DND Repossession(Rant )

[Wpns 421]

This post has erased. Gilles

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

CWM Fox vs. private Fox:

[Wpns 421]

Originally Posted by Bruce Parker

CWM Fox vs. private Fox:

Thank you, this is exactly what I mean. Very nice Fox. I am sure you found it in this condition.

[malcolm erik bogaert]

Slightly off topic but youll get my meaning...was reading in yesterdays Daily Telegraph thet the Chief Constable of Yorkshire has decreed (all by himself) that starting pistols that are used to starr athletic meetings etc... have now to be handed in immediatly...any one found in posesion of same after the 4th June 2010 will face a term of imprisionment of no less than 5 years!I wasnt aware that this so called law had been passed or even debated in Parliment....whats happened to our rights....next it will be our de-activated weapons....lets hope this Stalinist govement dosnt get in at the next election! although Im pretty sure that who-ever takes over will carry on these stupid laws.....disgusted.....malcolm

[Craig S.]

I totally agree with what you are saying in regard to the messed up policies and support for museums, approved civilian and even the base supported ones. From the museum I work at it is truly disappointing in the lack of support or general apathy towards providing funding or direct labour support in the upkeep of present artifacts and monuments. For years driving in the front gate and looking at the vehicles slowly disintegrate and become the rusty row, it pisses me off. Especially when the resources are available in situ basically. Now that a few vehicles are so poor looking they have been moved from the row and now sit like rejects in the museum parking lot, where they aren't in such prominent view daily. So many people comment how they are in bad shape and you can see the disappointment talking with them, especially in the veterans who operated it while in service. Equipment on it's way out of service in the next few years and it's associated components/parts supply should be involved in the pre-disposal plan distribution right off the bat. Instead of trying to get top dollar in return for the stuff save some to support museums and associations. I just think that someone with the power and/or influence to preserve this stuff would step up so we can enjoy the kit as it was when it was in service - operating and running. I'm not one for using smilies, but this one seems to fit the mood for this subject - ..........

[Adame]

Please sell it to me.

Cheers
Adam

[charlie fitton]

note that the veh being called back are potentially useful to the CF...

[Gordon Yeo]

There is an orginization that will surely help! Years ago the last flying WW 2 Canso left in Canada was going to be sold off shore and it was hoped it could be retained for a historic/ museum purpose. It was flown by 162 squadron RCAF and Thomas Cooke DFC, AFC ( check out Canadian Aviation Hall of Fame ) won his DFC for sinking a German submarine. In the log book containing the names of pilots who also flew it included David Hornell VC.
All attempts to get goverment support or financing to aquire the airplane were rejected. Luckily it was sold to a buyer from France who completely restored the airplane and was used for arieal photography.
If that isn't worth saving then an M113 might fall through the cracks as well.

[Ed Storey]

Is this rant based on anything other than hearsay? Starting off with a friend sent me an e-mail that apparently concerns a Federal Department and Federal Museum is really not a firm basis to start a thread that seems to wander off in two directions. Do you really know the actual events or are you just basing this thread on the information you recieved in the e-mail?

Also, are you unhappy that the vehicles were apparently recalled? Are you unhappy that DND apparently wanted them recalled? Do you know, or have you ever actually seen any formal written agreement between DND and CWM and if so please tell us all what the details of the loan agreement are so that we can all perhaps forumate an informed opinion.

Your rant quickly turned into some sort of statement on the CWM collection and how you seem to think it is not very good and that collectors are "more historically correct(Depending on availability of parts and finances) we are more mobile, asthetically more accurate and collectors are more knowledgeable of their vehicles than some guide at the CWM." How does this relate to the original topic, ie the apparent recall of vehicles, that you started to rant about?

Next you wander off and start babbling on about the demand for display vehicles, how does this relate to your original topic? Also, what is this battle you have been raging for years with your vehicles?

I don't know what the agreement between CWM and DND is or was, perhaps when DND passes AFVs to CWM the vehicles have to stay with CWM and not be loaned out to a third party; musuem or not. But, this is specualtion as I do not know the answer. Perhaps an e-mail to the CWM or the parent organization the Museum of Civilization will get you all of the details.

Boycotting events, I am not sure what events you are talking about, is not the way to go. If you are not pleased with the state of the CWM collection, then instead of generating rants in this forum, do something about it. There is a charitable support organization for the CWM called the Friends of the Canadian War Museum. By joining this organization, this can give you a voice into the preservation of museum artefacts, something you will not get with just ranting on this forum.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Ed Storey

If you are not pleased with the state of the CWM collection, then instead of generating rants in this forum, do something about it. There is a charitable support organization for the CWM called the Friends of the Canadian War Museum. By joining this organization, this can give you a voice into the preservation of museum artefacts, something you will not get with just ranting on this forum.

Efforts on behalf of the CWM will result in bigger budgets for hospitality and better cheese trays at events instead of restorations I fear.

Ed, hearsay aside, how do you know there is no basis for this rant?

[Jordan Baker]

From my understanding this in response to a US State Dept rulling about private ownership on certain military veh's.

I also understand that this was affecting people not just in Canada but abroad too. Perhaps this was an arrangement that DND made with the US State Dept.

[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

[servicepub (RIP)]

I guess that I will wade in on this also. It was mentioned in an earlier post that the 'claw back' is due to the US ITAR (International Trafficking in Arms Regulations). Anybody who runs a military museum in Canada should be well aware of the effects this US Law has had on the private ownership of military goods in Canada. Under pressure from the US State Dept the Government of Canada amended the Defence Production Act by adding a section on Controlled Goods. These goods, to further confuse things, are listed in the Export and Import Permits Act list of goods controlled for export from Canada.
I don't think that DND gives a rat's ass about MilVeh collectors but their ITAR compliance office probably had a bird when they heard that the US-manufactured military goods had been loaned by the CWM to a third-party. If the affected museum really wants to have the M113, etc.., back they should apply for an export perrmit from the US State Department (Yes, I know, the goods are already in Canada, but that's the way these things work.) If 'State' approves the 'export' then the CWM can return the vehicles to the borrowing museum.
The above is the result of 6 1/2 years at Foreign Affairs dealing with these issues. You might not like the answer and we will all agree that it makes no sense, but that is the way it is.

[peter simundson]

a great reply which makes sense.
I wouldn't doubt this could also be used as an excuse to have equipment returned if they couldn't find a good reason otherwise.

PS

[RHClarke]

Originally Posted by peter simundson

a great reply which makes sense.
I wouldn't doubt this could also be used as an excuse to have equipment returned if they couldn't find a good reason otherwise. PS

I purposely stayed out of this "debate" as it could have an impact on the type of work I do (when contracted...). But now, I can't resist since Clive brought up ITAR.

Two things strike me - first, the use of the word "loan" and the people who are surprised when the loan is called in. Leaving that word aside, the second issue is that magic abbreviation ITAR. ITAR trumps loans of any nature and is not a battle the little guy can win. You are dealing with the force of law of a superpower that has the balls to back up its legislation - even in a foreign land (read Canada).

Dealing with ITAR issues raises a lot of confusion, and it keeps lawyers busy. This wonderful "device" was put in place partially to make sure that allies who use US kit do not dispose of it in such a way that the kit ends up being used by US enemies. Just imagine the looks on the faces of US troops when they look up and see US made armoured vehicles in the service of their enemy... If you think it couldn't happen, think again. I am sure others on this forum can cite an example or two. The US and Cdn governments take ITAR seriously and there is no wiggle room in my experience.

I am of the opinion that you would have a better chance of ramming a stick of butter up a wolverine's arse with a red hot poker, whilst naked than fighting an ITAR issue.

[Grant Bowker]

When I saw that DND was starting action to dispose of the M113 series I asked a contact about how/whether I could acquire a set of the manuals for the M113. I thought that if they were disposing of the vehicles, they shouldn't need the manuals so it should be a perfect oportunity to get a set of the Canadian (if different from US) manuals for the hardware. I was told that ITAR extended to manuals so I would be out of luck. The person who told me this rarely mixes fact with supposition, so I accept the statement as being an official (though not direct) pronouncement.
The odd part of this is that M113 manuals (US version) seem to be readily available on eBay. On one hand they are a controlled item, on the other they are for open distribution (not free, but not expensive)

[Lynn Eades]

I have heard on the news here that the ANZAC parade in Adelaide will not be allowing Military vehicles, this year, for the first time. The news reader cited "security issues" as the reason.

[servicepub (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Grant Bowker

When I saw that DND was starting action to dispose of the M113 series I asked a contact about how/whether I could acquire a set of the manuals for the M113. I thought that if they were disposing of the vehicles, they shouldn't need the manuals so it should be a perfect oportunity to get a set of the Canadian (if different from US) manuals for the hardware. I was told that ITAR extended to manuals so I would be out of luck. The person who told me this rarely mixes fact with supposition, so I accept the statement as being an official (though not direct) pronouncement.
The odd part of this is that M113 manuals (US version) seem to be readily available on eBay. On one hand they are a controlled item, on the other they are for open distribution (not free, but not expensive)

In a government-world-of-its-own kind of way this makes sense as the ITAR only controls the export and not the (US) domestic ownership or transfer. Other domestic US agencies may have their own controls over some military goods, i.e., mortars and artillery for example which are classed as destructive devices by the ATF. That said, e-bay sellers who ship the manual out of the States are in violation of the US law.
Clive

[Lynn Eades]

How far back does this go? Does this apply to parts and manuals for a WWII jeep or Dodge?

[RHClarke]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ms_Regulations

[lynx42]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

I have heard on the news here that the ANZAC parade in Adelaide will not be allowing Military vehicles, this year, for the first time. The news reader cited "security issues" as the reason.

Lynn, More information please. I haven't heard of that decision.
I have been supplying ex-military vehicles for country Victorian ANZAC DAY parades for the past 24 years. I arrange it for 5 different towns in my area. So I would like more information.
I also belong to the Wartime Vehicle Conservation Group of SA Inc., the Victorian Military Vehicle Corps Inc. and am President of the Khaki Vehicle Enthusiasts Inc.
Thanks Rick

[Tony Smith]

Originally Posted by Grant Bowker

When I saw that DND was starting action to dispose of the M113 series I asked a contact about how/whether I could acquire a set of the manuals for the M113.

I was told that ITAR extended to manuals so I would be out of luck.

The odd part of this is that M113 manuals (US version) seem to be readily available on eBay. On one hand they are a controlled item, on the other they are for open distribution (not free, but not expensive)

The Actual US Legislation details the items that are covered. Clause 126.5 details that there are exemptions for Canada End-Users (only) for unclassified items. If the manuals are classified (written on the cover) then they require an EUC to export. However, if the manuals are a Canadian published version applicable to the Canadian variants, I'm doubtful that ITAR would apply within Canadian borders.

Lynn, although the Act was revised in 1992, there is no mention in the act of age or date of manufacture of the items concerned, or an exemption for a particular cut-off date. Makes sense, as a 1941 made M2 Browning .50 cal would be just as critical as a 1991 made version.