Re: [MV] Common Sense (Was: Army's Next Truck)

From: William von Zehle, Jr. (ChiefvonZehle@WiltonFire.org)
Date: Fri Mar 31 2000 - 12:13:43 PST


*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
I'm no great fan of the HMMWV per se, since I think it's just too big (I'd prefer a
military Land Rover 110 like the "Brits" use), but the HMMWVs are much more durable
than CUCVs or the older M-880 series.

I'm in an Army Reserve special operations unit that was deployed to Desert
Shield/Storm in December 1990. We brought our CUCvs and M-35 6x6s. The CUCVs
basically fell apart in the desert. Shock absorbers, shock mounts, trim pieces,
door handles, etc. broke on a regular basis, not to mention flat tires. (All this
was before the ground campaign started.) My 4 man team traded its two M1009s for
M998 HMMWVs prior to "G-Day" and had no problems (other than flat tires) after
that. With the "run-flat" tires, we were still functional.

We were also able to cut our travel time from the airfield we stayed at to our
deployment location from about 60 minutes down to 22 (my best time) over some
fairly rugged terrain.

We saw quite a few abandoned M-880s and a couple of abandoned CUCVs in the desert,
but no abandoned HMMWVs!

In 1996, I was again deployed, this time to Bosnia. Again, the CUCVs did well when
the going wasn't too rough, but the "overbuilt" HMMWVs did much better, especially
when driven out into the Bosnian countryside on what was left of their "roads".

However, being assigned to a British base (1st Armoured Div.), I frequently was
assigned a Land Rover 110. (Probably because I own a RHD Triumph TR6 and can figure
how to shift with my left hand!). The LR will seat 7 plus leave room for storage
on the roof. The M998s we have (4 door) seat only four with limited storage in the
back. Outward visibility also is poor, especially once the plastic windows get all
scratched and/or discolored.

That being said, I do agree that CS (combat support) and CSS (combat service
support) units (Active and Reserve) could get by with commercial derivatives in
many cases.

Now, if I could just trade my "too wide" (at least for Europe) M998A1 for a Land
Rover, I'd be really happy.

William von Zehle, Jr.
MVPA 593
'53 M-42 3/4 ton command truck
(SFC, USAR)

"Robert D. Brooke" wrote:

> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> Trying To Post a Second Time. Please ignore the >'s. This is the first
> time you have seen this message. (Assuming it posts this time).
>
> >
> > Wow, I disagree with most of what John said. And I am quite frankly,
> > surprised that given his long years of service to his country.... (For
> > which I thank you sincerely, John)............. that he thinks what he
> > said.
> >
> > Every deployable unit in the Army has a TOE, which almost always is
> > modified for various reasons..... their MTOE. Generally speaking,
> > Reserve Component units have the exact same MTOE as an Active Component
> > unit of the same type and mission. Often times, for Reserve units who
> > are not early deploying in their most likely war time deployment plan,
> > they may only be staffed or equipped at some lesser percentage of their
> > deployment ready level, but the lower level percentages authorized are
> > usually personnel staffing levels, not equipment. The thought is that if
> > a unit is deployed, you can fill it out quickly and easily with soldiers
> > (Admittedly sometimes not as well trained as you would like) to bring it
> > to 100% of authorized wartime levels, so it may be OK to keep personnel
> > in some units during peacetime at lower levels, to save money.
> >
> > But equipment is another matter. It is much more difficult to cross
> > level and move and requisition, and manufacture, and takes much longer.
> > A unit must have all or most of its essential wartime equipment during
> > peacetime. That equipment must be ready to go, and available to train
> > on. The expense associated with that is high, but that is a necessary
> > cost of a ready to go military which can mobilize and deploy and achieve
> > its mission within a very short time. That is the deterrence of a strike
> > ready military, and I believe a small cost for the Country to bear. To
> > do otherwise is to accept the concept of a soft in the belly, ill
> > equipped, unready military. Now *that's* a waste of money.
> >
> > And while I subscribe to having inexpensive admin vehicles to use in
> > peacetime, it is in addition to, not in lieu of combat ready, combat
> > designed vehicles.
> >
> > I do subscribe to a recent thread about how we seem to be making them
> > too sophisticated, and I think more engineering should go into more
> > simplistic designs (not to be confused with less capable performance
> > requirements).
> >
> > And lastly, a military vehicle needs to be designed for its worse case
> > use scenario, not its average, or least challenging, or most often
> > encountered use. If a four wheel capability is never needed in a given
> > actual combat situation, great!! But if you are going to give our troops
> > 2 wheel drive vehicles because somebody sitting behind a desk somewhere
> > computes they'll only need 4WD capability 2% of the time, then
> > I don't want my son in that unit, and I don't want to be writing the
> > letter to the parents of the soldier who was in the 2% situation, and
> > got blown to hell trying to rock his 2WD vehicle out of the mud or ditch
> > he was stuck in.
> >
> > My .04 worth,
> >
> > Bob Brooke
> >
> > John Hutterer wrote:
> > >
>
> > > 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
>
> ===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 - 21:57:31 PDT