!8: Buying 6 Wheel Amphibious Vehicle: December 2011

!±8± Not All UTV's Are Created Equal

In recent years, the big brother of ATV's, known as the UTV, have seen a rapid rise in use by emergency services organizations across the country. Fire, Police and EMS are now recognizing a wide variety of uses and applications for these UTV vehicles including wild land firefighting, emergency medical evacuation from remote locations, police search and rescue operations, crowd control, SARS urban interface just to name a few.

As President and owner of one of the leading manufacturers of medical and fire skid units built specifically for these specialized vehicles, I get calls daily from chief officers and administrators from across the country inquiring about the suitability of one type of make model UTV over another. The ones that haven't purchased a UTV yet are in luck. It is the organization that has already purchased a UTV with the mistaken notion that the particular make/model they purchased will be adequate for the needs of the emergency services they lead who are sometimes in trouble.

There are many UTV makes and models to choose from on the market today. Some are much better suited for emergency services work than others. Some UTV's have no business being utilized by these organizations at all for emergency services work. The Polaris Ranger 6x6 and 4x4, Kubota RTV 900, Kawasaki Mule 3010, John Deere Gator 6x6 and 4x4, Cub Cadet big country, the Buffalo 6x6 and the Argo amphibious are all units that are very popular and seem to be the best suited for emergency services work. There are many other makes and models that deserve tighter scrutiny to insure they will be useful for the mission they will be expected to fulfill.

Emergency services organizations need to put just as much time, effort, thought and due diligence into the purchase of their UTV as they would for their next ambulance or fire truck. First, we need to outline mission objectives, types of typography/geography in the main response area (hilly, steep versus swampy, moist environments) and ultimately the primary mission of the UTV in the organization, medical transport, wild land firefighting or a combination of the two. Once these questions have been answered, then the organization can look at the specifications of the different type UTV models available that best meet the mission objectives. Second, safety must always be high on the list. Most UTV's provide seat belts but make sure the UTV model you are interested in comes equipped with them (and then write proper SOG's or SOP's to insure your organization follows the seat belts always rule) as well as having ROPS (roll over protection structure) which is essentially a roll cage that protects the occupants of the seated areas in the UTV. Third, is the overall weight carrying capacity of the entire unit but more specific the carrying capacity of the cargo bed is of utmost importance. This is where many departments get tripped up. They go out and purchase a unit that cannot meet industry-carrying requirements of these skid units but find out too late.

When considering the purchase of a UTV, I am certain that true 4x4 or 6x6 drive train capability is a must for your organization. Again, check the make/model specifications carefully. Some claim to be 6x6 (which they are, almost) but looking closer you will find that only 4 of the 6 wheels on the vehicle are really true drive wheels. The other two wheels are just freewheeling. Test drive the units while looking at turning radius on the 6x6 versus the 4x4, or is the payload requirements of your mission dictates the 6x6 over the 4x4.

On cargo bed requirements for a medical type skid unit, I have a rule of thumb that the UTV you are buying should be rated to carry at least 650 lbs. in the cargo bed of the unit. We get to this number by adding the weight of the base skid unit (usually 150 lbs. or less) by the average weight of an attendant, patient, trauma bag, O2 bag and bottle and other necessary items. There are UTV's out there that are rated to only carry 400 lbs. in the cargo bed, which is way below the 650 lbs. mentioned above. If it is a wild land firefighting skid with water and gear that you are interested in, that number can jump to 900 lbs. and above for a required rated cargo capacity. When doing your due diligence and getting specifications, the web sites of all the manufactures mentioned above is a great starting place. For instance, the Polaris 6x6 Ranger has an overall rated vehicle payload capacity of 1750 lbs. with a rated cargo bed capacity of 1250 lbs. The Kubota RTV 900 has similar ratings at an overall payload capacity of 1653 lbs. and 1102-lbs. cargo bed capacity. The Polaris Ranger 4x4 has a vehicle payload capacity of 1500 lbs. and a cargo bed rated capacity of 1000 lbs. As you can see, the relationship between the make and models specifications and rated capacities soon helps you narrow your search for the right UTV for the mission you expect it to undertake. Most UTV skid manufactures are starting to standardize the size of the skid units. The cargo bed of the UTV should be at least 49" wide and 54" long. UTV units with smaller sized beds will potentially restrict you as to how many skid units you have to choose from and could drive the price up substantially if a customized skid unit needs to be built to fit your particular UTV.

Remember, as a chief officer of an emergency services organization, you do not want to be put in the unenviable position of having to answer tough questions by a high priced litigation attorney seeing your organization because you placed the wrong UTV into the wrong mission area resulting in an accident. We must give these vehicles the same respect and due diligence when deciding which unit to purchase as we do when we buy the larger vehicles. These vehicles can harm our personnel and our patients just like if we have an accident with the larger units. It is imperative that we do everything to prevent an accident by purchasing the right UTV for the mission.

In closing, the point of this article is to get you to consider your options of makes/models of UTV's very closely before you make the final purchase. I also want to say that I am not a fan of the use of ATV's in use by emergency services. I bought one for my small rural department but soon felt that the unit did not provide enough safety protection for my firefighters/EMT's. First you ride up on an ATV like on a motorcycle instead of inside a UTV like a car. Second, there are no seat belts on ATV's where there is almost always seat belts on UTV's, and finally the ATV can be very unstable in many conditions. ATV's should serve limited mission roles in emergency services organizations. Remember that cheaper in terms of cost is not always best when it comes to our national motto for firefighters "Everyone comes home".

Not All UTV's Are Created Equal

Best Buy E Reader Devices Pottery Barn Vanities This Instant

!±8± What Vehicle Did the Army Want in a Reconnaissance Car?

The "jeep" history may have begun on March 22, 1933 with the procurement by the Army of one car manufactured by the American Austin Company. This one car was thoroughly tested at Fort Benning, GA. Lt. E.P. Hogan, Quartermaster Corps credits testing of this car as the forerunner of pilot models of the 1/4-ton truck. It was an "open two-seated commercial passenger car." The car was driven outside of Ft. Benning as far as Fort McPherson (about 115 miles!) Testing of the small car showed the Army what it could expect of a small car. The vehicle was later salvaged.

In 1937, the Chief of Infantry was calling for a lightweight vehicle to be used as a "weapon and ammunition carrier." The Chief wanted the vehicle for tests and experiments as rapidly as possible. At this point, the Infantry wasn't sure if the vehicle would be a "track-laying vehicle capable of movement across country and on roads at tank speed, requiring only modification of commercial vehicles." Or, if it would be a "truck light enough to be manhandled over ditches and other obstacles by a squad. The vehicle will have to be capable of carrying a maximum load of 1100lbs. (anti-tank gun)."

Around this time a Captain Howie (of the Infantry School, Tank Section) developed the "Howie-Wiley Belly Flopper" under the direction of Brigadier General Walter C. Short, Assistant Commandant of the Infantry School). The general required that the vehicle be constructed for the sole purpose of transporting two men, a caliber .30 machine gun, tripod, and ammunition. Other requirements included:
That the gun not be mounted for firing from the carrier. That the vehicle be light enough for four men to lift it into a 1 1/2-ton truck and across small obstacles. That the vehicle present as low a silhouette as possible--sacrificing ground clearance therefore, if necessary. That dimensions be such that it could be carried in the 1 1/2-ton truck issued to machine-gun companies. That speed was no object--as low as 10mph maximum would be sufficient. That units be commercially available as far as possible.

Captain Howie was assisted in the construction of the vehicle by Master Sergeant M.C. Wiley, an expert mechanic and tanker. Sergeant G. L. Rush assisted in the final assembly of the vehicle made from salvaged units. It certainly was a light weight vehicle, however, the ground clearance was very low and the crew laid down to operate the vehicle. While the vehicle might have proved useful in localized areas, it would have been necessary to have the vehicle trucked to were it would be needed for action. Not really fitting what was needed by the Infantry.

Along this line of thought, Captain Wendel G. Johnson, Infantry wrote in the November-December, 1937 Infantry Journal, "What is wanted is merely a gasoline-propelled conveyance not much higher than a man crawling that will be able to carry a one- or two-man crew, a gun, and plenty of ammunition, and scoot from one firing position to another at 5 to 10 miles an hour." Captain Johnson was obviously influenced by the "Belly-Flopper" produced by Howie and staff. According to Lt Hogan the Howie-Wiley car "was the first and only Army-built forerunner of the 'truck 1/4-ton, 4x4."

In the US Army in World War Two volume on "CHIEF OF STAFF: PREWAR PLANS AND PREPARATIONS" by Mark Skinner Watson. "In 1937, engineers at the Quartermaster Corps' Holabird Depot ordered a new experimental version of a small vehicle from Bantam. The engineers had already developed a preliminary design, which included what would become the familiar body shape. They worked out final details with an engineer at Bantam. The specifications for the vehicle had changed: the soldiers were back in a seated position, and the vehicle had to be capable of traversing rough terrain. It still needed to be capable of carrying a machine gun on a tripod, plus ammunition. The Army wanted the vehicle to be built of conventional commercial parts." In February, 1938, three Bantam test model Chassis Assemblies 1/4-ton, 4x2, completed as specified accepted and delivered one each to Fort Benning, GA; Fort Riley, KA; and Holabird, MD. It was desired that a "suitable self-propelled vehicle of the wheeled type consisting, in so far as practicable, of standard commercial units and parts and of the least possible weight and size for the purpose of transporting two men, a caliber .30 machine gun, tripod, and ammunition over cross country terrain." Bantam also made available some of its standard vehicles to the Pennsylvania National Guard. None of the cars were successful but were key in motivating Army personnel for pressing for suitable unit.

It wasn't until a three day (May 17-20) meeting of the Quartermaster Technical Committee on Transportation held at Holabird Quartermaster Depot in Maryland that things began to move toward a new light truck for the Army. It became apparent to all the members present (this would have included members of all the service branches--Infantry, Cavalry, etc.) that the 1/2-ton Weapons Carrier would never have its weight and silhouette reduced to what was considered desirable by the Infantry.

The Infantry Board had made a considerable study of several vehicles of various types that might fulfill the needs of the Infantry. These included, the "Benz Car", a very light Swiss vehicle, the "Howie Wiley Carrier", and others. The Infantry Board had also tested the American Bantam passenger car. Many of the vehicles met the required light weight and low silhouette but none met the requirement for cross-country ability. Lt Col William F. Lee of the Infantry Vehicle Section was in favor of further development of a car of this type. He was able to convince Major General George Lynch (Chief of Infantry) of its desirability and the Chief approved the concept of a "super-light, cross-country car." (Chronology of 1/4-ton Liaison Car Development, January 2, 1941).

American Bantam Car Company (of Butler, Pennsylvania) was keen on selling their vehicles to the Army (or even making the Belly Floppers, if that is what was wanted by the government). Bantam contracted with Charles "Harry" Payne in February 1940 to be the salesman and liaison to the government...in order to drum up business. Originally, he was to be paid a five percent commission, this was later reduced to two and a half percent..

It was during this Quartermaster Corps meeting that Harry Payne, representing American Bantam (of Butler, Pennsylvania) proposed to make the company's manufacturing facilities available to the Government for the production of any vehicle "based on the 'Bantam'". The committee informed Mr. Payne that the Bantam had previously been tested and found lacking, "in sturdiness and cross-country ability." In order for the Infantry to be interested the vehicle would require four-wheel drive with enough power and ruggedness to make it suitable. It was at that time seen as a replacement for the horse for commanders and staff of the Infantry.

Bantam Company communicated to the committee a couple of days later that "they could and would build the vehicle" wanted, "based generally on the 'Bantam'" in size. It was at that point the Infantry Vehicle Section, together with Payne drafted a memo to the Adjutant General "requesting the immediate initiation of the development" of what would become the Truck, 1/4-ton, Command and Reconnaissance Car or "jeep."

Originally, the Infantry were looking for the following in a light weight vehicle in the memo entitled, "Light Vehicle Development, June 6, 1940":
Maximum height: 36 inches Maximum weight (net): 1000lbs Cross-country ability and grade ability at least equal to other standard vehicles Capacity: at least two men, one machine-gun with accessories, and 3000 rounds of cal. .30 ammunition Four-wheel drive Face-armor for the driver Amphibian characteristics were "desirable."

The "armor" characteristic had been added by the Infantry to keep the project out of Quartermaster Corps hands as the Chief of Infantry was convinced that the Quartermaster Corps had screwed up the development of the 1/2-ton project (by allowing the contract to go to a company that had had no experience in producing the type vehicle required.) The amphibian characteristics were later dropped but reemerged with the production in 1942 by Ford of the Amphibious 1/4-ton or "Seep."

This brief memo led to the meeting of the Ordnance and other Army representatives (notably those of the Infantry, Calvary, Field Artillery, and the Quartermaster Corps.) at the American Bantam Car Company plant in Butler on June 19, 1940. The committee members present (G.M. Barnes, Col, Ordnance; F.J. Atwood, Lt Col, Ordnance; H.W. Evans, Ordnance; J.H. Johnson, Lt Col, Quartermaster Corps; Rex W. Beasley, Maj, Field Artillery; W.F. Beasley, Ordnance; W.F. Lee, Lt Col, Infantry; and F.P. Tompkins, Maj, Cavalry) briefly tested the "Bantam" cars present at the plant. Also present at this meeting were Major Robert .G. Howie and Robert F. Brown (civilian engineer, Holabird Quartermaster Depot).

It was during this meeting that the general requirements for the car were fleshed out. The "tentative decision to require, among other things, a driving front axle with a 2-speed transfer case including the provision for disengaging the front axle drive; a body of rectangular design with folding windshield and three bucket seats; increased engine power; means for towing; a .30 caliber machine gun mount on a telescoping pedestal; blackout lighting and oil-bath air cleaner; and such regularly accepted components in the automobile industry as hydraulic brakes and full floating axles." Other features that were called for were "5.50-16 tires with bullet sealing tubes; provide a radiator guard and skid shoe under the transfer case. The memorandum requested 40 cars for the Infantry, 20 cars for the Cavalry and 10 cars for the Field Artillery. With this memo the requirement for an armored screen for the driver was eliminated and the project was transferred back under the purview of the Quartermaster Corps for further development and procurement. The Adjutant General and Secretary of War approved the request and authorized the expenditure of not more than 5,000 for the project.