allthumbs Posted October 30, 2003 Posted October 30, 2003 This really pisses me off. I have bitched about this within Army circles ever since I found out about it a couple of years ago - and bitched about the Bradley since 84 - Why did those two soldiers die in an M1 that ran over a mine? Because the Army decided to save money ($110,000 per copy) and weight on the M1 by eliminating the anti-mine skid plate. Yet what the Army will now have to pay in life insurance for those two soldiers, could have outfitted the entire platoon with skid plates. And the two soldiers would still be alive. And yeah - a 72 ton tank would be a little heavier - like 1500 pounds is going to make a difference...... Quote
vegetablebelay Posted October 30, 2003 Posted October 30, 2003 This sucks too: U.S. Troops in Iraq Have Limited Body Armor Friday, October 24, 2003 By Peter Brownfeld WASHINGTON — The Department of Defense has provided thousands of top-of-the-line protective vests to coalition forces on the ground while some U.S. troops in Iraq have been asked to take their chances with inferior flak jackets, sources told Foxnews.com. The American military has certified the use of body armor that can stop rounds from a Kalashnikov rifle, a 9-millimeter handgun and fragments from a grenade. The material used is lightweight and not too restrictive. So far, more than two dozen soldiers in Afghanistan credit the vests with saving their lives. The only problem with the life-saving equipment is getting hold of it. Congress has allocated funds for all U.S. troops to wear 16-pound, ceramic-plated Interceptor body armor (search), but as many as 51,000 American soldiers and civilian administrators in Iraq have not yet been equipped with the gear, and have been asking friends and families at home to purchase and send them off-the-shelf models for protection. Continued in a fair and balanced manner... Quote
catbirdseat Posted October 30, 2003 Posted October 30, 2003 They should just use one of these. Everything is a trade off, trask. The tank is already so heavy it is hard to transport, uses too much fuel and collapses roads and bridges under its weight. I don't think cost was the main issue. Quote
allthumbs Posted October 30, 2003 Author Posted October 30, 2003 thank you Catturd for your insightful analysis of the M1 as always... Quote
catbirdseat Posted October 30, 2003 Posted October 30, 2003 BTW, what are "army circles", in the context of trask. You and the boys at the coffee shop on Saturday morning? Quote
allthumbs Posted October 30, 2003 Author Posted October 30, 2003 Catturd, get yourself a good man. He could well be the best girlfriend you ever had. You can hit the thrift stores and buy up every sequin in sight. Then after a few minutes with a glue gun and a sewing machine, and a few hours putting on make-up, you'll be ready to hit the town. Quote
catbirdseat Posted October 30, 2003 Posted October 30, 2003 "It's only a flesh-wound come here and fight". Quote
catbirdseat Posted October 30, 2003 Posted October 30, 2003 BLACK KNIGHT: Come 'ere! ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me? Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 First of all it is by design that not all M1 tanks have the mine raker in front. It hinders mobility drastically. Although the subject may not be in an area where it hindered mobility the overall planning and logistics are that it's not really feasible for every M1 tank to have one... About lack of body armor. Well welcome to war. Every soldier has body armor. But what type is the real question. When I was in the Mog we were introduced to the first type of body armor that the military was issuing on large scale that would stop rifle fire. This is a spendy issue. But most of all the body armor that stops rifle fire is normally exclusive to the combat arms MOS's There are certainly times when combat arms does not have them issued - usually in the first few days of arrival on my past experiences. But after that there is no real excuse for not outfitting them properly. Quote
Mtguide Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 Cpt.Caveman said: First of all it is by design that not all M1 tanks have the mine raker in front. It hinders mobility drastically. Although the subject may not be in an area where it hindered mobility the overall planning and logistics are that it's not really feasible for every M1 tank to have one... About lack of body armor. Well welcome to war. Every soldier has body armor. But what type is the real question. When I was in the Mog we were introduced to the first type of body armor that the military was issuing on large scale that would stop rifle fire. This is a spendy issue. But most of all the body armor that stops rifle fire is normally exclusive to the combat arms MOS's There are certainly times when combat arms does not have them issued - usually in the first few days of arrival on my past experiences. But after that there is no real excuse for not outfitting them properly. The whole thing sucks--and it's true,war has always been this way.My father, who fought on Attu in the Aleutians in WWII,told me once,"the generals use soldiers like a carpenter uses nails;if you're up on a roof nailing sheeting and you drop a few nails,you're not going to climb down to get them;likewise with soldiers in war."Evidence of how much the "leaders" care about our military personnel is Bush's move to CUT the hazard pay of servicepeople on duty in Afghanistan and Irag,and Bush-backed legislation to cut funding for veteran's medical services,to name just a few.Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's model for the "efficient",leaned-down,minimal army is just a corporate model for making fewer people do more work,which is essentially working our military to death in current combat zones.Anyone who thinks that the politicians,corporate fat cats,and so-called leaders give so much as a popcorn bloody fart for the lives,safety,or the families of the men and women in the military is hopelessly naive,clueless,or just plain fucking stupid.Wars are,and have always been,fomented by the ruling class,and the young and naive are roused to patriotic fervor by propaganda demonizing and dehumanizing the other side.You are increasingly seeing on major media channels very bald and pointed statements from a wide range of commentators across the political spectrum,to the effect that the Iraq war was indeed about the oil,something the ordinary guy in the street(that's me and you) knew months before the ordnance began to fly.Hundreds of millions around the planet protested the war along with those in the United States,something totally unprecedented in history.When the pre-war polls showed that 60 to 70% of the US supported the war,what you need to read that as,is that at least 30-40% opposed it; so at least that percentage(and think about it-that's about 90 to 120 million people)were thinking,were not duped by the PR bullshit and the spineless corporated media shills.Yes,it is sad,and it is absolutely needless,but it will continue as long as,to quote Edmund Burke,"good men do nothing." Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 Mtguide said: Cpt.Caveman said: First of all it is by design that not all M1 tanks have the mine raker in front. It hinders mobility drastically. Although the subject may not be in an area where it hindered mobility the overall planning and logistics are that it's not really feasible for every M1 tank to have one... About lack of body armor. Well welcome to war. Every soldier has body armor. But what type is the real question. When I was in the Mog we were introduced to the first type of body armor that the military was issuing on large scale that would stop rifle fire. This is a spendy issue. But most of all the body armor that stops rifle fire is normally exclusive to the combat arms MOS's There are certainly times when combat arms does not have them issued - usually in the first few days of arrival on my past experiences. But after that there is no real excuse for not outfitting them properly. The whole thing sucks--and it's true,war has always been this way.My father, who fought on Attu in the Aleutians in WWII,told me once,"the generals use soldiers like a carpenter uses nails;if you're up on a roof nailing sheeting and you drop a few nails,you're not going to climb down to get them;likewise with soldiers in war."Evidence of how much the "leaders" care about our military personnel is Bush's move to CUT the hazard pay of servicepeople on duty in Afghanistan and Irag,and Bush-backed legislation to cut funding for veteran's medical services,to name just a few.Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's model for the "efficient",leaned-down,minimal army is just a corporate model for making fewer people do more work,which is essentially working our military to death in current combat zones.Anyone who thinks that the politicians,corporate fat cats,and so-called leaders give so much as a popcorn bloody fart for the lives,safety,or the families of the men and women in the military is hopelessly naive,clueless,or just plain fucking stupid.Wars are,and have always been,fomented by the ruling class,and the young and naive are roused to patriotic fervor by propaganda demonizing and dehumanizing the other side.You are increasingly seeing on major media channels very bald and pointed statements from a wide range of commentators across the political spectrum,to the effect that the Iraq war was indeed about the oil,something the ordinary guy in the street(that's me and you) knew months before the ordnance began to fly.Hundreds of millions around the planet protested the war along with those in the United States,something totally unprecedented in history.When the pre-war polls showed that 60 to 70% of the US supported the war,what you need to read that as,is that at least 30-40% opposed it; so at least that percentage(and think about it-that's about 90 to 120 million people)were thinking,were not duped by the PR bullshit and the spineless corporated media shills.Yes,it is sad,and it is absolutely needless,but it will continue as long as,to quote Edmund Burke,"good men do nothing." That has about zero to do with my remarks so I am confused why you choose to quote my whole statement. I never said anything about Bush or wolfowitz media generals etc. I made some statements based on facts that is all. Are you trying to argue some point with me Quote
j_b Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 Cpt.Caveman said: About lack of body armor. Well welcome to war. Every soldier has body armor. But what type is the real question. When I was in the Mog we were introduced to the first type of body armor that the military was issuing on large scale that would stop rifle fire. This is a spendy issue. But most of all the body armor that stops rifle fire is normally exclusive to the combat arms MOS's There are certainly times when combat arms does not have them issued - usually in the first few days of arrival on my past experiences. But after that there is no real excuse for not outfitting them properly. i read somewhere that a 1/3 of the troops in iraq still don't have body armor. Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 j_b said: Cpt.Caveman said: About lack of body armor. Well welcome to war. Every soldier has body armor. But what type is the real question. When I was in the Mog we were introduced to the first type of body armor that the military was issuing on large scale that would stop rifle fire. This is a spendy issue. But most of all the body armor that stops rifle fire is normally exclusive to the combat arms MOS's There are certainly times when combat arms does not have them issued - usually in the first few days of arrival on my past experiences. But after that there is no real excuse for not outfitting them properly. i read somewhere that a 1/3 of the troops in iraq still don't have body armor. REMFS dont need the best body armor. Where is your fact based reading? I am betting your fact based reading is quite misleading.. and not really fact. Quote
j_b Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 Cpt.Caveman said: REMFS dont need the best body armor. Where is your fact based reading? i don't know. i'd have to look for it. i do believe it said "no body armor" and not "not the best". what's remfs? Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 j_b said: Cpt.Caveman said: REMFS dont need the best body armor. Where is your fact based reading? i don't know. i'd have to look for it. i do believe it said "no body armor" and not "not the best". what's remfs? It's highly unlikely that 1/3 has zero body armor. They issue that shit just to go to the grenade range in normal units to everyone. Long before anyone is called to combat...... Quote
allthumbs Posted October 31, 2003 Author Posted October 31, 2003 what's this shit I hear that returning GI's are flown into some fucking airport on the East Coast, and then have to foot the bill out their own wallets to fly home from there? is this for real? Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 trask said: what's this shit I hear that returning GI's are flown into some fucking airport on the East Coast, and then have to foot the bill out their own wallets to fly home from there? is this for real? Where is the report? Quote
vegetablebelay Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 New Program Lets Fliers Help U.S. Troops Get R&R Thursday, October 23, 2003 By January W. Payne WASHINGTON — A program that began Thursday could make the ride home a little smoother for some soldiers. Under "Operation Hero Miles (search)," people will be able to turn their frequent-flier miles over to their airlines, which in turn will make them available to soldiers trying to get home for their brief leaves. Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (search), D-Md., said he got the idea after he visited troops passing through Baltimore-Washington International Airport. "Our men and women risking their lives serving our country in Iraq deserve our support," Ruppersberger said Wednesday in a prepared statement. Thousands of soldiers who have been flown to BWI since the Defense Department began granting leaves from Iraq last month have had to dig into their own pockets to buy a plane ticket the rest of the way home. In early October, Spc. Josh Fansler flew on the Army's dime from Iraq to BWI to begin two weeks of leave, but getting home to Colorado became an inconvenient expense. Fansler got lucky — he landed a round-trip ticket to Colorado Springs, Colo., for $223. Not everyone has been so lucky. "When this whole leave program started out, people were Continued here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101051,00.html Quote
slothrop Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 REMF = Rear Echelon Motherfuckers "In the rear with the gear" Quote
scrambler Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 Yeah, I heard that report too. One congressman was outraged enough that he started a program where people could donate their frequent fliers miles to help out the troops on leave. Also, check this story out: One soldier's story Maybe this guy is just an 8-ball but his attitude might be reflective of a deeper problem circulating among the troops. Quote
allthumbs Posted October 31, 2003 Author Posted October 31, 2003 Cpt.Caveman said: trask said: what's this shit I hear that returning GI's are flown into some fucking airport on the East Coast, and then have to foot the bill out their own wallets to fly home from there? is this for real? Where is the report? I might have been drunk, but I could swear I heard it on the news the other night. Just thought someone else might have heard the same thing. Dude, check out my arsenal... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.