Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: mosgood on December 08, 2004, 08:16:08 AM
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041208/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rumsfeld
How can this man be so damn arrogant when facing these guys?
I can understand how the military typically hates democrate administrations, but they can't be happy with this pudknocker at all.
-
Rumsfield is incompetent plain and simple.. Any ******* that travels by helicopter / c130 around Iraq and then tells soldiers on the ground to suck it up with their un armored humvees is rather pathetic.. Good thing im not over there becuase that would have been my rebuttal to his halfwitted comment... (most likely doing toilet duty thereafter but it would be worth it..)
DoctorYO
-
What are those G.I Joes complaining? Nobody forced them to join the Army; they should be proud to be accepted to serve their Glorious Leader and conquer countries far away for WMDs which were never found... :)
Anyways IIRC mission was already accomplished and war in Iraq is over; why need any APCs anymore?
-
Anyways eastern Europe with new NATO countries is FULL of older Russian APCs like BTRs and BMPs... I'm sure they would gladly lease few hundred of them to the Iraq.
It's all about if Rumsfield is really standing behind his troops or not.
Edit: Here's couple BMPs (http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/BMP1/BMP1.htm) for starter... Shouldn't be a problem to fix the gun.
-
I dunno.....being ex military myself I have seen first hand the short supply of all types of materials, it's a fact of life in the military and ya do what ya can to make up for it IE searching landfills for armor. It's nothing new really, yes it's sad that our soldiers must resort to such means in an attempt to protect themselves. No matter what administration is in charge thats almost always the way of life for our military. I certainly wouldn't blame any one individual no matter his/her competency level it's the gov't as a whole that is responsible.
-
But you have to admit Rumsfeld outta touch with on duty soldiers so say something like that...Bad day at the orifice I guess.
-
Bunch of whiners...:rolleyes:
-
There is a crapload of M-113A3s "tracks" sitting stateside in reserve. The A3 is tha Israeli-influenced upgrade with HEAT-protecting spall liners, turbo diesel engine (with sensitive brakes and mickey mouse steering wheel too) external fuel tanks and the ability to add bolt on armor.
However, instead of sending those as an immediate stopgap the effort is on boosting the existing ($$$) contracts for NEW armored HUMVEES and Stryker AFVs that arrive at a trickle. There also seems to be some serious ammo shortages as well with some units. Bunch of crap.
Check out http://www.hackworth.com
Charon
-
I aggree. Send over 113s
or use this
(http://www.defense-update.com/images/rg-31.jpg)
rp-31, in use with 82nd in Iraq
or this.
(http://www.defense-update.com/images/cougar.jpg)
cougar,40 of them bought for the marines..
or buy some F22s.
Each f22 is worth 400-800 cougars.
Each Cougar would see service imediatly and save american lives and maybe even start to force the insurgents to consider other tactics.
Each F22 will just eat up maintenance dollars polishing up its stealth paint.
-
In all Military Conflict, there is always a lack of something or other.
It reminds of pictures of World War Two AFV's, Both Allied and Axis Tankers improvised with what little they had. When the Germans realized there Panzer IV and Sturmgeschutz were being penetrated very easily, they developed a new model/s with skirts. When the armored skirt was compromised, It was welded with whatever the tankers could find.
In the Bocage, Allied Shermans couldn't break through the Hedgerows, So they welded scrap metal to build a plow like device to break through them.
Like I said, Both sides were forced to improvise, Tank Treads from destroyed tanks were strapped to vulnerable areas of Tanks. To add a little extra armor.
Its how Military Technology progresses, I'm sure the problem will be alievated (sp), wether it be through Yankee Inginiuity or newer models of AFV's.
I saw the clip of Rummy talking to the troops, If you happen to see the clip of the soldier asking why they had to rummage through scrap, look at all his buddies sitting beside him, they look astonished as to why he asked it. The worst part about of it is the run around answer Rummy gave.
-
I for one am vary glad he is staying as he knows his biz, not to mention he makes every liberals skin crawl
LOL
-
I think he makes a lot of general officer's skin crawl too
shamus
-
BTW Mosgoo..when ya gonna be back?
shamus
-
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! :D
-
I think old Rumy Is feeling the effects of old age.
-
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! :D
glad that makes you feel better. But they are not going to war. they are at war. Guys that are waiting to go in country NOW are not equiped as they should be. Not guys that were waiting to go in country 2 years ago. The propoganda at the time was that the troops were the best equiped and led the world has ever seen. Now 2 years later guys are digging through scrap heaps to weld stuff to thier hummers to try and counter a problem that was revield in the invasion of Afganistan? And you think his evasive noncense was supposed to make the guys that have lost thier legs feel better?
How many vehicles have been made in the USA in the last 2 years..and they couldnt make 30 000 mine resistant vehicles for the troops?
what a load of crap.
-
I loved the comment by Stephen Colbert on The Daily Show: "It shows that incompetence is not enough to keep your job with this administration, it takes GROSS incompetence."
-
Originally posted by Shamus
BTW Mosgoo..when ya gonna be back?
shamus
been trying a few weeks but can't get my stick to work in ah2....
will try more tonight
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I for one am vary glad he is staying as he knows his biz, not to mention he makes every liberals skin crawl
LOL
He knows his biz, eh? So who was right about Iraq? Rumsfeld or Shineski?
-
One question , Rip. Would you want him guiding your oldest son into battle? You only have one oldest son ya know.
-
What I wanna know.
Is why our armed forced have UNARMORED Humvees to begin with?
I was under the impression that one of the reasons we had them in the first place was because they were armored and offered our troops better protection.
Hell for the price we get ripped off for 1 humvee we coulda sent over 3-4 Suburbans that woulda done the same damn thing.
I figger you cant just Blame Bush and Rumsfeild on this one.
But everyone in Congress who agreed to buy these things as well
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I for one am vary glad he is staying as he knows his biz, not to mention he makes every liberals skin crawl
LOL
You think he knows his business? Bull. We're seriously understaffed and undersupplied in Iraq- if Rumsfeld knew what he was doing he'd have followed the advice of the Pentagon.
We need to either make a commitment of three hundred thousand troops in Iraq or we need to quit- we don't have the personnel to control the borders, even, and more terrorists are appearing every day than we can kill. This 'tweener attitude of 120,000 troops or so isn't enough.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
One question , Rip. Would you want him guiding your oldest son into battle? You only have one oldest son ya know.
Tweet: First off, its not my business whether or not he would be comfortable or not, that would be solely up to the son.
Would I feel comfortable knowing he was in charge? Absolutely.
Pongo, changes can't be made overnight, however I'm sure you do know that we're pumping out 400 humvees a month with extra armor, and we've been at production with this mod for a few months now.
-
In addition to the three other links I posted in the other thread, see these two, especially the second one:
http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=44598
http://www.missick.com/
(blog of a soldier who was there for the interview with SECDEF)
excerpt:
One more thing I would like to add is this, not one soldier present asked questions about why we were here, or expressed the sort of anti-war sentiment that Michael Moore led some to believe was prevalent in the military. Rather, the concern was about ensuring we would be supplied with all necessary equipment to accomplish the mission and return home safely. Let there be no doubt, this was not a hostile crowd eager to catch the Secretary of Defense off guard by grilling him with questions he has never had to answer. This was a group of truly admirable American's and patriots, receiving confirmation from the man who controls the Department of Defense, that we have the full fledged moral, financial and logistical support, to accomplish the mission.
An excerpt from the TacticalForums thread:
The other day the sec. of defense was here at my camp and addressed the troops
and answered questions. I guess a soldier made quite a stir back home by asking
why we had to dig through the trash for scrap metal to armour our vehicles. Well
the kid didn't know what he was talking about. We are placing armour kits on non
armoured vehicles, such as 5 ton trucks and some HMMWVs. We have drawn brand new
completely armoured HMMWVs which kick ass. In my 15 years of military experience
I have never recieved so much top notch gear. Better helmets, body armour,
boots, cold weather gear, sleeping bags, etc. The Army has spent alot of money
giving the troops what they need to fight and win. I guess the kid thinks he
should be driving a tank instead of a supply truck up north.
Take care everyone
Very Respectfully,
2LT Patrick L. Smith
A CO 1-111TH INF
I wanted to hear what those who are or who have been think or know about the situation. I've grown tired of reading "news" reports that are marketed.
-
look at all his buddies sitting beside him, they look astonished as to why he asked it
That's because a reporter planted teh question w/ the soldier. It was a setup.
-
wow
bet the dems are kicking themsleves for not stirring this up in late Oct
LOL
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I'm sure you do know that we're pumping out 400 humvees a month with extra armor, and we've been at production with this mod for a few months now.
Rip, I'm sure you are aware that we are sending National Guard units into combat with equiptment from the 1950's. The Humvees they have are ALL un-armoured. Odd thing is the units in country take their equiptment home with themwhen they leave. Every new NG unit we send takes the trucks and equiptment from the local NG armoury, none of which is armoured. The regular army units are getting the new armoured humvees first, then the NG units.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
What I wanna know.
Is why our armed forced have UNARMORED Humvees to begin with?
I was under the impression that one of the reasons we had them in the first place was because they were armored and offered our troops better protection.
Hell for the price we get ripped off for 1 humvee we coulda sent over 3-4 Suburbans that woulda done the same damn thing.
I figger you cant just Blame Bush and Rumsfeild on this one.
But everyone in Congress who agreed to buy these things as well
Humvees were replacements for the Jeep, which was never armored, either. It's not supposed to be an armored personnel carrier, but a utility truck with off-road capability. Of course, once accepted, the Army started putting guns, antitank missiles, grenade launchers, and everything else they could think of on them. This was to make up for the fact that we didn't have a vehicle like the Striker or LAV in the inventory.
Now, we desperately need a wheeled light armored vehicle for security (not heavy combat, although they look the same in some ways) duty, and are just now getting it. We knew in 1991 that the need existed, but the previous administration dragged out the procurement process to save money and look good. Now the development phase is over, we have the Striker in production, but don't have enough in inventory.
It's a sad situation, but not Rumsfeld's fault, or of anybody in the current administration. The facts are that you can't aromor the humvee enough to survive RPG rounds or heavy MG rounds or roadside bombs or antitank mines. The kevlar and metal armor they put on them is only for splinter protection. You're still driving nothing more than an armed pickup truck into a firefight. Essentially, the Somalis can do that just as well with a Toyota Tundra.
shubie
-
Originally posted by rpm
Rip, I'm sure you are aware that we are sending National Guard units into combat with equiptment from the 1950's. The Humvees they have are ALL un-armoured. Odd thing is the units in country take their equiptment with them. Every new NG unit we send takes the trucks and equiptment from the local NG armoury, none of which is armoured. The regular army units are getting the new armoured humvees first, then the NG units.
In WW2, we sent our men to war with WW1 equipment. In Korea, the troops went to war with WW2 equipment. In Vietnam, we went to war with Korean equipment. Don't you see the pattern?
-
I wouldn't like to send any son to war. However, I'd rather have Rumsfeld in charge then a liberal or much worse, NATO or the UN generals.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
In WW2, we sent our men to war with WW1 equipment. In Korea, the troops went to war with WW2 equipment. In Vietnam, we went to war with Korean equipment. Don't you see the pattern?
Didn't know americans had M2/M3 Halftracks, Shermans, Stuarts, M1 Garands, M1A1 Thompsons, Jeeps..... in WWI.
Actually, I didn't even know americans had armour in early 1930's!
Well, except for the handful of tinfoil tanks which couldn't make up for a single Sherman.
Mauser,
"...We are placing armour kits on non
armoured vehicles, such as 5 ton trucks and some HMMWVs. We have drawn brand new
completely armoured HMMWVs which kick ass..."
Too bad, the armour kits are making the vehicles too heavy for the design, which means those becomes more unstable to drive.
-
bah...... what dolts!
rumy and the soldier both did each other a great service.
Give em both purple kerries fo surviving the fight.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
wow
bet the dems are kicking themsleves for not stirring this up in late Oct
LOL
How could they? Iraq was a non-issue as Kerry pledged to keep our troops there- and, in fact, Kerry voted against the appropiations bill that financed this war.
-
Shubie got it. We have humvee's doing a Striker's job. But Rummy's "suck it up" answer falls short.
Found this website from a news story reference. Operation Truth (http://www.optruth.org/main.cfm?actionId=blogShowExcerpts&blogId=14&year=2004&month=12&day=9&Action=ShowCalendar&lnav=7) is run by a former Infantry Platoon Leader that served in Iraq. Conservatives are gonna HATE Paul Rieckhoff.
Rumsfeld gave a BS answer about it taking time to produce enough uparmored HMMWVs and said it wasn't a money issue, but a "matter of production". And yet, only a single company has been contracted to produce modification kits for the HMMWVs. He heads the same agency that shorted the ground troops their body armor even as parents purchased them and sent them through the mail. The Soldiers are well aware that they have to fight with what they've got. They will suck it up and they don't need Rumsfeld to tell them that. The Soldier wanted to know that the secretary was aware that all the materiel needed is still not in place, twenty months after this war of choice started. And the secretary demonstrated quite clearly that he considered the issue beneath his management level. This very lack of knowledge or care for improvement, even in the face of daily deaths due to a simple equipment shortage shows how unconcerned he is about Soldiers as humans.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Didn't know americans had M2/M3 Halftracks, Shermans, Stuarts, M1 Garands, M1A1 Thompsons, Jeeps..... in WWI.
Actually, I didn't even know americans had armour in early 1930's!
Well, except for the handful of tinfoil tanks which couldn't make up for a single Sherman.
Mauser,
Too bad, the armour kits are making the vehicles too heavy for the design, which means those becomes more unstable to drive.
If you study WW2, you'll find that the some of the equipment you mention was not available during the 1--1.5 yr. of war. We became very fast in manufacturing them when there was a need. The USA figured WW1 was indeed "The war to end all wars" and we didn't prepare ourselves as much as we needed to. Even the Shermans had military men finding scraps of armor to place on their tanks as late as 1945 due to the fact that the 88mm round could easily penetrate the Sherman armor. So does this mean Roosevelt or his minions were a failure? I think not...
-
so news is now that some reporter on scene put the soldier up to asking rumy this question? Was it a genuine question then or a fabricated question?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
so news is now that some reporter on scene put the soldier up to asking rumy this question? Was it a genuine question then or a fabricated question?
I'd say it was a legit question if you were about to hop in a humvee and drive thru Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So does this mean Roosevelt was a failure? I think not...
as a whole... no. But the guy he had picked to take care of this was.....
I think it's a little different story and comparing why we weren't prepared 60 years ago and why we aren't today is a little unrealistic. But most of all, it's not an excuse.
-
Humvee is a very capable weapons platform when used properly. It is meant to be a scout/utility vehicle. Put a TOW on it and it will take out enemy armour from 4k. Put it in a city full of enemy it is a target.
-
Originally posted by mosgood
as a whole... no. But the guy he had picked to take care of this was.....
I think it's a little different story and comparing why we weren't prepared 60 years ago and why we aren't today is a little unrealistic. But most of all, it's not an excuse.
Did we armor the Jeep in WW2? No.
Are we armoring the Humvee out of need? Yes.
We going above and beyond what we've done in the past, and reacting swifter to changing events in the battlefield.
Most war falls between black and white, and its up to us to flex with it. We are.
-
Originally posted by jamusta
Humvee is a very capable weapons platform when used properly. It is meant to be a scout/utility vehicle. Put a TOW on it and it will take out enemy armour from 4k. Put it in a city full of enemy it is a target.
Exactly. Now if someone were to critisize how battlefield generals are using this platform, I'd agree. But to lay blame on Rummy just shows how desperate the left is to show its dismay of who is in power. :lol
-
The new modern Interceptor body armor began development in the later 1990's. The Marines got their first ones in 1999.
Since Kevlar and Boron-Carbide plates were known to man before then, how come the Interceptor wasn't developed earlier and issued to every soldier in the US Armed Forces?
Why is it that when you need a crystal ball and unlimited funding for every good idea you see in the crystal ball, you never seem to have either one?
From the start, the Humvee was never designed to be an armored vehicle. It was, like the "Jeep"... a name derived from GP, General Purpose, designed to be a general purpose form of transportation.
Right now, it's clear that the Iraq situation requires more armored vehicles rather than GP transportation.
Preliminary design work on the Humvee began at AM General in 1979, 25 years ago. It was March of 1983 when a contract was let for 55,000 of them.
How come the crystal ball didn't see that we were going to need much more heavily armored transportation in conflicts against folks whose primary weapon is roadside IEDs twenty years later?
Who shall we hang? I mean, somebody that had a hand in designing/approving the Humvee has to hang, right? Or shall we just hang some handy person that's we can blame right now even if he didn't have a thing to do with developing/approving it?
How come you just can't look in the crystal ball, wave a magic wand and have a bountiful supply of the exact tool you'll need in twenty years?
-
Originally posted by Toad
The new modern Interceptor body armor began development in the later 1990's. The Marines got their first ones in 1999.
Since Kevlar and Boron-Carbide plates were known to man before then, how come the Interceptor wasn't developed earlier and issued to every soldier in the US Armed Forces?
Why is it that when you need a crystal ball and unlimited funding for every good idea you see in the crystal ball, you never seem to have either one?
From the start, the Humvee was never designed to be an armored vehicle. It was, like the "Jeep"... a name derived from GP, General Purpose, designed to be a general purpose form of transportation.
Right now, it's clear that the Iraq situation requires more armored vehicles rather than GP transportation.
Preliminary design work on the Humvee began at AM General in 1979, 25 years ago. It was March of 1983 when a contract was let for 55,000 of them.
How come the crystal ball didn't see that we were going to need much more heavily armored transportation in conflicts against folks whose primary weapon is roadside IEDs twenty years later?
Who shall we hang? I mean, somebody that had a hand in designing/approving the Humvee has to hang, right? Or shall we just hand some handy person that's we can blame right now even if he didn't have a thing to do with developing/approving it?
How come you just can't look in the crystal ball, wave a magic wand and have a bountiful supply of the exact tool you'll need in twenty years?
They just don't get it Toad, their hate for this administration lowers their IQ from 100 to 10. ;)
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Didn't know americans had M2/M3 Halftracks, Shermans, Stuarts, M1 Garands, M1A1 Thompsons, Jeeps..... in WWI.
Actually, I didn't even know americans had armour in early 1930's!
Well, except for the handful of tinfoil tanks which couldn't make up for a single Sherman.
Mauser,
Too bad, the armour kits are making the vehicles too heavy for the design, which means those becomes more unstable to drive.
Fishu,
I'm not sure if Rip noticed, but he did say WWI equipment in WWII not the other way around as you say above. As for your other comment, I'm aware of that as well as anyone else is.
This thread started because the media decided to magnify Rumsfeld's questionable answers. I do not know what his REAL feelings towards our warriors are, and you can get all kinds of spin from all kinds of sources. RPM's blog shows it one way... the Sgt. Missick blog shows it another:
I also want to express that as a person who has worked in politics for years, I was very surprised when we were told there would be the opportunity to ask questions without first having them screened. I would have assumed there would have been some process where those who had questions submitted them prior to asking the Secretary, and had them approved. Instead, everyone in the room was given the option to stand, motion for one of the soldiers holding a microphone, and ask anything they desired. There was no particular order of what kind of questions were asked and the soldiers who asked questions ranged in rank from Specialists to Lieutenant Colonels. When I say I was surprised that this part of the event was not micromanaged, I want to ensure you that I was pleasantly surprised. In my opinion, it shows the attitude that this Secretary has towards the soldiers he is sworn to represent. It shows those in uniform that he does not see us or our concerns as "below his level," but instead sends a signal that we are his concern, and ensuring we can accomplish the mission is his highest priority.
You can hate whoever you want, but although the picture isn't all rosy, the sky isn't falling either.
-
The one to blame is the one who approves the battle plan. Armour vehicles would survive better but without proper infantry support they themselves become targets. Wherever a M1A2 goes I it has a few bradleys with it.
-
Then we must hang the man who approved the plan to use GP vehicles at all, I guess.
Clearly, the only vehicles we should be using in Iran are the Abrams and Bradley. Modified as necessary to carry fuel and supplies, of course.
If this is the case, I think we should consider hanging the guy that approved building GP vehicles at all. We obviously need way more Abrams and Bradleys.
In short, it just not easy to foresee all situations and eventualities perfectly, is it?
-
Originally posted by Airhead
How could they? Iraq was a non-issue as Kerry pledged to keep our troops there- and, in fact, Kerry voted against the appropiations bill that financed this war.
anything to make the current admn look bad - anything
both then and now..
the real story in all of this is the fact the soldier has freedom to voice his question directly
in the majority of other militaries aropund the world, the soldier would be dead or wish he was ...
-
Toad. Anyone who would send a humvee into that type of an environment is a fool. I have used humvees for many years and know what they are capable of. To send them into a city to support troops is not how they should be used. The humvees only defense is its size agility and speed. All of which is useless in house to house fighting. To see them zooming through the streets getting wounded and bringing equipment is what you should expect. To watch them stationary with a mounted machinegun on a city block with RPGs all around is not.
-
Originally posted by jamusta
Toad. Anyone who would send a humvee into that type of an environment is a fool. I have used humvees for many years and know what they are capable of. To send them into a city to support troops is not how they should be used. The humvees only defense is its size agility and speed. All of which is useless in house to house fighting. To see them zooming through the streets getting wounded and bringing equipment is what you should expect. To watch them stationary with a mounted machinegun on a city block with RPGs all around is not.
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Exactly. Now if someone were to critisize how battlefield generals are using this platform, I'd agree. But to lay blame on Rummy just shows how desperate the left is to show its dismay of who is in power. :lol
-
Roadside bombs have existed for quite some time.. Kind of like the threat of hijacking (no pilot doors squished by special interest is a primary catalyst for 9/11 how many Israel airlines have been hijacked since their door campaign years ago... how bout none... and note with nearly ten times the threat level we have ... greed caused 9/11 why is it so hard to understand) has existed for some time.. To claim ignorance like this is some new type of warfare by coming up with creative names (IED) for old school tactics is pathetic .. I see right thru it... When i went thru training roadside bombs were a known threat and the ambush that usually follows one was also well known and trained upon... To claim this is new school only shows your IQ or lack of it..
My opinion is the primary mode of transport should be bradleys in a city enviroment.... Yeah a 155mm (our own arse stuff used against us..) shell underground most likely will imobilize one possibly destroy it.. all these coke can and pipe bomb crap would have little to no effect.. Bingo you just limited your enemy to confined tactics (using huge bombs..) thus enabling you to pinpoint his source of supply and remove it.. But hey what the hell do i know im just some arm chair as some claim.... heh.. some of you people are very inept/closeminded on tactics it very evident you have no formal training..
Humvees should be used but in a limited enviroment as long as all these roadsides are going off..
even a armored hummer has very little floor board armor so armoring them up is rather moot for anything larger than 7.62 rounds... from the sides front and back..
Rummy is a putz.. and yes he does make many generals skin crawl because he is tactically inept.... borderline clueless.. listen to your freaking generals or prove your system is better.. Proof i see is quite the contrary to anything positive comming from Rummy's light in light out approach and this shock and awe bull ****.. want to know iraqi low tech moab (shock and awe) is head lapping and raodside bombs; rather effective for the cost of them.. nothing has changed since 1917.... you fugs should read your history..
The issue here is not humvees or bombs.. the issue is soldiers think they need armor (or any other supplies for that fact) and 2 years into the conlfict they have little to none of what they have requested.. anyone who says our supply chain is healthy is a moron on the same page as rummsfield.
DoctorYo
PS with exception to the marines retention is at a all time low.. Ill say again eagler, rip and other warmongers post them reup papers america needs you as a meat shield go get em.. (3 to 1 odds same response as last time snappy comeback but no put up when called on.. more like clam up....) (if they say your too old then post your rejection letter that will suffice for your patriotic arses...)
:p
-
I'm not disagreeing with you at all.
However, it's pretty clear that the US did not buy enough GP-type "armored" vehicles to do what we're attempting to do over there.
In fact, we really didn't procure much in the way of "armored" GP vehicles at all.
Those Cougars look nice... but the contract was $10 million for 40 of them, about $250K each.
Right now an armored Humvee is about $150K.
I'd cheerfully ante up on my taxes to pay for the better vehicle but it's going to take a while to catch up, eh?
How come the crystal ball wasn't showing the need and the President wasn't asking for the $$$$ back in 1997 when Force Protection, the company that makes Cougars, started up?
I also wonder if, way back in 1983 the military had specified a Cougar-like GP vehicle and we now had tens of thousands of those in Iraq, would the enemy still use IEDs as their main weapon?
I mean, if ALL our vehicles were heavily armored to the point that IEDs were ineffective, the enemy would change tactics, wouldn't they?
Is it possible for all our operations to be impregnable to any tactic they can devise? Would they just not seek out another weakness?
Yeah, the Humvees suck at what they are being used to do, given the enemies tactics.
Could this have been foreseen in 1983 before we settled on it as the GP vehicle?
Could our present "battle plan" have been altered so that the Humvee's vulnerability to IEDs could not be exploited? If so, how? Do we have enough other armored vehicles to fill the transportation needs?
Does ANYONE doubt that this experience will cause significant change in our military vehicles? Sure it will. See, you build your new stuff based on your past experience.
We'll improve our GP vehicles. Our enemies will then look for a different weakness to exploit or tactics/weapons to negate our improvements.
All that being said, I didn't like the Humvee when it was first approved. There were lots of folks saying that based on what was happening in South Africa and Israel/Palestine that it needed to be significantly armored.
We have to live with it now and patch it as fast as we can.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Did we armor the Jeep in WW2? No.
Are we armoring the Humvee out of need? Yes.
We going above and beyond what we've done in the past, and reacting swifter to changing events in the battlefield.
Most war falls between black and white, and its up to us to flex with it. We are.
Not really sure if you are agreeing with me then or not.
but anyways.... Runsfeld is an arrogant salamander that has had a few MAJOR job related blackeyes and should go.
-
Originally posted by mosgood
..that has had a few MAJOR job related blackeyes and should go.
This instance is not one of them...
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Exactly. Now if someone were to critisize how battlefield generals are using this platform, I'd agree. But to lay blame on Rummy just shows how desperate the left is to show its dismay of who is in power. :lol
comon Rip, it's now the lefts fault that Rumsfeld is being held responsible for the problems in his dept?
-
Originally posted by mosgood
comon Rip, it's now the lefts fault that Rumsfeld is being held responsible for the problems in his dept?
Do Toad and I have to re-emphasize our points again? Please re-read them..
-
This one is not Rummys fault. Humvees were not built for this type of warfare. This was clearly demonstrated in Somalia. That experience showed a humvee can take a massive amount of abuse but was inadequate for urban combat. I saw a humvee and a contractor chevy pickup truck collide head on going about 30mhp each. The humvee was completely destroyed in the front but the chevy looked like it was capable of driving off. Certain parts like the whole frontend, doors and rear hatch on humvees are made of a fiberglass type material that is not so thick. I used to punch holes in the floor with a screwdriver to allow water to drain.:confused:
-
lol ya i got a little off track. I don't know enough to know if it's his fault or not...... really... i admite it....
I do know that his type of DEAMEANor (and I emphisis DEMEAN) is not a good quality in a leader or administrator OR a public servant. It really doesn't serve anyone except him.
(ok fire away)
-
Originally posted by mosgood
lol ya i got a little off track. I don't know enough to know if it's his fault or not...... really... i admite it....
I do know that his type of DEAMEANor (and I emphisis DEMEAN) is not a good quality in a leader or administrator OR a public servant. It really doesn't serve anyone except him.
(ok fire away)
So you admit that the point of your thread was just to find something...ANYTHING to bash Rummy?
That says alot about the blind bias that does not allow you to intellectually analyze the situation in Iraq in a fair manner, thus mitigating your opinion to that of a gnats.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I for one am vary glad he is staying as he knows his biz, not to mention he makes every liberals skin crawl
LOL
Yea, sacrificing hard fighting men to piss off the liberals is cool.
:aok
-
Originally posted by jamusta
This one is not Rummys fault. Humvees were not built for this type of warfare.
And that pretty well nails it down. This thread should just dry up and end now.
-
Yeah, Ripsnort's right. The SecDef can not be held responsable for bad tactics, poor planning, poor equiptment and lack of "give a ****" about troops on the ground.
Why is the Defense Department only using 1 contractor to make armour upgrade kits? Who makes those decisions?
(http://www.blondegeoprincess.net/Rumsfeld.JPG)
-
Originally posted by Toad
And that pretty well nails it down. This thread should just dry up and end now.
Or focus what really is a grave injustice- the double standard of "rules" as they're applied to National Guard units vs. Full Time military.
Because a National Guardsman isn't full time military they aren't eligible for a VA disability pension should they become gravely wounded. They also aren't eligible for Workman's Comp should they not be able to return to their civilian job cause it wasn't an on-the-job injury.
The best America can do for a National Guardsman who, say, loses his legs in Iraq combat is get him Social Security disability...and that takes 24 months of a disability before you can collect benefits.
Now THAT is jacked up.
-
Originally posted by Toad
And that pretty well nails it down. This thread should just dry up and end now.
Or focus what really is a grave injustice- the double standard of "rules" as they're applied to National Guard units vs. Full Time military.
Because a National Guardsman isn't full time military they aren't eligible for a VA disability pension should they become gravely wounded. They also aren't eligible for Workman's Comp should they not be able to return to their civilian job cause it wasn't an on-the-job injury.
The best America can do for a National Guardsman who, say, loses his legs in Iraq combat is get him Social Security disability...and that takes 24 months of a disability before you can collect benefits.
Now THAT is jacked up.
-
Originally posted by Toad
And that pretty well nails it down. This thread should just dry up and end now.
Or focus what really is a grave injustice- the double standard of "rules" as they're applied to National Guard units vs. Full Time military.
Because a National Guardsman isn't full time military they aren't eligible for a VA disability pension should they become gravely wounded. They also aren't eligible for Workman's Comp should they not be able to return to their civilian job cause it wasn't an on-the-job injury.
The best America can do for a National Guardsman who, say, loses his legs in Iraq combat is get him Social Security disability...and that takes 24 months of a disability before you can collect benefits.
Now THAT is jacked up.
-
Hmmm... my computer musta thought that bears repeating.
-
What is nailed down?
That billions are spent on weapons that are never used instead of on weapons that will imediatly save US soldiers lives?
That Ruhmsfeld says you go to war with the army you have not the army you need when he had every choice to go to war or not and heavily endorsed going into this war with the army he had or less?
And at every point were he was asked if they had enough he said they had enough. Now that some trooper raises the obvios question its time to circle the wagons arround old ruhumy and say its not his fault..
lol
I think this nuts stratagy of prememption should take into account what his army is equiped to do. It should take into account how his enemy is likly to resond.
Maybe take into account that tones of guys like Ripsnort will cheer on the troops but not sign up to actually fight the battles. And will not like to have less mony spent at Boeing so that the girls and boys driving arround in Iraq have vehicles with a half decent chance of keeping them alive.
Instead they will buy new toys for themselves while the men that do volenteer will be denied the chance to stop serving after they have done thier time. They will be denied the wage they can earn on Civi street with thier real lives while they climb back into the scap pit to dig out more iron to weld on their humvees making them top heavy and dangerous just to drive much less take a mine hit in.
want to know why the troops dont have these vehicles. I dont know but look at who owns stock in the hummer company and who owns stock in the real mine proof truck company.
-
Pongo thats the way things are in the military. Do more with less. I have accounts of jerry rigged equipment that you wouldnt think was possible. But the stuff worked. Combat humvees were the first to add kevlar to them unfortunately that wont stop a rocket propelled grenade. A bradley is too bulky for that kind of mission. Marines have the LAV which would probably work best.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So you admit that the point of your thread was just to find something...ANYTHING to bash Rummy?
That says alot about the blind bias that does not allow you to intellectually analyze the situation in Iraq in a fair manner, thus mitigating your opinion to that of a gnats.
Rip, you have a bad habit of trying to twist bullshiat into words.
My thread is about how Rummy handled the question in his typical heavy handed and arrogant manner. In this case, it was to a man that he has sent to put his life on the line. That man, as the country deserves better and less flippant responses than your man dishes out on a regular basis.
In this thread I got off track of the main point of the thread. I admited that I really can't, i good conscious say that I absolutely know that he is responsible for an armor supply problem. I did it freely and you took it like a louse.
You have tried to twist my remittance into something else entirely and than take that false accusation and use it to try to discredit my opinion. You insult my intelligence and say that my opinion is worthless. Why did you even feel the need to do that Rip? We are adults and I've voiced my difference of opinion. And in one matter, I have even admitted I was wrong. Why do you feel the need to personally attack me?
I have read many posts of yours and while I have not agreed with most of your view points, I have at least showed you the common respect that is due to another adult. Tell you the truth Rip, after that totaly uncalled for post, I've even lost that respect for you.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So you admit that the point of your thread was just to find something...ANYTHING to bash Rummy?
That says alot about the blind bias that does not allow you to intellectually analyze the situation in Iraq in a fair manner,
and the fact that you, of all people, can actually say the words "blind bias" and keep a straight face is amazing.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Do Toad and I have to re-emphasize our points again? Please re-read them..
Wow, it almost made me violently ill see you trying to trade in on Toad's legitimacy.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
What is nailed down?
The whole question of why the Humvees aren't armored vehicles. They were specked, designed, built and bought for an entirely different scenario and now... as seems to happen in most all wars... the equipment designed for one thing is now being modified as a stop-gap to do an entirely different mission.
Don't fool yourself; if we suddenly bought 100,000 Cougars and equipped the whole force with them, they'd probably be "right" for this war but undoubtedly "wrong" for the next one. Because the enemy will adapt and avoid your "strengths" and work on your perceived "weaknesses".
That billions are spent on weapons that are never used instead of on weapons that will imediatly save US soldiers lives?[/b]
Billions are ALWAYS spent on weapons that are never used. The nuke capability of the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's, for example. Never used, thank God; but if they weren't there the cost might have been much, much higher.
Back when we bought Humvees for GP transportation, the military planners weren't planning on using them for occupation duties against people whose main weapon would be an IED on a roadside. Otherwise, they'd probably look a whole lot like a Cougar.
They're building uparmored Humvees right now ~ 400 a month. We're buying some Cougars too, and I expect we'll be buying many more. And it will eventually turn out that these new vehicles aren't what we need for the next encounter and so we'll have wasted billions on things we can't use.
That Ruhmsfeld says you go to war with the army you have not the army you need when he had every choice to go to war or not and heavily endorsed going into this war with the army he had or less?[/b]
I'm sure you realize the SecDef is not the guy that makes the decision to go to war. He executes the decision to go to war.
And you go with what you've got. You think Roosevelt's Secretary of War went with what he had or what he needed? You think Truman's Secretary of Defense went with what he had or what he needed? Rumsfeld got his marching orders, just like any Private; he went with what he had.
And at every point were he was asked if they had enough he said they had enough. Now that some trooper raises the obvios question its time to circle the wagons arround old ruhumy and say its not his fault..[/b]
It's clear they didn't plan for two years of IEDs. I'm pretty sure no one in the Pentagon with any real horsepower thought that the Humvees were ever going to be used they way they're being (ab)used now.
If you want to accuse Rumsfeld & Co. of anything, accuse them of being wrong about the probably post-war situation with respect to continued guerilla warfare.
Which is an entirely different topic than what this thread is about.
want to know why the troops dont have these vehicles. I dont know but look at who owns stock in the hummer company and who owns stock in the real mine proof truck company. [/B]
Well, you're the one making the accusations. So show us who owns large amounts of stock in General Motors. I think there's about a half a billion shares of GM common stock outstanding last quarter, in the mid 12 dollar range I think.
How much of it does Rumsfeld own, Pongo? Because you're suggesting Rumsfeld (or who...gasp.. not BUSH?) is directly profiting from deliberately putting our troops in vehicles unsuited to the task they are presently used for but not designed to do, right?
As for the "mine proof" vehicles, don't forget that the Cougar isn't "mine proof". It's just more heavily armored. People will die in Cougars too.
Now there's only ~200 million shares of Force Protection stock out there and it's trading right around twenty cents a share. If I was Rumsfeld, I'd see a lot more opportunity for ill-gotten gains there than at GM.
Anyway, why don't you tell us just exactly who's getting illegally wealthy from uparmoring Hummers and not making the military buy Cougars?
Thanks.
-
But your incorrect. The neocoms, led by Ruhmsfeld did decide on a stratagy of procactive military attack any oposition when they saw fit. They formulated the whole strategy with Iraq in mind in the 1990s. Such a stratagy unless you think that all will colapse to your will, requires occupation forces. It is self evident Toad. Self evident and predicted.
And troops were not only sent into iraq on day one with hummers. They were sent into iraq today with unarmoured hummers.
How does your little fantasy of Roosevelt in WW2 apply. Its like fighting in Late 43 with M3 stuarts and P40bs instead of M4a3s and P47 d5s.
Your very examples show the weakness of your defense of this man.
What we have in Iraq is not a barely concievable outcome. Its not even an unlikley outcome. It was entirely predictable and predicted.
You and others on this board chose to ignore those predictions and insult those that made them.
Your heros in the white house apperntly treated those who advised them to the realities in the same way.
The level of arms in Iraq was well known. IEDs or not it was predictable that every US soldier in Iraq would be in mortal danger as long as he was there and needing the best protection that the richest nation on earth could provide.
-
Rumsfield should be honest, they never expected to be getting shot at and the level of violence to continue and still fighting major battles to this day since Bush's ill concieved "Mission Accomplished".
Seems they only planned to take Iraq there seems little or no planning for the ocupation itself since day one which was always going to be the toughest part. Eas to get yourself into a war bloody hard to get out. Thought they would of learnt that lesson the hard way already.
...-Gixer
-
I disagree with your assessment on numerous points.
I don't believe that Rumsfeld led any "neocoms" to decide on the strategy for this war.
I think he set some parameters like troop levels, ROE and such and then let his professional soldiers plan the campaign.
I don't disagree that they probably did not give enough thought to the post-war era and the plan they came up with certainly hasn't worked as expected or very well. Obviously, they didn't plan on this level of post war conflict.
You can fault them for the plan but not for the equipment. As I pointed out, the Humvee is an early 80's design. I'm sure the Pentagon never envisioned it in the role it is now playing, not in the 80's and not in 2002.
And troops were not only sent into iraq on day one with hummers. They were sent into iraq today with unarmoured hummers.
Yeah. The decision to initially assault with unarmored Hummers turned out fine. They were used in the role they were designed to do, which is follow after Abrams and Bradleys. Can you point to huge, unusual losses of Hummers in the war fighting phase?
Where they suck is in an occupation/IED scenario. They weren't designed for that and they fail the test. No one argues that.
As for the NG units coming in with unarmored Hummers, the solution is simple and cheap. They should be leaving the armored equipment in place. Why bother shipping unarmored Hummers over? Just leave them in the States and up armor them here when feasible. I suspect there's some red tape bookkeeping foolishness that prevents the Army from leaving equipment and just rotating men. I think THAT'S probably what needs looking into the most right now.
How does your little fantasy of Roosevelt in WW2 apply.
[/b]
Pretty directly and aptly. You howl about Rumsfeld's comment that you go to war with the army you have, yet it's an obvious truth.
The Brits went to war with what they had after the invasion of Poland too.
Give me the example of the Army that thought it had absolutely every single thing it needed when it went to war with no General saying "you know, we might wait just a bit until we have the XXXX in more quantity" or something similar. I'm sure there were even a few of Adoph's generals wanting to wait a bit before invading Poland.
I've found it pointless to try and factually debate with the "Rumsfeld and the Neocoms planned to take over ze worldt in 1957" school of black helicopter politics, so I think I'll take a pass on debating this further.
You and others on this board chose to ignore those predictions and insult those that made them.
[/b]
Yeah, I thought there would be WMD and I didn't think there would be this level of guerilla warfare. I was wrong.
However, I don't believe I insulted anyone. Please clip a quote and show me where I did so. Thanks.
IEDs or not it was predictable that every US soldier in Iraq would be in mortal danger as long as he was there and needing the best protection that the richest nation on earth could provide. [/B]
I think that was arguable rather than predictable. I also think that if the elections go well and we can turn more and more aspects of their government over to the Iraqis things will get better and we can start to reduce troop levels. I also realize things could get worse.
As for "best protection", that's what they're getting. What they're not getting is the benefit of a crystal ball.
You do go to war with what you have and you adapt to your problems as fast as you can.
That's what's happening with the Humvee. We're building new armored ones ~ 400 per month. We're up-armoring the ones over there. We're testing and probably going to buy Cougars and Buffalos.
None of that happens with the wave of a wand. We started WW2 with the F4F and ended it with the F8F. Huge advance, but it didn't happen overnight.
I suppose back then you'd have accused Roosevelt's Secretary of War of deliberately delaying development of the Bearcat.
-
Oh Pongo, by the way, do you have that info on which person in the Bush administration is making obscene profits by sending our boys to war in Humvees?
You know, who has the most GM stock and who has (or doesn't have) the Force Protection stock?
Or was that just another red herring?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
10-15k$ each (http://www.sovietarmy.com/vehicles/btr-70.html) 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.
-
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! :D
Or as someone added "We go to war with the SecDEF we have, not the one we wish we had......"
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
I'm sure they'll call you first next time!
-
"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.
-
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.
-
" 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.
-
Originally posted by 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?
Powell...
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Bush new they had no WMD.
Man you will choke down anything. Don't forget he's a draft dodger too.
The Democrats could easily have won the election if they could have proven "Bush new they had no WMD". Maybe even if they could have proven he was a "draft dodger".
You missed the opportunity to make MILLIONS as a Democratic consultant. You should have called the DNC early on and shown them your incontrovertible evidence.
Heck, Dan Rather and CBS probably would have paid you as well.
:)
-
Originally posted by Toad
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.
US Intelligence..There's an oxymoron.
There wasn't one shred of evidence that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD..Not one satalite photo,not one document(that wasn't a cheap forgery),not one intercepted shippment of ballistic missles(N Korea)...Poor Colin Powell buys into the lies and makes a lauging stock of USA credibility in front of of the UN.
Hey,if there was something along the lines of the satilite photo's(eg..Cuban missles) like JFK presented to the world..Well then hell ya..
But that total snowjob by GWB(yes,it's time to be accountable for something 'ol George)...
Maybe he is just gullable...Maybe he needs to read some history and learn from it("May God help us on this great crusade")..Maybe...
...he is overdue for his next monkey brain transplant.