I care about historical accuracy. I never let my college professors get away with calling vietnam vets murderers. I always challenged them, pissed them off, and won my arguments because I used facts.
I contend it originated by Ford, as they wanted to enter the jeep market, but couldnt call their 1/4 ton creation a jeep, for obvious reasons.
Ford called it thus in their employee newspaper. Maybe more than once.
Some alledge the first PS magazine called it a MUTT. Or the first PS magazine after the 151 was to be issued. I have never seen it, but I believe it.
Later, some author used it. I dont know who. I would guess the first book it was seen in was in the Japanese cartoon-like magazine/book published in 1976. Now hard to find and expensive.
MV magazine and it's writers have used the term as gospel, and one of their writers has published a "book" that calls it such. He contends it is settled, and references the Ford article. The MV encyclopedia published years ago used it too I believe, and many took it from that.
I contend that is why so many today just accept it. It is a fave propaganda technique, just keep repeating the same thing, eventually everybody believes it.
None of the above are official Army issue documents. The only thing somewhat "official" would be PS magazine, but I have plenty of later versions of this that never call it a MUTT, IIRC at least once they call it a jeep. I have literally seen hundreds of unit property books, hand receipts, driver's licenses, Modification Work Orders, Modified Table of Organization and Equipment documents, correspondence from Department of the Army, from TACOM, from various division HQ, etc., and never once observed any reference to the 151 series trucks as MUTT.
Interesting that some claim they used this term on active duty. Less interesting is the 2nd/3rd hand info, "I knew a guy who said they all used it"...I never heard it at all until sometime after 2000.
I propose we all start calling the P-51 Mustang a "Stallion", the M4 Sherman a "Custer", or the P-38 Lightning the "Bolt", just because we can. Not so much of a stretch, right, after all, truth today is subjective...
Not losing sleep over this. But facts are facts, and I've enough Italian in me to be passionate about such things. The initial and subsequent procurement and issue documents do not reference a MUTT. Ford did, and that don't mean squat, as my grandpappy would say.
If you guys think it is flogging the proverbial deceased equine so be it. But I think if we are real caretakers of history we should get things right. It's yours now, call it what you want, (Mine is Janet, she is a good listener
), but don't represent it at displays as a MUTT, as that is a term the real military never used. Am I wrong? Please show me a official document that would have been used as part of the fielding of these old dogs. I have yet to see one.
