Changes needed to the WIKI information/ Change info only

[Rainman]

Thanks for remembering my past observations Rick, but at least the editor of this change was signed in while editing or Horst would not know who made the changes. The G838 WIKI is wide open and possible to edited by anyone without even being a member of the site. On the other hand if not a member and logged in, the restoration forum is not visible. I am fully aware the day to day moderators are not in control of either of those features of the forum, but the security of the WIKI is still the subject of security concerns.
Rainman

[rickf]

I saw this a while back and it raised my eyebrows too.

I have a problem with "our" wiki calling the M151 series a MUTT. I still contend that MUTT was NEVER a official nomenclature used by any service branch. Yes, Ford used it in their internal newspaper, at least once. Likely, Ford developers wanted to market a commercial competitor to the "Jeep", and coined the term. Yes, I have heard of references to it appearing in ONE copy of PS magazine. But I have several issues that call it a jeep, truck, 1/4 ton, etc., so I am sure some civilian copy editor got squared away by the green suiters after that appeared. I have operated the M151, been signed for one, had quite a few on a company level property book, etc. I have reviewed MTOEs, TMs, MWOs, etc. I have NEVER seen MUTT used by the US Army, which was and remains the lead agent for vehicle procurement within DOD.

Another point, someone went to the trouble of stating that this vehicle did not meet "Federal highway safety standards" and thus was not widely released to the public....This should be struck. I do not know the numbers, but I bet they were sold at or near the same amount that the early HMMWVs were. The implication is that these vehicles are inherently unsafe, ala the Corvair, (Which also was a crock).

I guess from reading this that were NO rollover accidents of all the jeeps that came before this one! Nope, never happened! And GIs never drank and drove these things, and everybody was trained adequately, etc.

While I agree with everything you said and will point out the you just made MAJOR points with Rainman with the Mutt bit, like I said, lets keep this thread focused on changes to the Wiki based on fact. Also let Horst know about any outdated links or missing pictures. Be aware that missing pictures are usually a result of a change in the original posters photo account and we have NO control over that. Unless the picture is absolutely needed to complete the article then it will be left the same. We can discuss all of the other stuff like the above in another post so this one is focused only on needed changes. Sound good? Nobody will lynch me if I delete the extraneous posts?

[rickf]

Note title change. Lets keep the suggestions based on fact and not hearsay. If copied from a manual then include references. Do I sound like your old history teacher?

Yea, I hated History and English too.

[muttguru]

Another point, someone went to the trouble of stating that this vehicle did not meet "Federal highway safety standards" and thus was not widely released to the public....This should be struck.

George, I think you may be being a bit hasty here.
The full story is as follows.
In 1971, the Chief Property Disposal Officer Col. James Baggs was under pressure to sell a backlog of some 6,000 surplus M151-series vehicles to the general public. Baggs calculated that if the vehicles were put up for sale without the demil clause, the DRMS would receive far more dollars than had been received for parts and scrap tubs/suspensions. Knowing that the vehicles, if so disposed of, could and probably would end up in the hands of some drivers who would sooner or later roll the trucks, Baggs offered the following solution to the possibility of liability and claims. He said that all vehicles would have a warning decal placed on the vehicle which would describe the handling characteristics along with a "hold harmless" certificate which would be issued to the purchaser. On 19-May-1971, he wrote to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) officer Douglas Toms to explain these measures. Maybe the Colonel was not expecting NHTSA endorsement of this idea but probably would have been pleased with a "we don't object to the sales" response. Neither was forthcoming. Two meetings took place between representatives of NHTSA and the Defense Supply Agency (11-June-1971 and 23-July-1971) where the suggestions were discussed more fully.
On 21-September-1971, Toms at NHTSA wrote to Col. Baggs with the decision.
"Based upon information we have received, we recommend against the sale of these vehicles to the public, even with the decals containing the warning you describe affixed to them, or with the proposed disclaimers contained in the invitation for bids and the certificates furnished to donees. We do not believe that the handling problem, a propensity to roll over without warning to the user that rollover may be imminent, can be adequately guarded against through the use of warnings.
This is reflected in the Army's own policy, which we understand allows only persons who have received a specialized training course to operate these vehicles. Of course, a training program for the public is impracticable.
Even if a warning on a decal or in a certificate could suffice, such a decal could be easily removed or destroyed, and the certificate lost, and the purchaser or subsequent purchasers would not receive notice of the potential hazard.
As part of our reccemendation, we suggest that disposal of these vehicles be accomplished in a manner that prevents subsequent reassembly of the vehicle, such as cutting or similarly destroying the suspension and frame. The reccomendation includes all types of these vehicles (ie M151, M151A1, M151A2, M718 and M825).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter.
Douglas W. Toms, Administrator, NHTSA.

POSTSCRIPT.
On 06-June-1989, a certain Senator, Mr Joseph Biden, forwarded a letter from one of his constituents which expressed concern at the DoD policy of crushing, rather than selling, surplus Army M151-series trucks. Joe Biden's letter was added to by a similar letter, three weeks later, from Congressman William S. Broomfield.
These letters resulted in a formal 16-page report entitled "Investigation of Alleged Waste in Reutilization and Disposal of Military Vehicles." The report, completed 21-September-1989 recommended that no change be made in the policies addressing the demilitarization of surplus M151 vehicles or their use as firing targets.

If the WIKI is to be changed, I suggest that this is used in place of any non-attributed comments.
Ken

[rickf]

That is exactly the type of information we are looking for. Factual information with references. And imagine where it came from? The keeper of all documents 151. Thanks Ken.

[retiredpara]

Ken,
You are right, at some point they were not sold with documents.No argument from me. Certainly no argument that the paper pushers chose job security and discretion over previous policies which allowed jeep sales, whether it was 151, M38, etc.

My point is that the Wiki infers that none were, when in fact, many were. Likely more 151s were sold with documents than the HMMWVs sold back in the 80s.

In any case, whoever wrote that paragraph on the Wiki uses the government's later reluctance to sell them as PROOF that they are indeed, very dangerous and will rollover, it is only a matter of time! The sky is falling!!

I think we should manage our own information, and point out that while the vehicle is rollable, ALL of the earlier straight axle jeeps were too, as any short wheelbase vehicle is when operated too fast for conditions, by poorly or untrainted drivers, when alcohol or drugs is involved, etc.

Ralph Nadar killed the Corvair, but it doesnt mean it actually was unsafe. It only means he was able to garner enough support to kill it. Same with later 151 sales.