Well, he can believe that, but I suspect that the real story is that the
Humvee is the replacement for the Jeep and nobody expected them to need to
be armored anymore than the Jeep was armored. Now it turns out that
they're enough more capable than the Jeep that they're being used in ways
that the designers never expected and it turns out that they _do_ need
armor, but actually getting it in place is not going to be something that
is going overnight.
While it is conceivable they could or would, it seems unlikely that that is
the case in this instance. "Armor the Humvees" will be a lesson for the
next round of procurement, meanwhile retrofitting armor in any systematic
way is going to take time. First somebody has to decide just how good the
armor should be, then issue RFPs, somebody has to produce a prototype, they
have to test it (and they'll find out either that it's not good enough to
provide adequate protection or that it's too heavy for the running gear and
causes breakdowns or that when they have real soldiers try to field install
it too many problems arise or something else major will be wrong with it)
and so there will be another round or two while they fix the design, then
the manufacturer has to tool up for production then it gets delivered. And
all of this has to be approved by Congress first, which usually means a
year or so of lead time during the budget negotiations. I've been inside
this process (and totally frustrated by the delays over which I had no
control) and it sucks but it's the way it is and so far nobody has been
able to come up with a way to shortcut it that doesn't result in even more
massive waste than the current system.
Uh, were the "higher ups" _aware_ that the 88mm antiaircraft gun could be
used in a dual role? Did it even _exist_ when the contract for the Sherman
was let? Bear in mind that the Sherman was a _vastly_ better tank than
anything that the Germans took into Poland or France--for that matter the
French Char-B was better than the German tanks during the invasion of
France. Are you suggesting that when it was determined the hard way that
the Sherman was inadequate that production should have been halted while
they waited for a new design? So that instead of fighting the Germans with
crappy tanks our guys would have been fighting them with _no_ tanks? If
not, what _do_ you think should have been done but was not that was
technologically feasible without a ground up redesign? And could that
change have been gotten from concept to field delivery in less time that a
new tank design?
Note by the way, that the US was not the only outfit that found that their
tanks needed more armor--look at some of the German field
expedients--concrete poured over the steel for example.
Uh, as far as body count goes, consider that unlike the US, the Russians had
the best bloody tank in the whole bloody _world_, and look at _their_
losses. There is more to success on the battlefield than quantity or
superiority of hardware. If that were not the case the Germans would have
hit the Maginot Line and bounced.
I maintain that you are ignorant of the realities of engineering design,
production leadtimes, and military procurement.
Note that the Sherman lesson _was_ learned--I've seen no complaints about
the adequacy of the armor on the Abrams. And the Humvee lesson will be
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
... and it's just about the most dumb-a**ed statement anybody could make.
Even, for the sake of argument, accepting the premise that the leaders in
this country or war don't value the lives of their troops -- they still
value results. The purpose of sending troops out on a mission of any sort
is to have them accomplish their objectives. An absolutely free humvee and
no-cost bodybags in which the humvee is destroyed and no objectives are
achieved vs. a very expensive Stryker that accomplishes its mission and
returns with few or no casualties is an easy trade even for someone who
doesn't value life but does value results.
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
Note crossposting and follow-ups.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
False dichotomy. A mission may be accomplished despite casualties.
Why did the administration refuse the manufacturer's offer to increase
delivery of the up-armor kits for Humvees if not for budgetary reasons?
I meant that folks in alt.politics should discuss things in alt.politics and
folks in rec.woodworking should discuss things in rec.woodworking. If one
wants to discuss things with another group they should go to that group to
hold that discussion. It is not, nor has it ever been netiquette to cross
post as you did. It only invites an invasion of conversations that are not
relevant to the group in question. If what you were trying to accomplish
was to take a political discussion away from a woodworking group (not
necessarily a bad idea all by itself...), then it works better to get the
participants to go there. Opening this group up to a deluge from
alt.politics by cross posting there does nothing in the name of netiquette.
IOW, those who filter to remove cross-posts don't want to read
the OT articles in the first place, right?
Works for me.
Rec.woodworking is one newsgroup that works as intended. We
have great, flame-free discussions of woodworking and woodworking-
related topics. Most of the off-topic articles are crossposted
here by trolls.
What boggles the mind is that evidently a few of the regular
participants are unhappy about that flame-free environment and
insist on posting off-topic articles with subjects guaranteed to
provoke flame wars. One supposes that results largely from two
factors. First, a profound ignorance of UseNet itself and/or an
attitude that accepted rules of nettiquette are for other people
I think I'm beginning to see your original intention Fred, which was either
not clear, or I simply missed, earlier on. I now appears you were trying to
direct the conversation over to alt.politics rather than allow it to run
here. I wouldn't agree with that as a tactic, but if that's what your
intent was, then I did misinterpret it in the beginning. It appeared to me
to be what we see a lot of in usenet - trolls who cross post in order to
bring others in from different groups, for the sake of creating a major
cluster f*ck. If I misinterpreted your intent, then I apologize.
Not necessarily ... everyone responds differently at different times. Many
don't mind participating in the ocassional OT rant/tirade/dicussion/flame
fest if it is among familiar participants of the group. The best, and worst,
of us are guilty.
Then, there is always the NEXT key for net nanny wannabe's.
It's a war, Andy ... and if you were really paying attention you would know
that it is NOT the RPG so much as the IED that is the cause of the flurry to
jury rig armor on utility vehicles that were never intended to be used
solely for troop transport. They are designed as military "utility"
vehicles, not "armored" vehicles.
Blame Congress and previous administrations that designed, budgeted and
built them, not the current battle planners and those executing the plan.
Ground troops ... their mission is to pound the ground, not ride into
batlle, therefore these vehicles were not designed solely for troop
transport. Give a foot soldier the choice or riding in an unarmored vehicle,
or walking, and he'll take the ride any day regardless of the danger ...
IOW, he'd take a bicycle rather than walk.
Your guys are doing a excellent job, and they undoubtably have more
experience in dealing with close quarter insurgency, but they're also
getting shot at with RPG's too, statistcially just not as frequently.
All but the most naive amongst you know that this "armored vehicle" thing is
being used as a rabbit trail ... and just like foolish, unaware coon dog,
many of you are being fooled by it.
It's not - it's the on-going occupation of an unruly civil population.
The biggest single lesson of NI was the disaster of Bloody Sunday,
that kicked so much of it off. The Paras are great as soldiers for
fighting wars, but they're lousy policemen. This is _not_ a war - you
can tell this, because you're not allowed to get the big toys out. A
civil situation like this needs a different approach and it's not one
that infantry are trained for.
Sure, but we're talking about plywood. Plywood _does_ have uses
against RPGs, odd though this might appear at first.
I'd extend it to the military planners. They're supposed to be the
experts, not Congress itself.
Your distinction is theorectical, impractical and spoken like a civilian. A
rose by any other name ... when the bullets are flying, it's a _war_ to
those having to duck..
No argument, as I said, we used chain link fence ... but not as "armor".
Congress appropriates the funding and approves, cuts, or increase budgets
for the military planners/designers based on administration. IIRC, The
previous administration did a lot of cutting in that area.
Nonetheless, all these current equipment design decisions were made years
ago. The military commander has to fight with the tools available, and
improvise from there, which is what is being done, and has been done in
every war. The equipment lag time, often based on "lessons learned", is
never in favor of those who have to fight now, never has been, and never
Total, absolute, nonsense ... it would really help if you would stick to
what you know. Although ROE's may change according to the situation, our
soldiers, and your's, operate under specific Rules of Engagment that allow
them to use deadly force in self-defense and in defending others from death
or serious bodily injury.
In a war, if you're the bad guy, I can blow you away on sight...
and use whatever I have available to do it quickly..
In a "police action" I have to wait until you shoot at me... which is
Nam all over again...
IMHO, we (US, UK and very few others) kicked ass quickly and
effectively... and that's when the grunts should have gone home and a
police force brought in...
Some are calling Iraq "Vietnam in the sand", but what I'm afraid of is
that it's becoming another Ireland, and we'll be there forever..
Please remove splinters before emailing
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.