Rumsfeld at his best......

[Pongo]

More stupid ww2 anologies.
Mine proof vehicles have existed that would be perfect for use in Iraq for 30 years.
If the bearcat was available in 1910 and the US navy went to war with the Wildcat in 1941..ya I would be pissed. Thanks for another clueless anology.

To clarify for you so you can seem wise by speaking sense in the future The real issue that eluded the US military in planning the Iraq occupation(was there a plan?) was that the entire logisitics and civilian infastructure would have to be armoured against IUD attack and small arms and RPG fire.  Arming the infantry and MP battalions is no big deal. But when your cooks and supply clerks need mine resistant trucks it kind of gets expensive.

As to why they cant just move new troops into the existing armoured vehicles. You were in the air force so I will make it simple. After a year in Iraq there is nothing left of those vehicles. The over weight condition of them and the type of driving they do probably takes down 60 % of them in a year. 20% are lost operationaly. You would be sending troops into action with vehicles that had nothing left.

So the 400 a month you stated doenst free up enough Hummers for equiping all new units. They would moslty be being sent to Iraq to replace losses both to combat and to total break down.

Up armouring something that wasnt designd for it will lead to attrition of those vehicles way faster then buying a vehicle designed for the weight.

That guy who asked Ruhmy the question wasnt saying that no newly deployed unit was getting armoured hummers. He was saying his wasnt. The Pentagon would in all fairness probably be equiping the units going to the most dangerous places with the new hummers first.

I dont like to give you ammo to defend the clown, But I hate to see you spouting nonsense to try and defend him.

[Pongo]

And I started my who owns stock thing with "I dont know"
dont act supprised though. When you see behavior that makes no sense at all like the situation in Iraq right now, there is a reason. And even you must admit that procurment in every military in every country in the world has alot to do with who owns what. Its a sales job after all and your leaders invest in those defense companies to make money.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Pongo
More stupid ww2 anologies.

What I find less than intelligent is someone disputing that you DON'T go to war with the "army you have".

IF the US military had identified a need for mine-proof GP vehicles SOME YEARS AGO we'd have them.

But our "best and brightest" military minds built the vehicle they thought they would need, which was the Humvee.

My brother-in-law was at the Pentagon 10 years ago planning the "Army of the future". At that time, they were focused on "light fighters", light infantry units that could deploy swiftly with minimal, easily air transportable equipment. The "future" was seen to hold short, low intensity conflicts. The ideas and equipment he worked on has come to pass for the most part.

But you know what? He never mentioned mine-proof vehicles to me. It just wasn't in the mix.

Your contention that we should have waited until we procured 50,000 Cougars or something makes me smile.  I guess it's your new version of "you shouldn't have gone at all". Just one more thing to throw out.

Look, Bush made the decision to go to war. Rumsfeld had no choice but to carry out the decision. The commanders made up the plans. You're suggesting they could have said "we're not going without equipping the force with Cougars"? I doubt it.

The commanders in Iraq say they need 8000 armored Humvees. We're producing new ones at 400/month. So Bush should have waited 20 months right? Of course, you still wouldn't be happy because an up-armored Humvee still isn't suited to the job, it's just a little bit better. What they need is Cougars...except those are still vulnerable to large IEDs... and we basically can only build a few of those per month so we should have waited ......... 5 years........ or what Pongo?

There's also  4,814 medium-weight transport trucks and 4,314 heavy transport vehicles there too.  All of those need much more armor. So, we would have needed to fix those too.

Except that wasn't the timetable that Bush set. So Rumsfeld went to war with the army he had.

It's an immutable truth, whether you choose to accept it or not. Happens to every army in every war. Deficiencies are exposed and men die because of them.

Mine proof vehicles have existed that would be perfect for use in Iraq for 30 years.
If the bearcat was available in 1910 and the US navy went to war with the Wildcat in 1941..ya I would be pissed. Thanks for another clueless anology.[/b]

Yep, except that US war planning was primarily for a defensive war in Europe where the local population would be highly unlikely to use IEDs against US forces. Our GP vehicles were designed and our forces were equipped to fit that scenario.

The idea that you can re-equip in a few months is ludicrous and shows an amazing lack of understanding of US Pentagon procurement.

There's someone who's being deliberately clueless here but it isn't me.

The real issue that eluded the US military in planning the Iraq occupation(was there a plan?) was that the entire logisitics and civilian infastructure would have to be armoured against IUD attack and small arms and RPG fire. [/b]

To clarify for you, I haven't disagreed that the post-war planning wasn't deficient and incorrect.

So stow your insults. (Nash, you noting this?)

 

As to why they cant just move new troops into the existing armoured vehicles. You were in the air force so I will make it simple.

[/b]

Here, let me make it simple for you. In the Air Force, I routinely deployed on other transportation and assumed command of aircraft already in place in the forward operating area, replacing other crews that had done the same thing.

It's simply a matter of maintenance and resupply. There are ~400 new uparmored Humvees coming out every month and I'm sure they're going to Iraq. That's 5% replacement monthly of total required. Further, I'm certain that depot level maintenance is being performed on them in Iraq. Do you have the rates on that?

So, your contention is that all Humvees are totally useless after a year in Iraq? I'd have to disagree, if so.

Basically, I doubt you have the numbers on the Humvees with respect to heavy maintenance.

The bottom line is still that the Humvee isn't right for the job, up-armored or not. Additionally, the idea that everything could have been delayed until 10,000 Cougars had been procured is beyond incredible. Bush made the decision and that was that. Further, the idea that the Cougar could/would solve the problem is optimistic at best; force protection calls it a "medium" mine-resistant vehicle, not "mine-proof". The enemy would change tactics. Larger IEDs? Different weapons altogether?

As for spouting nonsense in this thread, I'd pick anyone who claims you don't "go to war with the army you have".

I'm happy to let the readers decide.

[Staga]

10-15k$ each and world is full of them.

edit: Also Iraq bought those; are they all shot up or lying in some depot?
Also I bet is there's still plenty of them in ex-DDR i.e in Germany. Finland bought tanks from there few years ago and I'm quite sure they have BTRs/BMPs laying around in some storage areas. Not as cool rides as Humvees are but at least they're armoured.

[Schaden]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
I loved Rummy's comeback, which is soooo historically true...

"We go to war with the Army we have, not the Army we wish we had..."

WTG!

Or as someone added "We go to war with the SecDEF we have, not the one we wish we had......"

[Toad]

Schaden, that's true too but maybe Pongo will argue it's not.

However, who was YOUR choice for SecDef that was credible and didn't get the job?

[Pongo]

Toad.
Just to sumerize the wall of text.
Your wildcat anology was defeated soundly. Your contortaions to the contrary are comical.

No, the army that invaded Iraq was not designed to fight a fulda gap fight in 1990. Look at the calender.

Rumsfeld was indeed centeral in formulating the requiement and force levels for the invasion of Iraq. They were infact dictated by him.


I dont like cutting and pasting. But this merits it.
"Look, Bush made the decision to go to war. Rumsfeld had no choice but to carry out the decision. The commanders made up the plans. You're suggesting they could have said "we're not going without equipping the force with Cougars"? I doubt it.
"

that is just an insane version of what happend. Read woodworths book. You really are out to lunch about how your country got about to invading Iraq. Bush never wavered from wanting to invade Iraq fron October 2001, Ruhmsfeld started looking for a reason on Oct 11 2001.


As to how long they should have waited.
They new they wanted to invade and occupy in Nov 2001.
They invaded in May 2003 didnt they? thats 17 months. 17 * 400 = 6800.

And that was 19 months ago now Toad. 19 * 400 = 7600
By your own admition they have had time to build over 14000 armoured hummers since they new they were going to invade. and well over 10000 since they were commited to invading.

And that is at peacetime production rates. Start making them at White and Kenworth till you have enough. Commit to your war and pay the price.

You and your brother in law can say what ever the hell you like.
Irrifutabley there has been way more then enought time to flood Iraq with armoured humvees. Do you deny it? If the will was there to equip the troops properly that was there to invade then this would have been done. Period.


So really. Is anymore needed to show that you will ignore any reason and fabricate any excuse in pursuit of defending this man? How big a blinders does such an intelligent man as yourself need to have on to keep toeing the line on this with Ripsnort.

This is not an issue of invade Iraq or not. This is an issue of supporting your troops over your white house. And you choose the white house.

[Toad]

Pongo,

We simply disagree and never will agree. As I said before, you laid out your case, I laid out what I thought and let the readers decide.

As to the Wildcat/Bearcat, I guess I didn't make it clear enough for you to understand. Try this: Armies pretty much prepare themselves to fight in the next war as they did at the end of their last war. Inevitably, as time goes by, things change. As a result, plans and equipment that were designed and implemented in the between war period are often found lacking and men die as a result.

Deny that all you like but I think any of our readers will see the truth in it.

As I said, I'm not defending the planning for the post-war period. Clearly, they missed the mark in what would happen and what they would have to deal with in that respect. Heck, I think they should have had way more troops to begin with and left most of them there. That's just my opinion.

However, your idea that they should have expected roadside IED's as a major post-war problem and known it back in 2001 just doesn't compute. Sorry.

However, as I'm always looking to learn, please give me some links to sites that show clearly that our Pentagon should have expected IED's as the primary weapons of the enemy in the postwar period. Or books or magazine articles or however you came to this conclusion that our military leadership missed. Thanks.

[Gixer]

Funny that in their planning they didn't expect roadside bombs yet they did expect chemical attacks and to find masses of WMD"s.

WTG



...-Gixer

[Toad]

But, of course had they asked YOU, Gixer, you could have given them documented proof of no WMD's or chemicals and extremely reliable indications of widespread use of IEDs.

Right?

I mean this stuff is all easy, right?

And before you start, remember that US intelligence people told Bush that Iraq had WMD, and he was told the same thing by the governments of Great Britain, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, and others.

[Gixer]

Originally posted by Toad
But, of course had they asked YOU, Gixer, you could have given them documented proof of no WMD's or chemicals and extremely reliable indications of widespread use of IEDs.

Right?

I mean this stuff is all easy, right?

LOL

Yes they should of listened to me, I certinly wouldn't of invaded another country on such flimsy evidence. Amazing how that stack of  (BS) evidence that there were tons of WMD's has erroded into nothing taking any credibilty that US intel ever had with it.

Leaving the US today on the international stage with little respect.

Example: US " Iran's nuclear power programe is going to be used for nuclear weapons." True, probably has already.

Unfortunetly in the eyes of the world that little boy has already cried wolf and no one is going to back up another US led adventure. Even the Poodle and what ever is left of the coalition of the unwilling in Iraq today.

Any idiot should of known that they would of ended up in a guriella war after the battle to take the country and that they would use any means they have.

How is it a suprise to the planners? Oh right it's a suprise because they thought it would be a cake walk and they wouldn't need anything more then humvee's and a few marines aftwards. Backed up by a easily recruited force of Iraqi police. Duh.




...-Gixer

[Toad]

I'm sure they'll call you first next time!

[Thrawn]

"Scottsdale Tribune: Friday, December 10, 2004:
ArmorWorks willing to produce more

Tempe-based ArmorWorks, on Thursday challenged claims made earlier this week by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that defense contractors are running at full capacity.
ArmorWorks, which supplies ceramic composite vehicle armor to the military, is running at only 50 percent capacity but is ready, willing and able to increase production on demand. The company, which claims a production rate of 72 kits per week, recently delivered its thousandth vehicle armor kit to the Department of Defense.
A spokesman for the company said that its contract for vehicle armor, a $30 million deal struck with the U.S. Army in April 2004, ends in January with no follow-up order in place.
In a meeting Wednesday with Rumsfeld, troops complained that they did not have enough vehicle armor to protect them in Iraq. "



"Associated Press Dec. 10, 2004 07:05 AM


...Of more than 9,100 heavy military haulers in Iraq, Afghanistan and nearby countries, just over 1,100 have received upgraded protection, according to figures provided by the House Armed Services Committee. Armor add-on kits are in production for many of the rest of these vehicles.

By comparison, the military has decided it needs almost 22,000 armored Humvees in the war area. It has 15,334; an additional 4,400 await armor add-ons and the rest have not been delivered to the region.

Those Humvees are being built at the rate of 450 a month. The company armoring them, Armor Holdings Inc., said Thursday it could increase production by 50 to 100 vehicles a month. "



Four more years.

[Pongo]

Its not even really relevent Thrawn.
Obviosly american industry could have produced the required vehicles and had them in Iraq in 2 months. Would have been a pretty major undertaking an interuped all kinds of things. But obviosly it could be done.
How many vehicles does the US manufacture in a year? How many 100s of thousands a year.

Is it realistic to expect that interuption. No , but obviolsy much more could have been done.

[Pongo]

" And before you start, remember that US intelligence people told Bush that Iraq had WMD, and he was told the same thing by the governments of Great Britain, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, and others. "
what a cop out. Bush new they had no WMD. Man you will choke down anything.