On the "policy", there is often no logic, just "policy".
On the weekend I found a letter reprinted in Army Motors a few years ago on
the subject of the destruction of the M151s. I don't have it here so the
details are slightly fuzzy, but the letter was from a military office
explaining the reason for the "policy". This letter used the supposed
tendency of the M151 to be involved in a high number of roll-over accidents as
the basis for restricting their sale. The Dept. of Transportation has ruled
that the M151 is unsafe for public use and the military has statistics to back
that up. So they have to be destroyed.
I am sure that the statistics could not stand scrutiny of someone who was not
already convinced that that M151 is unsafe. The letter made no distinction
between the models of M151 so there are no separate stats on the A2 which would
be much better. Also, there is no base line showing how many rollover
accidents CJs have, or Land Rovers or Winnebagos etc. There is no distinction
made of accidents on improved all-weather highways vs accidents on muddy, loose
material hillsides. There is no analysis of age, motivation and training of
drivers (military drivers tend to be young, inexperienced and they are not
paying for the jeep). There is no analysis of alchohol or other contributing
factors etc etc etc. In other words, the "policy" is still not based on any
real data or understanding of the relative risks of an M151 vs. anything else.
There is just inertia behind the idea that they are unsafe.
Since the HMMWV has completely different characteristics, and is hard to turn
over, why this "policy" gets extended to the newer vehicle is even less clear.
This will not change but it is an illogical shame.
Best of luck for the new year,
chuck
=================================================
Chuck,
I understand your reaction. Sorry, I was not trying to offend anyone. Since
we are communicating over this medium, they are no borders, but there are
some limits. I agree that politics are not an issue on this list.
The main point here is vehicle mutilation and how we as AFV/MV enthusiasts
do not understand why so much of those nice vehicles have to be destroyed.
And it happens in democratic countries, like the US and the Netherlands. I
once tried to save a number of ex-range WW-2 AFVs, real basket cases w/o
guns etc., but these were earmarked as "strategic" material as a matter of
"policy" and had to be torched to pieces. A shame, especially when some time
later it was found out that some ex-Dutch Army trucks had found their way to
former Yugoslavia via various MV dealers. Simply because these trucks are
basically civilian designs, they're not earmarked as "strategic". But
contrary to some rusted out tank hulk, they were of use to battling parties.
Explanation?
Hanno Spoelstra <H.L.Spoelstra@WbMt.TUDelft.NL>
Bloemendaal, The Netherlands