Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SunTracker on November 26, 2004, 07:28:14 PM
-
The Death Wagons of Iraq
By David H. Hackworth
In Iraq, a Humvee – the modern military's jeep – is involved in an enemy action or a serious fender bender or rollover almost daily. Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz’s command has experienced 13 Humvee rollovers, resulting in 17 of his soldiers dying. “Nine of the deaths occurred in the last 90 days,” he says.
Gen. Metz says that most rollovers occur when “the driver has lost control of the vehicle.” In a letter to his unit, he summed up other causes, such as “aggressive driving, lack of situational awareness, rough terrain, poor/limited visibility, adverse traffic conditions, improvised configurations and failure to wear seat belts.”
Amen on the aggressive driving. If bad guys are firing rockets and automatic weapons and blowing off mines left, right and center, no one in his or her right mind would drive on the most dangerous roads in the world the way we oh-so-carefully drive by a parked police car on the freeway. As longtime guerrilla-war veteran Lt. Col. Ben Willis (retired) puts it, “The MO would be to put the pedal to the metal.”
The problem is that the soft-skinned Humvee was conceived as a light utility truck – not a close combat vehicle. “The Humvee is horribly thin-skinned and underpowered,” says Army veteran Scott Schreiber, who drove one for six years. “It should be used in roles that don’t call for armor. If the role calls for armor, it’s simple: use armor.”
At the end of World War II, I was in a recon company in Italy. We started with armored cars – M-8s – but as Terrible Tito’s terrorists started using roadside mines and staging ambushes similar to the mean stuff going down in Iraq, our leaders quickly got rid of those thin-skinned suckers and put us in light tanks – M-24s. Within a year, as the guerrilla war with Yugoslavia heated up, we were given Sherman tanks – M-4s – with their even-thicker armor protection. And when a blown mine or ambush slapped shrapnel or slugs against the sides of our 36-ton tanks, we sat safely inside those steel walls, with our weapons turned full-bore on the enemy. Our armor protection gave us the critical edge our troopers should have today.
But here we are in Iraq after 15 bloody months still welding steel plate onto Humvees. Sure, our soldiers gain a tad more protection, but it also turns the vehicles into rollover queens because it shifts their center of gravity.
Meanwhile, we have the Pentagon spending billions of dollars on irrelevant gold-plated fighter aircraft and on the lightly armored Stryker – a vehicle that is not battle-tried and that the Army has placed in relatively safe northern Iraq. Not to mention the thousands of potentially lifesaving armored personnel carriers – M-113s – left over from the Cold War gathering dust in depots.
What’s further wrong with this picture is that Iraq has excellent steelworkers and first-class machine shops that could be put to good use upgrading captured Iraqi equipment into armored vehicles capable of protecting our warriors while also securing our long, exposed supply lines.
Our modern generals might give a lot of lip service to protecting the force, but any way you cut it, what’s going on in Iraq is criminal. Clearly there’s a disconnect. The brass need to spend less time in their luxurious lakefront palaces and get down on the ground with the troops.
Maybe then they’ll develop a greater sense of urgency about what’s really needed on those killer roads the same way the 88th Division commanding general, Maj. Gen. Bryant E. Moore, did with us back in Italy and then again in Korea – where he was eventually killed as a corps commander leading from the front.
And maybe our lawmakers should stop by Walter Reed hospital and get some firsthand skinny from the terribly wounded being treated there about what a death wagon the Humvee has become from the way it's presently being used.
“How many soldiers and Marines need to be maimed or killed by roadside bombs before Congress will get off their tails?” Mary Martino rightfully asks. “My son is serving his country with honor and pride in Iraq ... and has the right to expect that his country will do whatever it takes to protect him in his duties.”
--Eilhys England contributed to this column.
Col. David H. Hackworth (USA Ret.) is SFTT.org co-founder and Senior Military Columnist for DefenseWatch magazine. For information on his many books, go to his home page at Hackworth.com, where you can sign in for his free weekly Defending America. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831. His newest book is “Steel My Soldiers’ Hearts.” © 2004 David H. Hackworth. Please send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=75&rnd=560.171933513205
-
Early Willy's were damn hard to drive. Especially because of the way the rear suspension was hooked up. They were tipsy and if you tried to turn too hard you'd roll it. My dad had a 151 and a 38A1. Great to drive and were very smooth off-road, but could tip. I wonder how many of those rolled.
And Hummer was just a big Jeep. Imagine putting a .50 cal in the back of a jeep and using it to run convoy duty or patrol streets the way they use Hummers. Not gonna happen. So they put more armor on it. And what is already too heavy becomes way too heavy for the engine. Besides, it's a diesel, it's got torque, not accleration.
-
Yeah....113s would help :rolleyes:
-
When I was a new 2nd Lt. a friend of mine had the jeep he was driving roll on him. He was injured but survived. The reason he did was the "wire cutter" bar on the front bumper that kept the jeep from collapsing onto him. He was only going about 5 or so MPH trying to negotiate a small depression that cut into the road and the thing rolled.
The jeeps were known for rolling especially when they went airborn. They were much worse than a hummer. The hummer is still high centered in its weight but not as bad as the old jeeps were.
-
How are the bradleys faring in Iraq?
Tronsky
-
Ugly anti-RPG Stryker:
(http://www.defense-update.com/images/samara-stryker.jpg)
-
It was an interesting article until Hackworth started spouting his ignorant blather about gold plated fighters... Without those gold plated fighters, our tanks don't get within 200 miles of anything important because our current generation of attack aircraft can't penetrate against modern SAM sites without huge losses, and we don't go in without air supremacy anymore, per Army request.
His points about the humvee were fine, but his personal bias became clear when he opened his damn mouth about aircraft. He dismisses 30 years of lessons learned about tactical and strategic airpower in 4 words. If he's going to pull that kind of pseudo-literary BS, he can take his entire argument, roll it up nice and tight, and shove it up his prettythang. He's an armor bigot with an axe to grind and an agenda to sell, and he's using humvee fatalities to forward his agenda.
F**K him and the high horse he rode in on. I thought he was an idiot when he was selling his soul live on CNN as an "expert", proclaiming we'd lose thousands taking Baghdad and forecasting doom and gloom the first day of the Iraq war, and this article is more proof he's just a media potato. CNN dropped him like a hot potato when he turned out to be wrong on so many issues, and every one of his Iraq predictions turned out to be so much hot air.
He retired a colonel instead of a general because the Army didn't want his stupid prettythang in the service. He's too short sighted and ignorant to play nice with the other services and he'd never get onboard with joint concepts. The Army needs people like him, but they're usually carrying 50 lb rucks and shouting hup hup hup as they muck about doing the dirty work.
IMHO :)
-
He is right that the hummer isn't a real "tactical" vehicle for combat. It's transportation, not a battle vehicle.
-
Why does he reccomend the M113? Wasnt that a deathtrap in vietnam; with armor so thin that people rode on top of them instead of inside because any mine, rpg or anyting heavier than 7.62 got right through the alumimium or spalled it terribly?
-
Yeah 113s are crap. Don't provide protection from anything over 7.62mm. Take out a track and it's probably going to rollover unless the driver is really on the ball.
-
that's interesting because hmvees are extrely wide. It's hard as hell to tip a wide wheel base vehicle. But, I guess if you shift the CG on it, it might make a difference.
It's one thing about our military is they never want to keep it simple. older vehicles that arent all techie don't fit the bill in today's military. We need more expensive stuff that doesnt work.
-
This is what you need:
(http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patria/images/patria5.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
that's interesting because hmvees are extrely wide. It's hard as hell to tip a wide wheel base vehicle. But, I guess if you shift the CG on it, it might make a difference.
So I thought too.. until it began over year and half ago.
Thence the DoD has reported every casualty in Iraq and often with a small description - somewhat many casualties had been caused by rolled humwees.
-
If you can roll a Humvee, you can roll just about anything.
-
The F-22 is a cold war relic. Design began in 1980.
Why are our troops using a rifle designed in the 1950s AND running out of ammo when the airforce shoots down a Mig every 10 years and gets a new fighter?
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
The F-22 is a cold war relic. Design began in 1980.
Why are our troops using a rifle designed in the 1950s AND running out of ammo when the airforce shoots down a Mig every 10 years and gets a new fighter?
The newsest AF fighter is the F16 which started service in the late 1970s.
The F15 started service in the early 1970s.
30+ years old...
So why the hell shouldnt they get new upgraded planes? Its funny how you say they dont shoot down many migs, but what about all the ground attcks they do? Or the precison strikes i highly defended areas? We need to keep that capability even as the enemy gets newere defenses, so we need newer palnes with new technologies... Our fighters need this to remain effective, survivable and ahead of potential enemy planes like the newere Sukhois.
But lets look at the F22, lets say you cancel it and keep on with the 1970s service era F15s. When do you design a replacement for those F15s? In 10 more years? 20 years? 30? What do yiou want? The air force flying 55 year old F15s and 80 year old B52s?
Oh and the soldiers get new stuff all the damn time. New night sights, new body armor, new communications, new bomb targeting stuff, new weapons too. Its just not as sexy as a new fighter...
For example they are about to get a new assault rifle, the M8 and IIRC some are allready testing in Iraq. This is a state of the art weapon. They are also resarching and testing a new powerful caliber 6.8mm to possibly replace the 5.56, and the new M8 is modular so an upgrade is easy. A new 50cal MG is on the way too, yep no more M2HB soon. There will also be a new 25mm smart fuzed heavy MG/cannon...
Next generation wheeled ground vehicles are being developed too, yes armored ones with a great deal of speed, agility and power. The abrams is also constantly upgraded as is bradley. The Marines are apprently getting a new high tech Amtrac and the Osprey is still going forward. The Army is getting new helicopters too.
It just seems to me that you are griping...
-
Raptors, star wars porgrammes and all that expensive high tech stuff is nice. It protects borders from all the other nations that wishes to harm you with similar type weapons..... you know.. sending jets to bomb our cities and military compounds.
meanwhile a little person walks into a mall with a homemade device costing 100 $ or maybe a more expencive device sent via container through a port... and the raptor circles above watching what happens with its great a2a missiles armed and ready.
-
We arent just talking about the F-22 here.
F-22, F-35, and B-2.
The B-2 is rated as one of the top 10 worst aircraft of the century due to its 1.1 billion dollar price tag (per plane).
Meanwhile, I have read quite a few articles about troops complaining about using Vietnam era radios, not having bullet proof vests, old rifles, and running out of ammo. And what about the Marines and Navy using Vietnam era helicopters? They said they cant afford to replace them.
The F-22 was designed as an air superiority fighter, not ground support. Last I checked, Iraq buried all its fighters in the desert.
-
Why pick on JSF? Its a big survivability and capability jump over F16, which despite it fighter roots is now mostly a ground attacker.
F/A-22 is also a multi mission plane note the A. When the new small precision bombs come online it will be able to carry 8 of them and defensive armament all internally while enjoying a lot of stealth features..
The F15 and 16 are 30+ years old. They are due for replacement. Thankfully we are getting them in this next decade.
Curious, you have no given us a date when you think the F15 and F16 should be replaced with new planes?
The other issues I covered in my post before, new rifles, new vehicles, new transports etc...
I still think you are just griping...
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Raptors, star wars porgrammes and all that expensive high tech stuff is nice. It protects borders from all the other nations that wishes to harm you with similar type weapons..... you know.. sending jets to bomb our cities and military compounds.
meanwhile a little person walks into a mall with a homemade device costing 100 $ or maybe a more expencive device sent via container through a port... and the raptor circles above watching what happens with its great a2a missiles armed and ready.
Thats why we send bomb armed raports and B2 to bomb the crap out of these bastiges before they attack us, but wait, you guys dont like that...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Thats why we send bomb armed raports and B2 to bomb the crap out of these bastiges before they attack us, but wait, you guys dont like that...
No we dont like when someone attacks you and you retaliate against someone else.
-
With the price of one Hummer US Army could buy 5 or more used, "second-hand" BMPs or a BTRs fom eastern european countries.
Few years ago I saw used BTR-70 for sale in "Caliber" magazine, price was then ~10000$... And they can swim too :)
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/armored_vehicles/bmp-2.htm
http://www.panzerbaer.de/colours/ind_camo.htm
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
And what about the Marines and Navy using Vietnam era helicopters? They said they cant afford to replace them.
They still use those helicopters because they prefer them. And while the basic airframes might remind you of Vietnam, these are not Vietnam era models.
Also, the USMC is in the process of totally revamping the Huey and Cobra into the UH-1Y and AH-1Z. These airframes will incorporate glass cockpits, improved drivetrains, 4 bladed main and tail rotors, and will share 84% identical parts with each other. It's expected that these airframes will be able to meet the USMCs need through 2030 and save the taxpayers tons of money.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
The F-22 is a cold war relic. Design began in 1980.
Why are our troops using a rifle designed in the 1950s AND running out of ammo when the airforce shoots down a Mig every 10 years and gets a new fighter?
Almost all of the news footage I've seen shows troops using the newest version of the M16. I can't remeber the nomenclature for it but it is the shorter version designed for CQC. Almost all of them have the cool Special forces goodies like improved sight/scope and attachments for flashlight ect.
The newest rifle that is being field tested is probably just another expensive toy that the DOD will buy en mass and realize later in life that they were wrong.
-
M4
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
No we dont like when someone attacks you and you retaliate against someone else.
You see the key word there was "before."
If we get attacked by something slightly more expensive and sent through a container ship then we might not even bother to "retaliate" with planes...
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
They still use those helicopters because they prefer them. And while the basic airframes might remind you of Vietnam, these are not Vietnam era models.
Must disagree with you here. Heres a 1993 report saying that the CH-46 is obsolete and must be replaced Replacing the aging CH-46 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1993/WGL.htm)
-
So Suntracker are YOU now supporting acquision of the gilded cold war relic V22 osprey?
Oh dear....
-
Forgot about the CH46. All the other models are newer though. CH53, AH-1, UH-1.
-
Why is seemingly everything from Col. Hackworth always so negative? I'm always open to hear criticizm and a different pov from outspoken people as they are often right, but when its always a tirade of doom and gloom hyperbole and general negativity I begin to wonder.
Whats his deal? Does he have an axe to grind with his former colleagues? This admin? The DOD?
-
He was a Colonel in the army during Vietnam. He began as an elisted man after WW2. He was drummed out of the Army in 1970 after going on camera and saying Vietnam was unwinnable. Hes also Americas highest decorated living soldier.
Maybe your right Grunherz. Those migs keep shooting down our planes over Iraq, better buy some more F-22s!
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Maybe your right Grunherz. Those migs keep shooting down our planes over Iraq, better buy some more F-22s!
Suntracker do you honestly beleive that Iraq is the ONLY conflict we will ever face. Can you honestly sit there and tell me that other countries wich may be potential rivals just Gave their airplanes away or simply don't fly them anymore.
Can you seriously tell me that we will not need some type of next gen. fighter over the next 30 years?
-
Sun Tracker you still have no answered my question, if now is not the time to replace the 30+ year old F15 and nearly 30 year old F16, when is the time?
In 10 years?
In 20 more years?
30?
More?
And when we finally do eecide to replace them by your mysterious schedule, how long do you think the development should be? 10 years?
So what, when does the AF get new fighters by your wishes, 2050?
And gunslinger is right, how come you are so prescient in your view that we will never need fully dominant fighters again? The F15C is at best on a par with the latest Sukhois and the Eurofighter. Maybe we should tell the worlds other air forces to stop developing new planes or stop the soviets from developing new long range AA missles so the F15C can be the ne plus ultra fighter it was in the 1980s and 1990s for years to come...
Our ground forces have the best body armor, the best tank, one of the best infantry fighting vehicles, the best nightsights and plenty have them, new communication gear is there too, in 2005 they will get the best assault rifle system, soon they will get a new light 50cal, a new 25mm grenade/heavy MG. New helicopters are here soon too. A new generation of transort and combat wheeleled vehicles is in the works etc etc etc...
But you just gripe...
And I know who Hackworth is, that was never the issue. His constant doom and gloom negativity about seemingly everything is the issue.
Let me ask you something, do you support the Iraq war? My guess is that you are just using this as camouflage to gripe about the war and not the real issues.
-
"Sun Tracker you still have no answered my question, if now is not the time to replace the 30+ year old F15 and nearly 30 year old F16, when is the time? "
what % of the components on a current production F16 are 30 years old?
What is the current average age of an operational F16 airframe in the USAF inventory?
I mean. Dont be dishonest. They are not like the B52s. The planes are not 30 years old. The orginal design. With different engines, Radars, missles every thing but the basic airframe is 30 years old.
How old is the 50 cal GH?
How old is the M16?
You make it sound like there has been no procurment dollars on US fighters in 30 years.
Its like the USAF came out of vietnam and decided that success was now defined as not loseing an aircraft.
The absolute truth is that the US Army went into Iraq with the troops ability to win a huge long insurgency way down in the priorities from the USAFs ability to fight a non existant air war.
The strategy of pre emption would work just fine with 1980s aircraft if the USAF was willing to take 10 % casualties to accomplish it. But they are not.
So the troops hammer it out on the ground in over grown jeeps.
Mine and blast resistant wheeled vehicles have been in operational service for decades.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
"Sun Tracker you still have no answered my question, if now is not the time to replace the 30+ year old F15 and nearly 30 year old F16, when is the time? "
what % of the components on a current production F16 are 30 years old?
What is the current average age of an operational F16 airframe in the USAF inventory?
I mean. Dont be dishonest. They are not like the B52s. The planes are not 30 years old. The orginal design. With different engines, Radars, missles every thing but the basic airframe is 30 years old.
How old is the 50 cal GH?
How old is the M16?
You make it sound like there has been no procurment dollars on US fighters in 30 years.
Its like the USAF came out of vietnam and decided that success was now defined as not loseing an aircraft.
The absolute truth is that the US Army went into Iraq with the troops ability to win a huge long insurgency way down in the priorities from the USAFs ability to fight a non existant air war.
The strategy of pre emption would work just fine with 1980s aircraft if the USAF was willing to take 10 % casualties to accomplish it. But they are not.
So the troops hammer it out on the ground in over grown jeeps.
Mine and blast resistant wheeled vehicles have been in operational service for decades.
the newest F16 I've seen was a 2001. The oldest is a 1978. You can put all the newest bestest avionics and engines in an older air frame but the air fram will eventually break on you from fatigue. This isn't exactly applicable on a B52 because they aren not flyin the same (IE pulling G's).
The F16 was orriginally designed to be a throw away Air Frame 10 years or 1000 hours and Bye Bye.
F15s are the same way The air frames are getting old. Now the USAF can keep procuring these fine air craft over the next 30 years or they can move on and develop the next generation (F22)
To think that invasions of 3rd world countries and fighting insurgancys is going to be the only wars we fight over the next 30 years is lunacy at best. Somone once said the bigest threat to pearl harbor was sabatage and that the harbor was unsuitable for torpedo use.....they were wrong. When CHina and russia are still developing next gen fighters we should be ahead of them.
-
M16 and M2HB can all have the same argument Pongo, thy arent all afrom 1917 or 1960... New ones are made. This is especilally true with M16/M4 considering all the new high tech rail mounted gadgets they all seem to have now, not to mention the various other specops mods like 6.8mm.
Interstingly enough the M16 is getting replaced next year by the all new M8 and M2 is getting the boot very soon to be replaced my m312..
So today is certainly not the time to comp[lain about not enough ground force procurement of new stuff...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why pick on JSF? Its a big survivability and capability jump over F16, which despite it fighter roots is now mostly a ground attacker.
F/A-22 is also a multi mission plane note the A. When the new small precision bombs come online it will be able to carry 8 of them and defensive armament all internally while enjoying a lot of stealth features..
The F15 and 16 are 30+ years old. They are due for replacement. Thankfully we are getting them in this next decade.
Curious, you have no given us a date when you think the F15 and F16 should be replaced with new planes?
The other issues I covered in my post before, new rifles, new vehicles, new transports etc...
I still think you are just griping...
F/A-22 is not the JSF. The F-35 is the JSF.
For most of its development, the F/A-22 was referred to as simply the F-22 and was advertised as an air superiority fighter. From the Boeing web-site:
"Mission
The F/A-22’s primary mission is to establish absolute control of the skies over any battlefield – a must-have in modern warfare. It provides first-look, first-shot, first-kill capability. The F/A-22 is an air superiority fighter with much improved capability over current Air Force aircraft. Its stealth, supercruise ability, integrated avionics and other features will make it the most potent fighter in the world."
Kind of leaves out the attack role! The "A" is kind of an after-thought, but necessary when fighting for budget dollars. Don't get me wrong, the Raptor will have a significant air-to-ground capability due to its ability to carry the smart weapons available to just about any U.S. combat airframe these days. The true strike aircraft, though, is the F-35 JSF. From the JSF website:
"The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program, formerly the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) Program, is the Department of Defense's focal point for defining affordable next generation strike aircraft weapon systems for the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and our allies. The focus of the program is affordability -- reducing the development cost, production cost, and cost of ownership of the JSF family of aircraft. Prior to the start of System Design and Development (SDD) in Fall 2001, the program facilitated the Services' development of fully validated, affordable operational requirements, and it lowered risk by investing in and demonstrating key leveraging technologies and operational concepts. Upon SDD contract award to Lockheed Martin on 26 October 2001, the program embarked on full development of three affordable and effective JSF variants.
The JSF will fulfill stated Service needs as follows:
U. S. Navy First day of war, survivable strike fighter aircraft to complement F/A-18E/F
U.S. Air Force Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground) to replace the F-16 and A-10 and complement the F-22A
U.S. Marine Corps STOVL aircraft to replace the AV-8B and F/A-18 as their only strike fighter "
You see "strike" in there a lot!
Do we need these aircraft? Here's an interesting article from Reuters: U.S. warned it could lose air supremacy (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/23/airforce.supremacy.reut/). You be the judge.
-
Why pick on JSF? Its a big survivability and capability jump over F16, which despite it fighter roots is now mostly a ground attacker.
F/A-22 is also a multi mission plane note the A. When the new small precision bombs come online it will be able to carry 8 of them and defensive armament all internally while enjoying a lot of stealth features..
I know f22 is not jsf. Thats why I talk about f22 jsf in seperate paragraphs.I know jsf is the strike fighter, thats why I emphasize f16 shift to ground attack.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
No we dont like when someone attacks you and you retaliate against someone else.
You're right....we should have waited for you to help us instead.
-
No we dont like when someone attacks you and you retaliate against someone else.
====
This president doesnt need to your permission to defend his country.
-
From a third world country?
Their is plenty of bigger threats out there North Korea, Saudi Arabia (supports terrorits), Iran (supports terrorists). Hell, now we have to keep up with Russia/China in a technology and arms race. Iraq was a threat compered to these guys???????
-
The reason you have to replace the F-15 & F-16 is old old age. Some of those airframes are 20+ years old. After all those years of pulling high G's metal fatigue is creeping in. Maintenance becomes cost prohibative. If you have to replace the plane anyway, does it not make sense to replace it with an overall better aircraft?
The US has done very well in air superiority development. Maybe we should pull a few people from that area and let them run ground vehicle development for a while.
-
I think Hackworth's soul is in the right place. Valhalla bless any guy who uses a media voice to look out for the little guys who actually do the shooting.
But as much as I hate (in this case only) to say it, eagl is spot on. Hackworth has been 'slipping' for a few years now, the 'slipping' having started in the late 1990s.
He was awesome in his determination to bring command failures to light after the brawl in Somalia.
But I saw him print things as 'fact' - supposed 'failures' in Afghanistan which were related to him from 1 or 2 of his close personal sources which were absolutely dead wrong. In 1 case I even wrote to the guy and explained in great (first hand) detail that what he was told was not what happened, and I had photographs and a job title that at the very least should have warranted him checking with other sources.
No action, no change in his 'printed revelation', etc.
I think the decline and fall described by eagl is caused by him now having to find something to say on everything, on a consistent basis, week-in-week-out. And the bottom line is if you are a whistleblower who points out stupidity that gets guys killed in wartime and you do a good job of it, eventually you are going to whistleblow yourself out of a job unless no one is listening to you.
He did some great things in years past and he served the U.S. in a great way as a soldier and a leader of soldiers. But he didn't have any more clue about how things were going to be done in Iraq than any other guy who wasn't being briefed for the the fight. And for guys in his line of work things have changed more in the past 4 years than they had in the previous 10.
Everyone who bags on our guys in the sky and the air dominance they provide needs to read up a little on history, (topic specific) military theory, etc. The day we think we don't need to spend for it is the day 5 years in advance of when we will need it and not have it, and it's not something you can 'ramp up' in even a year.
The -16 and the -4 are good tools. They do the job well. The -8 is on the way and it is an improvement but not because the -16 family is a bad design. The -8 is just 'newer' and it's design takes advantage of lessons learned.
Give me my M4 and the knolwedge that everything that flies is a Friend and anyone who tries to shoot real artillery at me will be dead inside of an hour any day of the week. Hackworth is either unaware or ignoring the fact that CAS is a huge factor in saving the lives of the guys he champions, and the next time (and there will be a next time) someone big decides to take issue with something that results in the U.S. having shooters plying their trade there will be some serious scheming on the part of the enemy to deny U.S. and Allied shooters that lovely '24/7, We Delivery Anywhere for Free' CAS that is such a great thing to have at your disposal. Smart enemy planners understand that if they cede control of the air today it's a heck of a lot more telling that it was in the past. 'Back then' it meant your truck convoys might get hit even if they were moving at night. Now it means that a bomb is going to hit within a few meters of the worst place possible, every single time.
As for M113s - I'll let the Army mech-types do the talking they know from experience. The M113 is pretty big though. If I had to ambush a vehicle with an AT-4 I'd rather have my target be an M113 that's big and that I could hear coming from further away.
As for rolling Hummers - driving fast at night over rough unfamiliar terrain is dangerous. Most groups that use Hummers for this type of work put a great deal of time in when it comes to training their drivers. But you are always going to have situations in bigger more conventional units where the guy doing the driving is not the most experienced or best driver. People make mistakes even when they are trained well. Add in vehicles at high speed, poor lighting conditions, etc. and you are going to get accidents. This is not a case of policy or procurement error.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Almost all of the news footage I've seen shows troops using the newest version of the M16. I can't remeber the nomenclature for it but it is the shorter version designed for CQC. Almost all of them have the cool Special forces goodies like improved sight/scope and attachments for flashlight ect.
The newest rifle that is being field tested is probably just another expensive toy that the DOD will buy en mass and realize later in life that they were wrong.
Thay are the M-16A3 then we've got the M-4 and M-5car's too
-
Mike/wulfie, did you fly a kc-135?
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Mike/wulfie, did you fly a kc-135?
No. Why do you ask? :)
-
Thought maybe you might be another 'mike' ... hehe sorry for the mix up.. 8)
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Thought maybe you might be another 'mike' ... hehe sorry for the mix up.. 8)
They day I was at the controls of a KC-135 would be the day that eagl began having very foggy, frightening nightmares. Think along the lines of Obi-Wan in Star Wars. "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if hundreds of fighter pilots needed in-flight refueling and were unable to get it because the KC-135 was all over the sky." :)
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
The B-2 is rated as one of the top 10 worst aircraft of the century due to its 1.1 billion dollar price tag (per plane).
There are plenty of high level military planners in various Nations who would be very relieved if the U.S. got rid of all those B-2s tomorrow.
Mike/wulfie
-
Hey, Wulfie... if the A/P is working, tanker driving isn't too tough. OTOH, if the A/P is inop, you need to be "Mr. Smooth" or some folks are going to call you nasty names.
Of course, the only time you'll ever have an A/P fail on ya is when you're refueling in and around thunderstorms. It's sorta Murphy's refueling law.
;)
-
yes the Hummer is a death wagon.
Its a battlefield vehicle fer chrissakes.
I mean now people with more money than sense are driving the bloody things on the road!
Do that and it becomes a death vehicle for anything the myopic mobile phone, burger eating, studmuffin smoking idiot behind the wheel inadvertantly has a coming together with.
Keep em on the battfield. Then pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, drivers of sensible road cars might have half a chance.
I saw one on the road over here in the uk. One person driving it talking on his mobile at 90 on the motorway. F***ing idiot.
I kept well away from that pillock on my motorcycle.
Rant over
Upshot is yes they are bloody deathtraps for everyone not in one.
-
Originally posted by Tinpot
I saw one on the road over here in the uk. One person driving it talking on his mobile at 90 on the motorway. F***ing idiot.
Man, you wouldn't survive 10 minutes on a Houston road. Trucks & SUVs heavily outnumber small cars here. It's too far to walk anywhere. It's too dangerous for me to buy a bike. Not enough people speak english to understand the signs. Too many people have cell phones. Just this morning I was almost t-boned by an Excursion, being driven by a lady so short she was looking THROUGH the steering wheel. Yes, she was putting on makeup, and talking on her cellphone. Not too long after that, an H2 decided to pull into traffic from a stop, into the HOV lane (high occupancy, 2+ or 3+ passengers, all going 70mph+)... I don't know how the car in front of me managed to stop, and I'm amazed I didn't slide into them both.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Man, you wouldn't survive 10 minutes on a Houston road. Trucks & SUVs heavily outnumber small cars here. It's too far to walk anywhere. It's too dangerous for me to buy a bike. Not enough people speak english to understand the signs. Too many people have cell phones. Just this morning I was almost t-boned by an Excursion, being driven by a lady so short she was looking THROUGH the steering wheel. Yes, she was putting on makeup, and talking on her cellphone. Not too long after that, an H2 decided to pull into traffic from a stop, into the HOV lane (high occupancy, 2+ or 3+ passengers, all going 70mph+)... I don't know how the car in front of me managed to stop, and I'm amazed I didn't slide into them both.
Hey I think I saw you on my way to work this morning.:p