Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cannoneer No. 4
When did armored vehicles become an entitlement program?

BINGO. Aside from the fact that the liberal media has a fresh point of impact to pile on the Bush administration with, what bothers me most about this issue is the sense that every military vehicle in theater must somehow be able to withstand the effects of an IED or an RPG hit. It's a fantasy notion, since IEDs can and have easily bounced M2A3s around and RPGs will penetrate any flat panel armor suitable to be attached to a HMMV or cargo vehicle. This feeds into a fortress mentality (can you say basecamp?) where the name of the game is to "survive" the war vice win it.

The media loves this, of course, because it feeds into their Vietnam prototype for reporting failure and quagmire. When your hunkered down in your HMMV/5 ton/HMMT etc...your not (effectively) fighting a threat that's more mobile than you. When your not fighting, you're not contributing and you become a target marker. Do I want our soldiers and Marines protected? Sure, to the extent that they can still function in attacking and killing terrorists, but not at the expense of losing the initiative.

28 posted on 12/11/2004 6:54:15 AM PST by TADSLOS (Right Wing Infidel since 1954)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: TADSLOS
"IEDs can and have easily bounced M2A3s around"

Um, there are Brads serving in Iraq today that have successfully withstood 17 RPG hits and scores of 155mm IED detonations. Armor works, plain and simple. The soldiers know it, that is why they want it. The rear echelon new lighter deployable force types at the pentagon thought that the need for armor - which they understand too - could be restricted to front line troops. It can't, there aren't lines, particularly with IEDs, which are the largest threat numerically speaking. There is no loss of initiative in being in a Brad or armed 113, able to hose any ambush. And service and supply troops do not exactly become more venturesome and active because they are armored only by their BDUs.

37 posted on 12/11/2004 9:18:05 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: TADSLOS
The media loves this, of course, because it feeds into their Vietnam prototype for reporting failure and quagmire.

Simple solution. The new Iraqi government can simply kick the media out of their country. They don't have a First Amendment. Sorry.

73 posted on 12/11/2004 9:15:15 PM PST by pray4liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: TADSLOS
"...This feeds into a fortress mentality (can you say basecamp?) where the name of the game is to "survive" the war vice win it."

Wasn't it General Patton who said "Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."?

75 posted on 12/11/2004 11:14:38 PM PST by Auntie Dem (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Terrorist lovers gotta go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: TADSLOS

I don't think it really matters how mobile you are in combat.

I think what really matters is how quickly you can target your enemy and kill him.

If you can move at 80 MPH but cannot target your enemy; your enemy will eventually kill you.

But if you can only move 8 MPH but can locate and kill your enemy in .08 seconds; then your enemy must react quicker than you to even survive.


114 posted on 12/14/2004 3:32:54 AM PST by gogogodzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson