Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hogboy on December 10, 2004, 06:29:02 AM
-
I KNEW it! No way that guys hangs his neck like that by confronting the Secretary of Defense publicly and embarassing him.
There just had to be a self-serving, biased journalist looking to cause trouble so he can sell papers behind it all!!! They should report the news, not try to make it.
Mr. T's character, Clubber Lang, had it right in "Rocky III" when he told the reporters in his dressing room that they were "parasites and leeches."
You can tell I generally don't like journalists, right?
:D
-
Regardless of the source of the question, it was indeed a valid question however a better question would have been why are we using light-skinned vehicles against opposition that has the weapons to easily destroy the vehicles?
Incidently, a para or two from the CNN article:
"Reporters don't have the same access any longer that they did to ask their own questions," he said. "And planting a legitimate question with somebody who may have the access, I think, is an acceptable practice.
"The question is whether or not the soldier who asked the question really believed in it, and my guess is that he did, or he wouldn't have asked it," said Loory, who also is editor in chief of Global Journalist magazine.
Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita disagreed.
"Town hall meetings are intended for soldiers to have dialogue with the secretary of defense," Di Rita said in a news release.
"... The secretary provides ample opportunity for interaction with the press. It is better that others not infringe on the troops' opportunity to interact with superiors in the chain of command."
-
We all have only 1 life on this planet. If embarrassing a senile old man whos in charge of our military in order to save some lives works, then I am all for it.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
"Town hall meetings are intended for soldiers to have dialogue with the secretary of defense," Di Rita said in a news release.
"... The secretary provides ample opportunity for interaction with the press. It is better that others not infringe on the troops' opportunity to interact with superiors in the chain of command."
Hmmm.... if that's the case, why was the press allowed there at all?
Was it supposed to be a press event where the world gets to see the secretary of defense "handle" important questions from soldiers that are intimidated by him?
-
Originally posted by mosgood
Hmmm.... if that's the case, why was the press allowed there at all?
Was it supposed to be a press event where the world gets to see the secretary of defense "handle" important questions from soldiers that are intimidated by him?
"It is better that others not infringe on the troops' opportunity to interact with superiors in the chain of command."[/b]
-
Me thinks it has been way to much focus on making equipment light and mobile and not enough on making them tough enough to protect people. When one fights the kinds of wars (and conduct peace keeping operations )that lets troops get very up close and personal with potential threats you need heavy armour on wheels... not light and nimble vehicles that can be transported on c-130's.
I see it within our army too. Light and quick reaction equipment have been favoured over heavly armoured stuff. Sending our guys to afghanistan in unarmoured 4x4's is asking for trouble I think adn its only a matter of time before one gets blown up.
-
(http://www.jwz.org/images/capt.sge.kwf26.190503151821.photo00.default-339x310.jpg)
"Now settle down. Settle down. Hell, I'm an old man and it's early in the morning."
Yes Donald, it's OK. We'll tell the insurgents to wait until you have your coffee and Metamucil before they start killing us.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
"It is better that others not infringe on the troops' opportunity to interact with superiors in the chain of command." [/B]
Sorry Rip, your gonna have to spell it out better than that. My"Blind Bias" is getting in the way of reading BOLD print as well......
-
The DS had a nice piece on this last night.. Showed much more of the scene.. There were more questions asked on this subject to Donald than just this one. Questions asked by more than one person. lol Was a strange scene actually seeing Donald stumped and at a lack of words..
-
Yankee soldiers complained a lot but on occasion one wrote home saying they could tough out the roughest conditions. H. R. Leonard of Indiana was one.---
"I have layed down in the rain and slep all night and got up in the morning driping wet and cold and hungry. But I see my comrads in the same fix and think it no worse for me than for them. We have all the chestnuts and persimmons we can eat every day... We can live in the woods like hogs."
--- Bell Wiley's The Life Of Billy Yank.
The Sherman had some major improvements on the superstructure and on the armament as well as on the welded or cast hull. The "General Sherman", under which name the new tank was soon to be known, was equipped with a 75mm gun, which was, however, insufficient against the German Tanks.
Frequently the crew was forced to protect the tank sides and the front with sandbags. In some instances the most exposed track sections were covered and sometimes even cement or steel blocks were attached.
how many more examples from history would you guys like where soldiers were ill-equipped?
-
how many more examples from history would you guys like where soldiers were ill-equipped?
I hear you rip.. But still, how many of these conflicts were by choice? WW2 was not a war of choice, Iraqi is a war of choice.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
how many more examples from history would you guys like where soldiers were ill-equipped?
You should read Great Land Weapons of WW2. I believe that is the name, but it's sitting at home on my nightstand. It has a very good analysis of how inferior the Sherman was, and why it wasn't updated. 2 reasons basically, the constant push by a certain general for the US Tank Destroyer doctrine (which failed, only Germans & Russians did it right), and the unwillingness of the US to sacrifice production volume. I'll edit this tonight when I can list the author. The only good version was the british made Sherman Firefly, which had a nasty anti-tank gun that could handle Tigers... armor was still a joke though.
-
I KNEW it!
Old news, covered in another thread.
-
The US ordinance clowns that kept the Sherman in the state it was in well past when it should and could have been effectivly updated have been reviled down through history for calously and narrow mindedly wasting there soldiers lives...Good comparison Ripsnort. Thanks.
As to your other stupid example. Soldiers through history have been hungery and cold inumerable times. Union solders in the Civil war are no exception. If you must dredge an example of poorly equiped Civil war soldiers up certainly the South would be a better example. What being hungery has to do with not being issued the equimpment that would make the soldiers effective in completing thier pridictable mission in a predictable enviorment participating in an optional war is beyond me.
Why dont you use the the US torpedo scew up as an example of how Ruhmsfleld is no more incompetent then the most incompetent US leaders in history?
You ought not to try to debate things based on interent searches Rip. It just shows how little you know about the issue and in no way helps your hero.
-
what level of armor should a humvee have?
lazs
-
Not sure..It was designed for none and it will never perfom as well ballistically or automotivly as something designed for the weight..
But, If I was going to occupy one of the most heavily armed populations on earth and fight an insurgency "until the jobs done"I would I would want one very very well armoured.
-
Originally posted by indy007
You should read Great Land Weapons of WW2.
Or "Death Traps".
-
Originally posted by Hogboy
I KNEW it! No way that guys hangs his neck like that by confronting the Secretary of Defense publicly and embarassing him.
:D
Ummmm, didnt he hang his neck out and publicly embarrass the secretary of defense?
-
If it gets our guys better gear, who cares if Rummy or anybody else gets embarrased.
-
I'm all for better gear no matter who gets embarassed.... What level of armor on the humvees will make then safe?
lazs
-
Lazs,
There is no level of armor. A RPG will take out an armored humvee. A 113 would have trouble in that arena.
-
A 113 would have trouble in that arena.
The A3 variant should be much better than the A2 of its heyday (at least from the side). Still not as protected as a Bradley or a Stryker, but we have them stockplied and they would be much better than an armored Humvee.
The A3 was also supposed to accept a bolt-on armor package but I really wonder how many of those were ever produced. I believe the potential added weight was why it had the turbo diesel and brakes that would stop you on a dime if you even thought about stopping one (without the added weight). Couldn't even use the brakes hardly -- all or nothing response.
Charon
-
Ummmm, didnt he hang his neck out and publicly embarrass the secretary of defense?
Not really, since what he was saying was a lie.
-
He lied about digging through the junk piles for armour..why did the others cheer him then?
-
Sigh.
The humvee was never meant to be an armored combat vehicle. It was designed to be a light transport vehicle, period. The fact that they are unarmored is hardly Rumsfeld's fault, since he didn't design it or lay down the specifications for the design.
And the question was hardly fair since steps were being taken months ago to provide armor for the humvees after their vulnerability to roadside bombs became apparent. Iraqi companies are being employed to apply armor to these American vehicles from cannibalized Iraqi military equipment. American companies are also producing armor for these vehicles.
The problem with these stop-gap measures is that the basic designs' suspension was not meant to handle the extra weight, which makes the vehicles unwieldy and unstable. I believe there was another post which pointed out that many American troops have been killed or injured by these modified and overloaded humvees.
I wonder if WWII GIs complained about their Jeeps being unarmored?
-
That is defianlty true.
My reproach for ruhmsfeld in this isnt that he is not buying armoured hummers. He is. But it is now 19 months into the occupation, an occupation that he knew about 30 months ago and that no force on earth could stop.
How long do you cut him slack for? How long did he down play the force levels required?
If the US had been very very serios about this issue it would have been solved last callender year. Period. You cant snap your fingers and make it go away. But every convoy would have mine resistant vehicles last december if it was taken seriosly.
People are not complaining that the invasion took place in the absense of perfect equipment levels. But really. Thats nearly 2 years ago now.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Not really, since what he was saying was a lie.
Steve, you mean soldiers are NOT digging thru junkpiles looking for sheets of metal and ballistic glass to up armour their vehicles?
You can't be serious. We all know you love Bush, but burying your head in the sand will not protect soldiers lives. Rummy is the one that's lying, not the soldier on the ground.
Valley firm disputes Rumsfeld, is ready to supply Army armor
Joseph A. Reaves
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 10, 2004 12:00 AM
A Valley firm that provides critical armor for military vehicles in Iraq is operating at only half-capacity despite complaints from soldiers who say they are being sent into combat without adequate protection.
"We've been telling the Pentagon for months that we have the capacity to double our production," said former U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon, a consultant for ArmorWorks of Tempe.
"We're ready, and we haven't heard a thing."
Rumsfeld said he spoke with a general at the Pentagon before traveling to Kuwait and was told the military was doing its best to provide troops the resources they need.
"It's essentially a matter of physics," he said. "It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it."
Salmon said that simply isn't true, at least in the case of ArmorWorks, which has a $30 million contract to provide composite armor kits that are fitted onto Humvee vehicles in three hours by soldiers in the field.
"The Pentagon right now, in its postdebacle spin, is trying to convince everyone that contractors are operating at peak capacity," Salmon told The Arizona Republic. "In our case it's flat-out not accurate."
Salmon, a conservative Republican who narrowly lost the 2002 governor's race, has been a paid consultant for ArmorWorks for more than a year.
He said the firm is producing about 300 armor kits a month but easily can ship twice that many.
-
In the Navy's "Construction Battalion Battle Skills Guide" Book 1,
Task 1-10 is "Perform as a member of a Convoy"
in that task is "Preparation of Safety Vehicles"
Item "C" in "Preparation of Safety Vehicles" is "Hardening a vehicle provides the personnel with a degree of protection" and goes on to desribe procedures for battlefeild modifications, including installation of Garrote bars and sandbags.
Rooting through scrap piles for hardening seems to be SOP.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
My reproach for ruhmsfeld in this isnt that he is not buying armoured hummers. He is. But it is now 19 months into the occupation,...
If the US had been very very serios about this issue it would have been solved last callender year... But every convoy would have mine resistant vehicles last december if it was taken seriosly.
Pongo, got any stats on how many roadside IEDs there were in the from about April 2003 to early October 2003?
Were there just hundreds and hundreds or maybe 30-40? 5-6 a month?
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2004/10/13/pf-667700.html
-
yes jamusta thank you... that was the way I looked at it.. probly humvees should not be used as armor. Just as the jeep before it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Pongo, got any stats on how many roadside IEDs there were in the from about April 2003 to early October 2003?
Were there just hundreds and hundreds or maybe 30-40? 5-6 a month?
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2004/10/13/pf-667700.html
I know it doenst matter what the stat is youll defend the idiots.
-
I know it doenst matter what the stat is youll defend the idiots.
====
moving target pongo, please stay still.....
-
Hes just makeing more and more desparate excuses.
"theres no way they could have known that it would be dangerous in Iraq!"
"Theres no way they could have known that there were no WMD"
its just pathetic.
Why is it bush suporters only see what cant be done. Imagine if you could rely on the excellence and imagination of your leadership instead of thier narrow mindedness and dishonesty.
Imagine if guys like Toad didnt have to waste thier time comming up with excuses for thier leaders lies and failures and blunders.
what a waste.
-
Doesn't matter?
Your whole case is "they should have known".
Prove your case. Show us the indicators that YOU read back in 2001.
Fact is, it wasn't till late 2003 that this became a major tactic.
I didn't vote for Bush, so your "Bush supporters" argument is blown too.
What you're seeing is my attitude towards armchair generals with 20/20 hindsight, General.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Not really, since what he was saying was a lie.
Lie or no lie, for a soldier in the US military to stand up in front of the Secretary of defense and ask an embarissing question is balsy. Id be interested in seeing if he makes it through the war alive.
By the way, did you notice the applause givin to the soldier by the others soldiers? I take that as a 'yea, what he said' kind of thing.
-
Pongo, there is absolutely no shame in all in supporting our troops. The troops said they needed armor long ago and it still hasnt been suppleid.
For somebody to imply that is standard operating procedures to armor your own vehicle is the testimony of an 'armchair general'.
Yes, if you are seperated from the supply lines and in the thick of a conventional battlefront, you may want to make your vehicle as secure as possible with whatever means possible, including, but not limited to, sacks filled with sand or dirt.
If you are on routine patrols in an occupying role, through obvioulsy hostile terrirtory and the humvee armor plating facility is operationg at 25% capacity, one may wonder why they are forced to use 'last resort' methods to protect themselves instead of having the professionals do it for them.
Thus the question was posed for Rumsfeld, by those who know the best, the troops in harms way.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Doesn't matter?
Your whole case is "they should have known".
Prove your case. Show us the indicators that YOU read back in 2001.
Fact is, it wasn't till late 2003 that this became a major tactic.
What you're seeing is my attitude towards armchair generals with 20/20 hindsight, General.
:rofl
(http://home.comcast.net/~ripsnort60/untitled.bmp)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Doesn't matter?
Your whole case is "they should have known".
Prove your case. Show us the indicators that YOU read back in 2001.
Fact is, it wasn't till late 2003 that this became a major tactic.
I didn't vote for Bush, so your "Bush supporters" argument is blown too.
What you're seeing is my attitude towards armchair generals with 20/20 hindsight, General.
Toad, our guys have been driving humvees down hostile roads since the beginning of the war. Anybody could have planned for the possibility of small arms fire and mines. A war planner would have to be severly shortsighted in not planning for this.
Our fighting men should not be put in a position to beg for adequate protection.
-
Soldiers complain? What a novelty.
If they need armor and like others have said, embarrassing their leaders expedite getting it, who cares? Those jumping on this in hopes of furthering their political agenda only expose themselves for the low lifes they are.