That's the bugger.

Brilliant system. I've used it several times and have no complaints. If we got rid of everything into it it'd free up more time for core training or other fun stuff and less time fixing shitty faults on vehicles that just occur for no rational reason.

Originally Posted by TARA

The "our wagon" principle still exists in proper regiments.

Hopefully you are not from the 'proper regiment' who borrowed a Spartan from us four years ago to use on a D and M course, and returned it with one track on back-to-front and OMD90 in the brake reservoirs.

Originally Posted by MrBane

faults on vehicles that just occur for no rational reason.

I take it that you mean the faults that occur for reasons other than 'use' or 'lack of use'.

Doesn't WFM, just mean a lot of milage is put on a small number of vehicles? These then will have more breakdowns? and no replacements available?

TM-not guilty.

FEAR NAUGHT

MrBane, you need a larger amount of unit holdings to deal with raat task jiff jobs.

I've used the CT1 fleet from DSG, and speaking as an FR regt tiffy vehicles, it has it's pro's and cons. Namely vehicle condition on handover (and the time needed to rectify it), often you will be expected to sign for the kit on day 1 of your exercise/firing camp. This isn't ideal as you won't get visibility of gun docs etc beforehand. Half of the time the usages will be incorrect on JAMES, which throws your servicing out of whack when you come to hand the kit back. You will have to carry out a data cut for your JUDs after accepting the vehicles on JAMES which is a drama due to the time that it takes to get right and further problems if you're using several layers of parent-child synchronisation. The crews tend to lose the entire CES during the exercise but the vehicles are expected back with CESs complete. This leads to the unit holdings vehicle's CESs being raped to make up the shortfall. As previously mentioned, expect a lot of oil leaks from kit which has been unused for a long time due to seals drying up.

Obviously we try to plan ahead to avoid these issues but when some civvy in DSG assures you that they're going to take the vehicles out for a x-country road test and then don't, when you come to collect them what can you do? You can complain about it but it doesn't change the fact that you either take them or don't achieve you training objectives.

If you're stores are telling you to skip large amounts of new veh spares then you need to raise it with the RQ(T), or speak to somebody who will. The kit can and should be backloaded.

I agree CVR(T) is not the most reliable bit of kit but a lot of issues are caused by fuckers either cannabalising parts, shite fault reporting or damage through incompetence. Also, saying a crew fitted item is awaiting spares and writing it in your demand book won't make it magically appear. You need to take said demand to the store and then pick up the part at a later date.

A lot of dramas I see on camp as far as vehicle condition are concerned, are caused by lack of interest within the sqn from the 2i/c down to the NCOs supervising the Toms.

Originally Posted by spaz

A lot of dramas I see on camp as far as vehicle condition are concerned, are caused by lack of interest within the sqn from the 2i/c down to the NCOs supervising the Toms.

Nail - head - hit.

Originally Posted by spaz

I agree CVR(T) is not the most reliable bit of kit but a lot of issues are caused by fuckers either cannabalising parts, shite fault reporting or damage through incompetence. Also, saying a crew fitted item is awaiting spares and writing it in your demand book won't make it magically appear. You need to take said demand to the store and then pick up the part at a later date.

A lot of dramas I see on camp as far as vehicle condition are concerned, are caused by lack of interest within the sqn from the 2i/c down to the NCOs supervising the Toms.

In the case of CVR(T), whilst I think the user can bear some blame, availability data from Herrick (and bear in mind this was 2-3 years ago) showed these wagons spent considerably more time VOR than other platforms available to the BGs (e.g. Jackal, viking etc). Part of this is due to the fact that successive UOR fits have never really been fully integrated - with the result that single points of failure tend to move about the vehicle as various upgrades are performed.

Personally, I think WFM is a great idea. The trouble is that - as with so many other British endeavours - the implementation at the coalface often isn't exactly as per 'commanders intent'. Add to that the attitude of many of those supplying the contract (was it Babcock at Bovvy?), and the reality quickly becomes a nightmare.

On the positive side though, it soundds like MrBane had a good experience with LTF(W), so perhaps all is not lost?

Didn't the yanks have some sort of system where they dropped all the oils and fluids out and could then store the vehicles for some time?

spaz, I'll be fair and say when I used the facility at Warminster there was no James at the time so we just got in the vehicles, signed over a 1033 for them and all the kit, CES, etc, and drove out the gates. The vehicles were very highly maintained and ran like a dream.

We did lose a bit of CES, the usual gubbins, and on return we were simply billed for the items as we didn't have spares to rape.

Personally, I'm all for billing for loss as it encourages people not to lose things.

As for NCO's taking an interest in the Toms and the jobs, well, it's a vicious circle.

If the lads don't have their -own- vehicle which only -they- will use throughout its stay in the Regiment it's hard to motivate them to care about someone elses vehicle or a random vehicle that gets passed about like a cheap naafi whore.

So we either throw all the vehicles bar 'training' vehicles into the storage / maint doo-dah place and get the training vehicles properly supervised and controlled whilst on task or bring back vehicles for every callsign that needs them with individual responsibility. When we had our own vehicles great care was shown, attention and love poured over it. The driver used to get very attached to his wagon, it was what saw him through an exercise. He'd customise his cab and I even knew one lad that put some carpet down! The gunner and commander would trick out their own spaces, the commander would have all his useful reference sheets or whatever else laminated and stuck all over the cab or on the top for hatch up and the vehicle would have its very own name. Those were good days. The vehicles ran well because lads knew it was them and only them to blame if it went tits up. It was easy to keep them motivated.

Now.... Not so much.

The thing is, your fullscrews and the like, what can they do about it when they've got an SNCO telling them to cannibalise another vehicle or jury rig something together or chin something off? It all starts from the very top and unfortunately it's a lot of the old and bold that aren't encouraging the junior bods.

Right now I just see ridiculous amounts of waste both in equipment, manpower and ultimately money. It's the one situation where I believe a civilian outfit such as in Warminster would be easier to hold to account over the state of a vehicle and as I say, I've only had good experiences with it.

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

Didn't the yanks have some sort of system where they dropped all the oils and fluids out and could then store the vehicles for some time?

I've heard about that although I thought the proper fluids were replaced with some sort of harmless fluid that kept everything good and stopped problems a dry system would develop.