freeatlast
New Member
Need to admit what? That I've never driven an LMTV, so I wouldn't have tried what they did? I'll admit that freely. I've ridden in the back of one, but that doesn't qualify me to drive one (I have a military license for HMMWV, and have driven/ridden in hummers in situations where the water was well above the floorboard, requiring me to dry off afterwards). I had a license for deuce-and-a-half once upon a time, but the deuce is nothing like the LMTV.
Here's the problem with your assumption, Free: Was this the first time those National Guardsmen had driven in those conditions? If you can't definitively say "yes," then you're the one that's in error. It's entirely possible that they had driven in exactly the same conditions earlier in the day without any problems. Or that they had driven in exactly the same conditions while deployed. So it's entirely possible that they made the decision to drive in those conditions based on their prior experience.
It's also a known fact that military vehicles, including aircraft, are capable of more than the published limitations. The published limitations are a minimum threshold for safety; you can actually push most of the vehicles and aircraft beyond those limits, but you stress the mechanics of the vehicle and decrease its lifecycle. Knowing this, the drivers in the vehicles may have chosen to push the limits in order to assist others.
And referring back to another thread, it's also entirely possible that they were ordered to drive in those conditions. In which case, you're laughing at them for doing what you say they should do without question: follow orders. Unless you're indicating that they should have used common sense and disobeyed the order; in which case, that makes you a hypocrite....
But you and I don't know what they were thinking when they made the decision to drive in those conditions, do we? We don't know their past experience, their training on this particular vehicle, any of that, do we?
If you can't definitively prove that they've never done it before, or that their training was, in fact, deficient, then all you've done is presumed the worst and derided those that were trying to help others.
----------
Will you apologize for your continual offensiveness? Because it's quite obvious now that you're adding the laughing smiley just to goad us--even after being told it was offensive. That speaks volumes about your personality and character, doesn't it?
Don I agree with you it very well could have been flawed training due to first tiume driving or what ever else. However even with that the situation was dumb as who drives into water over their head? It was a dumb move and it was funny. :laugh: