From: IHC53 (ihc53@bellsouth.net)
Date: Fri Aug 29 2003 - 14:36:31 PDT
Has any one thought about the Encore/Carolina
Growler line of M151 clones? If real M151s
are so "unsafe" how were these clones allowed
to be sold and driven on public highways?
I know they have the improved M151a2 suspension,
but does that matter? Ive seen an Encore upclose
(and yes, I did have some sticker shock...$17K!) and
aside from having some cosmetic differences (no overlapping seam welds, A2
tail lights cutouts and
a straight cut back end for a tailgate) they looked pretty
much a MUTT.
IHC
----- Original Message -----
From: <Muttguru@aol.com>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [MV] Re M151 it continues - Even Further.....
Dear Listers,
There really was no Military-Industrial conspiracy to keep the mutt out of
the hands of Joe Public. The only "conspiracy" as such was the Mil's
continuing
denial that the M151 and M151A1 models were unsafe, even for their own troop
use.
Doubts about the stability of the M151 were raised as early as 1961, by
Congressman Frank Becker. The amazing thing, to me anyway, was that the
denial was
kept up for as long as it was.
I wrote an article for the M151 Newsletter way back in March 2000 which you
may be interested in, reproduced below:-
The real HISTORY OF THE M151-SERIES TRUCK : PART SIXTEEN
In part 15, we looked at the furore in the Press caused by the redesigned
rear suspension featured on the M151A2-series and the questions raised about
earlier models by Ralph Nader and Abe Ribicoff.
The Army took the introduction of this new truck very seriously indeed.
Although for around eight years the Military had used the statement "Driver
Error"
to cover the whole range of handling problems, deep down, the Military were
aware that the truck had its limitations and that it didn't take very much
"Driver Error" to result in an accident. The M151 and A1 -series, in the
hands of a
little old lady commuting at moderate speed, down to the local supermarket
and back, would never have given anyone a problem. But these were
"military-usage" vehicles, where drivers often had to do things "out of the
ordinary"....
such as sharp turns, bursts of speed etc. The M151 and M151A1 were built
with
virtually no tolerance for "errors" such as these.
This is where (in my humble view), the Military gets/got things wrong within
their vehicle testing programme. Instead of handing over prototype vehicles
to
regular "gormless" troops to test out, the Military invariably let the
"experts" do this for them. Thus the tests are undertaken by highly skilled
test-drivers who know and understand things like "negative camber" and
"rear-end jack-
up". As a result, the Military ends up with a vehicle tested and approved by
experts, but then hands them over to be driven by regular "Joes", many of
them
young, inexperienced drivers to start with.
Added to all this is the difficulty us humans have in acknowledging mistakes
!!! I don't want to get philosophical here, but you know as well as I do
what
this means, and where it leads to. With the M151-series, it led the Military
to an eight-year-long state of "in denial"...... I'm sure that Carl Jung
would
have had a field day with them. Let's have a closer look at what I mean.
US Congressman Frank J. Becker visited US Forces stationed in West Germany
in
1961 and on his return to the USA he felt compelled to write to Robert S.
McNamara, who was the Secretary of Defence in the Kennedy Administration.
Remember, too, that McNamara had previously been President of Ford Motor
Company, and
not all that long ago, either.
Becker wrote on 1st. November 1961..........
My Dear Mr. Secretary,
Prior to my recent trip to Europe to visit our military bases in England,
Germany and France (yes... France was still a member of NATO at that
time)..I had
received some letters from members of the Armed Forces in Germany in
relation
to a jeep reported to me as being manufactured by the Ford Motor Company and
now in the area of the 24th. Infantry Division in Germany.
I was informed that these jeeps were totally inadequate to do the job, that
they were not only too light but needed modifications and that whoever drew
the
specifications for the size, forgot apparently that they had to be
transported in airplanes and this has created a problem. But even more
important than
this, apparently, the designer of this jeep didn't realise that they were
not
going to be used on concrete or asphalt highways but on rough terrain in the
field and these jeeps are made in a way that causes them to "flip". This
flipping
causes the jeeps to be driven at a much slower speed that is not consistent
with field duties and the purpose for which these jeeps are used.
I made it my business while visiting Augsburg to question the Commanding
Officers about the difficulties of this jeep and all that I had been told
was
verified. The fact that these jeeps flip as I said before, makes it
necessary that
modifications and changes be made by our mechanics at their bases. This, I
understand, causes considerable expense to the Department of the Army and I
am
wondering why, if they were not properly constructed, the contractor who
built
them, is not forced to make duplications. I think you will agree that an
investigation must be made to determine where the failure lies in this
regard. It
is a very dangerous and costly error that has been made.
In that one particular area of Germany, I am informed, there are some 7,000
odd of these new jeeps. I am wondering how many more there are, not only in
our
bases in various parts of the world, but perhaps in the United States as
well. I am not making any assertion as to the number except in the
particular area
of Augsburg.
As you may understand further, I am directing a copy of this letter to the
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my Chairman, the Honourable Carl?
Vinson, asking him to see to it that a Subcommittee investigates this
situation
which I feel is a very, very bad one.
I demand that some action be taken immediately and that I be advised as to
just what steps are in process, not only to correct the situation, but to
place
the responsibility and the cost of the modifications where they rightfully
belong.
Sincerely Yours,
Frank J. Becker, Member of Congress.
Frank Becker, being a persistent sort of chap, again wrote to Secretary of
Defence McNamara on November 13th 1961, less than two weeks after his first
letter. However, the Military had already begun to dig the hole for
themselves
from which there would be no escape for the next 8 years.
Becker's second letter began......
Dear Mr. Secretary,
Up to the present time, I have not received a reply to my letter of November
1st, wherein I called your attention to the problem of the new type of truck
that is being used in Germany to replace what was known as the jeep that has
seen such great service in years past.
I noted that when I gave this release to the press, there was a statement
that "an Army spokesman " said the Ordnance Division was very happy about
this
"mutt" and that they had had no complaints about this whatever. I would like
this so-called Army spokesman to be identified and I would be happy to take
him
or anyone else over to Germany to the area where some seven hundred of these
trucks have been delivered and where I learned of the problem. As I said in
my
previous letter, this information came to me from men in the Division who
wrote
to me prior to my going on my last trip to Europe between September 29th and
October 18th.
I sincerely hope that I will hear from you as to what kind of an
investigation took place and what the results of this investigation
produced. I also hope
that there will be no attempt to "crush" any officer in the Division because
the information did not come from them originally but it was certainly
verified
on the scene and there is no question about the deficiency of these trucks
and that they have to be modified before someone is seriously injured.
I hope that I have a speedy reply from you as it has been some time now
since
I wrote my original letter.
Sincerely Yours
Frank J. Becker, Member of Congress.
Becker's two letters had put the Military on the spot, alright. The vehicle
had been built by Ford, but the design was "owned" by the Military. McNamara
was in the unlucky position of being currently in charge of the "buyers" of
the
Mutt (the Army), while just a few months earlier, he had been head of the
company (Ford) that collaborated with the Military to build and test the
truck,
over a nine-year period, too ! No matter which way he jumped, he could not
avoid
catching some of the blame. Denial seemed to be the only way to
go..................
TO BE CONTINUED ©
Kind regards....
ken
=Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list=
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:23:38 PDT