*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
Before you get your mind set on a Ford, take a look at GM-Military's web site. They are saying that they are also in the running for this contract also with what they call the CUCV-II ! Who knows what we will see out there!
Glenn Shaw MVPA
John Hutterer wrote:
> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> It's nice to see that someone in the Army is finally showing some common
> sense. While I understand the need for a "weapons platform" such as the
> HMMWV, I have never understood their role as an "everyday" vehicle. With
> three years Active Duty and 22 + years in the Guard/Reserve, I have seen the
> evolution from the Jeep to the Dodge (M880), to the Chevy (CUCV), to the
> HMMWV, and now, it seems, to the Ford (COMBATT).
>
> Over the years, the Active component has been shrinking, while the
> Guard/Reserve has been growing. Last I knew, the Guard/Reserve component was
> actually larger than the Active component. Most Reserve units meet once per
> month, and rarely put very many miles on their vehicles. The miles that they
> do put on them are most often accumulated in trips from one building or area
> to another building or area, mostly on paved roads. I think that any
> reasonable person would realize that you don't need an 8 foot wide, high
> ground clearance, go-anywhere vehicle to accomplish this task. In fact, I
> doubt that there are many field situations where a HMMWV is an absolute
> necessity. In 25 years in the Army, I doubt that I needed 4 wheel drive more
> than a dozen times. That includes desert, mountain, swamp, and winter
> operations. Yes, I did go "4-wheeling" with military equipment on several
> occasions, usually without a need to engage 4 wheel drive. It's just that
> there aren't that many places that actually require the use of 4 wheel
> drive, unless you actually go looking for them.
>
> I think that each unit ought to have a HMMWV, or two, if their actual
> mission would require that they would use them in a "real world" situation.
> The troops do need to be trained how to operate them and maintain them. I've
> been in units that had the HMMWV assigned and I know that they can be a
> high-maintenance item, especially if they are allowed to sit for six months
> between uses. I don't know if this would be the case with an "off-the-shelf"
> military version of the Ford, but I would hope not. Certainly, repair parts
> for a Ford ought to be cheaper and more easily obtainable, for both the
> military and a collector, than are parts for a HMMWV. That is the case with
> the CUCV right now.
>
> I applaud the Army for looking at the idea of substituting a militarized
> version of an off-the-shelf vehicle for the HMMWV in everyday use. It just
> makes good sense to buy less expensive vehicles to meet the everyday needs
> of the military. I have long held this opinion and I just felt that this
> would be a good time to express it. No offence intended to the HMMWV owners
> on the list. You bought a vehicle for your own enjoyment. I'm making a
> comment about what I see as a practical solution to an everyday
> transportation need. Now to sit back and see if this generates any comments.
>
> John
>
> John Hutterer
> Sen. Eng. Lab. Tech.
> SIMS Deltec
> 651-628-7107
> john.hutterer@deltec.com
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@uller.skylee.com>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@uller.skylee.com>
> Send administrative queries to <mil-veh-request@uller.skylee.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 04 2000 - 21:57:15 PDT