From: m35products (m35prod@optonline.net)
Date: Sat Dec 04 2004 - 15:01:54 PST
Well said.
apb, M35 enthusiast.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron" <rojoha@adelphia.net>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 5:50 PM
Subject: [MV] FMTV was Re: [MV] M35A3 closed at $45,949.00
> Hi Glenn:
> IMHO, I have to differ with you on "The problems with them were all
> overblown in the media, fueled by S&S's competitors."
> We went around on this on the list a couple (4 or 5?) years ago.
> A simple Google of FMTV GAO or GAO M35A2 yields links to the numerous
> Government Accounting Office reports on the problems. The GAO suggested
in
> several of it's reports to dump the FMTV and stay with the M35A2 since the
> original 5 year replacement sequence was in the toilet and the
improvements
> to fix 'New' vehicles would never make the FMTV a cost effective vehicle.
> Heck, the program makes sense to me. The prototypes don't work, let's give
> them a contract to build more of the trucks.
> Yes, there were teething problems with the truck, minor things like a
> European design fielded by a US company with NO experience running a
> production line, no facilities owned to even build the proposed vehicles,
no
> support from the European designing company since the contract between SS
> and them had ended, starting the contract with blueprints that were not
even
> in English, having to convert EVERY measurement, instruction and note from
> metric to English measure, small stuff of no real consequence I guess. The
> use of little understood exotic metals like steel, exotic coatings like
> paint, types of things that are barely understood today, but were 60 years
> ago, caused FMTV's to rust out while sitting in the high rainfall, humid
> climate of the Texas SS 'factory' delivery parking lot while awaiting
> delivery to the Army are quite understandable. My nasty old 1968 M35A2 sat
> in a field at Fort Devens, Massachusetts for the last ten years of its
> military life. No galvanized cab, no exotic electronics needed. Just no
> nonsense engineering to provide a vehicle to haul 'stuff', easily
> maintained, able to take abuse, and like the proverbial Timex, keep on
> ticking.
> Speed restrictions, Sweet spots susceptible to one shot 0.30 cal kills
> and other design problems are not overblown by the 'competition', just
poor
> design and execution facts.
> The Army bought, or was forced to buy turds, polished them and then
> bought more. When we go back to take Iraq again in 30 years, we'll
probably
> find the M35A2's we are leaving them, still soldiering on.
> Maybe on the next 5 year RFFMTV Truck design/delivery program, that is
> allowed to be stretched to 30 years, it will be given to someone with
fleet
> experience of at least operating vehicles, say like UPS or Dominos Pizza.
> But don't expect the yugos, excuse me, FMTVs, to ever make it to the
surplus
> market, let alone last to qualify for Antique plates.
> And we now return you to the present non MV related, off topic thread,
> already in progress....
> Ron
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glenn Shaw" <mpmutt@mtaofnj.us>
> To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> Sent: 03 December, 2004 15:31
> Subject: Re: [MV] M35A3 closed at $45,949.00
>
>
> Hi
> Actually the FMTV's are turning out to be a fine vehicle. The upgrades to
> cure some growing pains are now pretty much done with and the new ones
> coming out are all updated designs. The problems with them were all
> overblown in the media, fueled by S&S's competitors. Lots of polictics
> involved as ussual.
>
> Glenn
>
>
>
>
> ===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 - 20:38:50 PDT