Posted on 12/10/2004 10:17:27 AM PST by Miami Vice
I'll take Door Number 2, Monty.
So how would he know for sure what the real deal is in Iraq? He hasnt been there yet.
As to the reporter who did this, he should be dis-embedded. There are questions to get information leading to solutions, and there are questions to AMBUSH. This smells more like the latter....the reporter just smells.
No one should really complain about Bush bashing anymore. Bush seems fine with it and they are friends of his so let's not get upset with it anymore.
Fact1: Armor costs money.
Fact2: Armor replaces payload.
Fact3: A truck that can carry 5 tons net, can carry 2.5 tons of armor and 2.5 tons of payload, or and combination up to 5 tons.
Fact3: Better than armoring all trucks (5 tons of goods is a fair amount, 5 tons of armor is a misleading inadequacy) is to arm a lot, armor a few, and have the armored and armed trucks escort convoys.
Fact4: None of this is new. IEDs were used by German anarchists against US trucks occupying Germany after WWI. And again after WWII.
Fact5: Field modifications tend to add armor, which is passive, and wears out roads and running gear even if noone is shooting at you. Army planned modifictions tend to add more weapons, which only cost money when they are actually shot, but have no effect on mines, or remote IEDs.
Don't be ridiculous. They have been training since February for this deployment and are going over the border any day now.
So what is new from those brain dead CRATS. The MSM are the same CRATS that are anti-American, and should be no doubt.
Why not require a tank for every troop ?
i disagree,
this article is pretty fair...
"The modification of the vehicles by scavenging is part of a temporary measure to provide armor until such time as they can be manufactured. It is not lack of planning – it is an Army policy."
Exactly, its called fieldcraft. :-)
"Implicit in this question was that Rumsfeld and his Defense Department is either incompetent or corrupt or both."
No, implicit were his questioning of stupid Army regulations that basically say that no armor at all is better than armor installed by "unqualified personnel". The bottleneck is not the production of the armor, but the installation of it. If they would just ship the stuff to the various units with a tehnician that can teach and supervise them while they install it, it could be done at about 10 time the current rate.
Bump!
Humvees produced way too much CO2 as it is. Adding amour makes it much worse. The liberals should be cheering the fact that some don't have the earth-killing armour.
They should be using the thousands of M-113's stockpiled
in the depots. The humvee is not designed to carry armor
and the stryker is suitable only for intimidating tribesmen
in the congo. Against a determined enemy this is a waste of
money.
That is the real scandal.
Nope.
Good article. Thanks.
Senator Christopher Dodd was the first critic to jump on the latest bash-Rumsfeld bandwagon.
However, I'll bet if somebody checked on how Christopher Dodd voted regarding the dismantling of the military during the Clinton years .. you would find Dodd was all for it.
Soooooo .. my question for Senator Dodd is this: How come YOU DEPRIVED OUR MILITARY OF THIS UPGRADE AND NOW YOU WANT TO BLAME RUMSFELD FOR IT - when Rumsfeld was not in the Congress at the time and had no control over THE MILITARY HE GOT!!!
Of course the leftists, the Dims and the MSM will NEVER ask this question because as we all know they get to have it BOTH ways!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.