Posted on 12/10/2004 10:17:27 AM PST by Miami Vice
Senator Christopher Dodd was the first critic to jump on the latest bash-Rumsfeld bandwagon.
======
Dodd is a typical liberal Chameleon -- changing color to suit the surroundings. This is classic Bush-bashing, without a doubt. Rummy was set up by that stinking MSM traitor...and that soldier that cooperated with it, ought to have a blanket party conducted on his behalf. Being a vet myself, I can testify how effective they are at attitude adjustment.
Armor and bullets are not big-ticket defense contractor items but to the troops in the field they are life and death.
Regardless of the obvious political bias of the reporter in question and of his editor, we mustn't forget this is a serious issue which, fortunately, the military procurement system is attempting to fix. Not as serious, of course, as the Democrat administration's gaff in 1944 when it dropped/landed FOUR DIVISIONS of US troops in Normandy without having a clue there were these things called "hedgerows" there. Fortunately, the GI's themselves came up with a field-mod for Sherman tanks which solved the problem --- much as the Guard/Reserve people are coming up with "local solutions"..
Blanket party = Group of your company mates grab you out of your bed, throw a blanket over your head, then "adjust" your team attitude...
Blanket party = Group of your company mates grab you out of your bed, throw a blanket over your head, then "adjust" your team attitude...
You could say that...
How did it come about that every soldier (according to our “esteemed” media) expects to be protected as if in an Abrams tank?
You're right! It's the typical "projection technique" in action. Here is Dodd accusing Rumsfeld of not doing his job, when it was actually Dodd's job to see to it our military was outfitted with the best equipment.
www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041209-1765.html
Presser from Iraq yesterday.
You're right! It's the typical "projection technique" in action. Here is Dodd accusing Rumsfeld of not doing his job, when it was actually Dodd's job to see to it our military was outfitted with the best equipment.
=======
Exactly. Right out of the standard liberal handbook --- THEY ALWAYS ACCUSE THEIR OPPONENT OF DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO...you can bet your life on it.
Issue number 3 for 2004, written prior to August 2004, addressed the issue of the armored Humvee. The article states, “As the most popular tactical vehicle today, the M998 HUMMWV (dubbed Humvee) is currently used with many armies. ….few …are operating protected Hummers…. During and after the Kosovo conflict, the US Army decided to protect a small part of its Humvee fleet. The armored version would be heavier – resulting in reduced deployment flexibility…. The US Marine Corps, requiring operational speed for its forces, opted not to protect its Humvees.”
Interesting tradeoff. Speed versus armour. Apparrently the Natl. Guard's mission placed a higher priority on armour. But for the Marines speed was paramount. I would like to see an explaination as why this is so.
The tragedy is THE DEMS DON'T SEE IT. I think they do it unconsciously because it's their moral equivalency thing. They do it and so they just assume everybody else does too. They still don't understand what morals or principles really mean.
LOL! Fieldcraft...exactly!
This is what distinguishes the American GI- they are resourceful and are encouraged to think on their feet. With all the shortcomings of the military- it is still uniquely AMERICAN - creative solutions to unexpected situations are all in a day's work.
I served in Germany in a jeep with no armor.
I also served in an armored vehicle. Each has its uses.
If you add armor, you can increase the size of the engine. Then you have to increase the size of the gas tank. Then you increase the size of the armor again. Then you increase the size and weight of the suspension. Then you increase the size of the engine and gas tank again. All these increase the cost, so you have fewer vehicles for a given number of soldiers, or a smaller number of soldiers, for a given about of tax money coerced from the tax payer.
Or, if you decrease the armor, you decrease the engine, decrease the engine, increase the speed, decrease the number of (unarmored) fuel tankers.
There is a balance. We can disagree on what the exact point of the balance is. We don't get anywhere calling each other names.
I recollect that we knew about the hedgerows. The intent was for the BRITISH to breakout on the left where there were no hedgerows. The US was supposed to secure the logistics. German destruction of the port at Cherbourg and the amazing performance of the Mulberry artificial harbors changed things.
Thanks to the German concentration of Armor on their right, the British were stopped. The break out at day 60 or so took place from a line that was supposed to be occupied at Day 6. Rommel's patchwork defense had been effective in stopping the allies. As Rommel had predicted, Allied air had been effective in slowing Runstadt's concentration of armor that was supposed to destroy the beachhead. The tactical stalemate Rommel achieved was a strategic victory for the Allies.
The break out occured as the US soldiers, unencumbered by doctrine, learned to fight effectively, and modified equipment to fit the terrain. US commanders drove tank formations through cities, contrary to doctrine. Heavy bombers were, contrary to doctrine, used as close air support and battlefield interdiction aircraft. US leadership paid a heavy price, (General McNair died from a errant bomb).
The Third Army was unleashed. 'nuff said.
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.