Marines' Machines

Tech Central Station ^ | 11/24/2003 | John Baden

[farmfriend]

Marines' Machines

By John Baden

All modern societies are critically dependant upon bureaucracies. These organizations, be they for-profit, nonprofit, or governmental, are central to our well-being. Hospitals, schools, courts, and supermarket chains are all bureaucracies. They constitute our institutional environment.

The natural tendency of a bureaucracy is to defend and perpetuate itself and to resist change. Private bureaucracies, however, differ from the governmental variety. Although both may have ponderous hierarchies and cumbersome procedures, ultimately private companies are subject to the discipline of market forces. And the market process is relentless, constantly separating the systematically unlucky and the incompetent from control over resources.

This market discipline is usually weak or absent among governmental agencies. Businesses which ignore innovation and changing consumer preferences eventually go bankrupt. For example, Wang Computer, Montgomery Ward, and International Harvester all went by-by.

The Marine Corps and John Deere & Co. are two organizations I've learned to respect. Both have long histories and rich traditions. The Marines don't leave wounded warriors in the field. They bring them out or die trying. Deere (whose green tractors are an American icon) works hard and successfully to build great iron. Though both are bureaucracies, Deere a private one and the Marines a governmental, they share an interest in economizing on scarce resources.

The Marines are but half the size of the Air Force. While the Air Force is a technocracy, the Marines are a warrior culture. As retired Col. Dave Clifton, director of the USMC Center for Business Excellence, explains, "Business concepts have never really been core concepts for the Marine Corps."

Yet when the Navy, of which the Marines are a branch, doles out dollars, Marines feel cut short. Old equipment is allocated to them. Starved for funds, they make do. Because they face serious budget constraints, they at times act as a private firm striving to control costs. Here's an example.

From 1989 to 1991 the Marines bought 636 heavy-duty John Deere 644ER front-end loaders. They are used around the globe for loading and unloading ammo, food, etc. -- stuff essential in combat. In a pinch they can be used to push wrecked planes overboard to clear the landing deck of an aircraft carrier.

These Deere loaders are modified versions of standard construction machines. They have, for example, special seals to keep salt water from penetrating moving parts. Their test includes running 24 hours in 5 feet of salt water. These machines must have 100 percent uptime, and while highly dependable, they don't last forever. After over a decade of service, the 600-plus loaders were due for replacement. But the Marines were budget sensitive.

We've heard of $500 hammers flowing from the military procurement process. Many recall cartoonist Herb Block of the Washington Post depicting Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger walking around with a thousand-dollar toilet seat around his neck.

We've come to expect such travesties from government agencies. So what, then, did the Marines do when replacing their Deere loaders? Did they buy new machines with their special saltwater requirements or did they economize, as folks in the private sector sensibly do?

Remember, they flat need fully dependable machines. In their business environment, the costs of failures are measured in lost lives, not jobs. It is unacceptable for a carrier deck to be blocked while planes circle in the air, or for a company of Marines to be without combat supplies. Here's their solution.

The machines were shipped to the Deere factory in Moline, Illinois. There they were totally disassembled and rebuilt from the frame up. The result is a "new" loader with updated electronics and hydraulics. The cost is 60 percent or less that of a new machine. I have considerable experience with Deere's ag and logging equipment and I'd be amazed if these fail.

This case speaks well of two bureaucracies, the Corps and Deere. The Corps' limited budget imposed fiscal discipline and fostered creative solutions. Deere obtained a large slug of old iron to make new, and found work to buffer seasonal fluctuations in demand.

Leadership in the Marines and Deere cooperated to save taxpayers substantial sums while providing essential materiel to our military. I salute them as an example to be widely emulated.

[semaj]

BUMP

[farmfriend]

vets ping.

[donmeaker]

On the other hand, look at the MC procurement of OshKosh trucks. Less than half as reliable as the Army FMTV, they were required to have 15 ton capacity on roads, and 7 tons off road, so that you have to unload half the cargo before leaving the pavement! The Marine Corps had a requirement for corrosion life, but when ever a part failed in the corrosion test, an "exemption" was written into the specification.

By comparison, the FMTV met the corrosion life requirement with no exemptions, the only vehicle ever to do that. The FMTV also has a suite of air drop qualified trailers, offering great flexibility to a unit in the field. The cross country capability of the FMTV was key to the recent maneuver through the desert in Iraq.

Full disclosure. Two years ago I was the Reliability Manager for Stewart and Stevenson. In the competitive competition the OshKosh version demonstrated 4,000 miles between failures, the S&S version demonstrated 80,000 miles. And S&S sold theirs for less!

The Marine Corps is buying FMTV chassis to go under their new truck mobile missile launchers.

[null and void]

Uncle Sam's Misguided Children bump!

[SAMWolf]

Thanks for the ping Farmfriend.

[steplock]

"The Marines are but half the size of the Air Force. While the Air Force is a technocracy, the Marines are a warrior culture. As retired Col. Dave Clifton, director of the USMC Center for Business Excellence, explains, "Business concepts have never really been core concepts for the Marine Corps."

Aaaaaaooooooooorrrraaahhhhh!!! Damned Right Answer!

[farmfriend]

ping

[Lurker]

"When it absolutely, postively has to be destroyed overnight, call the Marines."

I remember seeing John Deere tractors doing things the designers never, ever intended for them. And I remember being damned thankful we had them.

Semper Fi.

L

[yonif]

bump

[B4Ranch]

"This market discipline is usually weak or absent among governmental agencies. "

...........because the aren't worried about stockhlders, bank managers or having to declare bankruptcy.

[XtreMarine]

Not to mention the computer that controls everything. One fuse for a tail light stopped two of my trucks cold. As part of an artillery battery, we need our prime movers....

We also had problems with contractors sticking around just before the war. Most left before action started. My motor transport chief kept all 16 trucks rolling there and back.... Please don't ask why as I am sure we did somethings were not supposed to do!

[donmeaker]

Yes, everthing would be much easier if everyone's assets could be turned over to ME. I could do SO MUCH GOOD with coerced funds.

If it was me, I would have the Marine Corps as a 3 division organization within the Army, like the Airborne Corps, or an Armored Corps. I would also strip the close air support mission and funding from the Air Force (and to a lesser extent from the Navy), and assign that to the Army. The Marine Corps version of the F-35 should be good enough to make that viable.

I would also move the Navy P-3s to the Air Force.

Just to be complete, I would move the Army's fleet of lighters to the Navy.

As it is now, the Army has performed more amphibious landings than the Marine Corps, has more boats than the Navy, and more aircraft than the Navy.

[donmeaker]

It should be noted that the famous "Toilet Seat Cover" was a 600 dollar part,and that it was nothing at all like the kind of toilet seat that was in walmart. It cost 580 dollars each to design and build for the aircraft toilet on the P-3 Orion. It is the structural member that covered the aircraft toilet tank, and had to hold it un place under a 40g acceleration that could be experienced during a water landing. All that engineering could only be spread among 13 aircraft. The initial price charged was 600 dollars. The Democrat (was it aspen or Proxmire?)who did the news conference knew all that, had been briefed on it, and just held up a walmart toilet seat cover and boldly lied. He got the information from an oversight organization, who had already questioned the price, and after an audit, had already accepted that it was actually fair. Lockheed cut the price to cost (saving the government 20 dollars, but causing thousands of dollars in government paperwork as they adjusted the price through their system.

So quoting Herb Block as a source is dishonest, intentionally or not.

[donmeaker]

As it is now, the Army has performed more amphibious landings than the Marine Corps, has more boats than the Navy, and more aircraft than the XXXX Air Force.

Yes, I screwed up the penultimate line of my previous post.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Re: As it is now, the Army has performed more amphibious landings than the Marine Corps...

What history books have you been reading? Or do you even read at all? It looks like you don't think too much.

[donmeaker]

During WWII, the marines conducted 48 contested amphibious landings. The Army conducted over 200. Of course, the Marines brought combat photographers along on 48, and the Army brought combat photographers along on 2.

The Marine Corps: Isn't that the Navy's police force, but with a propaganda arm that would embarass Joe Stalin? I think that it was Harry Truman who said that.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Re: Of course, the Marines brought combat photographers along on 48, and the Army brought combat photographers along on 2.

Oh, the Army brought combat photographers along on just two amphibs, eh? Was that only Normandy and North Africa? Or just Anzio and Southern France? Maybe it was just Sicily and Makin? You do remember Makin Island, don't you?

That's where about 800 Japs held off 6,472 troopers of the Army's 27th Infantry Division for 3 days while the 2nd Marine Division took on about 5,000 Japs on Tarawa's Betio Island.

Me thinks your 'evidence' is only equal to the load of Bovine Scattis you are trying to shovel over our eyes.

Get a life before you attempt to teach history, sport.

Semper Fi, Mac.

[donmeaker]

I would be interested in hearing your count of amphibious landings for the Marine Corps.

There are several schemes of counting. For example, does Inchon count for the Army? The 7th Infantry was part of the landing corps, but not part of the Marine Corps. It was second wave, but eventually did a lot of work (with their KATUSAs in Seoul. Course the rest of 8th Army was working up the from Pusan. There was also a feint south of Inchon, and those guys got the rotten end of the stick.

Do you deny that, though the Marines were key in developing amphibious doctrine, the Army completed far more landings than the Marines in WWII? The Army's greatest modification of the developed amphibious doctrine was to attempt to increase the uncertainty in the enemy's mind on the location of the landing sites.

In Sicly, there were several amphibious invasions. There was the intial set, with the British landing near Syracuse, and the Allies on the southern tip. After that, Patton launched several on the north coast, on the way to Messina, after taking Palermo. To the best of my knowledge, there were no combat photographers along on the north coast landings. If you know of any film on the southern coast landings, I would love to hear of it. The Airborne didnt have any combat photographers along either.

[donmeaker]

More examples of how a few Marines served to "indoctrinate" US Army as well as Britsh and Canadian forces in amphibious war principles.

http://www.usmc.mil/history.nsf/0/77f992b2acb682eb852564d70059c642?OpenDocument&ExpandSection=13%2C5

"Masters of amphibious warfare tactics, Marines served as planners for the North African, Mediterranean and Normandy
invasions. The brief and violent raid by a 6,000-man Canadian and British commando force on the French port city of Dieppe
on Aug. 19, 1942, was planned in part by Marine Brigadier General Harold D. Campbell, the Marine Corps advisor to the
British Staff of Combined Operations. He was awarded a Legion of Merit for his expertise in developing techniques for
large-scale amphibious operations against heavily defended beaches.

Marines trained four Army infantry divisions in assault from the sea tactics prior to the North African landings. Leading the way
during Operation Torch, the November 1942 North African invasion, Marines went ashore at Arzeu, Algeria, and moved
overland to the port of Oran, where they occupied the strategic Spanish fortress at the northern tip of the harbor.

Another Marine detachment aboard the cruiser USS Philadelphia landed Nov. 10, 1942, at the port of Safi, French
Morocco, and secured the airport against sabotage until Army forces arrived the following day. "

By my count, North Africa was an Army invasion. I do not deny that Marines had an important and critical role.