To: archy
I don't understand. If they need armored vehicles, why don't they get them?
Why not just send tanks?
Am I missing something here?
L
26 posted on
02/09/2004 3:13:15 PM PST by
Lurker
(Don't bite the hand that meads you.)
To: Lurker
don't understand. If they need armored vehicles, why don't they get them? Why not just send tanks? Am I missing something here? We already have tanks. You can't get as much for kickbacks for systems we already have, and retiring general officers have to have nice *consulting* jobs with the builders when they retire.
If a few grunts have to die in unarmored vehicles in the meantime, tough. There are officers who have to think about how they might have to live on just their military retirement checks if they don't make the sale for new toys. So they will.
28 posted on
02/09/2004 3:25:39 PM PST by
archy
(I was told we'd cruise the seas for American gold. We'd fire no guns-shed no tears....)
To: Lurker
Many of them came out of armored vehicles to be constabulary troopers. The M1114 Up-armored HMMWV is the standard constabulary/peacekeeper/MP ride, so that's what everybody wants, whether that's what they really need or not.
They have put so many miles on the Bradleys they can't supply replacement tracks.
Lots of M113's available for patrolling.
30 posted on
02/09/2004 3:31:30 PM PST by
Cannoneer No. 4
(Do not forget your dogs of war, your big guns)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson