Re: [MV] Judging the absurd...

Rob Root (root99@earthlink.net)
Wed, 30 Sep 1998 16:48:05 -0700

I am intrigued by this factory vs. field (nature vs. nurture?) thread.
First, there's room for everyone, and I applaud the MVPA for recognizing
that and allowing both. Second, I personally have benefitted from
Todd's detailed research into originality, esp. GPW's. At the same
time, as a crossover from the old car hobby, I find the "field
modifications" which Joe Baker refers to as being a fascinating side
light of MV's that doesn't really exist in the old car arena. 50 guys
can sit around discussing exactly what a 1929 Model A roadster looked
like coming off the factory floor, and there is some benefit in doing so
I guess. But if all fifty of those guys ever reached agreement, it
would be one boring car show...

In the case of jeeps, if some of us shoot for the "factory-new" ideal,
and some others represent typical (and even rare) field modifications,
we all learn more don't we?

Some say American ingenuity helped win WWII. I agree, and I think the
ingenuity shown in the field is as interesting (and as much a part of
the MV) as the ingenuity shown by Ford/Willys/Bantam engineers...

-Rob Root
1942 GPW

Todd Paisley wrote:
>
> >My point is that military vehicle should be judged in light of the
> >various legitimate MWOs that issued on the vehicle and as the vehicle
> >would have been configured with an operational unit... Not on some
> >absurd idea of how the vehicle might have looked from the factory to the
> >flat car to the theater of operation...
>
> Interesting logic. Factory class is defined as absurd.
>
> Todd Paisley
>
> ===
> To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
> UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.

===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.