Jeep Patriot Forums banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

J8 Pitched to U.S. Military

Jump to Latest
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
#2 ·
HoosierMud said:
http://www.theage.com.au/drive/motor-news/military-drive-for-jeep-20091027-hi8j.html

The Jeep could be on the verge of making a return to its roots: serving in the US army.
Click to expand...
it's a great idea, but i wouldn't want to take that thing into combat at all. there are faster and more agile multi-purpose vehicles out there being proposed to the Military.

i think the J8 would be suited for border patrol, but there's no way a 50 cal would ever be mounted on it. current the border patrol uses modified Tahoes and Suburbans with the front bumper removed and a custom bumper installed to increase the angle better suited for off-road driving.

as much as i like the J8, i think it needs to be beefed up a bit before it ever sees combat. there is no way in h*ll that i would want to be in that thing when bullets are flying. i would rather be in a humvee that offers more protection, or one of the JLTV's that are hopefully coming out within the next half a decade
 
#4 ·
Jeep has been trying to do this for a few years. It's already had success selling similar models to other armed forces around the world. I'm guessing that's a .30 caliber MG on there, but if an old MB could handle a .30, I wouldn't be surprised if this could handle a .50. And don't forget an M38A1 was sometimes equipped with a tactical nuclear cannon. Unfortunately, the blast zone exceeded the firing range.

When we were kids, we loved "The Rat Patrol". This stirred up some fond memories.:)
 
#5 ·
lol on Rat Patrol, I drove those same Jeeps when I was in the Army, guess that ages me, lol. We generally had M60 (7.62mm, 308) machine guns mounted, not the M2 (50 cal) heavy barrel. The 50's are usually base camp defense, not squad weapons.

The name Jeep comes from old military slang for the vehicles, being they were General Purpose, or GP, which was slanged to be Jeep.
 
#6 · (Edited)
in my opinion the J8 needs to be beefed up before it ever should even be considered to enter combat. the Army has come a long way since the open-top Jeeps that used to be their work-horse in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

however, i would be in favor of the J8 being used as a no-contact quick reconnaissance vehicle but i still think it needs more protection before it's ever given to the special forces. i know the scout vehicles used in Desert Storm had even less protection than the J8, but they were more agile.

i think the J8 is heading in the right direction, but it needs some improvements before the Army uses it for actual combat. it could at least replace the utility Humvees that are used around my base and other bases for transporting equipment etc. however, the Army won't replace these unless they have to due to cost reasons related to budget cuts
 
#7 ·
UMM...where do I get the .30 cal aftermarket addon for my Jeep :D
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#8 ·
The classifieds in Military Vehicles Magazine. Unfortunately, you'll have to settle for a welded receiver:( One guy around here has one on his MB.

If you like military vehicles and/or need Jeep parts for CJ, XJ, YJ, TJ, JK. there's a great WWII Museum in Hubbard, OH and 4WD Hardware is about a 1/2 hour away in Columbiana, OH. A Jeep Junkyard is there as well. They do live firings of .50 calibers at the museum a few times a year. You can participate for a fee. It a museum fundraiser, but I haven't had the pleasure.

I've got a friend from many Jeep Jamborees who lives nearby and is sometimes able to get mud tires from the Denman Tire factory in Warren. They're the folks who manufacture Swampers and Buckshots. He as an "in" for employee pricing, but it's limited to 2 sets a year. My wife is from around there and I never complain about visiting her relatives. Actually when we go, I don't spend much time at the house at all, as you may have guessed.:)
 
Discussion starter · #9 ·
jgg204 said:
as much as i like the J8, i think it needs to be beefed up a bit before it ever sees combat. there is no way in h*ll that i would want to be in that thing when bullets are flying.
Click to expand...
The article does state that it is not intended to be a combat vehicle. Although, the WW2 version gets high praise from IKE down to the GI's about how it helped win WW2.

Sometimes mobility is more important than armament and protection. I was reading the other day about how some of our service personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan don't like all the body armor they have to wear because it reduces their mobility.

Border patrol: how about a 20mm gatlin cannon:))).
 
#11 · (Edited)
HoosierMud said:
The article does state that it is not intended to be a combat vehicle. Although, the WW2 version gets high praise from IKE down to the GI's about how it helped win WW2.
Click to expand...
this is true, the WWII Jeep received a lot of praise from the Army...but it was revolutionary for its time and answered the call for the desperate need of a vehicle that could haul medium artillery guns, troops, and be airdropped into combat. a vehicle similar to that model would not be sufficient for today's modern combat theaters...however a vehicle with the same revolutionary design (in a modern sense) would be welcome

HoosierMud said:
Sometimes mobility is more important than armament and protection. I was reading the other day about how some of our service personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan don't like all the body armor they have to wear because it reduces their mobility.
Click to expand...
i agree...in some situations mobility is more important than protection. the J8 would have to be made more agile if it would like to fall in the "mobility" category as the Army and Special Forces both currently have very quick and agile off-road vehicles. all i'm saying is that the J8 needs to be modified more if it wants to be Army worthy...whether that involves more protection or armor or more agility (depending on which kind of vehicle they want this to be)


on a side note...how is your Liberty going? i've been taking notice of them on base a lot...i'm starting to think maybe it would be a nice vehicle to have. what have your MPG's been averaging so far?
 
#12 ·
is it just me, or does that look like a truck you would see a bunch of somali's or iraqi(anti-american) rolling around in.

i like it, but at the same time i dont. if there were to be a new Army Jeep, it would have to be less wrangler-ish and more cherokee/hummer-ish as far as design. there is just to much ordinance that would be able to penetrate a low armor vehicle like that ://
 
#13 · (Edited)
HooverBucs said:
is it just me, or does that look like a truck you would see a bunch of somali's or iraqi(anti-american) rolling around in.

i like it, but at the same time i dont. if there were to be a new Army Jeep, it would have to be less wrangler-ish and more cherokee/hummer-ish as far as design. there is just to much ordinance that would be able to penetrate a low armor vehicle like that ://
Click to expand...
that's what i was trying to say...it looks too much like what the anti-american forces would be driving. it needs to be beefed up A LOT before it ever was to see combat since the soldiers are way too exposed.

what would be pretty cool would be a flight follower type of helmet that would control a 50 cal in the rear. you would have the driver controlling the vehicle, but the passenger would have the flight follower helmet and look at the target and the 50-cal would rotate to that target (similar to what they have on the Cobra attack helicopters).

i still would demand the J8 get beefed up before it ever saw combat...but if it played a supporting role on base i would be in favor of the current design
 
#14 ·
HooverBucs said:
is it just me, or does that look like a truck you would see a bunch of somali's or iraqi(anti-american) rolling around in.

i like it, but at the same time i dont. if there were to be a new Army Jeep, it would have to be less wrangler-ish and more cherokee/hummer-ish as far as design. there is just to much ordinance that would be able to penetrate a low armor vehicle like that ://
Click to expand...
Actually I think the taliban was notorious for driving Toyotas iirc.
 
#15 ·
jgg204 said:
this is true, the WWII Jeep received a lot of praise from the Army...but it was revolutionary for its time and answered the call for the desperate need of a vehicle that could haul medium artillery guns, troops, and be airdropped into combat. a vehicle similar to that model would not be sufficient for today's modern combat theaters...however a vehicle with the same revolutionary design (in a modern sense) would be welcome



i agree...in some situations mobility is more important than protection. the J8 would have to be made more agile if it would like to fall in the "mobility" category as the Army and Special Forces both currently have very quick and agile off-road vehicles. all i'm saying is that the J8 needs to be modified more if it wants to be Army worthy...whether that involves more protection or armor or more agility (depending on which kind of vehicle they want this to be)


on a side note...how is your Liberty going? i've been taking notice of them on base a lot...i'm starting to think maybe it would be a nice vehicle to have. what have your MPG's been averaging so far?
Click to expand...

Your comments outline exactly what is wrong with Jeep. Any Wrangler should be battle ready with little or no modification.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#16 ·
HooverBucs said:
is it just me, or does that look like a truck you would see a bunch of somali's or iraqi(anti-american) rolling around in.

i like it, but at the same time i dont. if there were to be a new Army Jeep, it would have to be less wrangler-ish and more cherokee/hummer-ish as far as design. there is just to much ordinance that would be able to penetrate a low armor vehicle like that ://
Click to expand...
Have you seen a WW2 Jeep?
No doors, canvas roof.
Not safe, but still very useful.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#17 · (Edited)
jepstr67 said:
Your comments outline exactly what is wrong with Jeep. Any Wrangler should be battle ready with little or no modification.
Click to expand...
if a factory stock Wrangler was battle-ready from the get-go, no one would be able to afford one. the same goes for Humvees...the stock version is not battle-ready by any means.

the Army's standards for combat worthiness have increased exponentially since the Jeep was accepted into the Army's fleet.


however, with what you said...that would be SO COOL if consumers could purchase battle-ready Wranglers (minus the weaponry obviously)


jepstr67 said:
Have you seen a WW2 Jeep?
No doors, canvas roof.
Not safe, but still very useful.
Click to expand...

this is true, but the modern combat theater is different than back in WWII. troops need protection against IED's and RPG's that are not only explosive, but shoot a slug that will go through a couple of inches of thick steel. a vehicle like the J8 would never be able to see combat if it wasn't beefed up. any vehicle that rolls through the streets of Baghdad needs 360-degrees of protection (top, bottom, all sides, rear, etc). however, the urban fighting is now shifting to open valleys and desert in Afghanistan. it just further shows that the Army needs have a diverse arsenal of weaponry and vehicles that support the warfighter in all environments (hot, cold, mountainous, flat, desert, junge, urban, etc)

i am in support of replacing the aging Humvee fleet used on bases for transportation, hauling equipment, or general support , with the J8. however the Army would need some sort of cost justification to get rid of these vehicles since many of them work just fine and require minimal maintenance. if the J8 could save the Army money in some way or increase functionality, then they will jump on it. i just don't see anything with it at the moment that would make the Army increase costs over besides the fact that it looks "cool"
 
#20 ·
I think something like that could definitely serve a role in the military. From my Army days, I recall our HMMWV's (both armored and soft tops) were often simply too large, too wide, or too heavy for a lot of terrain.

Not every mission requires an up armored 1114 or even a soft top HMMWV. When I served in the Balkans, our SF detachments routinely used Mitsubishi Monteros; I suspect because they were fast, quiet, maneuverable, and relatively inconspicuous. I served in a mech infantry unit and there were many times we had to modify our routes through town because our HMMWV's were too wide to get through streets or across bridges or were too heavy for eroding mountain roads. Our Bradleys were almost never fielded because of this.

I could definitely see the US Army having a need for a small, fast, and agile 4WD vehicle. If they're going to procure Monteros, why not consider a Jeep?
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
About this Discussion
44 Replies
19 Participants
Last post:
Medic311
Jeep Patriot Forums
posts
678K
members
55K
Since
2006
Join our community to discuss the Jeep Patriot & Jeep Compass. Find answers to all your Jeep Patriot technical questions.
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Jeep Patriot General Discussion Engine and Drivetrain Newbie Check-In Suspension and Tires Electrical and Audio