DND Repossession(Rant )

[Lynn Eades]

N.Z. had about 60 M113's which Army disposals auctioned off under strict conditions.
After the auction finished, the new owner to be, was an Australian. The U.S. Govt. did not approve the sale, and about 55 M113's were melted down. A percentage of those APC's could have gone into collecters hands here, and the tax payers of this country, could have seen a bit of pay back.
To me the whole thing stinks, but thats big brother being his usual pratt self. Since then he's had a big stupidity attack, and now we cant get ex military antiques across his border.
When I was a serving soldier back in the 70's I decided I would buy one (M113) when they came up for disposal.
I would love to have owned one, but they've probably been Coke cans, a few times by now.
What happens when the LAVs come up for disposal?

[RichardT10829]

cant you hide them ? and give the "Oh sorry they appear to have melted in the fire we had last week" ? it sucks when things like this happen and alas i fear those that get recalled will eventually be destroyed through neglect then dispose method.

[charlie fitton]

What happens when the LAVs come up for disposal?[/QUOTE]

They won't - we'll spend a billion or so rebuilding them , then give them away, just like the Bonnie...

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Restrictions on the sale of DND Ferrets. Welded wheel nuts on surplus 105 and 155 howitzers. "Cut-up on site" sale of surplus Leopards. Iltis's cut into four parts. I see a pattern and find the original post, hearsay or not, completely believable. I think somebody up there doesn't like the idea of civilian ownership of MV's and related equipment.

Segue into government museums as the only repository for this era's military equipment.

Convinced yet Ed?

[Ed Storey]

Bruce:

So tell us then, why would the government put restrictions on MV ownership? Obviously this is some plot to ensure that they stay out of the hands of collectors.....

I have no idea why. Instead of sitting around feeding off of each others insecurities and dreaming up reasons why, get off your duffs and find out! Ask your MP why, make inquiries; there are mechanisms to find out these answers and once you have the answer then you can work towords changing the system. What you want are facts, you want a document that tells you why, not some mystery e-mail form some 'friend'.

Constantly drifting off and complaining that the CWM has an imperfect collection, deciding to boycott events or thinking up your next retort to my e-mail is not going to change the system. Some form of measured, thoughtful action will.

Is my point clear enough now?

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Surely you've been around long enough to know the the response you'll get from an inquiry to a MP or government agency will be written by public relation staffers who barely understand the question and will give some bare-bones letter that won't come close to addressing the question. This I know first hand as that's what my office does.

Second, the discussion I had with a DND captain who's job it was to 'clean' surplus before releasing it confirmed a government policy of zero risk (re-use for bad purposes or embarrassing headlines). I also believe intent can be seen from a pattern of action. The pattern here indicates a clear intent.

You must also be aware of the political discussions raised in this county and others restricting private ownership or MV's, particularly armoured ones? It's clear there are are those who argue against your right to do so. Why? Fear, control, optics, narrow mindedness. There could be a number of reasons.

Why do you accuse those who raise this point of having insecurities? That's a pretty disparaging accusation thrown against anyone who raises a point contrary to yours.

And you know, raising the point and talking about it in a forum like this might just make people aware enough of the problem...if there really is one...to address it politically.

Back to you...

Originally Posted by Ed Storey

Bruce:

So tell us then, why would the government put restrictions on MV ownership? Obviously this is some plot to ensure that they stay out of the hands of collectors.....

I have no idea why. Instead of sitting around feeding off of each others insecurities and dreaming up reasons why, get off your duffs and find out! Ask your MP why, make inquiries; there are mechanisms to find out these answers and once you have the answer then you can work towords changing the system. What you want are facts, you want a document that tells you why, not some mystery e-mail form some 'friend'.

Constantly drifting off and complaining that the CWM has an imperfect collection, deciding to boycott events or thinking up your next retort to my e-mail is not going to change the system. Some form of measured, thoughtful action will.

Is my point clear enough now?

[Ed Storey]

It appears that your rant is based on some form of dispute you have with DND concerning MV ownership with a side order of unhappiness towards the CWM. I think your ownership issues may also be with your provincial Ministry of Transportation as well.

Yes, as you stated, I do provide volunteer assistance to the CWM, although I will reassure you that I am not in any way offended by the comments. Although if you want to effect change and have your voice heard concerning CWM issues beyond this forum, then you should explore other mechanisms to do that. Your support to the 30 May event will be greatly appreciated and perhaps having your MVs there will encourage other members of the public to get into the hobby or be more aware of MV restoration. I look forward to seeing your vehicles.

I am unsure as to what you are defending yourself against as all I was asking was that you provide some details for the basis of your rant. For instance, if you had a copy of the loan agreement that DND uses with museums then we could all benefit from knowing the facts and could comment on them rather than just getting spun-up on some second hand details of a mystery e-mail from a 'friend'.

As a self-professed "green fever addict" I would have thought that you would have been a member of MVPA; for if you were, you would be familiar with the articles that I have written for "Army Motors" and in a recent edition a photograph of myself outside of the D-Day Museum in Portsmouth. That is Portsmouth, England. You asked if I have ever been to a vehicle museum in the US or Europe, hmm, do these count...?

England

IWM, London
IWM, Duxford
AAC, Middle Wallop
Tank Museum, Bovington
D-Day Museum, Portsmouth
RE Museum, Chatham
NAM, London

Belgium

Army Museum, Brussels
Liberation Museum, Knokke Heist

France

Les Invalides, Paris
Pegasus Bridge, Normandy
JUNO Beach Centre, Normandy
Victory Museum, Caen

Croatia

Technical Museum, Zagreb

US

USMC Air-Ground Museum, Quantico
USMC National Museum, Virginia
Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland
Fort Lewis Military Museum, Washington State
US Intelligence Museum, Arizona

I am a member of MVPA as not only do they specialize in the collection and preservation of MVs, but they are also advocates in the legislation towards responsible MV ownership.

[Tony Smith]

Before things get too heated, let's look again at the original thread. An item was on LOAN to a museum, and it was asked to return it to the original owner (presumably the CWM, but possibly still the DND). End of story, full stop. I don't see anything subversive or underhand in that transaction. It wasn't sold, gifted or donated to the smaller museum, and both parties understood where ownership lay. It doesn't point to a hidden agenda by the CWM, the DND, or the Government at large (although it doesn't rule one out either!). It was part of a larger collection that could not be displayed, and was provided on loan to another museum that could display it. I think that is quite generous and a sign of co-operation between two museums with a similar charter. Knowing that the smaller museum did not own the borrowed item, it would have been wise only to allocate enough resources to bring the item up to a standard fit to display.

The question of ownership of items displayed in any museum is always an issue. Quite often items are bought outright with money from donations to the museum or from it's own accounts, or the item is gifted to the museum free of any conditions. In these cases, the museum is free to do with the item as it pleases, within it's own charter. However, where the items are lent to the museum, or bequeathed, or gifted with conditions, then the museum is bound by those conditions that applied to the acquisition process. If the vehicles mentioned are covered by an End-User Certificate, then the CWM may have breached their conditions of acquisition of the vehicles by on-lending to a third party, and are being forced to comply with the conditions. Certainly, the M113 vehicles would be under a US EUC, and if it does not list the 3rd party museum, then even the DND would be in breach. If the DND were to consider the consequences of breaching an International Arms agreement just for the purposes of appeasing a small museum, I'd hazard that the museum will always come off 2nd best.

I'm currently going through the process of negotiating an EUC to export an item, and it's not too difficult if supported with the appropriate paperwork. I would suggest the Museum in question contact the DND, and in conjunction with the CWM, apply to have the terms of the EUC modified to include themselves. Paperwork can be a PITA, but it's just paper and sometimes it's necessary to jump through some hoops to acheive an outcome.

Lynn's mention of the New Zealand M113s is a case in point. The original sale to a private buyer/dealer for re-sale was vetoed by the US State Department because the buyer did not have an EUC, and could not apply as the final owners of the vehicles could not be identified at that stage. It was presumed at the time that this was a closed door. Some vehicles were preserved in NZ Army hands, but I understand that at least one NZ private citizen has applied for an EUC and been granted ownership of one of the M113s, but with stringent conditions regarding uses and re-sale specified on the EUC. It is not the final say, just the conditions that are currently in force for that owner. A future application to amend the use or for re-sale will be necessary, and provided all the paperwork is in order, it will in all likelihood be granted.

[peter simundson]

The Museum that had the vehicles does not simply restore them and display them. They are determined to drive them and get all systems (less armament) operating. They aggressively persue stripping vehicles of all parts they "may" use at any base they can get to. (Not vehicles in use or in Museums of course). Written off, not saleable or Hard targets are typical fodder. Having spent some time on bases I know it wouldn't take long before someone said "What the hell do they need all these parts, radio equipment and gun mounts for?" Then the phone call happens...the base commander says..."They were doing what on the base??"...I mean he doesn't want to get his career jeopardized.....more phone calls...then the inevitable...
this could be serious if they are actually driving them......and....
"I didn't know they would get them running"..(even if received that way)
Career protection is important.
It's like Don Smith's tank. It was on loan. But they never called it in because they seized all his equipment he loaned them. (Actually the Base Borden Museum operator did.) So they left it alone. But they don't forget.

In the Museum's case they were clawed back with an obscure reason.

PS