: Large military truck runs embedded Linux, open-source database (April 4, 2005).

Not sure if this is worthy for inclusion, however it is an example of a military vehicle that includes open source components. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasOwens (talk • contribs) 17:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Link needed

This article needs a link that redirects to here when people search for "HEMMT." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.68.200 (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

HEMTT MODELS

--Chopin55 (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)There are currently 4 major HEMTT generations, or models, if you will (as the main article referrs to it). The first version is now simply called HEMTT BASE. It was the introductory model powered by Detroit Diesel coupled to a primitive Allison ATEC transmission. Later HEMTT was retrofitted with Detroit Diesel DDECIII and DDECIV engines, coupled to newer version of Allison transmission using digital shifter; transmission having now self diagnostic capabilities. These modifications warranted a model name change and it became HEMTT A2. Both the BASE and A2 are currently in service; BASE being progressively upgraded to the A2 standard carrying field designation A2R1. There are also more minor designations depending on what model, where, and what changes the vehicle actually underwent. Those would be the A1 and E1. HEMTT A3 is not the newest model, as the article states. It is more a technology demonstrator that uses a hybrid powerplant. As of now, its field trials should have ended, however, currently there are no potential customers. The latest HEMTT is the A4. It is powered by Caterpillar C15 engine coupled to Allison 4500SP GENIV transmission. Unlike the A3, A4 is scheduled for delivery. Numerous components used to manufacture HEMMT A4 are of a modular design. This enables Oshkosh to share some components with the remaining line of products now in either developement or initial production stages. Those would be the PLS A1 - PLS replacement, LVSR - replacement for the LVS, and HET A1, which will replace the original HET. The designs of these vehicles are now very similar, as opposed to the legacy versions.

Platform for weapon systems

It the HEMTT also in use as a platform for weapon systems? For SAMs or something like that? --Exodianecross (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Date format

I intend to change the date format on all references to dd/mm/yyyy as discussed here. Both Australia and the US use mm/dd/yyyy so any cheap shot at the American also applies to the Australian. Neither Country uses the format I am going to use. Machine code is used only by France and China, hardly a majority of English speakers. Sammy D III (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Need to correct some facts first. yyyy-mm-dd is not machine code, it is a perfectly legit format allowed by MOS:DATEFORMAT and WP:CITESTYLE for references (but not in prose). There are only 3 variations of date accepted by Wikipedia: '30 January 2007', 'January 30, 2007' and '2007-01-30'. All are equally valid for references and there is no preference of one over the other. Usually the first major contributor picks one according to his/her fancy. After that WP:RETAIN says we respect his/her choice in order to avoid WP:EDITWARS. But it's not entirely set in concrete. One method for changing is to ask for consensus to change on this talk page (as Sammy has started) and then after consensus has been gained it can be changed (Sammy has jumped the gun here). No consensus means no change, otherwise anybody could change it to anything they wanted, somebody else could change it again and we get into edit wars over the 'correct' format (usually Brits vs Americans).

The second method is by WP:TIES. If it can be shown that a topic has close ties to a particular country then the article can be changed to that countries predominant format ('January 30, 2007' in this case but not '30 January 2007'). Note that the assertion by Sammy that Australia (my country) uses mm/dd/yyyy is not properly true. Many of our newspapers use that format on their banner but that's a hangover from a century ago when the entire English speaking world did so. Australian schools teach '3 January 2007' as the correct format (with minor variations like dashes and slashes).

The format used by the reference source is irrelevant. If we have 5 different sources that use 5 different formats, which one do we choose? If we want to be consistent then at least 4 of them will be listed with different format to the actual source. The format used is up to the first major contributor as he/she see fit.

So far, Sammy's proposal is based on his personal preference. This goes against WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and all the above policies. He has not given any valid reason to change to the '30 January 2007' format. Furthermore, he has been trying to bully me into allowing his personal choice and so far has refused to read any of the policies (although he may have changed in the last 24 hours).

But I will say that I do appreciate that Sammy has searched out new references and put them into the article. The references are welcome and the date format is in reality just a minor tiff.  Stepho  talk  00:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

There. Now that pompous asshole Stepho can be as chickenshit as he wants. Sammy D III (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

How to win friends and influence people...

I see you just now added some images and a couple more references - both actions are much appreciated. But I can't see anything that you did relevant to the issue that explains your recent comment. So far it is 50/50 for and against. You need a clear consensus. If you want, you can ask for more opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Or perhaps you know of a WP military vehicles project to ask at.  Stepho  talk  00:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on Sammy's lack of manners alone I am opposed - and it also goes against the WP guidelines. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The first edit to give references with a date added three references, two with the yyyy-mm-dd format, which is a legitimate format according to MOS:DATEFORMAT, and one with "month year", which apparently had no day mentioned.

From this, I understand that the editor preferred the yyyy-mm-dd format, but did not know how to apply it when there was no day given by the source document. I also do not know how it is done. If there is no established way to use the yyyy-mm-dd format when the day is not given, then I must support, if there is, then I will oppose and look about reformatting the "month year" format appropriately.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This applies to two references.

1. http://www.oshkoshdefense.com/pdf/Oshkosh_HEMTT_A2_brochure.pdf which is a dead link and I have just removed it.
2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/29047972/TM-5-5420-234-14P-CBT-COMMON-BRIDGE-TRANSPORTER which has July 1999 on its title page but also has "TM 5-5420-234-14&P, 15 July 1999, is changed as follows:" on a later page. I have amended the reference details to list it as 15 July 1999.

So this objection is no longer relevant to this article.  Stepho  talk  22:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There is one problem with that: If another reference is used that only gives a "month year" date, how do we put it in "yyyy-mm-dd" format? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a discussion that comes up often in the MOS. Lovers of the yyyy-mm-dd format say just use yyyy-mm. Haters of the format say this could be confused with a year range like 2010-13. The lovers respond with A. context tells you it is a single date, not a range, B. most (but not all) occurrences don't make sensible year ranges (eg 2010-03) and C. years ranges would be better as 2010-2013. Anyway, MOS currently allows yyyy-mm-dd and and this is an argument better done in MOS, not here.  Stepho  talk  03:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

O.K., then; weak oppose, based on the above thread. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Sammy's proposal is to replace the status quo of 2015-01-20 dates with 20 January 2015 dates. Are you opposing the change, thus keeping the yyyy-mm-dd dates?  Stepho  talk  03:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Sammy has proposed no change, conceding to Stepho's machine code at 23:01 11 January 2015. Sammy D III (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am opposing the change. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have just restored the yyyy-mm-dd date format for references. Also found the M1142 manual to be dated as 20 Feb 2009, listed about 5 pages in. Thankful that we can now concentrate on improving content.  Stepho  talk  13:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You know Stepho, I have been using this format for years. I always put "ref" in the edit summary, I'm sure you could go waaay back... As for the missing dates, those are just "oops"s, with no intent at all, those TMs are always dated. Sammy D III (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is.

1. I've been using yyyy-mm-dd format for years too. For references, WP allows "2015-01-21", "21 January 2015" and "January 21,2015" as chosen by the first major contributor and then following contributors use the same format (until agreed to change by consensus on the talk page). This means that different articles can use different formats without necessarily causing an argument while still being consistent within the one article. Your first edit on 5 Jan 2015 left the article with a mix of date formats.
2. My edit summaries are reasonably accurate. If I've changed something in a reference then the edit summary contains the word "reference". And I haven't made any complaint about your edit summaries. Can't see what your point is here.
3. I never complained about the missing dates. I just noted that a couple of references needed the day of the month, so I found them and put them in. The edit summary was a bit longer because the place that I found them wasn't very obvious to somebody looking casually - ie I didn't want to look like I was plucking the date out of the air. I never blamed you for missing data, nor did I intend for you to feel put down in any way.  Stepho  talk  22:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

When I realized that your date format hobby would put me out of business, I was hot, but should only have called you a "jerk". I apologize for the other word. Then the "discussion" that I didn't want happened for nothing anyway. Oh well. Sammy D III (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite follow but I'm not fussed about it. I'm happy to drop the subject and get back to content editing. I'm hoping you'll continue to add more references and improve WP in spite of our little disagreement.  Stepho  talk  04:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)