Okay I figured some Marines out there might be able to help me out. I build scale models and I am in the process of making an M1151 humvee. I want to make a USMC variant, and I was not sure if there are any big differences in color, equipment layout, or anything else from the standard Army version of this vehicle? Anyone have any experience and know any differences between the two? I will be displaying this for my high school history classes, so I want to be as accurate as possible. Thanks for your thoughts and input!

1 piece of pioneer gear is always missing. And those are way after my time!

[This message has been edited by Aggies revenge (edited 8/12/2014 11:58a).]

Get a Marine to give you some reasonable 'bumper number' data to include on your vehicle. Army Hummers use black lettering for this stuff. USMC might use different currently so get some input. The term 'Bumper Number' includes the abbreviations on the front and rear bumpers that designate the units (Division/Battalion/Company/Platoon) of the vehicle along with the number of the vehicle for easy identification. There are several 'styles' for this stuff depending on the organization.

Here is an example. The Company Commander for a Mechanized Infantry company might have this for his Hummer.

'A6' '3ID'
'3I34'

This would mean this vehicle is the Company Commander, normally uses the '6' designator, for A Company. 3rd Bn 34th Infantry, 3rd Infantry Division. This is one style, there are others.

Marines might do this a little differently so get one to give you something current.

If you are doing a model of an M1151 down range, no bumper numbers. We never did so enemy could not identify one vehicle or who rode in it, ie B26, A6, HQ7 etc....

DP

[This message has been edited by Jabq04 (edited 8/12/2014 7:59p).]

Two main differences come to mind. The Marine Corps version usually had a high air intake which was for the purpose of fording streams which is pretty comical for an up-armored vehicle. Also, the Marine Corp M1151 was usually equipped with the Marine Corps' MCTAGS (Marine Corps Transparent Armored Gun Shield) turret while the Army used the OGPK (Objective Gunner Protection Kit).

The easiest way I know to tell the difference between a MCTAGS (made by BAE) and an OGPK is that the panes of ballistic glass in the front are high on a MCTAGS and low on an OGPK.

The picture below is of a Marine Corps M1151 that is equipped with a Chameleon jammer and the high air intake fording kit (which I don't believe the Army variants had).



This is an OGPK



There were also a variety of door and window configurations used on the M1151. I am not sure which ones were specific to the Marine Corps versus the Army.

This is a Marine Corps variant with two pane side windows followed by a picture of an Army variant with single pane side windows. Note the different in the air intakes. Note also that the OGPK in this photo of the Army M1151 has overhead protection for the gunner as well.





By 2009 the Marine Corps and Army were trading rebuilt HMMWVs that were rebuilt by the Army at Taji and we had a mixture of MCTAGS and OGPK turrets in II MEF (Fwd). Maintaining configuration control was really difficult because there were not enough spare parts to repair either the MCTAGS or the OGPKs at the time.

The armor added to these vehicles above the normal un-armored HMMWV had really serious adverse impact on performance and safety. Rollovers are common because of the body roll and center of gravity. Braking and acceleration is horrible. The wear on the brake pads resulting from the excess weight resulted in a thumb rule that you had to replace the brake pads as often as you had to change the oil. They also needed huge coolers for the transmission as well as the engine coolant.

Despite all the protection offered from side impact blast and projectiles these vehicles were barely more survivable that an unarmored HMMWV for an underbelly blast. They are sub-optimal in almost every respect.

Good post as usual, U90. Hummers were originally supposed to just replace Jeeps for simple/basic field transportation re commanders and staff, with a few tactical variants. Not to be a quasi armored vehicle equivalent. Basic mission creep to try and meet a battlefield need. Kinda like asking a chicken to fly a little. Wasn't ever supposed to.

The IED battlefield is hard on wheeled vehicles of any persuasion by definition. There will be tactical lessons learned over time/perspective as there always is. Hope wise folks like U90 get to make them.

Thanks for the info! My kit has OGPK shields without the top cover. Will be some work to convert it to the USMC variant. I appreciate the responses!

This is way off topic from the OP and probably a threadjack but since you mention it, I would have a real crisis of conscience if I had been selected as PM JLTV because the basket full of "requirements" for that vehicle are not connected to reality in terms of survivability or budget. The physics are pretty convincing that you can't build a vehicle that is fuel efficient, agile, and survivable and yet that's what we are spending hundreds of millions to discover for the umpteenth time. It's probably going to end up costing well over $300k per copy.

The best secret to survivability in a troop carrying vehicle is to keep it out of the line of fire and a set-piece COIN environment is the opposite of that. The canvas topped Hummers and cargo trucks in which most of the infantry assault force was transported during the invasion of Iraq in 2003 performed remarkably well in terms of survivability because they were putting firepower to the front and rolling over the enemy behind tank-mech. They did not fight from those vehicles and dismounted on contact. The shortcomings of thin skinned vehicles become glaringly obvious when we consolidate forces on FOBs and sallie forth daily to patrol among the liberated populace.

The lean force that Rumsfeld insisted on using to topple Hussein would have still accomplished that mission with losses in the low hundreds if they had retrograded after smashing the Baathists and let the situation sort itself out. The risk of a failed nation between Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia would have been ballanced by the conservation of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of US lives spent trying to rebuild a country and repair a society that never had a national identity or tradition of democracy to begin with. Besides, we've got exactly the worst case scenario in Iraq right now that Colin Powell uses as a warning against invading Iraq on the cheap. I'd rather have saved to money and the lives of those wonderful Americans who died there.

Caleb, if the model box says 1995 Army Hmmwv, it looks exactly like current USMC models.
(You'll need to scuff up the paint a good amount)

Out of curiosity, when did they start putting armor covering on the top of the turrets? I was in Iraq in 06-08 and the turrets were only ever covered like the picture of the Marine variant, i.e. mostly for shade and comfort.

[This message has been edited by Jabq04 (edited 8/14/2014 5:35p).]

When I was there 07-08 we had bullet proof glass and chicken wire with camo nets. My 09-10 deployment we had the overhead cover on our M1151s and those that didn't were upgraded very soon during that time.

If it's not broken and missing parts, you did it wrong. Some miss-matched CARC work wouldn't be bad way to go either.