PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts from a hardcore Right wing Republican



Flying Tiger
10-17-2004, 03:29 PM
Consider the multi billions we spend on defense.
Sending kids into harms way in a lightly armored soft target vehicle is f#ck'd up.
Sending kids into combat in lightly armored Humvees way more f#ck'd up too.
We can do better. Far far better for our kids in harms way.
-TPC
USMC combat Viet Vet

JustMVG
10-17-2004, 04:28 PM
I agree and the families of these kids shouldn't have to send them body armor purchased privately either, maybe we did move too fast in going to war but time was not an option anymore, we need to get our kids armored and right quick. I don't blame the folks who decided not to go on the mission, due to the un-armored vehicles, but there had to be a better way to go about declining the mission.
Mike VG

Steve 1
10-17-2004, 05:44 PM
There are some blogs around that I follow and I see Strykers and Bradley’s Abrams but not a Humvee sent into a kill zone BTW a Humvee costs @62K and a Stryker @ 3 Mill If that was the case I would not go either. I have Also changed my opinion of the Stryker a Lot of the crews like them.
Here below.
Editor, Index-Tribune:
I recently read your article on U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Jed Berman. I was stationed in the same squadron as Sgt. Berman and knew him quite well. I pray daily that he recovers and am thankful that he wasn't killed. There were some issues brought up in your article that I would like to address. One issue was that he was traveling in a FOX armored vehicle and not a Stryker. He did have the protected body armor that has proven itself extremely effective. I talked with a Marine who was serving around Baghdad who had a friend of his hit at close distance from an AK-47. Two rounds struck him in the chest and his armor saved his life. The rounds didn't penetrate and he returned to duty, albeit a little shaken.
As far as the Stryker vehicle is concerned, I have logged over 8,000 kilometers while in Iraq and love the vehicle to death. It has weathered roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades with minimal damage. No soldier has been killed due to enemy actions while inside the vehicle. The problem comes when soldiers are manning guard hatches.
This causes part of their body, including their head, to be exposed. You can reduce this threat by exposing only a minimal portion of yourself. For me, that includes my head and weapon. A lot of soldiers will expose themselves from their waist up. Why, I don't know.
The Stryker, with SLAT armor, provides more protection than the Bradley fighting vehicles. They can travel faster and farther than any tracked vehicle (tanks and Bradleys). Their speed on the highway is a huge factor reducing the threat to the vehicle and crew. The only other vehicle in the Army that can produce the type of mobility and speed is a Humvee. Ask any soldier in the Stryker Brigade if they would trade in a Humvee for a Stryker and 100 percent would say "in a minute." The Stryker is the best vehicle in the Army, or the Armed Services, for the type of operations being conducted in Iraq.
Again, my prayers are with a friend and comrade who I knew and respected terribly. He will be missed, and I pray for his recovery.
Carson E. Davis
CPT, CAV
1-14th CAV, Iraq

steelcomp
10-17-2004, 05:56 PM
Help me out here, guys. What is the stryker? I know the Marines have an eight wheeled vehicle called the LAV (light attack vehicle) or the "Pirahna". Is this the same thing? Last I heard it was a Marine exclusive, but the Army was talikng to AMG and GM about one of their own. This is a bad mamma jamma, and every unit should have a whole fleet of them. They can be equipped with everything from a 60 to a 105 How. Typically they have the 25mm chain gun. There's even a TOW missle set up for them. They can shoot the 25mm on the fly and run near 70mph, will traverse 30 deg., and are amfibious. They are also heavily armored, and provide good protection.

***boat
10-17-2004, 05:58 PM
Not that it pertains to this situation, but Armour Humvees are the deal. For the best Armour mod they run around 350k.
It sucks when mid level commander make stupid decisions like this.

Steve 1
10-17-2004, 06:10 PM
Thanks HB I did not know that,It would be a Quick way of increasing the number of Armor uints.

Rexone
10-17-2004, 06:10 PM
It sucks when mid level commander make stupid decisions like this.
It also sucks when the former president spends 8 years sucking the funds out of and downsizing the military and that the current presidential challenger has voted against every military expenditure known to man in his 20+ years in the senate.

Steve 1
10-17-2004, 06:13 PM
Help me out here, guys. What is the stryker? I know the Marines have an eight wheeled vehicle called the LAV (light attack vehicle) or the "Pirahna". Is this the same thing? Last I heard it was a Marine exclusive, but the Army was talikng to AMG and GM about one of their own. This is a bad mamma jamma, and every unit should have a whole fleet of them. They can be equipped with everything from a 60 to a 105 How. Typically they have the 25mm chain gun. There's even a TOW missle set up for them. They can shoot the 25mm on the fly and run near 70mph, will traverse 30 deg., and are amfibious. They are also heavily armored, and provide good protection.
Comp I have a Picture somewhere.

steelcomp
10-17-2004, 06:17 PM
I agree and the families of these kids shouldn't have to send them body armor purchased privately either, maybe we did move too fast in going to war but time was not an option anymore, we need to get our kids armored and right quick. I don't blame the folks who decided not to go on the mission, due to the un-armored vehicles, but there had to be a better way to go about declining the mission.
Mike VG
You have to take these stories with a grain of salt...I hardly believe that the Army is under equipped or soldiers are fighting without body armor. I have a feeling that the parents who sent their kids armor did so out of paranoia. We don't know what kind of work their kids are doing, or even if they're in harm's way. There's a lot of soldiers over there doing support work (cooks, clerks, quartermasters, etc.) that, if needed, would have the armor. However, because the media plays up so terribly the worst aspects of the war and violence, parents think they need to protect their kids, and understandably so. Then the media gets wind of an isolated incident and exploits the hell out of it, making it sound like this is status quo.
As far as the soldiers refusing to go on their mission because of faulty equipment, or dangerous circumstances...again, I'd wait untill all the facts are out in the open. We're not going to get anything that resembles the truth from any of the main stream news sources, and it takes a while for the ones we can trust to sort out all the propoganda. My emphasis is toward giving the benefit of the doubt to the men in charge over there in Iraq. Don't forget...the military has it's own set of laws, and one of the first things they teach you is that you no longer have "constitutional rights". An order by an outranking person, of any kind, is a lawful order, and is to be obeyed. If everyone who thought they might get hurt or killed defied a lawful order and got away with it, we'd all be speaking German. If you're going to disobey an order, you better be damn good and sure of yourself, because even if you're right, you can still be court marshaled for defying that order.

Steve 1
10-17-2004, 06:18 PM
Here is one.
http://www.uploadyourimages.com/img/185438a_stryker.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav.htm

steelcomp
10-17-2004, 06:24 PM
It also sucks when the former president spends 8 years sucking the funds out of and downsizing the military and that the current presidential challenger has voted against every military expenditure known to man in his 20+ years in the senate.
You gotta give GW credit where it's due. He went into this thing with one arm tied behind his back. I think everyone was surprised at how fast and easily we got in. You know, like when you're pushing real hard on something and it finally gives!! OOOpps! Right on your face!
I still say we really don't know what's going on over there. I wish they'd just take Falluja...quit this fockin boxing match. Al Sadr should be the next beheading. Take off the gloves, GW, and knock this SOB out! One punch.

steelcomp
10-17-2004, 06:35 PM
Here is one.
http://www.uploadyourimages.com/img/185438a_stryker.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav.htm
OK...that's the same chassis called the LAV 25...now made by AMG (I think..was built by DDGM, but bought out contract) But the Piranah has a turret, built by GM/Delco.
The cost of one of those, depending on it's armorment and weaponry is about 1/4 of the Bradley, and about the same as far as maintenance. The Bradley just didn't pan out to be the type of vehicle needed over there.
I stand corrected, BTW...the Piranah didn't have the 105 How., it had the 90mm. cannon, among others.

Boy Named Sue
10-17-2004, 06:36 PM
Sometimes I work where they make those APCs (as a contractor) and I can tell you they are making them as fast as they can. All these nay sayers and critics can go to hell for being subversive. The USA always puts their full might behind the men in the field. Always have, always will. It is a volunteer Army and us civies wouldn't have it any other way. Those elected and seeking re-election know this. What were you self-hating America bashers saying?

Steve 1
10-17-2004, 06:38 PM
Yes I heard GM had some part of it.

steelcomp
10-17-2004, 06:51 PM
Yes I heard GM had some part of it.
My father was the senior weapons design engineer for Delco Weapons systems, and was in charge of the LAV 25 armorment and weaponry program. He holds several patents including the TOW missle launcher for the Piranah. He designed the mounting and locking sustem, and also designed the 90mm cannon for the same. He also designed the armor. If you think that's not fire power...he had some pics from Switzerland, where they test fired the 90mm. Pretty awsome. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that. I got to see a lot of the systems being developed and tested. At the time, I happened to be working as a supervisor for a contractor who was remodeling the same Delco facility, and pretty much had free run. We built a lot of specialty rooms that were top secret as far as what they were to be used for. Some existing rooms had to be tarped off while the work was going on, so we couldn't see. It was absolutely forbidden to "peek", as well, and there were security police watching the whole time. Some of the rooms had warnings on them like "warning...unauthorized entrance will be met with leathal consequences." He also got to work on Puff The Magic Dragon...the C130 Gun ship. That's the one with the 105 Howitzer that they shoot out the side, along with the 30mm chain gun. That's another one you don't want to be on the receiving end of.
Uncle Sam's got some neat toys. :D

Boy Named Sue
10-17-2004, 07:02 PM
I didn't say Gm. and it is not gm. Loose lips..

steelcomp
10-17-2004, 07:05 PM
I didn't say Gm. and it is not gm. Loose lips.. :confused: :confused: :confused:

Steve 1
10-17-2004, 07:10 PM
My father was the senior weapons design engineer for Delco Weapons systems, and was in charge of the LAV 25 armorment and weaponry program. He holds several patents including the TOW missle launcher for the Piranah. He designed the mounting and locking sustem, and also designed the 90mm cannon for the same. He also designed the armor. If you think that's not fire power...he had some pics from Switzerland, where they test fired the 90mm. Pretty awsome. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that. I got to see a lot of the systems being developed and tested. At the time, I happened to be working as a supervisor for a contractor who was remodeling the same Delco facility, and pretty much had free run. We built a lot of specialty rooms that were top secret as far as what they were to be used for. Some existing rooms had to be tarped off while the work was going on, so we couldn't see. It was absolutely forbidden to "peek", as well, and there were security police watching the whole time. Some of the rooms had warnings on them like "warning...unauthorized entrance will be met with leathal consequences." He also got to work on Puff The Magic Dragon...the C130 Gun ship. That's the one with the 105 Howitzer that they shoot out the side, along with the 30mm chain gun. That's another one you don't want to be on the receiving end of.
Uncle Sam's got some neat toys. :D
Way Cool !!!

angry dad
10-17-2004, 07:14 PM
what ever!!! we owe the best to our troops!!!!build the best, at all costs!!!

Boy Named Sue
10-17-2004, 07:16 PM
:confused: :confused: :confused:
I know its not a WWII kind of war but naming specific companies just seems wrong. Thats all.

steelcomp
10-17-2004, 07:43 PM
I know its not a WWII kind of war but naming specific companies just seems wrong. Thats all.
You can rest your worried little mind. This is all public info, and BTW...this was all 15 yrs ago. These defense contracts change hands like a dollar bill. There's no secrets, here, so no ships are going to get sunk!!
PS...Dad's long since retired.

steelcomp
10-17-2004, 07:48 PM
what ever!!! we owe the best to our troops!!!!build the best, at all costs!!!
We have the best. There's nothing on earth that can even come close to the technology we have, and the proof is in the way we walked right through the Iraqi army. Twice. It was an exercise.

Boy Named Sue
10-17-2004, 08:04 PM
Steelcomp,
You seem to know what you are talking about. The U.S. for the last 40 years has had a philosophy of technology over numbers. The Ruskies have always thought that superior numbers will overcome technology. Vietnam and Afghanistan proved that inferior numbers can win over firepower if given enough time. Can technology win over inferior numbers in the time frame that the PlayStation America demands?

steelcomp
10-17-2004, 10:33 PM
Steelcomp,
You seem to know what you are talking about. The U.S. for the last 40 years has had a philosophy of technology over numbers. The Ruskies have always thought that superior numbers will overcome technology. Vietnam and Afghanistan proved that inferior numbers can win over firepower if given enough time. Can technology win over inferior numbers in the time frame that the PlayStation America demands?
The only thing that Viet Nam proved is that you either fight a war, or you don't. You can't pussyfoot around, and expect not to have a bunch of casualties, when the enemy is serious. Afganastan? I don't understand your point about Afganastan. We own Afganastan, and nobody's focking with us there, are they? You think Russia wants to come back and try again?
China on the other hand, is a problem. They only have to spit all at the same time, and we'd all drown!
Playstation America? Do I sense a bit of sarcasm there? Do you realize that we walked over the fourth largest army in the world without more than a couple hundred fatalities? We've been there how long, and have just over a thousand? More from terroristic attacks like car bombings and roadside bombings. In Viet Nam there were a thousand fatalities a WEEK! We're fighting an enemy that has no face, no uniform, no form or posture. There is no front line, no left or right flank, no territory or boundries. The technology saves lives, and allows tactical strategy that can't be duplicated by numbers. A perfect example is our night vision technology, now in it's fifth or sixth generation. We can fight a war at night better than our enemies can in broad daylight. Most of the fighting is done under the cover of darkness. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
How would you fight the terrorists or the fanatics?
There is a time frame to hand ove the country to it's own people. There is NO time frame to do the job we set out to do. We have the technology to end this tomorrow, if that's the decision to be made. I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions.

JustMVG
10-18-2004, 01:28 AM
You have to take these stories with a grain of salt...I hardly believe that the Army is under equipped or soldiers are fighting without body armor. I have a feeling that the parents who sent their kids armor did so out of paranoia. We don't know what kind of work their kids are doing, or even if they're in harm's way. There's a lot of soldiers over there doing support work (cooks, clerks, quartermasters, etc.) that, if needed, would have the armor. However, because the media plays up so terribly the worst aspects of the war and violence, parents think they need to protect their kids, and understandably so. Then the media gets wind of an isolated incident and exploits the hell out of it, making it sound like this is status quo.
As far as the soldiers refusing to go on their mission because of faulty equipment, or dangerous circumstances...again, I'd wait untill all the facts are out in the open. We're not going to get anything that resembles the truth from any of the main stream news sources, and it takes a while for the ones we can trust to sort out all the propoganda. My emphasis is toward giving the benefit of the doubt to the men in charge over there in Iraq. Don't forget...the military has it's own set of laws, and one of the first things they teach you is that you no longer have "constitutional rights". An order by an outranking person, of any kind, is a lawful order, and is to be obeyed. If everyone who thought they might get hurt or killed defied a lawful order and got away with it, we'd all be speaking German. If you're going to disobey an order, you better be damn good and sure of yourself, because even if you're right, you can still be court marshaled for defying that order.
SC your right and judging by the way we are getting the news, it will be awhile before all the facts are in, looking thru the LA Times this morning and reading the accounts of the locals that have been killed over there and the national reports , most of the info is 3 4 weeks old, and maybe there was paranoia on the families part, but if i remember correctly, some of the units were sent over and didn't have all of the equiptment that they needed, but that was at the very beginning of the conflict, i am sure things are much better now as would be the supply lines.
MikeVG

Seadog
10-18-2004, 05:27 AM
My understanding was the Bradley was designed as infantry support vehicle for the Abramms. It does that job just fine, but both the Abramms and the Bradley were designed when we were still looking at an European war. The Stryker is all new design to take the lessons from the first gulf war and apply them. The military sent a battalion of Strykers to Iraq while they were still undergoing evaluation. The response has been great and they are sending them as fast as they can be built.

kahanamoko
10-18-2004, 09:40 AM
It also sucks when the former president spends 8 years sucking the funds out of and downsizing the military and that the current presidential challenger has voted against every military expenditure known to man in his 20+ years in the senate.
Perhaps it also sucks that the base realignment commission made it's decisions on base closures during the presidency of President Bush I. I have also seen an increase in certain units in the miltary, such as special operations forces and a downsizing of units that were not necessary. I would agree that the current U.S. military strength is too small but I don't hear Bush saying anything about increasing the military. The only one talking about that is Kerry. But his plan fails to include specifics on how it would be implemented and paid for.

Back Forty
10-18-2004, 09:53 AM
Good post Kahanamoko.
I was under the Clinton downsize period and couldn't believe they were trying to cut our units... It was so far out that it seemed as though they were just throwing darts at a map.
Those units are still around today thankfully.

kahanamoko
10-18-2004, 09:55 AM
Which unit and why was that particular unit necessary. Typically, they'll get rid of a unit if it's not cutting it. Yours?

Rexone
10-18-2004, 12:20 PM
Perhaps it also sucks that the base realignment commission made it's decisions on base closures during the presidency of President Bush I. I have also seen an increase in certain units in the miltary, such as special operations forces and a downsizing of units that were not necessary. I would agree that the current U.S. military strength is too small but I don't hear Bush saying anything about increasing the military. The only one talking about that is Kerry. But his plan fails to include specifics on how it would be implemented and paid for.
I actually don't disagree with that although Clinton had 8 years to attempt to reverse that course if he'd wanted to. I have heard GW Bush talking about realignment of units from Europe and elsewhere where they are no longer needed to beef up our response capability here in the US.
And I've heard alot of campaign promise checks proposed from Mr Kerry which he has absolutely no way to cash if elected without major tax increases or increasing the deficit or both. There isn't an issue where Kerry doesn't "I have a plan to this and for that".... but you never hear the plan. Imagine that. The only plan Kerry has is to win the election by saying whatever he has to to sway gullible people uninformed on the issues. Lots of big talk and what some people want to hear but the majority of it unrealistic in terms of paying for. I think Bush's realignment plan is much more fiscally realistic. Also with Kerry's record of voting "against" most all military related expenditures for 20+ years I think it's unlikely he will now become a proponent of larger and stronger military in any meaningful way beyond campaign rhetoric. I hear where he will add 2 divisions and double special forces. Is that what we need, or possibly more and better weapons and intelligence instead of troops so the troops we have can do a better and cleaner job. Either way its unlikely the money will be found anytime soon or that he'll even persue it if elected. Dalmations do not change their spots. Although in this case Kerry's rhetoric changes based on his audiance and the liklihood he will obtain their vote (not limited to military rhetoric either).

kahanamoko
10-18-2004, 05:14 PM
Not unlike Bush, Cheney, Edwards, or any other politician. The sooner you republicans realize that they all tell us what they need to get elected, from both sides of the aisle, the sooner our country will unite again. Be suspicious of ALL politicians. Not just the Democrats or just the republicans.

Back Forty
10-18-2004, 05:24 PM
Be suspicious of ALL politicians. Not just the Democrats or just the republicans.
Exactly.
I'm voting for the (IMHO) the option that will not invite total socialism/ liberalism and also have the balls to step up to the plate of reaching out and stepping on an ass or two. Kerry is person that has a large yellow stripe up his ass and a record that proves it. Thats about all I can say about the two.
Plenty to say but it isn't needed.
I don't believe absolute unity is possible however the closer the better.

Steve 1
10-18-2004, 05:25 PM
http://www.uploadyourimages.com/img/779566a_kerry_ass.jpg

kahanamoko
10-18-2004, 05:28 PM
Kerry is person that has a large yellow stripe up his ass
Which is immensely more desireable than the large brown stripe that runs up your ass.

Back Forty
10-18-2004, 05:32 PM
:eek: :messedup: :D

steelcomp
10-18-2004, 05:48 PM
Which is immensely more desireable than the large brown stripe that runs up your ass.
what the hell was that for?

Rexone
10-18-2004, 05:57 PM
http://www.uploadyourimages.com/img/779566a_kerry_ass.jpg
Where's the UN sticker on that baby?
:D

steelcomp
10-18-2004, 06:09 PM
My understanding was the Bradley was designed as infantry support vehicle for the Abramms. It does that job just fine, but both the Abramms and the Bradley were designed when we were still looking at an European war. The Stryker is all new design to take the lessons from the first gulf war and apply them. The military sent a battalion of Strykers to Iraq while they were still undergoing evaluation. The response has been great and they are sending them as fast as they can be built.
The stryker is basically the Army version of the LAV 25 Piranah, used exclusively by the Marines. It was decisive in the Gulf war, and the Army decided they wanted one too! Tha basic LAV25 chassis has been around for quite a while.

Jeanyus
10-18-2004, 06:21 PM
Which is immensely more desireable than the large brown stripe that runs up your ass.
kahanamoko
Wow, you had three posts without insulting others. I was just about to give you some green points. But you went back to the 3rd grade rhetoric, oh well mabee next time.

Steve 1
10-18-2004, 06:24 PM
Good Point Rexone ROFLMAO.

Back Forty
10-18-2004, 06:44 PM
what the hell was that for?
The scars run deep Steel... :D

eliminatedsprinter
10-19-2004, 11:17 AM
Good post Kahanamoko.
I was under the Clinton downsize period and couldn't believe they were trying to cut our units... It was so far out that it seemed as though they were just throwing darts at a map.
Ie, the Long Beach Shipyard, the one that was actually making money. :notam: