[Milsurplus] Re: The 71st TCS

[neil277 at juno.com]

The Army (and the AAC/AAF ?) had a term caled OVM (On Vehicle
Material). When you signed for a tank or truck it included all the
stuff (OVM) that goes with the complete item: binoculars, periscopes,
fire extinglishers, tool kit, spare tire, canvas, bows, engineer tools
etc etc. That is, UNLESS you had an additional document showing you
were 'short' some items when you signed for the big one. My dad learned
this with some tanks in the '40s. I learned it with my tool box,
TE-113, (replaced by TK-87) in the 60's.(I'm not positive those numbers
are correct.) Company commanders were signed for lots of stuff; they
had the platoon leaders sign for most of it on a sub hand receipt. On
down the line to the individual soldier, who signed for his clothes,
weapon, field gear, etc which even included the wound dressing in the
1st aid pouch. Of course the dressing and ammo were expendable and were
replaced free of charge, but not the other stuff.

As a maintenance NCO working with hundreds of R-390's and other
equipment, there were always the discussions about who signed for all
mission equipment in a fixed station. The commander desided; some times
it was the S3 - Operations who used the equipmet, and othe ploaces it
was the S4 - logistics & maintenance whose people went around yanking
receivers to do monthly PM. They were replaced by one off the ready
rack since there was maybe 10 to 15 percent additional 'float'
equipment. But if you didn't have float equipment, I'd think you would
want YOUR receiver back. Especially if it was a good one.

We don't really know why they painted unit or a/c numbers on equipment.
And we don't know where or when it was done. Every little thing did not
have an Army-wide policy attached. But most likely it was done if
equipment would or could be mixed at some location like base
maintenance or at a transient air base.

The Army may have traveled on its stomach, but the bean counters wanted
to know which beans and how many.

Neil, 33W50
old retired maintenance SNCO

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:22:38 EDT WA5CAB wrote:
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] Re: The 71st TCS

Someone on the aircraft had probably signed for it by serial number.