*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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 04 2000 - 21:57:16 PDT