Can anyone tell me conclusively what the difference/s between the M966A1 and M1121 are?
I had assumed this was a combination A2 series variant for the M966A1 and M1036A1, like the M1123 was for the M998A1 and M1038A1, but the manual doesn't seem to really suggest this. Furthermore, its still rated at 1 1/4 ton, whereas all the other A2 series vehicles are rated at 2 1/4 ton. I then thought it might have been something to do with the appearance TOW ITAS, but it should predate that.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Hosted by Darren Baker
HMMWV variant question
Thatguy
Virginia, United States
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 02:53 AM UTC
matt
Campaigns Administrator
New York, United States
Joined: February 28, 2002
KitMaker: 5,957 posts
Armorama: 2,956 posts
Joined: February 28, 2002
KitMaker: 5,957 posts
Armorama: 2,956 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 03:31 AM UTC
it's in the up armored family...... it may not be ugraded for more Cargo though.
I can't seem to find much (if any) info on that exact model.
M1114 Up-Armored Armament Carrier
M1116 Up-Armored HMMWV
M1123 Heavy
M1121 TOW Armored
M1145 Up-Armored HMMWV
M1151 Up-Armored Capable HMMWV
M1152 Up-Armored Capable HMMWV
I can't seem to find much (if any) info on that exact model.
M1114 Up-Armored Armament Carrier
M1116 Up-Armored HMMWV
M1123 Heavy
M1121 TOW Armored
M1145 Up-Armored HMMWV
M1151 Up-Armored Capable HMMWV
M1152 Up-Armored Capable HMMWV
Thatguy
Virginia, United States
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 03:52 AM UTC
It should not be an up-armored variant. From all indications the M1121 has basic armor (same level of armor as the M966A1) and the M1123 is definitely unarmored.
matt
Campaigns Administrator
New York, United States
Joined: February 28, 2002
KitMaker: 5,957 posts
Armorama: 2,956 posts
Joined: February 28, 2002
KitMaker: 5,957 posts
Armorama: 2,956 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 04:41 AM UTC
Maybe they changed model numbers "just because"
35th-scale
Kildare, Ireland
Joined: November 21, 2007
KitMaker: 3,212 posts
Armorama: 2,807 posts
Joined: November 21, 2007
KitMaker: 3,212 posts
Armorama: 2,807 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 04:41 AM UTC
AM General don't even mention a 1121
http://www.amgeneral.com/vehicles/hmmwv/expanded-capacity/vehicles
http://www.amgeneral.com/vehicles/hmmwv/expanded-capacity/vehicles
Thatguy
Virginia, United States
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 05:06 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Maybe they changed model numbers "just because"
Doubtful. "Just because" instances are usually either budgetary or indicate some sort of extremely minor difference, such as the intended roles and internal configuration of the M2 and M3 Bradleys.
Quoted Text
AM General don't even mention a 1121
http://www.amgeneral.com/vehicles/hmmwv/expanded-capacity/vehicles
If they did it wouldn't be with the ECV series vehicles. Its definitely not an ECV series truck. Its either an A1 or A2 series. The M1123 for instance is listed properly with the other A2 series vehicles on AM General's website.
afv_rob
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: October 09, 2005
KitMaker: 2,556 posts
Armorama: 2,199 posts
Joined: October 09, 2005
KitMaker: 2,556 posts
Armorama: 2,199 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 05:29 AM UTC
I dont think its part of the m1113 ECV family, but its certainly an odd one. My only thought is that its just an increased payload vehicle with a new designation...?
Thatguy
Virginia, United States
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 06:12 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I dont think its part of the m1113 ECV family, but its certainly an odd one. My only thought is that its just an increased payload vehicle with a new designation...?
Which was my thought, just an A2 variant of the M966A1/M1036A1, dropping the separate variant for ones equipped with winches, but according to the only manual I can find, its still rated as a 1 1/4 ton A1 series type. Its definitely not an ECV type. You can see it clearly here listed in the dimensions table for "All except M1123 and A2 Vehicles." According to the table its physically identical to the M996A1.
crossrifles
Maryland, United States
Joined: August 17, 2009
KitMaker: 46 posts
Armorama: 23 posts
Joined: August 17, 2009
KitMaker: 46 posts
Armorama: 23 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 01:44 PM UTC
the thing that i have found dealing with a lot of them is that one has an option that the other does not. for example, a pick up style, one with a winch, maybe with a rear and front winch, four door, turtle back blah blah blah....... and then you get into the 1025, 1026and all and then they do the same thing to them. heavier syspension system but not much. they also based the numbers by what you could carry on the inside as well. maintenance truck, or a TAC truck, ambo what ever. they add all kinds of numbers and just confuse the hell out of us. i would have to dig up some TM's from the unit to figure it out or call down to our FMS shop. but i will see what i can come up with. they are already doing it to the MRAP's. RG 31, 32 and 33 and the only diff. between them is that they have some diff. electonics in them. but it is the same vehicle. all around. then add the MAX PRO's and you geet a whole other ball of wax....... will see what the shop comes up with.
Thatguy
Virginia, United States
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 02:38 PM UTC
Quoted Text
the thing that i have found dealing with a lot of them is that one has an option that the other does not. for example, a pick up style, one with a winch, maybe with a rear and front winch, four door, turtle back blah blah blah....... and then you get into the 1025, 1026and all and then they do the same thing to them. heavier syspension system but not much. they also based the numbers by what you could carry on the inside as well. maintenance truck, or a TAC truck, ambo what ever. they add all kinds of numbers and just confuse the hell out of us. i would have to dig up some TM's from the unit to figure it out or call down to our FMS shop. but i will see what i can come up with. they are already doing it to the MRAP's. RG 31, 32 and 33 and the only diff. between them is that they have some diff. electonics in them. but it is the same vehicle. all around. then add the MAX PRO's and you geet a whole other ball of wax....... will see what the shop comes up with.
HMMWVs are not like MRAPs. There are 27 difference MRAP subvariants in 5 families, with little to no parts commonality between them. RG-31s and RG-33s might look similar, but they're very different. At least under the hood every HMMWV is a HMMWV, and they have clear cut series of block modifications.
I do appreciate you having a look for me though.
crossrifles
Maryland, United States
Joined: August 17, 2009
KitMaker: 46 posts
Armorama: 23 posts
Joined: August 17, 2009
KitMaker: 46 posts
Armorama: 23 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 03:01 AM UTC
Not even what i was trying to say! Just stating that the system for all the numbering for all these vehicles is dumb. add one little thing and they change the number and i know there are a lot of diffrent MRAPs out there i have been riding around in them for the last two years! In Iraq and just recently in Afghanistan less than four weeks ago and the diffrance between the RG 32 and 33 is in nothing but electrical and communication upgrades. had to sit through the dumb class and turn our 32's in to get up graded.
Thatguy
Virginia, United States
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 04:16 AM UTC
Confusing and often asinine it is, which is why I'm trying to get most of this nailed down once and for all heh.
The MRAP thing will probably not be clear until they figure out just what the post-game plan as it were is going to be for them. I saw somewhere that at least one of the MaxxPro variants had been given a formal designation (XM1240 IIRC). Can you confirm or refute that? I know the Caiman Light types have. This makes a certain amount of sense since the Caiman types are the only ones that share anything with an existing part of the vehicle fleet.
Also, I was unaware of the US having bought any RG-32 types. Do you mean RG-33s? I can appreciate how obnoxious and confusing it must be, especially since remembering all the nomenclature is really not important to the guys on the ground. I'm sure you have neither the time nor the inclination to study it all when there are far more important things to be done.
The MRAP thing will probably not be clear until they figure out just what the post-game plan as it were is going to be for them. I saw somewhere that at least one of the MaxxPro variants had been given a formal designation (XM1240 IIRC). Can you confirm or refute that? I know the Caiman Light types have. This makes a certain amount of sense since the Caiman types are the only ones that share anything with an existing part of the vehicle fleet.
Also, I was unaware of the US having bought any RG-32 types. Do you mean RG-33s? I can appreciate how obnoxious and confusing it must be, especially since remembering all the nomenclature is really not important to the guys on the ground. I'm sure you have neither the time nor the inclination to study it all when there are far more important things to be done.
matt
Campaigns Administrator
New York, United States
Joined: February 28, 2002
KitMaker: 5,957 posts
Armorama: 2,956 posts
Joined: February 28, 2002
KitMaker: 5,957 posts
Armorama: 2,956 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 05:48 AM UTC
I wonder if it's as simple ass adding the AC only to it (IIRC they put it in the corners of the turtleback)
Thatguy
Virginia, United States
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Posted: Friday, September 04, 2009 - 08:15 AM UTC
From what I'm seeing it might be as simple as the M1121 being standard with the ITAS, which is up there in the pretty ridiculous things to change the variant nomenclature over. Especially seeing as according to the manual, the M1121 is pretty much identical to the M966.
Thatguy
Virginia, United States
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 - 05:39 AM UTC
Well, that's still unclear, but does anyone have any information on the M1115 TOW carrier too? Beyond it being an M1114 subvariant. I'm wondering if this ever even made it into service or whether it was only proposed. The M1167 seems in line to replace the vast majority of existing TOW carriers.
crossrifles
Maryland, United States
Joined: August 17, 2009
KitMaker: 46 posts
Armorama: 23 posts
Joined: August 17, 2009
KitMaker: 46 posts
Armorama: 23 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 - 07:44 AM UTC
honestly in both theaters i have not seen one. not even a TOW actually. not saying there are none there. Just so not see them around. not fighting the armour war. but if there is one it has to be heavy as hell and reall over work the suspension system more than it is now! hell if there is one i would like to see how they configure the turret. with the mount and all and then trying to add protection! must be huge!
Thatguy
Virginia, United States
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Joined: November 09, 2008
KitMaker: 487 posts
Armorama: 451 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 - 07:59 AM UTC
The only concrete "picture" I've seen of either the M1115 or M1167 is the M1167 line art from the tech manual. There is a special turret variation also described