I was reading this article:
about a national guardsman returning from Iraq, and happened to notice this:
"The majority of vehicles in Resta's brigade, as throughout much of Iraq,
were poorly armored. Most were protected by only half-inch sheets of
Plywood!? Surely that can't be right, can it?
BTW have you ever looked at WWII pictures of Sherman tanks?
You notice the sandpags piled on them and all the extra track stuck all around
the sides? That is hillbilly armor. (the Sherman had inferior armor too)
Iraq is not the first time guys have made up for bad congressional
appropriations decisions with things they have lating around.
Pretty common. The US troops went into Iraq expecting small-arms
fire and instead received RPGs. These have a shaped charge warhed
which explodes _outside_ the armour and sprays a hot jet of molten
metal forwards, cutting a hole through the armour. The jet is only
effective for a few inches, so if you can make it hit something
_above_ the armour, you trigger the warhead too early and it just
scorches the surface of the real armour. This spaced armour appeared
in mid-WW2 and has been made out of anything from chicken wire to
corrugated iron chickenhouses.
So why are the Americans taking so many casualties from them ?
Given the choice between a Humvee and a CAMAC-armoured Landie, I know
which one I'd rather be in. Amazingly enough, the Brits know a thing
or two about CQB and dealing with a well-armed population with a
dislike for squaddies. The US troops seem to have taken all their
advice from the LAPD - Compton is a tough neighbourhood, but not as
well armed as the Bogside.
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
That money comes before bodies in wartime. I agree that whoever
believes is a sick puppy, but I think that the people in control of
these situations do believe just that. That was what Andy was saying,
No, not at all
In fact I'd disagree with it. Bush has just asked for another
squillion dollars without batting an eyelid, but photographing
bodybags is a major thoughtcrime these days.
My point is that Team America is tooled up for fighting the 1991 war,
and they're being asked to do something quite different instead.
Winning "the war" would be easy - call in a couple of airstrikes,
destroy the ville in order to save it, that kind of thing.
Instead though they don't _have_ that option. It stops being a "war"
when you lose the option to use military-grade force in response. If
you have to work under those constraints, you need to think and act
differently from being an infantryman (as the Brits learned after
Bloody Sunday). Some of this includes bringing along vehicles and
armour that's appropriate to the threat in hand (there should be brass
rolling in the Pentagon for that screwup).
And it's not a war anyway, as Bush keeps telling us, because that
would mean the Geneva Conventions would apply and America really can't
face having that.
Horseshit ... you know better than that. Spoken from emotion with no reason
whatsoever. Take the time to read Section II. Combatants and Prisoners of
War, then note who it is that qualifies as such, and who it is beheading
prisoners and violating every tenet of same.
And you want to treat them as POW's under the GC?
Wake up, Andy ... your way of life, and very possibly your life and the
lives of those whom you love, is on the line.
Go ahead ... bitch, moan, and sit around _waiting_ for the next shoe to
fall. Just hope like hell that there is still someone around to protect you
from yourself by _carrying_ the fight to those just waiting fo the
opportunity to eradicate your infidel ass.
This week the Brits are talking of little else
(really - you can no doubt guess why)
So attrocities on one side are equally culpable by all soldiers, and
form a valid excuse for the withdrawal of PoW's rights from all
members of that combatant force ? By that logic you've just made
yourself culpable for My Lai.
No, not particularly. I favour treating them as criminal terrorists,
because I accept the legal argument that armed fighters outside a
declared combat between nation states are not PoWs.
What I can't accept is the Kafkaesque Guantanamo situation (a PR
spokesman at Gitmo really is called "Lt. Mike Kafka" !). These
terrorists are either criminals or PoWs - you have to have them one
way or the other, not hold them indefinitely incommunicado and without
trial. That is not the act of any nation with any claim to decent
behaviour, lest of all one that has set itself up as the moral arbiter
for the world.
Besides which, I thought you were the one claiming that this was a
Really ? Shocking ! Just which part of my way of life was Iraq
planning on attacking ? Where _where_ those pesky WMDs ?
Yeah, it's such a great thing for the world that America was watching
out for us. _America_ told Saddam that it was OK to invade Kuwait.
_America_ taught the 9/11 pilots to fly. Yeah, great vigilance there.
Go Team America !
If there isn't already a fight, carry one right on in there.
cheaper to replace personnel than purchase proper equipment.
As I understand your reply, you believe this is the product of a warped
mind, and you do not believe our gov't/military could or would make such
Somewhere in this thread was mentioned the augmentation seen on Shermans
in WWII, almost as justification for the inadequately prepared Humvees.
That augmentation was needed because then, as now, the higher ups
refused to prepare for the inevitable and sent woefully under-armed and
under-armored tanks against the fearsome 88mm gun and thick armor the
Germans deployed. The Brits called the Sherman the "Tommy-toaster".
The Sherman only prevailed by virtue of quantity, not quality. In other
words: our side could afford to fill more body than their side.
Have you never heard the infantry referred to as "Mk I, Mod I Bullet
Ergo, I maintain you are in denial.
How do we know what's "best," so we can buy it, and not waste time and money
on intermediate products?
How do we fight the next war when we only know the last?
More to the point, how can we plan or purchase anything military without the
press and Senator Lenin telling us we don't need it at all?
BTW, it wasn't just the Sherman which was vulnerable. One of my old Soviet
tactics instructors fought at Kursk in the T34, and had nothing but respect
for what an 88 could do to _any_ tank.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.