Cpt.Caveman Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 The practice of flying a soldier to the east or west coast based upon the situation and then having them foot the bill to their vacation desitination choice is nothing new. Next. Quote
catbirdseat Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 trask said: 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... Gol Crickey, I am sure glad all that potential mayhem is kept locked up in a good safe. 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 am betting your fact based reading is quite misleading.. and not really fact. you are right. apparently a 1/4 hasn't been issued "a new type of ceramic body armor strong enough to stop bullets fired from assault rifles" Quote
scrambler Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 Apparently, a congressman is outraged enough that he started a program where people could donate their frequent flier mileage to help troops on leave to see their families. Is the Administration trying to take the corporate tact of increasing productivity by putting the squeeze on their workers? I also have read about soldiers, in some cases, having to pay their own medical bills. And what do you think about this? One soldier's story Maybe this guy is an 8-ball or maybe his attitude reflects a deeper problem affecting the troops. Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 Scrambler. Read my note on the top of the page. In fact mr complainers complaints are somewhat common and valid in some sense. On another note mr complainer might want to read his contract a little closer. 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 am betting your fact based reading is quite misleading.. and not really fact. you are right. apparently a 1/4 hasn't been issued "a new type of ceramic body armor strong enough to stop bullets fired from assault rifles" I like how they insert assault. In fact any rifle is capable of killing through standard issue kevlar body armor. Another not is that some soldiers just plain cant use ceramic body armor in all situations. Some tanker positions and BFV positions come to mind immediately.... Quote
scrambler Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 Yes, these stories of the Administration's disrespect of troops, whether true or not, are most surely incited by partisan politics. As I saw an interview of some of the troops heading over to Iraq with the Stryker force, the reporter asked, "Are you worried?" The soldier with his wife and his child in his arms said, "No." Dude just wants to do his job and get back in one piece to his family. But yeah, like that soldier in the story, he has to wonder. Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 31, 2003 Posted October 31, 2003 scrambler said: Yes, these stories of the Administration's disrespect of troops, whether true or not, are most surely incited by partisan politics. As I saw an interview of some of the troops heading over to Iraq with the Stryker force, the reporter asked, "Are you scared?" The soldier with his wife and his child in his arms said, "No." Dude, just wants to do his job and get back in one piece to his family. But, yeah, like that soldier in the story, he has to wonder. These times and reports are nothing new. There are multiple clauses in a military contract and laws that have been in place for decades that can extend tours of duty etc. Of course they will complain. I would too. But there are 2 sides to the story. The complainer is doing what most would do. But he leaves out all the facts about his contract and the laws I mentioned.... He likely knows of all this. If not he doesnt want to know for some reason. I think that this sort of comtempt would be felt under any administration. I am not favoring any one in my remarks I am only enlightening people that are quick to jump to the gun and whine about things they dont know much about. Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 Since nobody argued my REMFs comment I will post some more info related to my statement about them not being always in need of the best body armor. This comment I made is an opinion and is subject to scrutiny, but it is also debatable and marked with controversy. Take a cook for instance that is supplying food to generals in Quatr for instance... The cooks might be required to wear just regular body armor around base. Although they are never or rarely subjected to any enemy fire they may be required to wear standard kevlar body armor in certain situations. These sort of people are not often travelling farther than a fortified base compound more than once every week and not in the "war zone" sometimes. After experiences working with people like this I can attest to first hand experiences that some of these folks detest the idea of wearing any body armor and would call it a major personal inconvenience to walk to the shitter and having to wear body armor. A ritual in some units.... This is way below a General's level...They might even complain about it for weeks after being corrected or ordered to wear it and even brought to the attention of their superiors for not having it... That said REMFS is a hard to define definition sometimes... But to those that complain that all troops should have the necessary gear or protection available might not understand all the situations that are at hand and that includes expecting tank drivers, loaders or gunners for one example to be wearing rifle protected body army while performing crew duties. Sure they may have the armor available but it's not always worn and there are inherent loopholes in their jobs that do not permit it. A tank gunner might have his tank commander killed in the midst of combat due to a number of things. Working inside that confined space he would likely be wearing the lightest body armor available. THen he would be expected to be the TC in a rough situation where he might forget to dawn more protection that is readily available but not conveniently.. He would then be more easily killed by rifle fire if he did not dig out his proper protective equipment... In a nutshell - most if not all, military commanders strictly enforce the rule of wearing the maximum body army in all situations reasonable. One could be counseled, demoted, or confronted for not meeting the uniform requirements set by each commander. THis includes leaders and everyone that reports to them. Done for now. Quote
allthumbs Posted November 1, 2003 Author Posted November 1, 2003 Thanks Ray, for putting it in perspective. It makes perfect sense that not all personnel need armor. Front line troops getting shot at, yes, cooks, no. Quote
Pencil_Pusher Posted November 2, 2003 Posted November 2, 2003 Maybe why nobody replies to your remf comments is because nobody knows what a remf is. It took me a while to figure that one and the bfv out. Yeah, it's pointless for anyone in an M1 to wear body armor as would be the case for a fighter pilot. Anything that gets through either vehicle isn't gonna care too much about any body armor, ceramic plate or not. Plus, I don't know where the heck they'd store it except outside with all their other gear. I agree with what you're saying about this type of equipment being more suitable for fao's, mp's, 12b's and the like... I just don't think many folks here have much of a clue on your argument. Ditto with the skid plate, although gregm might be able to offer a more qualified opinion there. I'd be happy if you told me the army got rid of those stupid black berets for the masses. Quote
gregm Posted November 3, 2003 Posted November 3, 2003 my $.02 having had a brief stint as a DAT (dumb ass tanker): in korea we had one of those mine rakes for every 8 tanks. they are not general protective equipment for tanks, they are used to clear a way through a minefield. the first tank uses it to clear a path and the rest of the tanks follow in it's tracks. as i think ray said somewhere they severely restrict mobility and only work in limited situations. they are so heavy the whole tanks leans forward with one on - not for general driving around. they work nicely in loose sand like gulf deserts but not on packed earth or rocks. the engineers have better shit for clearing paths through minefields like big rollers and armored plows mounted on a tank chasis without the weight of a turret so it can still move. it sounds like the mine that killed those guys was a relatively isolated roadside hidden jobbie so the plow wouldn't have been used so i think it's more a question of tactics than how well supplied they were. as far as wearing body armor inside a tank definately not. it would be too restrictive and the casual reader probably greatly underestimates how cramped it is inside a tank. much of your survivabilty hinges on getting out of the tank within a couple seconds if it catches fire. we specifically wore nomex suits with nothing hanging off to catch on all the wires and hydrolic tubing for that reason. you might want one to wear outside the tank of the situation/tactics warrented it, but it would be another heavy pain in the ass and presumably if you were expecting fire you'd be in the tank. i'm not trying to be all warm and fuzzy about the army here. the m1 appeared to me to be designed to keep it's occupants alive - both so they can continue fighting and go home to their mommies and daddies. they are also incredibly dangerous pieces of equipment both to their occupants and those around them (about a hundred times worse than lawn darts) with the breach recoil, turret motion, ammo doors etc being fairly common causes of people getting killed and maimed. Quote
scrambler Posted November 3, 2003 Posted November 3, 2003 You M1 tank aficionados or distractors might find this news article interesting: ‘Something’ felled an M1A1 Abrams tank in Iraq – but what? "Shortly before dawn on Aug. 28, an M1A1 Abrams tank on routine patrol in Baghdad “was hit by something” that crippled the 69-ton behemoth." "According to an unclassified Army report, the mystery projectile punched through the vehicle’s skirt and drilled a pencil-sized hole through the hull. The hole was so small that “my little finger will not go into it,” the report’s author noted. The “something” continued into the crew compartment, where it passed through the gunner’s seatback, grazed the kidney area of the gunner’s flak jacket and finally came to rest after boring a hole 1½ to 2 inches deep in the hull on the far side of the tank. As it passed through the interior, it hit enough critical components to knock the tank out of action. That made the tank one of only two Abrams disabled by enemy fire during the Iraq war and one of only a handful of “mobility kills” since they first rumbled onto the scene 20 years ago. The other Abrams knocked out this year in Iraq was hit by an RPG-7, a rocket-propelled grenade." Quote
catbirdseat Posted November 3, 2003 Posted November 3, 2003 I might have been a small black hole. 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.