From: Ida Heath (spike@defuniak.com)
Date: Sun Jun 27 2004 - 11:11:46 PDT
Paul,
I somehow thought you would respond in the manner in which you did.
Had I been assigned to your unit as the Maintenance Technician, you would
have soon had a new maintenance sergeant. or one that did his job in the
proper manner.
I saw many people in my twenty plus years who thought they had a better way
to do things but it just dosen't work in the long run. Millions and
millions of dollars was spent and many many years of trial and error to weed
out that type of hooligan mismanagement.
Thats the reason your unit couldn't keep all of your vehicles available
bacause of your unauthorized canibilazation. Its a thousand wonders a lot
of people didn't get court martialed over that kind of business.
No Field Grade Officer would have ever went along with it if he/she had
known anything at all about the Army Maintenance Management System.
Thats called working against yourself.
Sonny
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul A. Thomas <bluewhale@jaxkneppers.com>
To: Military Vehicles Mailing List <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [MV] Deuce carrying capacity
> Ida:
>
> That's a lovely book you wrote. However in the real world commands
> sometimes pay no attention to the manual. In '78-'81 the outfit I was
> with in Korea was one such. The final three months there, after we were
> turned into a battalion instead of just an Army Security company, a full
> bird was placed in command and he did RTFM. so times changed. However
> for the vast majority of my time in the MoPo the only time we followed
> the official way to operate was when we had to to appear to do so to get
> what we needed to accomplish our goals ( Functional Vehicles ). We did
> many engine swaps to keep the trucks up. No, we were not allowed to do
> engine swaps. However the depot ( I could be using the wrong term,
> that's just what we called them ) was far too slow. Much better to grab
> what you need from a deadlined truck then once it had enough 'wrong'
> with it send it to depot level for a rebuild.
>
> Your credentials are marvelous. I simply worked for an old time motor
> sergeant who felt doing the job correctly was more important than
> looking good.
>
>
> Paul
>
>
> ****************************
>
> Paul,
>
> Just out of curiosity, what country's Army were you in? I entered the
U.S.
> Army in 1960 and retired in 1982, was in the automotive maintenance field
> the entire time, started out carrying a general mechanics tool box and
> retired an Automotive Maintenance Technician Chief Warrant Officer and
TAMMS
> (The Automotive Maintenance Management System) didn't operate quite the
way
> you described during the time I was in. Up until 1962 when a wheeled or
> tracked vehicle needed work performed that wasn't allowed by the
> organization in which it was issued and assigned, it was required to send
> it to "Ordinance" who would either perform needed repairs and return to
user
> or accept it for "Turn In" and the unit would requisition a replacement
from
> the supply system. Beginning in 1962, if memory serves me, "Ordinance"
was
> changed to "Direct Support" and "General Support" and the same basic
> procedure was followed if a vehicle was in need of repair that the
> organization was not allowed to do.
>
> The levels of maintenance were/are:
>
> 1. Organizational- this includes the operator for operator maintenance
and
> the mechanic for organizational maintenance.
>
> 2. Direct Support- these folks would replace major components and
rebuild
> some small parts. Defective components would be shipped to General Support
> for rebuild or disposal.
>
> 3. General Support- these folks would rebuild major components or
dispose
> of them.
>
> 4. Depot- These folks would classify and rebuild those vehicles which
were
> worthy of rebuild or dispose of them through "Property Disposal" whick
today
> may be called DRMO.
>
> The above is believed by me to be the way the Army Maintenance System
> operates. If any of the above is incorrect I would appreciate being
> informed.
>
> Note: There were times and places where a Direct Support unit may be
allowed
> to repair a component as needed and return to user instead of replacing it
> but that was not the norm.
>
> Sonny
>
> ===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 - 20:33:26 PDT