Jump to content

Talk:Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M1090

[edit]

This dump truck is a joke. It's hydraulics aren't strong enough to lift it's own dump when filled with dirt. Ultratone85 14:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC) did you check your hydrolic fluid? Because I've never had a problem with it.[reply]

Jet fuel

[edit]

These things run on JP8!? I'd love to hear more about the power plant and developmental reasons for switching to a jet fuel (deuce-and-a-halfs were gasoline). Logistical reasons? 24.153.118.129 03:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The M35 series 2.5T vehicles were powered by a Hercules multi-fuel engine. Gasoline has not been used in the 2.5T and 5T series vehicles since the late 1950's. TACOM specified "common fuel" usage in the early 1980's, which is why the CUCV's and later vehicles were all designed as diesels from the outset.

JP-8 is just diesel fuel

Criticism Section

[edit]

Any sources to back up the rollover claims in new models? globalsecurity.org seems to think this was all resolved by retrofit and that every problem with the A0 was fixed in A1. As for the mine blasts, all the writer was doing was speculating. From what I've heard, the armored LSAC cabs have actually done a pretty good job against mine blasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.48.201.242 (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you want to look it up i know the manuel for the fmtvs says that the maximum sharp turn speed is 15mph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.88.90.202 (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

replaces?

[edit]

There still definitely are a decent number of M939s in service. Haven't seen one deployed but we use about 8 of them in Garrison in my unit on Bragg... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.234.100.92 (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

maintenance-intensive?

[edit]

"The cab-over FMTV replaces obsolete and maintenance-intensive 2.5 ton and 5 ton M35 and M939 series of trucks previously in the fleet"

I would argue that with the complex 12/24v electrical system, unnecessarily complex push button transmission, potentially unreliable hydraulic system for the cab over design, a CTIS system that never works properly, early problems with the driveshafts falling out at high speeds, heavier wheels that are harder to remove for service, the FMTV is much more maintenance intensive than the older M35 and M939 series of trucks. As they age, they will only get more maintenance intensive. Also, the article gives no citation to back the "maintenance-intensive" claim up. I am going to remove it if no citation is presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.25.68 (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians; FMTV work in progress

[edit]

I think this is maybe the correct way to do this, but am not 100 per cent sure. I had some limited involvement in the design of the original FMTV and with all respect shown to those that have previously helped to create this Wikipedia article, it is lacking in certain areas, especially as the range has grown. As my first project on Wikipedia I am going to spend the next two or three weeks working to improve this article. Please bear with me, it will very much be a work in progress for a few weeks.--SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles

[edit]

4 thumbnail images are not showing in the gallery. Can anyone please advise? --SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armament

[edit]

https://youtube.com/shorts/xslC0ng0Bvk?si=kPtwascD6a0BfnIg

This video shows a FMTV with a M2 browning. Can someone add this to the specifications pls? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Family_of_Medium_Tactical_Vehicles&oldid=1228245858"