Author Topic: Rumsfeld at his best...... (Read 1901 times)

Fishu · « **Reply #30 on:** December 09, 2004, 01:08:18 PM »

Quote

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,

Quote

"...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.

Yeager · « **Reply #31 on:** December 09, 2004, 01:15:58 PM »

bah...... what dolts!

rumy and the soldier both did each other a great service.

Give em both purple kerries fo surviving the fight.

Airhead · « **Reply #32 on:** December 09, 2004, 01:29:05 PM »

Quote

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.

rpm · « **Reply #33 on:** December 09, 2004, 01:29:06 PM »

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 is run by a former Infantry Platoon Leader that served in Iraq. Conservatives are gonna HATE Paul Rieckhoff.

Quote

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.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #34 on:** December 09, 2004, 01:30:32 PM »

Quote

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...

Yeager · « **Reply #35 on:** December 09, 2004, 01:33:39 PM »

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?

rpm · « **Reply #36 on:** December 09, 2004, 01:37:02 PM »

Quote

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.

mosgood · « **Reply #37 on:** December 09, 2004, 01:38:06 PM »

Quote

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.

jamusta · « **Reply #38 on:** December 09, 2004, 01:42:07 PM »

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.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #39 on:** December 09, 2004, 01:51:01 PM »

Quote

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.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #40 on:** December 09, 2004, 01:53:51 PM »

Quote

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.

Toad · « **Reply #41 on:** December 09, 2004, 01:54:14 PM »

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?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #42 on:** December 09, 2004, 01:55:42 PM »

Quote

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.

mauser · « **Reply #43 on:** December 09, 2004, 02:08:57 PM »

Quote

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:

Quote

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.

jamusta · « **Reply #44 on:** December 09, 2004, 02:10:54 PM »

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.