I have seen changes too at Military Vehicles, some good, some maybe not, but
I have to give my .02 on this.
I suspect that the Stuart Ellis/Humvee mistake was just that, a simple
mistake. With all the clipping and forwarding that is done on this list I
can see how this type mistake, though regrettable, could be made, especially
when rushing to get the latest breaking news to the hobby/readership.
(Remember it was MV magazine who broke the story to many about the Humvee
auctions in GA last year) I'll be shocked if there isn't
retraction/clarification of this in the next issue, just like each morning
the local paper has a section of corrections/clarifications/amplifications.
Mistakes will happen.
To me, magazine content can be broken down into either historical (a class
530C pumper weighs 18,625 lbs) or opinion (M35 are too difficult to drive for
most members of pygmy tribes). The line between the two is usually clear, I
only become concerned when it blurs.
I took great exception to the article some time ago that was disparaging to
the G-742 series 6x6, but I interpreted it as only the opinion of the author
(Steve Turchet as I recall).
Concerning the technical content.
Military Vehicles, like most magazines is a group effort on the part of the
editor and the contributors. Wheels and Tracks was unique in that the (late)
editor had an almost unique broad knowledge of vehicles, whereas most
collectors, much less combination collectors/editors tend have a specialized
area of expertise.
Most editors, like Dave Ahl, rely upon their contributors to carefully and
fully research the articles prior to submission.
Sometimes authors get in a hurry, and don't fully check out their
information, and thus make erroneous assumptions, or repeat and perpetuate
wrong information. Authors have a moral responsibility to do the best that
they can to check and recheck their facts, and I believe that the vast
majority take this responsibility seriously.
Other times, it can be a simple lack of information that can force wrong
assumptions/interpretations.
As an example, as you may have seen through my various postings, I am
restoring a military 530C pumper, and am at the same time writing an article
on these vehicles. This truck was built in 1974, a mere youngster compared
the WWII vehicles, and, unfortunately to many, too new to be viewed as
historical but here is how things go so far.
My truck chassis was built by AM General, the body by American Air Filter,
while Engineered Devices built identical units. All were equipped with
Waterous fire pumps. Quality Manufacturing in Alabama rebuilt many of these
and similar 530B and M44WLF trucks. All this I know from the data plates on
the trucks, the operators manual, and a first hand account of a fellow lister.
Here is what I found through a letter writing campaign thus far:
American Air Filter sold this division some years ago, neither they nor the
new owners have any information.
Engineered Devices 2 months ago were going to get back to me, I am still
waiting.
AM General sent a form letter.
Quality Manufacturing has sold this division, and has no records.
Waterous sent detailed information on the pump.
The military equipment editor of Fire Apparatus Journal says there was an
article on these in Volume 1, number 1 on this equipment. Fire Apparatus
Journal doesn't sell back issues that old, and there policy is to not
photocopy articles.
I joined SPAAMFAA (a MVPA-like group for fire truck enthusiasts), and posted
requests on three websites for this information....so far nothing.
Many of these type vehicles were used in Vietnam by a contractor (Pacific
Architects and Engineers)(a tidbit I learned from another FAJ article), they
are still in business, but have not responded.
I contacted the Army Engineer Museum (the Corps of Engineers is the
responsible agency on fire fighting equipment), they have no records of this
type of equipment in there holdings.
I contacted the Military Firefighting School, they said they MAY be able to
come up with something, someday.
A handful of people on the list have sent personal recollections or advice.
Why do I write all this???As an example of the importance that each of us,
write now about what we know. This truck is relatively new, yet it seems
everything about them has been forgotten, erased or thrown away. I cannot
imagine trying to do research on equipment from the 30s or 40s. Part of the
Preservation that we do should be information. Each one of us knows
SOMETHING that no one else does...write about it. Dave at MV, or Reg at AM
I'm sure will be glad to have it, as well others reading 30 years from now.
And this will solve the content/quality problem.
I'll get off my soapbox now,
David Doyle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 05 2001 - 07:58:36 PST