Plywood armor plating

I guess it would keep out a haistly thrown rock & maybe some sand, but
not much else- especially not a bullet

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:02:45 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> >Horseshit, Andy ...RPG's have been around for a long time and to
state they
> >were not "expected" is either spin or ignorance, but ludicrous in
either
> >case.
>
> So why are the Americans taking so many casualties from them ?

Expense. A proper armored personel carrier like the Strycker is
much more expensive than a Humvee plus a half dozen body bags.

--

FF

Ed Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Swingman wrote:
> > "Andy Dingley" wrote in message
> >> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:01:17 -0600, "AL" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Plywood!? Surely that can't be right, can it?
> >>
> >> Pretty common. The US troops went into Iraq expecting small-arms
> >> fire and instead received RPGs.
> >
> > Horseshit, Andy ...RPG's have been around for a long time and to
state they
> > were not "expected" is either spin or ignorance, but ludicrous in
either
> > case.
>
> I think the point is that they were not expecting civilians to have
weapons
> of that kind. They beat the army, but now every arsehole in the
country is
> flipping rockets at them.
>

The popularity of RPGs among third world militia, insurgents, etc is
hardly a secret. They were also used to good effect in Mogadishu.

It is noteworthy that following that disaster, and the well-deserved
criticism he received, Clinton saw to it that no similar debacle
occured for the remainder of his administration. The occupation
of Iraq has been one Mogadishu after another and the Bush
administration has been excruciatingly slow to respond in a
constructive manner.

--

FF

Note crossposting and follow-ups.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:04:48 +0800, Old Nick <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On 24 Jan 2005 08:52:23 -0800, [email protected] vaguely
> >proposed a theory
> >......and in reply I say!:
> >
> > remove ns from my header address to reply via email
> >
> >>> So why are the Americans taking so many casualties from them ?
> >>
> >>Expense. A proper armored personel carrier like the Strycker is
> >>much more expensive than a Humvee plus a half dozen body bags.
> >
> >
> >Sorry. I just attributed this to Andy
>
> ... and it's just about the most dumb-a**ed statement anybody could
make.
> Even, for the sake of argument, accepting the premise that the
leaders in
> this country or war don't value the lives of their troops -- they
still
> value results. The purpose of sending troops out on a mission of any
sort
> is to have them accomplish their objectives. An absolutely free
humvee and
> no-cost bodybags in which the humvee is destroyed and no objectives
are
> achieved vs. a very expensive Stryker that accomplishes its mission
and
> returns with few or no casualties is an easy trade even for someone
who
> doesn't value life but does value results.
>

False dichotomy. A mission may be accomplished despite casualties.

Why did the administration refuse the manufacturer's offer to increase
delivery of the up-armor kits for Humvees if not for budgetary reasons?
--

FF

Note follow-ups.

Mike Marlow wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Note crossposting and follow-ups.
> >
>
> No - screw the crossposting. Why would you go and start that crap?
Please
> don't take up on this crossposting stuff. Kindly keep comments
within your
> own group.

What do you mean by 'your own group'? I do not own any newsgroups.

It is simply a matter of nettiquette to post articles in a newsgroup
where they are on topic.

--

FF

Swingman wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > It is simply a matter of nettiquette to post articles in a
newsgroup
> > where they are on topic.
>
> Thing about it is, its a complicated world. ... many here are using
filters
> that work against crossposting. If you take out the crossposting, you
defeat
> the filter.
>

IOW, those who filter to remove cross-posts don't want to read
the OT articles in the first place, right?

Works for me.

Rec.woodworking is one newsgroup that works as intended. We
have great, flame-free discussions of woodworking and woodworking-
related topics. Most of the off-topic articles are crossposted
here by trolls.

What boggles the mind is that evidently a few of the regular
participants are unhappy about that flame-free environment and
insist on posting off-topic articles with subjects guaranteed to
provoke flame wars. One supposes that results largely from two
factors. First, a profound ignorance of UseNet itself and/or an
attitude that accepted rules of nettiquette are for other people
only.

--

FF

Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> I now appears you were trying to
> direct the conversation over to alt.politics rather than allow it to
run
> here.

As the British say, spot on.

Thanks.

--

FF

"Swingman" wrote in message

>
> Solution: get your head out of the sand and start listening to what is
going
> on around you when it comes to a "free press" also ... Dan Rather and CBS,
> and the paying of "journalists" by the present administration, sound
> familiar?

Let me clarify that, Nate ... I meant you in the larger sense, not "you" in
particular.

Sorry ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

In article <[email protected]>, Swingman wrote:
> "Andy Dingley" wrote in message
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:01:17 -0600, "AL" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Plywood!? Surely that can't be right, can it?
>>
>> Pretty common. The US troops went into Iraq expecting small-arms
>> fire and instead received RPGs.
>
> Horseshit, Andy ...RPG's have been around for a long time and to state they
> were not "expected" is either spin or ignorance, but ludicrous in either
> case.

I think the point is that they were not expecting civilians to have weapons
of that kind. They beat the army, but now every arsehole in the country is
flipping rockets at them.


--
"De inimico non loquaris sed cogites."

In article <[email protected]>, Old Nick wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2005 11:26:36 GMT, Ed Clarke <[email protected]> vaguely
> proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
>
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
>>De inimico non loquaris sed cogites
>
> OK. You tell me......

Don't wish ill for your enemy; plan it.

--
"De inimico non loquaris sed cogites."

Old Nick wrote:

>>>>De inimico non loquaris sed cogites
>>>
>>> OK. You tell me......
>>
>>Don't wish ill for your enemy; plan it.
>
> Ah. Thanks. I tried searching around but could not find it.

That's not what it says. It says "Don't talk about your enemy, but think."
Anything else you get out of it is a question of interpretation.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

In article <[email protected]>, Silvan wrote:
> Old Nick wrote:
>
>>>>>De inimico non loquaris sed cogites
>>>>
>>>> OK. You tell me......
>>>
>>>Don't wish ill for your enemy; plan it.
>>
>> Ah. Thanks. I tried searching around but could not find it.
>
> That's not what it says. It says "Don't talk about your enemy, but think."
> Anything else you get out of it is a question of interpretation.

Damn it, you're right! Never believe a usenet translation. Should be
something with optatio and malus.


--
"Never believe a Latin translation on Usenet"

mac davis wrote:

> vehicle because the armor is way too heavy and that it's NOT built to
> be armored, any more than a WWII jeep was..

I finally saw one of those up close and personal. Wow. Not armored is an
understatement. Nothing gives you a feeling of security in an under-fire
situation like sitting on a cushion directly on top of a gas tank, right?

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Ed Clarke wrote:

>> That's not what it says.  It says "Don't talk about your enemy, but
>> think." Anything else you get out of it is a question of interpretation.
>
> Damn it, you're right!  Never believe a usenet translation.  Should be
> something with optatio and malus.
>
>
> "Never believe a Latin translation on Usenet"

Nunquam credes... Um... Dang.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

On 25 Jan 2005 11:26:36 GMT, Ed Clarke <[email protected]> vaguely
proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

>> Horseshit, Andy ...RPG's have been around for a long time and to state they
>> were not "expected" is either spin or ignorance, but ludicrous in either
>> case.
>
>I think the point is that they were not expecting civilians to have weapons
>of that kind. They beat the army, but now every arsehole in the country is
>flipping rockets at them.

Well said.....

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > Rob.. In my experience, that's a squad or platoon level decision...
> > The brass in the choppers make decisions based on the "big picture"
> > and the pressure on them from higher up brass...
> > The guys on the ground that are taking fire are the ones that have to
> > decide whether they're going to disobey the order from "above" to
> > avoid needless loss of their people..
> >
> > I was one of many NCO's that were busted for not letting my people do
> > stupid things that were ordered by people that were too new "in
> > country" to understand what was going on where the rubber meets the
> > road...
> >
> > As to your question about men going blindly forward when ordered,
> > that's why they drafted teenagers... they still think that they're
> > immortal..
> >
> > Try getting a large group of middle age guys to charge that gun, and
> > you'll have a discussion like this one first.. lol
> >

While the discussion rages among the "army of one" types, the actual action,
for which the infiltration was to have provided a diversion, has resulted in
a four time casualty rate.

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

. Besides, the rights of free speech and free press are
> fundamental to a democracy (at least until some dunderhead decides
> otherwise).

Except, of course, at Harvard ... or anywhere if you're not PC.

"Kevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Swingman wrote:
>
> > "Kevin" wrote in message
> >
> >>Swingman wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Expense. A proper armored personel carrier like the Strycker is
> >>>>much more expensive than a Humvee plus a half dozen body bags.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>.... anybody who would believe that is one sick puppy.
> >>>
> >>
> >>.... and anybody who doesn't is in denial.
> >
> >
> > Go ahead, read the original statement again and then tell me "in denial"
of
> > what?
> >
> As I understand the OP, he believes the gov't/military decided it is
> cheaper to replace personnel than purchase proper equipment.
>
> As I understand your reply, you believe this is the product of a warped
> mind, and you do not believe our gov't/military could or would make such
> a decision.
>
> Somewhere in this thread was mentioned the augmentation seen on Shermans
> in WWII, almost as justification for the inadequately prepared Humvees.
> That augmentation was needed because then, as now, the higher ups
> refused to prepare for the inevitable and sent woefully under-armed and
> under-armored tanks against the fearsome 88mm gun and thick armor the
> Germans deployed. The Brits called the Sherman the "Tommy-toaster".
>
> The Sherman only prevailed by virtue of quantity, not quality. In other
> words: our side could afford to fill more body than their side.
>
> Have you never heard the infantry referred to as "Mk I, Mod I Bullet
> Catchers"?
>
> Ergo, I maintain you are in denial.
>
>

How do we know what's "best," so we can buy it, and not waste time and money
on intermediate products?

How do we fight the next war when we only know the last?

More to the point, how can we plan or purchase anything military without the
press and Senator Lenin telling us we don't need it at all?

BTW, it wasn't just the Sherman which was vulnerable. One of my old Soviet
tactics instructors fought at Kursk in the T34, and had nothing but respect
for what an 88 could do to _any_ tank.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:57:08 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Nothing gives you a feeling of security in an under-fire
>situation like sitting on a cushion directly on top of a gas tank, right?

Best place for it. Two things that I want really well protected are my
ass, and the fuel tank. At least it's not in the main exit doors, like
a BMP ( d'oh! ).

Secondly, it's diesel not petrol. That's a small comfort.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:42:19 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>when the bullets are flying, it's a _war_ to
>those having to duck..

The distinction isn't about whether someone is shooting at you,
it's about whether you're allowed to shoot back.

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message

> > "Nate Perkins" wrote in message
> >
> >> Yes, there are limits on free speech, especially involving public
> >> safety and libel. Of course that's not what we are talking about.
> >
> > Of course, that is EXACTY what I was talking about. :)
>
> Not sure I follow you here. There are some (many?) who would say that
> the opposition and the press should not be able to criticize the
> president or his policies. I don't think that's the same as shouting
> "fire" in a crowded building.

I may have misunderstood you. I was under the impresssion that you were
implying that there should be no limits on free speech. My apologies.

> >>We are
> >> talking about whether or not the political opposition has the right
> >> (or duty) to point out the failings of the current leadership.
> >
> > Right on ...
> >
> >> I believe
> >> they do. We are talking about whether the process of democratic
> >> dissent provides aid to the enemy. I believe it does not.

To a point. There is no doubt in my mind, having experienced it, that the
exercise of free speech, like that practiced by Jane Fonda, does often
provide aid, comfort and strength to the will of the enemy. Having your
picture taken, complete with helmet, operating a North Vietnamese
antiaircraft gun used to shoot down American pilots is going over the
"limit".

> > Do you not think that "will" can also be gauged from the amount of
> > ostensible dissent, particularly when the dissent is trumpeted as an
> > agenda by some in the news media"?
> >
> > What do you think of Tedddy boy calling for a firm pullout date, even
> > knowing that the terroist would benefit immensely from that knowledge?
> > While it is no more than political posturing in his case, it shows a
> > reckless disregard for those in harm's way, IMO. Ask the surviving
> > POW's from RVN what effects the likes of Jane Fonda had on their
> > existence as prisoners.
>
> I think that if the vision is there and the assessment is honest, then
> the public will follows. If the strategy is executed skillfully, then
> admiration follows. When you see the public will wavering, it's a sign
> that the justification for the war was oversold, the costs were
> undersold, and the implementation of it was poor.

Unfortunately, that assumes an informed public. Did you notice the absolutel
surprise of many with regard to the number of folks who actually voted in
Iraq yesterday? Do you not suspect that much of that surprise, and the
wavering on the war, is due to the a slanted and false assesment of some in
the media congomerates, and those who are able to manipulate and agendize
it?

> The problems in Iraq are not due to the troops. The troops have
> performed admirably and I do not know anyone who does not respect the
> job they have done. The problems in Iraq are due to the policymakers
> and politicians.
>
> Our troops understand how democracy works. I think we ought to give
> them the credit they are due and assume that they understand that
> support for the troops is not synonymous with support for our
> politicians.

No argument there.

> >> But for all its many faults, it's still part
> >> of the system of (what used to be and ought to be) essential checks
> >> and balances.
> >
> > While I can't disagree, and that is the ideal However, I am afraid
> > that may be rapidly disappearing. What makes me say that is my
> > perspective of approximately 50 year of seeing how narrow the field
> > has become in all forms of media here where I live. From a three
> > newspaper town one newspaper in a city of 4 million, from numerous
> > radio stations to most being owned by one company.
>
> Yeah. A very bad situation.

The net effect is two "extreme" viewpoints, as we now see on talk radio and
much of the print media, and very little of the moderate discussion that
followed in the wake of multiple sources of news in a region (ie. the three
newspapers in a town, versus one). This state of affairs is even more
obvious if you can remember the relatively more moderate political
atmosphere between WWII, Korea and the Vietnam War.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:02:45 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Horseshit, Andy ...RPG's have been around for a long time and to state they
>were not "expected" is either spin or ignorance, but ludicrous in either
>case.

So why are the Americans taking so many casualties from them ?

Given the choice between a Humvee and a CAMAC-armoured Landie, I know
which one I'd rather be in. Amazingly enough, the Brits know a thing
or two about CQB and dealing with a well-armed population with a
dislike for squaddies. The US troops seem to have taken all their
advice from the LAPD - Compton is a tough neighbourhood, but not as
well armed as the Bogside.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:11:35 -0500, Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>[snip]
>
>> What's so hard about understanding that, as a military commander charged
>> with a mission, you are duty bound to do your utmost to perform that
>> mission, regardless of whether you have "armored" vehicles for the
>> situation?
>
>Shouldn't there be a measured chance of succes in undertaking any
>mission? Will a man, blindly, go over a hill with a pocket knife to take
>out a machine-gun nest? (I amplify the hypothesis to illustrate a point)
>Is there NO point at which a CO says: "Can't be done, my men will not go
>commit suicide (or commit crimes)." ?
>
>Again... just asking.
>
>0¿0
>
>
>Rob

Rob.. In my experience, that's a squad or platoon level decision...
The brass in the choppers make decisions based on the "big picture"
and the pressure on them from higher up brass...
The guys on the ground that are taking fire are the ones that have to
decide whether they're going to disobey the order from "above" to
avoid needless loss of their people..

I was one of many NCO's that were busted for not letting my people do
stupid things that were ordered by people that were too new "in
country" to understand what was going on where the rubber meets the
road...

As to your question about men going blindly forward when ordered,
that's why they drafted teenagers... they still think that they're
immortal..

Try getting a large group of middle age guys to charge that gun, and
you'll have a discussion like this one first.. lol



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

"Silvan" wrote in message

> I finally saw one of those up close and personal. Wow. Not armored is an
> understatement. Nothing gives you a feeling of security in an under-fire
> situation like sitting on a cushion directly on top of a gas tank, right?

Security is relative. Flying in a helicopter, with no armor, while watching
the tracer rounds pass by, and knowing that you're only seeing about 1/7th
of those little buggers, doesn't leave you with a helluva lot of regard for
the dangers of sitting atop a tank of diesel, not gas, while tooling along
on the ground.

Besides, you gotta put the tank somewhere. I'm certain that if some of the
global master thinkers/planners ranting against reality hereabouts can come
up with a better solution, they'll find someone to listen.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Kevin" wrote in message
> Swingman wrote:
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> >
> >>Expense. A proper armored personel carrier like the Strycker is
> >>much more expensive than a Humvee plus a half dozen body bags.
> >
> >
> > .... anybody who would believe that is one sick puppy.
> >
> .... and anybody who doesn't is in denial.

Go ahead, read the original statement again and then tell me "in denial" of
what?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message

> Yes, there are limits on free speech, especially involving public safety
> and libel. Of course that's not what we are talking about.

Of course, that is EXACTY what I was talking about. :)

>We are
> talking about whether or not the political opposition has the right (or
> duty) to point out the failings of the current leadership.

Right on ...

> I believe
> they do. We are talking about whether the process of democratic dissent
> provides aid to the enemy. I believe it does not.

Do you not think that "will" can also be gauged from the amount of
ostensible dissent, particularly when the dissent is trumpeted as an agenda
by some in the news media"?

What do you think of Tedddy boy calling for a firm pullout date, even
knowing that the terroist would benefit immensely from that knowledge? While
it is no more than political posturing in his case, it shows a reckless
disregard for those in harm's way, IMO. Ask the surviving POW's from RVN
what effects the likes of Jane Fonda had on their existence as prisoners.

> But for all its many faults, it's still part
> of the system of (what used to be and ought to be) essential checks and
> balances.

While I can't disagree, and that is the ideal However, I am afraid that may
be rapidly disappearing. What makes me say that is my perspective of
approximately 50 year of seeing how narrow the field has become in all forms
of media here where I live. From a three newspaper town one newspaper in a
city of 4 million, from numerous radio stations to most being owned by one
company.

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:01:17 -0600, "AL" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Plywood!? Surely that can't be right, can it?
>
> Pretty common. The US troops went into Iraq expecting small-arms
> fire and instead received RPGs.

Horseshit, Andy ...RPG's have been around for a long time and to state they
were not "expected" is either spin or ignorance, but ludicrous in either
case.

>These have a shaped charge warhed
> which explodes _outside_ the armour and sprays a hot jet of molten
> metal forwards, cutting a hole through the armour. The jet is only
> effective for a few inches, so if you can make it hit something
> _above_ the armour, you trigger the warhead too early and it just
> scorches the surface of the real armour. This spaced armour appeared
> in mid-WW2 and has been made out of anything from chicken wire to
> corrugated iron chickenhouses.

We actually used chain link fencing in Vietnam to set them off before they
hit our sandbags.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Kevin" wrote in message

> Ergo, I maintain you are in denial.

<snip of mixed metaphors and faulty logic>

Ergo? ... more like "post hoc, ergo propter hoc".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message

> And it's not a war anyway, as Bush keeps telling us, because that
> would mean the Geneva Conventions would apply and America really can't
> face having that.

Horseshit ... you know better than that. Spoken from emotion with no reason
whatsoever. Take the time to read Section II. Combatants and Prisoners of
War, then note who it is that qualifies as such, and who it is beheading
prisoners and violating every tenet of same.

And you want to treat them as POW's under the GC?

Wake up, Andy ... your way of life, and very possibly your life and the
lives of those whom you love, is on the line.

Go ahead ... bitch, moan, and sit around _waiting_ for the next shoe to
fall. Just hope like hell that there is still someone around to protect you
from yourself by _carrying_ the fight to those just waiting fo the
opportunity to eradicate your infidel ass.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Swingman wrote:

> "Kevin" wrote in message
>
>>Swingman wrote:
>>
>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Expense. A proper armored personel carrier like the Strycker is
>>>>much more expensive than a Humvee plus a half dozen body bags.
>>>
>>>
>>>.... anybody who would believe that is one sick puppy.
>>>
>>
>>.... and anybody who doesn't is in denial.
>
>
> Go ahead, read the original statement again and then tell me "in denial" of
> what?
>
As I understand the OP, he believes the gov't/military decided it is
cheaper to replace personnel than purchase proper equipment.

As I understand your reply, you believe this is the product of a warped
mind, and you do not believe our gov't/military could or would make such
a decision.

Somewhere in this thread was mentioned the augmentation seen on Shermans
in WWII, almost as justification for the inadequately prepared Humvees.
That augmentation was needed because then, as now, the higher ups
refused to prepare for the inevitable and sent woefully under-armed and
under-armored tanks against the fearsome 88mm gun and thick armor the
Germans deployed. The Brits called the Sherman the "Tommy-toaster".

The Sherman only prevailed by virtue of quantity, not quality. In other
words: our side could afford to fill more body than their side.

Have you never heard the infantry referred to as "Mk I, Mod I Bullet
Catchers"?

Ergo, I maintain you are in denial.

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
> "Swingman" wrote in
>
> ...
> > There is no question that we have the tools to do the job. The
> > question is do we have the will?
> ...
>
> So what tools are you suggesting?

What would you like to hear? ... "Nuclear"?

Sorry, not from me..

All military unit's readiness to perform a mission revolves around two major
categories: Men and Materiel. Depending upon the mission, and often
political necessities, neither has to be at "full strength", according to
the respective table of organization and equipment, to perform effectively.

I wouldn't worry too much about the "tools" at this point ... as noted
above, the "will" to finish what we started is the bigger concern, due the
fools and dunderheads, and the media that fuels their antics, who refuse to
see the consequences of not doing so.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:18:12 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >It's a war, Andy .
>
> It's not - it's the on-going occupation of an unruly civil population.
> The biggest single lesson of NI was the disaster of Bloody Sunday,
> that kicked so much of it off. The Paras are great as soldiers for
> fighting wars, but they're lousy policemen. This is _not_ a war - you
> can tell this, because you're not allowed to get the big toys out. A
> civil situation like this needs a different approach and it's not one
> that infantry are trained for.

Your distinction is theorectical, impractical and spoken like a civilian. A
rose by any other name ... when the bullets are flying, it's a _war_ to
those having to duck..

> >.. and if you were really paying attention you would know
> >that it is NOT the RPG so much as the IED that is the cause of the flurry
to
> >jury rig armor
>
> Sure, but we're talking about plywood. Plywood _does_ have uses
> against RPGs, odd though this might appear at first.

No argument, as I said, we used chain link fence ... but not as "armor".

> >Blame Congress and previous administrations that designed, budgeted and
> >built them, not the current battle planners and those executing the plan.
>
> I'd extend it to the military planners. They're supposed to be the
> experts, not Congress itself.

Congress appropriates the funding and approves, cuts, or increase budgets
for the military planners/designers based on administration. IIRC, The
previous administration did a lot of cutting in that area.

Nonetheless, all these current equipment design decisions were made years
ago. The military commander has to fight with the tools available, and
improvise from there, which is what is being done, and has been done in
every war. The equipment lag time, often based on "lessons learned", is
never in favor of those who have to fight now, never has been, and never
will be.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Robatoy" wrote in message
> In article <
> "Swingman" <wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
> > What's so hard about understanding that, as a military commander charged
> > with a mission, you are duty bound to do your utmost to perform that
> > mission, regardless of whether you have "armored" vehicles for the
> > situation?
>
> Shouldn't there be a measured chance of succes in undertaking any
> mission? Will a man, blindly, go over a hill with a pocket knife to take
> out a machine-gun nest? (I amplify the hypothesis to illustrate a point)
> Is there NO point at which a CO says: "Can't be done, my men will not go
> commit suicide (or commit crimes)." ?

>>Again... just asking.

Tsk, tsk ... or just baiting? In any event, these shallow, irrelevant
questions miss the mark completely.

There is no question that we have the tools to do the job. The question is
do we have the will?

When the sheep ultimately look up and see, ONCE AGAIN, their loved ones
dying in the streets of Hometown, USA, just hope like hell there is enough
of that "will" left to get the job done.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

> Use your imagination, Ed. What does it mean when every person in a
> country we are occupying with our armies starts shooting at us? Hmmm?

Use your head, Larry. "Every" person? Patently ridiculous and you know it.
How about just the radical Islamic fundamentalist, who would kill Larry
Jacques anywhere they can find Larry Jacques, including Larry Jacques' own
street, in case your memory is that short.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Robatoy" wrote in message
> In article
> "Swingmanwrote:
>
> snip]
>
> > Blame Congress and previous administrations that designed, budgeted and
> > built them, not the current battle planners and those executing the
plan.
>
> Is it safe to assume that the current planners are aware of the
> limitations of what is available to them?
> HumV's aren't APC's. They are used in that role though, which begs the
> question, what's wrong, the equipment or the application thereof?
>
> 0¿0
>
> Rob---> who's just asking, not trying to start anything.

Well, read the last paragraph again:

>>The military commander has to fight with the tools available, and
>> improvise from there, which is what is being done, and has been done in
>> every war.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:42:19 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:
>
> >when the bullets are flying, it's a _war_ to
> >those having to duck..
>
> The distinction isn't about whether someone is shooting at you,
> it's about whether you're allowed to shoot back.

Total, absolute, nonsense ... it would really help if you would stick to
what you know. Although ROE's may change according to the situation, our
soldiers, and your's, operate under specific Rules of Engagment that allow
them to use deadly force in self-defense and in defending others from death
or serious bodily injury.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

...
> There is no question that we have the tools to do the job. The
> question is do we have the will?
...

So what tools are you suggesting?

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Nate Perkins" wrote in message
>> "Swingman" wrote in
>>
>> ...
>> > There is no question that we have the tools to do the job. The
>> > question is do we have the will?
>> ...
>>
>> So what tools are you suggesting?
>
> What would you like to hear? ... "Nuclear"?

No, that's definitely what I would not like to hear. Although I am sure
that for some there is no limit to the "tools" that would be employed.

> Sorry, not from me..

Amen.

> All military unit's readiness to perform a mission revolves around two
> major categories: Men and Materiel. Depending upon the mission, and
> often political necessities, neither has to be at "full strength",
> according to the respective table of organization and equipment, to
> perform effectively.

It's not just a question of the military. There are political,
economic, and public relations tools to be used as well. Those that
consider only the military tool and neglect the other tools can rapidly
find themselves in a losing battle. Treating everything like a nail
because all they know how to use is a hammer.

No argument that our armed forces are functioning above all possible
expectation. And the problems in Iraq are certainly not the fault of
our troops.

> I wouldn't worry too much about the "tools" at this point ... as noted
> above, the "will" to finish what we started is the bigger concern, due
> the fools and dunderheads, and the media that fuels their antics, who
> refuse to see the consequences of not doing so.

I think it is the fools and dunderheads that got us into this mess to
begin with. Besides, the rights of free speech and free press are
fundamental to a democracy (at least until some dunderhead decides
otherwise).

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Nate Perkins" wrote in message
>
>> I think it is the fools and dunderheads that got us into this mess to
>> begin with.
>
> It's hard to disagree with you, but the point is moot ... we're in it
> up to our eyeballs. The task now is to deal a blow to our avowed
> enemies while we extricate ourselves, or walk off and stick our heads
> in the sand, ignoring global reality in the 21st century.

There are alternatives besides "staying the course" and "sticking our heads
in the sand." It is not a sign of weakness to learn from our mistakes, it
is a sign of resiliency and strength. I also believe that now the mistake
of going to war has been made, we must succeed ... and adjustment of our
approach is much needed. It is not unpatriotic for that to be pointed out.

>>Besides, the rights of free speech and free press are
>> fundamental to a democracy (at least until some dunderhead decides
>> otherwise).
>
> There is also a point when "free" speech provides aid to the enemy.
> Couple that fact with today's press, that can be bought by either
> side, and you end up in a dangerous haze that forces the path taken to
> be based passion and politics, instead of reason.

Nonsense. American ideals are the only thing worth fighting for.
Sometimes fighting while upholding those ideals is harder, but in the long
run worth it. When you start censoring free press and free speech in the
name of supporting the war, then you are already operating in a dangerous
haze based on passion and politics.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Nate Perkins" wrote in message
>
>>> There is also a point when "free" speech provides aid to the enemy.
>>> Couple that fact with today's press, that can be bought by either
>>> side, and you end up in a dangerous haze that forces the path taken
>>> to be based passion and politics, instead of reason.
>
>> Nonsense. American ideals are the only thing worth fighting for.
>
> That is a damn provincial attitude to the rest of the world, and a
> perfect example of head-in-the-sand when it comes to global terrorism.

No, this idea that somehow we have to give up our freedoms in order to
more effectively fight terrorism is wrong. The idea that somehow our
democratic process of free speech, free press, and political opposition
somehow provides aid to the enemy is wrong, too. It's entirely possible
to fight a smart war on terrorism and still protect our ideals. We are
not fighting a smart war on terrorism.

There are some people that say we need to permit torture, indefinite
imprisonment of American citizens without charge or legal counsel,
suspension of habeas corpus, supression of free speech, censorship of
news reports from the battlefield -- those people scare me as much as
Bin Laden. Countries that allow this wake up one day and find they live
in a dictatorship.

>> Sometimes fighting while upholding those ideals is harder, but in the
>> long run worth it. When you start censoring free press and free
>> speech in the name of supporting the war, then you are already
>> operating in a dangerous haze based on passion and politics.
>
> Whoa .. bucko!. Not old enough to remember WWII, or much American
> history are we?

Right, I'm not old enough to remember WWII (I'm only in my early-mid
40's). I do remember a fair amount of American history. America's not
perfect, but generally it has valued democratic ideals and in the
periods of history where that's not been done it's usually viewed
negatively later (e.g., Joe McCarthy, Nisei camps, etc).

> There is nothing "nonsense" about limits on free speech. AAMOF, it is
> a historical fact in this country since day 1 (remember the principle
> of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), particularly in times of war
> or national danger ... and if we lose this one, WWII will look like a
> walk in the park.
>
> Solution: get your head out of the sand and start listening to what is
> going on around you when it comes to a "free press" also ... Dan
> Rather and CBS, and the paying of "journalists" by the present
> administration, sound familiar?

Yes, there are limits on free speech, especially involving public safety
and libel. Of course that's not what we are talking about. We are
talking about whether or not the political opposition has the right (or
duty) to point out the failings of the current leadership. I believe
they do. We are talking about whether the process of democratic dissent
provides aid to the enemy. I believe it does not.

I agree that the press is not doing as good a job as it ought to. It's
not asking the critical questions, it's sloppy, it's partisan. It
accepts dodges and nonanswers from our politicians. It's even being
bribed by our politicians. But for all its many faults, it's still part
of the system of (what used to be and ought to be) essential checks and
balances.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Swingman" wrote in message
>
>>
>> Solution: get your head out of the sand and start listening to what
>> is
> going
>> on around you when it comes to a "free press" also ... Dan Rather and
>> CBS, and the paying of "journalists" by the present administration,
>> sound familiar?
>
> Let me clarify that, Nate ... I meant you in the larger sense, not
> "you" in particular.
>
> Sorry ...
>

No offense taken. It's an interesting discussion.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Nate Perkins" wrote in message
>
>> Yes, there are limits on free speech, especially involving public
>> safety and libel. Of course that's not what we are talking about.
>
> Of course, that is EXACTY what I was talking about. :)

Not sure I follow you here. There are some (many?) who would say that
the opposition and the press should not be able to criticize the
president or his policies. I don't think that's the same as shouting
"fire" in a crowded building.

>>We are
>> talking about whether or not the political opposition has the right
>> (or duty) to point out the failings of the current leadership.
>
> Right on ...
>
>> I believe
>> they do. We are talking about whether the process of democratic
>> dissent provides aid to the enemy. I believe it does not.
>
> Do you not think that "will" can also be gauged from the amount of
> ostensible dissent, particularly when the dissent is trumpeted as an
> agenda by some in the news media"?
>
> What do you think of Tedddy boy calling for a firm pullout date, even
> knowing that the terroist would benefit immensely from that knowledge?
> While it is no more than political posturing in his case, it shows a
> reckless disregard for those in harm's way, IMO. Ask the surviving
> POW's from RVN what effects the likes of Jane Fonda had on their
> existence as prisoners.

I think that if the vision is there and the assessment is honest, then
the public will follows. If the strategy is executed skillfully, then
admiration follows. When you see the public will wavering, it's a sign
that the justification for the war was oversold, the costs were
undersold, and the implementation of it was poor.

The problems in Iraq are not due to the troops. The troops have
performed admirably and I do not know anyone who does not respect the
job they have done. The problems in Iraq are due to the policymakers
and politicians.

Our troops understand how democracy works. I think we ought to give
them the credit they are due and assume that they understand that
support for the troops is not synonymous with support for our
politicians.

>> But for all its many faults, it's still part
>> of the system of (what used to be and ought to be) essential checks
>> and balances.
>
> While I can't disagree, and that is the ideal However, I am afraid
> that may be rapidly disappearing. What makes me say that is my
> perspective of approximately 50 year of seeing how narrow the field
> has become in all forms of media here where I live. From a three
> newspaper town one newspaper in a city of 4 million, from numerous
> radio stations to most being owned by one company.

Yeah. A very bad situation.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

...
> The net effect is two "extreme" viewpoints, as we now see on talk
> radio and much of the print media, and very little of the moderate
> discussion that followed in the wake of multiple sources of news in a
> region (ie. the three newspapers in a town, versus one). This state of
> affairs is even more obvious if you can remember the relatively more
> moderate political atmosphere between WWII, Korea and the Vietnam War.


I think the media are finding that they can get ratings by catering to and
cultivating the extremes. For the most part, I think their actions can be
explained by simple greed for ratings. They basically slant the news so as
to tell their viewers what the viewers want to hear.

It's interesting to watch the news as presented on the BBC World News or on
SCOLA. Frequently a different take than our media.

I am too young to remember WWII or Korea (I was born three months after
Kennedy was assasinated). But I am pretty sure that in today's polarized
environment a really good moderate president (say Eisenhower IMHO) could
never be elected.

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:02:45 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Horseshit, Andy ...RPG's have been around for a long time and to state
they
> >were not "expected" is either spin or ignorance, but ludicrous in either
> >case.
>
> So why are the Americans taking so many casualties from them ?

It's a war, Andy ... and if you were really paying attention you would know
that it is NOT the RPG so much as the IED that is the cause of the flurry to
jury rig armor on utility vehicles that were never intended to be used
solely for troop transport. They are designed as military "utility"
vehicles, not "armored" vehicles.

Blame Congress and previous administrations that designed, budgeted and
built them, not the current battle planners and those executing the plan.

Ground troops ... their mission is to pound the ground, not ride into
batlle, therefore these vehicles were not designed solely for troop
transport. Give a foot soldier the choice or riding in an unarmored vehicle,
or walking, and he'll take the ride any day regardless of the danger ...
IOW, he'd take a bicycle rather than walk.

> Given the choice between a Humvee and a CAMAC-armoured Landie, I know
> which one I'd rather be in. Amazingly enough, the Brits know a thing
> or two about CQB and dealing with a well-armed population with a
> dislike for squaddies. The US troops seem to have taken all their
> advice from the LAPD - Compton is a tough neighbourhood, but not as
> well armed as the Bogside.

Your guys are doing a excellent job, and they undoubtably have more
experience in dealing with close quarter insurgency, but they're also
getting shot at with RPG's too, statistcially just not as frequently.

All but the most naive amongst you know that this "armored vehicle" thing is
being used as a rabbit trail ... and just like foolish, unaware coon dog,
many of you are being fooled by it.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"AL" wrote in message
> I was reading this article:
>
> http://citypaper.net/articles/2005-01-20/cb2.shtml
>
> about a national guardsman returning from Iraq, and happened to notice
this:
>
> "The majority of vehicles in Resta's brigade, as throughout much of Iraq,
> were poorly armored. Most were protected by only half-inch sheets of
> plywood."
>
> Plywood!? Surely that can't be right, can it?

Surely you know better than to ask ... or is that you just wanted to give
this ridiculous sob story a little more coverage?

This guy didn't join up to serve for his country, he joined up to enrich
himself with tuition benefits and got a rude surprise when he actually had
to do something besides go along for the easy ride ... poor baby. As the
former CO of a combat unit, I recognize the attitude all too well ... it was
often responsible for getting other's killed. I can guarantee you that those
who had to pull his reluctant ass along are glad to see him go.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message

> I think it is the fools and dunderheads that got us into this mess to
> begin with.

It's hard to disagree with you, but the point is moot ... we're in it up to
our eyeballs. The task now is to deal a blow to our avowed enemies while we
extricate ourselves, or walk off and stick our heads in the sand, ignoring
global reality in the 21st century.

>Besides, the rights of free speech and free press are
> fundamental to a democracy (at least until some dunderhead decides
> otherwise).

There is also a point when "free" speech provides aid to the enemy. Couple
that fact with today's press, that can be bought by either side, and you end
up in a dangerous haze that forces the path taken to be based passion and
politics, instead of reason.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message

>> There is also a point when "free" speech provides aid to the enemy.
>> Couple that fact with today's press, that can be bought by either
>> side, and you end up in a dangerous haze that forces the path taken to
>> be based passion and politics, instead of reason.

> Nonsense. American ideals are the only thing worth fighting for.

That is a damn provincial attitude to the rest of the world, and a perfect
example of head-in-the-sand when it comes to global terrorism.

> Sometimes fighting while upholding those ideals is harder, but in the long
> run worth it. When you start censoring free press and free speech in the
> name of supporting the war, then you are already operating in a dangerous
> haze based on passion and politics.

Whoa .. bucko!. Not old enough to remember WWII, or much American history
are we?

There is nothing "nonsense" about limits on free speech. AAMOF, it is a
historical fact in this country since day 1 (remember the principle of
yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), particularly in times of war or
national danger ... and if we lose this one, WWII will look like a walk in
the park.

Solution: get your head out of the sand and start listening to what is going
on around you when it comes to a "free press" also ... Dan Rather and CBS,
and the paying of "journalists" by the present administration, sound
familiar?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Kevin wrote:

> Swingman wrote:
>
>> "Kevin" wrote in message
>>
>>>Swingman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Expense. A proper armored personel carrier like the Strycker is
>>>>>much more expensive than a Humvee plus a half dozen body bags.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>.... anybody who would believe that is one sick puppy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>.... and anybody who doesn't is in denial.
>>
>>
>> Go ahead, read the original statement again and then tell me "in denial"
>> of what?
>>
> As I understand the OP, he believes the gov't/military decided it is
> cheaper to replace personnel than purchase proper equipment.

Well, he can believe that, but I suspect that the real story is that the
Humvee is the replacement for the Jeep and nobody expected them to need to
be armored anymore than the Jeep was armored. Now it turns out that
they're enough more capable than the Jeep that they're being used in ways
that the designers never expected and it turns out that they _do_ need
armor, but actually getting it in place is not going to be something that
is going overnight.

> As I understand your reply, you believe this is the product of a warped
> mind, and you do not believe our gov't/military could or would make such
> a decision.

While it is conceivable they could or would, it seems unlikely that that is
the case in this instance. "Armor the Humvees" will be a lesson for the
next round of procurement, meanwhile retrofitting armor in any systematic
way is going to take time. First somebody has to decide just how good the
armor should be, then issue RFPs, somebody has to produce a prototype, they
have to test it (and they'll find out either that it's not good enough to
provide adequate protection or that it's too heavy for the running gear and
causes breakdowns or that when they have real soldiers try to field install
it too many problems arise or something else major will be wrong with it)
and so there will be another round or two while they fix the design, then
the manufacturer has to tool up for production then it gets delivered. And
all of this has to be approved by Congress first, which usually means a
year or so of lead time during the budget negotiations. I've been inside
this process (and totally frustrated by the delays over which I had no
control) and it sucks but it's the way it is and so far nobody has been
able to come up with a way to shortcut it that doesn't result in even more
massive waste than the current system.

> Somewhere in this thread was mentioned the augmentation seen on Shermans
> in WWII, almost as justification for the inadequately prepared Humvees.
> That augmentation was needed because then, as now, the higher ups
> refused to prepare for the inevitable and sent woefully under-armed and
> under-armored tanks against the fearsome 88mm gun and thick armor the
> Germans deployed. The Brits called the Sherman the "Tommy-toaster".

Uh, were the "higher ups" _aware_ that the 88mm antiaircraft gun could be
used in a dual role? Did it even _exist_ when the contract for the Sherman
was let? Bear in mind that the Sherman was a _vastly_ better tank than
anything that the Germans took into Poland or France--for that matter the
French Char-B was better than the German tanks during the invasion of
France. Are you suggesting that when it was determined the hard way that
the Sherman was inadequate that production should have been halted while
they waited for a new design? So that instead of fighting the Germans with
crappy tanks our guys would have been fighting them with _no_ tanks? If
not, what _do_ you think should have been done but was not that was
technologically feasible without a ground up redesign? And could that
change have been gotten from concept to field delivery in less time that a
new tank design?

Note by the way, that the US was not the only outfit that found that their
tanks needed more armor--look at some of the German field
expedients--concrete poured over the steel for example.

> The Sherman only prevailed by virtue of quantity, not quality. In other
> words: our side could afford to fill more body than their side.

Uh, as far as body count goes, consider that unlike the US, the Russians had
the best bloody tank in the whole bloody _world_, and look at _their_
losses. There is more to success on the battlefield than quantity or
superiority of hardware. If that were not the case the Germans would have
hit the Maginot Line and bounced.

> Have you never heard the infantry referred to as "Mk I, Mod I Bullet
> Catchers"?
>
> Ergo, I maintain you are in denial.

I maintain that you are ignorant of the realities of engineering design,
production leadtimes, and military procurement.

Note that the Sherman lesson _was_ learned--I've seen no complaints about
the adequacy of the armor on the Abrams. And the Humvee lesson will be
learned too.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article <[email protected]>,
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Robatoy" wrote in message
>
> > > >>Again... just asking.
> > >
> > > Tsk, tsk ... or just baiting? In any event, these shallow, irrelevant
> > > questions miss the mark completely.
> >
> > That was totally uncalled for. If you need to resort to that method of
> > debate, count me out.
>
> Then why do you get upset if you were indeed "just asking"?

I am not upset. No reason to be upset.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Well, read the last paragraph again:
>
> >>The military commander has to fight with the tools available, and
> >> improvise from there, which is what is being done, and has been done in
> >> every war.

I read that. I just can't get my head around it.
Having said that, I also don't understand civilians, who have never
spent a day in the service, who know f*uck-all about warfare, giving
orders to the military.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Robatoy" wrote in message
> > In article <
> > "Swingman" <wrote:
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > What's so hard about understanding that, as a military commander charged
> > > with a mission, you are duty bound to do your utmost to perform that
> > > mission, regardless of whether you have "armored" vehicles for the
> > > situation?
> >
> > Shouldn't there be a measured chance of succes in undertaking any
> > mission? Will a man, blindly, go over a hill with a pocket knife to take
> > out a machine-gun nest? (I amplify the hypothesis to illustrate a point)
> > Is there NO point at which a CO says: "Can't be done, my men will not go
> > commit suicide (or commit crimes)." ?
>
> >>Again... just asking.
>
> Tsk, tsk ... or just baiting? In any event, these shallow, irrelevant
> questions miss the mark completely.

That was totally uncalled for. If you need to resort to that method of
debate, count me out.

How about that hockey strike, eh?

In article <[email protected]>,
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:


[snip]

> What's so hard about understanding that, as a military commander charged
> with a mission, you are duty bound to do your utmost to perform that
> mission, regardless of whether you have "armored" vehicles for the
> situation?

Shouldn't there be a measured chance of succes in undertaking any
mission? Will a man, blindly, go over a hill with a pocket knife to take
out a machine-gun nest? (I amplify the hypothesis to illustrate a point)
Is there NO point at which a CO says: "Can't be done, my men will not go
commit suicide (or commit crimes)." ?

Again... just asking.

0¿0


Rob

In article <[email protected]>,
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:

snip]

> Blame Congress and previous administrations that designed, budgeted and
> built them, not the current battle planners and those executing the plan.

Is it safe to assume that the current planners are aware of the
limitations of what is available to them?
HumV's aren't APC's. They are used in that role though, which begs the
question, what's wrong, the equipment or the application thereof?

0¿0

Rob---> who's just asking, not trying to start anything.

In article <[email protected]>,
mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:


> Rob.. In my experience, that's a squad or platoon level decision...
> The brass in the choppers make decisions based on the "big picture"
> and the pressure on them from higher up brass...
> The guys on the ground that are taking fire are the ones that have to
> decide whether they're going to disobey the order from "above" to
> avoid needless loss of their people..
>
> I was one of many NCO's that were busted for not letting my people do
> stupid things that were ordered by people that were too new "in
> country" to understand what was going on where the rubber meets the
> road...
>
> As to your question about men going blindly forward when ordered,
> that's why they drafted teenagers... they still think that they're
> immortal..
>
> Try getting a large group of middle age guys to charge that gun, and
> you'll have a discussion like this one first.. lol
>
>
Thanks, Mac. That I understood.

0¿0

Rob

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:59:13 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ed Clarke wrote:
>
>>> That's not what it says.  It says "Don't talk about your enemy, but
>>> think." Anything else you get out of it is a question of interpretation.
>>
>> Damn it, you're right!  Never believe a usenet translation.  Should be
>> something with optatio and malus.
>>
>>
>> "Never believe a Latin translation on Usenet"
>
>Nunquam credes

Vulgates (Vulgato?) ...

> ... Um... Dang.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:28:17 +0000, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:03:19 +0800, Old Nick <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>That was what Andy was saying, I think.
>
>No, not at all

But good chance for a rant! <G> Sorry. I misattributed it.
>
>In fact I'd disagree with it. Bush has just asked for another
>squillion dollars without batting an eyelid, but photographing
>bodybags is a major thoughtcrime these days.

<[email protected]> wrote in message

> The occupation
> of Iraq has been one Mogadishu after another and the Bush
> administration has been excruciatingly slow to respond in a
> constructive manner.

.... and Monday morning quarterbacks are still a dime a dozen.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:04:48 +0800, Old Nick <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 24 Jan 2005 08:52:23 -0800, [email protected] vaguely
>proposed a theory
>......and in reply I say!:
>
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
>>> So why are the Americans taking so many casualties from them ?
>>
>>Expense. A proper armored personel carrier like the Strycker is
>>much more expensive than a Humvee plus a half dozen body bags.
>
>
>Sorry. I just attributed this to Andy

... and it's just about the most dumb-a**ed statement anybody could make.
Even, for the sake of argument, accepting the premise that the leaders in
this country or war don't value the lives of their troops -- they still
value results. The purpose of sending troops out on a mission of any sort
is to have them accomplish their objectives. An absolutely free humvee and
no-cost bodybags in which the humvee is destroyed and no objectives are
achieved vs. a very expensive Stryker that accomplishes its mission and
returns with few or no casualties is an easy trade even for someone who
doesn't value life but does value results.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Robatoy" wrote in message
> In article
> "Swingman" wrote:
>
> > Well, read the last paragraph again:
> >
> > >>The military commander has to fight with the tools available, and
> > >> improvise from there, which is what is being done, and has been done
in
> > >> every war.
>
> I read that. I just can't get my head around it.

What's so hard about understanding that, as a military commander charged
with a mission, you are duty bound to do your utmost to perform that
mission, regardless of whether you have "armored" vehicles for the
situation?

Keep firmly in mind that TOE (Table of Organization and Equipment) does NOT
normally contain armored transport resources for those units deployed as
infantry ... they normally WALK. :)

You improvise and do the best you can ...a time honored solution to the time
honored fact of politicians hamstringing the fighting man.

It ain't like this administration invented, or even had that much to do,
with the situation under discussion.


> Having said that, I also don't understand civilians, who have never
> spent a day in the service, who know f*uck-all about warfare, giving
> orders to the military.

Well, it _is_ a Constitutional safeguard which we damn well better fight to
preserve.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:40:59 GMT, Keith <[email protected]> wrote:

funny as it sounds, a slanted piece of plywood MIGHT possibly deflect
an m-16 or SAG round, as they tend to tumble when they hit
something...
Of course, an ak-47 would just make swiss cheese out of it..

>Doesn't seem right does it?
>
> I don't beleive that there's anything in my rather extensive
>collection of civilian firearms that would be stopped by 1/2 of wood,
>except maybe one of the pellet guns. And I KNOW it wouldn't stop
>anything in my (much smaller) collection of military firearms.
>
>-Keith
>
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:01:17 -0600, "AL" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I was reading this article:
>>
>>http://citypaper.net/articles/2005-01-20/cb2.shtml
>>
>>about a national guardsman returning from Iraq, and happened to notice this:
>>
>>"The majority of vehicles in Resta's brigade, as throughout much of Iraq,
>>were poorly armored. Most were protected by only half-inch sheets of
>>plywood."
>>
>>Plywood!? Surely that can't be right, can it?
>>



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On 25 Jan 2005 11:26:36 GMT, the inscrutable Ed Clarke
<[email protected]> spake:

>In article <[email protected]>, Swingman wrote:
>> "Andy Dingley" wrote in message
>>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:01:17 -0600, "AL" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Plywood!? Surely that can't be right, can it?
>>>
>>> Pretty common. The US troops went into Iraq expecting small-arms
>>> fire and instead received RPGs.
>>
>> Horseshit, Andy ...RPG's have been around for a long time and to state they
>> were not "expected" is either spin or ignorance, but ludicrous in either
>> case.
>
>I think the point is that they were not expecting civilians to have weapons
>of that kind. They beat the army, but now every arsehole in the country is
>flipping rockets at them.

Use your imagination, Ed. What does it mean when every person in a
country we are occupying with our armies starts shooting at us? Hmmm?


--

People will occasionally stumble over the truth, but
most of the time they'll pick themselves up and carry on.
--anon

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:40:00 +0000, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:01:17 -0600, "AL" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Plywood!? Surely that can't be right, can it?
>
>Pretty common. The US troops went into Iraq expecting small-arms
>fire and instead received RPGs.

Won't comment on this.

>These have a shaped charge warhed
>which explodes _outside_ the armour and sprays a hot jet of molten
>metal forwards, cutting a hole through the armour. The jet is only
>effective for a few inches, so if you can make it hit something
>_above_ the armour, you trigger the warhead too early and it just
>scorches the surface of the real armour. This spaced armour appeared
>in mid-WW2 and has been made out of anything from chicken wire to
>corrugated iron chickenhouses.

That may be true for RPGs but other shaped charges can't be dismissed
so easily. TOW missiles use shaped-charge warheads. We (Hughes
Aircraft) learned and/or predicted that it was actually better to
start the plasma earlier, not later, and thus the later versions have
an extendable probe that moves the crush switch further in front of
the missile.

I was told that this was discovered by accident, although I have my
doubts. The story was that there was a spec requirement that the
missile needed to penetrate some thickness of plywood without
detonation and detonate going through some greater thickness. (True)
This was to simulate a ground pounder having to shoot through light
brush. Tests were performed at Redstone
(http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/) wherein sheets of plywood were
placed some distance in front of a steel backstop and high speed films
were taken as the missile flew through the plywood to determine
performance. It was duly noted that more damage to the steel occurred
when the warhead went off early.

See: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-71.html

and look at the photo of the variants and you can see the progression.

Swingman wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>
>>Expense. A proper armored personel carrier like the Strycker is
>>much more expensive than a Humvee plus a half dozen body bags.
>
>
> .... anybody who would believe that is one sick puppy.
>
.... and anybody who doesn't is in denial.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:01:18 +0000, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:42:19 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>when the bullets are flying, it's a _war_ to
>>those having to duck..
>
>The distinction isn't about whether someone is shooting at you,
>it's about whether you're allowed to shoot back.


In a war, if you're the bad guy, I can blow you away on sight...
and use whatever I have available to do it quickly..

In a "police action" I have to wait until you shoot at me... which is
Nam all over again...

IMHO, we (US, UK and very few others) kicked ass quickly and
effectively... and that's when the grunts should have gone home and a
police force brought in...

Some are calling Iraq "Vietnam in the sand", but what I'm afraid of is
that it's becoming another Ireland, and we'll be there forever..




mac

Please remove splinters before emailing