A Couple of Jeeps in Vietnam

[Ralph Fuller]

A couple of Jeeps in Vietnam

[raymond]

"DUCE IS WILD" should have been spelled "DEUCE IS WILD"

[csmith]

Interesting back on the Mutt in the second photo

[Chef]

Interesting back on the Mutt in the second photo

That is a M151A1C (without the gun and mount). Besides having the back cut away for gun mount access, the folding seat on the passenger rear fender and the side mounted spare tire are dead giveaways.

[davegargiulo]

The soldier in the 1st pic in the passenger seat looks 14 yrs old,amazing how young these lads were.
Dave

[csmith]

Interesting back on the Mutt in the second photo

That is a M151A1C (without the gun and mount). Besides having the back cut away for gun mount access, the folding seat on the passenger rear fender and the side mounted spare tire are dead giveaways.

Thanks Chef, first time I have seen one without the gun.....

[Chef]

It looks to me like someone re-tasked it.

The radio was not normally mounted on the left rear fender where you see it in the pictures, there was another fold down seat in that location. Also the antenna mount where you see it in the picture was not supposed to be in that location, if radio equipped, the antenna mount was supposed to be behind the spare tire on the passenger side of the body.
Lastly is the pedestal mount. A M151A1C recoilless rifle vehicle would never have a MG mount installed as the one pictured does. It would interfere with the recoilless rifle and there would be no where to stand to operate the MG with the recoilless rifle installed.

As far as I can tell, for some reason either the recoilless rifle was lost, stolen, damaged or otherwise not needed and the vehicle was re-tasked as a "normal" use M151 and outfitted as such.

It's actually a pretty cool image. I would love to know why or how it got into the condition seen in the picture. As far as I know, the 106mm recoilless rifle was still current issue in the era when the picture was taken and the vehicle itself was still US military issue, not ARVN "military aid" judging by the bumperette markings, surrounding vehicles and what I presume is the driver standing next to it.
If the 106 originally issued with the vehicle was damaged or missing, it would stand to reason that it would have been repaired or replaced. It's not like the military was short on money at that time. To refit a not so common, specific use vehicle like the M151A1C as a utility or convoy escort does not make a lot of sense as I am sure there were plenty of standard M151's available for those duties already in country.

[FREDERIC]

Hi,
Thank you, Ralph.
I love watching this picture.
In my turn, a photo essay: at the head of the convoy.

[SEABEE62]

A bunch of pictures of teenagers !!!!....WAIT !!!! We WERE TEENAGERS !!!! Seabee

[rickf]

A bunch of pictures of teenagers !!!!....WAIT !!!! We WERE TEENAGERS !!!! Seabee

That changed quickly didn't it? You got old fast over there. I think today's soldiers have it even worse and on top of that they have to go back over and over.

Rick

[csmith]

I just noticed the double machine gun rig (30's ??) on the back of the first photo, that's kinda unusual isn't it? But cool

[rickf]

Twin 60's on a fabbed mount. Not all that uncommon on the gun trucks.
Rick

[csmith]

Twin 60's on a fabbed mount. Not all that uncommon on the gun trucks.
Rick

They are mounted on the mutt aren't they?

[Chef]

They are mounted on the mutt aren't they?

Interestingly enough, now that I look closer at the mounts on both of those M151's, they are not the M4 mounts that were standard issue with the M151 series. The mounts they are using in those pictures don't have the rear "legs" that the M4 has and the mounts themselves are placed farther rearward than where the M4 goes. Easy to tell from the first photo, if it was the M4 it would be placed farther forward between the seats and the ones in the pictures look to be about even with the seat backs.

From a drivers standpoint, the M4 has a bad mounting location. I find that it's in the way of comfortable shifting, visibility and I remember sometimes even wacking my elbow on it when steering. Locating it 10"-12" farther rearward (like the ones in the pictures) would make it far more driver friendly in my opinion.

[rickf]

I am pretty sure some of the M4 mounts were actually mounted further back for the reason you mentioned. That one with the twins was probably nothing more than a couple of pipes nested together. I don't think accuracy was the idea here, just get a lot of lead flying at once.

Rick