From: Bjorn Brandstedt (super_deuce@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Dec 04 2004 - 16:07:46 PST
The operator's manual for the 5-ton FMTV comes in 2 volumes. I have volume 1
here and it has over 1,000 pages (it is 2-1/4 inches thick!).
To prepare for internal air shipment, the tires must be deflated, cab air
suspension and the vehicle suspenson compressed.
Has anyone driven a cab-over type truck in the brush?
Bjorn
>From: "Steve & Jeannie Keith" <cckw@comcast.net>
>To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
>Subject: Re: [MV] FMTV was Re: [MV] M35A3 closed at $45,949.00
>Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 18:07:53 -0500
>
>I'm not an M35 owner but I am a taxpayer and we (I believe) took a hosing
>on
>the FMTV's
>
>Ron you forgot the shucking driveshafts and the cracked bellhousings. And
>contrary
>to some in here, I have real problem with them not fitting into a C141! The
>M35's did
>Who the hell wrote the spec?
>
>Steve AKA Dr Deuce (who believes int he KISS principal ESPECAILLY for HMVs)
>
>
>----- 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>
>>
>
>
>
>===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