> That said, I must add a note of faint disagreement. I believe Mr.
Spears
> is also overstating a few points with regards to Bantam. He can easily be
> forgiven in this, considering the "hind mammary gland" history has given
> Bantam and the fact that he is a Bantam enthusiast. I'm a little less
> partisan and after reviewing the development stories of all three
companies
> involved in the quarter-ton program, I can give credit where credit is
due.
I would agree with Jim's excellent write-up. I have had some correspondence
with Mr. Spears over the past couple years and to say he is a Bantam
enthusiast would be a gross understatement! He lives and breathes
everything Bantam! I don't think there was a "conspiracy" like he is trying
to prove, but I can see where you can be lead to believe this. I agree with
Jim that the Army just wanted a reliable supplier and there definitely was a
"bias" toward giving the contract to Ford. I think if Bantam was given the
opportunity to be a third supplier to the standardized 1/4-ton they could
have done a good job (I understand tooling was at a premium at this time.).
I also think that the Army people who came up with the original
specifications are more ignored than Bantam and Ford's contribution.
Speaking of the Army people who came up with the original specifications:
I still am soliciting help for the saving of the Holabird Vehicle Testing
Track warehouses. There is an update as to the status on this at:
http://users.erols.com/paisley/warehouse/holabird
Any help appreciated! Thanks.
Todd Paisley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 05 2001 - 07:13:53 PST