Plywood armor plating

[Ed Clarke]

Don't wish ill for your enemy; plan it.

[Swingman]

Go ahead, read the original statement again and then tell me "in denial" of what?

[Swingman]

.... and Monday morning quarterbacks are still a dime a dozen.

[Robatoy]

snip]

Is it safe to assume that the current planners are aware of the limitations of what is available to them? HumV's aren't APC's. They are used in that role though, which begs the question, what's wrong, the equipment or the application thereof?

0¿0

Rob---> who's just asking, not trying to start anything.

[Old Nick]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:49:43 -0600, "Swingman" 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, I think.

[Old Nick]

On 24 Jan 2005 08:52:23 -0800, [e-mail] vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Sorry. I just attributed this to Andy

[Old Nick]

On 25 Jan 2005 15:48:08 GMT, Ed Clarke vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Ah. Thanks. I tried searching around but could not find it.

[Andy Dingley]

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.

[Mark & Juanita]

... 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

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Silvan]

That's not what it says. It says "Don't talk about your enemy, but think." Anything else you get out of it is a question of interpretation.

[Old Nick]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:28:17 +0000, Andy Dingley vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

But good chance for a rant! Sorry. I misattributed it.

[Old Nick]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:14:00 -0700, Mark & Juanita vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

.........no...

[fredfighter]

leaders in

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?

[Swingman]

Well, read the last paragraph again:

[Mike Marlow]

No - screw the crossposting. Why would you go and start that crap? Please don't take up on this crossposting stuff. Kindly keep comments within your own group.

[Robatoy]

I read that. I just can't get my head around it. Having said that, I also don't understand civilians, who have never spent a day in the service, who know f*uck-all about warfare, giving orders to the military.

[Swingman]

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.

[Swingman]

What's so hard about understanding that, as a military commander charged with a mission, you are duty bound to do your utmost to perform that mission, regardless of whether you have "armored" vehicles for the situation?

Keep firmly in mind that TOE (Table of Organization and Equipment) does NOT normally contain armored transport resources for those units deployed as infantry ... they normally WALK. :)

You improvise and do the best you can ...a time honored solution to the time honored fact of politicians hamstringing the fighting man.

It ain't like this administration invented, or even had that much to do, with the situation under discussion.

Well, it _is_ a Constitutional safeguard which we damn well better fight to preserve.

[Ed Clarke]

Damn it, you're right! Never believe a usenet translation. Should be something with optatio and malus.

[mac davis]

Read Blackhawk Down... the movie was dramatic... the book will make anyone who's been there and done that feel it as much as read it..

The Humvee is a jeep replacement, NOT a tank or armored personnel carrier... One of my sons is a HV mechanic, and he says that a HV with armor has no speed or agility and needs a tanker truck following it to replace what that turbo diesel drinks... just not practical as an armored vehicle because the armor is way too heavy and that it's NOT built to be armored, any more than a WWII jeep was..

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing