NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16047588/

More tanks are getting broken then built to replace the broken ones due to the war in Iraq.

I think our entire military needs an overhaul. Including the funds that we are willing to spend on it.

An estimated $17 billion-plus worth of military equipment is destroyed or worn out each year, blasted by bombs, ground down by desert sand and used up to nine times the rate in times of peace.

Dur... dur... dur...

The US clearly needs a better strategy...I mean all they seem to be doing is simply marching forward and shooting every terrorist they see, not that much of a good strategy, they didn't even plan ahead in this war apparently... :(

That's a beautiful sentence. ;)

But that's what happens when one has to fight a war overseas. Units have equipment and take it to Iraq with them. There they have to deal with heat, sand and the like, much harder use and enemy action. So many break or wear down.

And when new units come in to replace the old ones, they often don't bother with much of the equipment. So when a unit comes back from Iraq, it doesn't have many of its trucks and jeeps and tanks and so on anymore. Or the stuff that does come back can't really be used, like in the article.

Having a big ass army is one thing...actually using it is quite another.

The US clearly needs a better strategy...I mean all they seem to be doing is simply marching forward and shooting every terrorist they see, not that much of a good strategy, they didn't even plan ahead in this war apparently... :(

Why is killing terrorists a bad plan?

(I'm not disagreeing with you that we didn't plan/think this out, but the objective of war is to kill the enemy.)

Why is killing terrorists a bad plan?

(I'm not disagreeing with you that we didn't plan/think this out, but the objective of war is to kill the enemy.)

Ya so all they're doing is just sending people forward instead of using some sneaky back door attack? They could have found some way of cutting off supplies first or something to weaken the enemy rather than just charging in. Killing terrorists is good but their strategy is a cheap and stupid one, they might as well march forward in line formation with muskets.

-snip-
I think you're confusing tactics with strategy, and terrorists with an army, and supplies with political support.

They shouldn't have gone to Iraq in the first place, and if they had they should've used as many troops as they possibly could have spared.

In Afghanistan it's just a matter of not enough effort having been made to get in contact with simple people and giving them chances other than growing drugs. And that they don't have enough troops there (thanks to Iraq), so they can only really hold one place at a time.

Why is killing terrorists a bad plan?

Because that's an objective, not a plan. It's like asking "What's our strategy?" and getting a response of "To win". It's idiotic at best.

Because that's an objective, not a plan. It's like asking "What's our strategy?" and getting a response of "To win". It's idiotic at best.

Exactly, you say that when your captured and being intoggerated. :p

Ya so all they're doing is just sending people forward instead of using some sneaky back door attack? They could have found some way of cutting off supplies first or something to weaken the enemy rather than just charging in. Killing terrorists is good but their strategy is a cheap and stupid one, they might as well march forward in line formation with muskets.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying US troops are doing over there. Things like "just charging in" are squad level things, not strategic level things. Also, US troops do not "just charge in", and frankly I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.

When I was in Iraq (OIF 1 with 3d ACR Apr 03-Apr 04 in Ar Ramadi) we ran checkpoints almost nightly to enforce curfews and to search for illegal weapons. We would conduct raids to arrest individuals that were pointed out to us by local informants as members of the insurgency. Occaisionally we would conduct OPs at night to attempt to catch the perpetrators of the almost nightly mortar attacks against the various US compounds in the city.

This is just what my scout platoon did. There are other types of units, especially Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations units that would interact with the local populace, which is the really important work.

However, there are a number of reasons we're failing over there. First and foremost, we don't have local knowledge. I can't tell a Syrian accent from an Iraqi one. I also can't speak more than a few words of Arabic. Most US soldiers are like me in this regard. This greatly effects the way the local populace perceives us, as boorish foreigners who don't have the common decency to speak the language of the country they're in. Also, US troops don't deal well with other cultures. Since most Americans rarely leave the US we expect everyone else to act as we do, and that simply isn't the case.

Another reason we're failing is that we're often extremely heavy handed when a lighter touch may be more appropriate. One incident I recall in Ar Ramadi involved a Florida National Guard unit taking fire on a near the Mayor cell. Several Iraqis were killed, but from what I'd heard from a guy on that patrol was that only one of them fired on the Guardsmen.

Another example of this heavy handedness involved an Iraqi man I knew named Fathi. Fathi was our "gopher" and would go and purchase whatever we asked him to, at an inflated price of course. I once had him buy me a fishing pole so I could fish in the Euphrates. Fathi went to Baghdad one day to buy something and on the way back was stopped by a 3d ID checkpoint. When Fathi didn't move fast enough for the soldier's liking he got smacked in the head with the butt end of a rifle. This sort of thing doesn't exactly engender trust. About a month later we were informed that Fathi started selling information to the Ba'ath party, so the next time he showed up at the front gate we went up there and arrested him.

Anyway, that's enough from me for right now. I've got class at 0900.

edit: They shouldn't have gone to Iraq in the first place, and if they had they should've used as many troops as they possibly could have spared.

Exactly. Also, there should have been some sort of planning for the "post major operations" period, because I can tell you from firsthand experience that there wasn't any.

But those were just to secure an area, identify terrorists then shoot/capture them. Bush didn't have a plan for the 'final blow' on the enemy, you can't win a war by just shooting people up you need some sort of battle plan that will ensure that your side is victorious.

But those were just to secure an area, identify terrorists then shoot/capture them. Bush didn't have a plan for the 'final blow' on the enemy, you can't win a war by just shooting people up you need some sort of battle plan that will ensure that your side is victorious.

Yes, and as was said earlier, tactics and strategy are two entirely different things. Things like "charging in" and "marching forward" are tactics, grand planning for the war is strategy. The US military in Iraq makes good use of the first, but doesn't have the latter.

Yes, and as was said earlier, tactics and strategy are two entirely different things. Things like "charging in" and "marching forward" are tactics, grand planning for the war is strategy. The US military in Iraq makes good use of the first, but doesn't have the latter.

Well thanks for clarifying that. :)

Exactly, you say that when your captured and being intoggerated. :p

I have no idea what intoggerated is, but it sounds painful. Do they tog you?

The US is doing mildly better then the British army (who when they went in went in with boots that melted, guns that jammed, tanks that just stopped, no body armour and vehicles that have been used in northen ireland since the 60/70s) however what the British army does which the US doesn't is that we repair/maintain most of our equipment in the field, this means that you have the advantage of you need less of it (if your only plan when an aircraft breaks down is to replace it then you need a lot of them handy....) and also that it gets put back into circulation quicker and for less.

We've sorted out the boots (or troops have on an individual level), altered the guns and tanks and are bringing in new vehicles.

Also the reason we are loseing in Iraq and Afganistan is the same reason the British lost last time and the same reason the Russians lost and the same reason the US lost in Vietnam.

You can't beat a large popular insurgency, especially not through purely military means (which is whats happening in both areas dispite what is being said about the reconstruction) whatever you have heard what is happening in Iraq especially is that people are getting together to defend their areas against Iraqi government and coalition forces with mines, bombs and armed militias, generally they also work together with other groups (one of the reasons the resistance is becoming more organised and also more cohesive in its methods).

In afganistan they are doing what we did last time, building fortified areas, making infrequent inefficient kill sweeps in force, using local levies wherever possible to do the dirty work and using air power to try to police areas outside the range of the gun emplacements of the fortified villages.

In Iraq its a bit like that but they are also using the same stratagy the British used last time, divide and rule. All the guff about trying to prevent the civil war when there is proof that British special forces (I haven't heard of the americans being caught so I can't prove they are doing anything) have been involved with bombs to spark intersect violence, and the fact that dividing resistance forces is in the best interests of the coalition.

I have no idea what intoggerated is, but it sounds painful. Do they tog you?

They do the FBI question thing to try to get you to "talk" Sometimes the methods are painful and even sick :(

The US is doing mildly better then the British army (who when they went in went in with boots that melted, guns that jammed, tanks that just stopped, no body armour and vehicles that have been used in northen ireland since the 60/70s) however what the British army does which the US doesn't is that we repair/maintain most of our equipment in the field, this means that you have the advantage of you need less of it (if your only plan when an aircraft breaks down is to replace it then you need a lot of them handy....) and also that it gets put back into circulation quicker and for less.

We've sorted out the boots (or troops have on an individual level), altered the guns and tanks and are bringing in new vehicles.

Also the reason we are loseing in Iraq and Afganistan is the same reason the British lost last time and the same reason the Russians lost and the same reason the US lost in Vietnam.

You can't beat a large popular insurgency, especially not through purely military means (which is whats happening in both areas dispite what is being said about the reconstruction) whatever you have heard what is happening in Iraq especially is that people are getting together to defend their areas against Iraqi government and coalition forces with mines, bombs and armed militias, generally they also work together with other groups (one of the reasons the resistance is becoming more organised and also more cohesive in its methods).

In afganistan they are doing what we did last time, building fortified areas, making infrequent inefficient kill sweeps in force, using local levies wherever possible to do the dirty work and using air power to try to police areas outside the range of the gun emplacements of the fortified villages.

In Iraq its a bit like that but they are also using the same stratagy the British used last time, divide and rule. All the guff about trying to prevent the civil war when there is proof that British special forces (I haven't heard of the americans being caught so I can't prove they are doing anything) have been involved with bombs to spark intersect violence, and the fact that dividing resistance forces is in the best interests of the coalition.

Sounds like a weapon of mass destruction would be handy, blast all areas with popular insurgency, no more inffluence from them, have marines clean up, perfect plan ;)

however what the British army does which the US doesn't is that we repair/maintain most of our equipment in the field

The US most certainly repairs it's equipment in the field. The things being sent back to the States are the things that are so severely damaged that they must be completely overhauled. If we didn't repair broken equipment the Army would have to replace all of it's HMMWVs weekly because the damned things break all of the time.

I have no idea what intoggerated is, but it sounds painful. Do they tog you?

yep...right in the back door

I thought that US AFV gear was completely compatible?

For example "oh shit, boys, our one M1A1 lost its tracks... urmm... down a well... but we have this M2A2 right here we're not using - let's cannibalise it!"

Or maybe I'm wrong.

There's a saying:

"Fear and respect are not the same thing".

Why is it that we don't call people like this trolls but only people with opposing views? He is making completely off comments, can't understand sarcasm and quite frankly can't complete an intelligent thought.

Why is it that we don't call people like this trolls but only people with opposing views? He is making completely off comments, can't understand sarcasm and quite frankly can't complete an intelligent thought.

Honestly, this guy thinks pretty deep it seems. But I think he is thinking deep on the wrong forum. And if your M1A1 broke down, wouldn't you rather just ride in the newer M2A2? Just putting it out there.

Honestly, this guy thinks pretty deep it seems. But I think he is thinking deep on the wrong forum. And if your M1A1 broke down, wouldn't you rather just ride in the newer M2A2? Just putting it out there.

I'd rather ride in the M1A1 Abrams instead of the M2A2 Bradley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2A2

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16047588/

More tanks are getting broken then built to replace the broken ones due to the war in Iraq.

are you saying that it ever had a respectable army in six years?

: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16047588/

More tanks are getting broken then built to replace the broken ones due to the war in Iraq.

are you saying that it ever had a respectable army in six years?:mp5: :gundge: :upyours:

The US clearly needs a better strategy...I mean all they seem to be doing is simply marching forward and shooting every terrorist they see, not that much of a good strategy, they didn't even plan ahead in this war apparently... :(

Haha! You think we have a strategy! Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Oh wait...

I find it incredably ironic, the DOD will spend almost 500billion hard earned US $$$ to make it the best military in the world, double that of the next highest spender, and still come up short. The US assualt rifle, the M16 is one of the worst weapons ever given to any soldier, the new boots issued, destroy your feet, the armour is failing, the equipment just plain sucks, the HUMVV is incredably sad- no power, no speed, no armour, no firepower. The "friction" between the services is almost deadly, and nearly all equipment is a "use once, then throw away"- what an incredable waste of money and resources. And then the Russians, Chinese, or Germans, just slap some shit together in the heat of the moment and prduce some of the finest most reliable equipment and strategies on ever seen in the history of warfare, (the T34, the AK-47, the katyusha, the Type99, the king tiger, or the ME262)- The US has has this problem for about the past 40 years or so...quite sad.

I find it incredably ironic, the DOD will spend almost 500billion hard earned US $$$ to make it the best military in the world, double that of the next highest spender, and still come up short. The US assualt rifle, the M16 is one of the worst weapons ever given to any soldier, the new boots issued, destroy your feet, the armour is failing, the equipment just plain sucks, the HUMVV is incredably sad- no power, no speed, no armour, no firepower. The "friction" between the services is almost deadly, and nearly all equipment is a "use once, then throw away"- what an incredable waste of money and resources. And then the Russians, Chinese, or Germans, just slap some shit together in the heat of the moment and prduce some of the finest most reliable equipment and strategies on ever seen in the history of warfare, (the T34, the AK-47, the katyusha, the Type99, the king tiger, or the ME262)- The US has has this problem for about the past 40 years or so...quite sad.

"Heat of the moment"?
The T-34 was developed over a course of 3 years.
The AK-47 was developed over a course of 6 years, and drew heavily from the highly successful M1 Garand and also drew elements from the Sturmgewehr 43.
The Katyusha was developed over a course of 3 years.
I have no way of knowing how long the Type 99 took to develop.
The Tiger II I'm unsure of, but it's simply an evolution of earlier tank designs. It even uses the same engine as the original Tiger and Panther (which made it severely underpowered).
The ME262 took 5 years of development.

The Abrams was designed over a course of 6 years.
The M16 was designed in the same time frame as the AK-47. The reason we have a crappy assault rifle is because of politics.
The MLRS was designed over 3 years, same as the Katyusha.

So, really, none of those are "slapped together in the heat of the moment", now are they?

"Heat of the moment"?
The T-34 was developed over a course of 3 years.
The AK-47 was developed over a course of 6 years, and drew heavily from the highly successful M1 Garand and also drew elements from the Sturmgewehr 43.
The Katyusha was developed over a course of 3 years.
I have no way of knowing how long the Type 99 took to develop.
The Tiger II I'm unsure of, but it's simply an evolution of earlier tank designs. It even uses the same engine as the original Tiger and Panther (which made it severely underpowered).
The ME262 took 5 years of development.

The Abrams was designed over a course of 6 years.
The M16 was designed in the same time frame as the AK-47. The reason we have a crappy assault rifle is because of politics.
The MLRS was designed over 3 years, same as the Katyusha.

So, really, none of those are "slapped together in the heat of the moment", now are they?



Well, if you take a look at how much time and effort put into a piece of equipment takes in the US, and for some reason it still turns out to be shit, (I dont totally disagree, the Abrams is awesome) esspecailly with the amount of money poured into testing, then take other nations, witch have much less resources, and money, and or don't put so much into them, yet come out with better and more reliable technology, its just plain akward. And the fact that the AK is derived from the Sturmgewehr 43 is a myth, Kalashnikov and other Russians invented a totally new system.

Well, if you take a look at how much time and effort put into a piece of equipment takes in the US, and for some reason it still turns out to be shit, (I dont totally disagree, the Abrams is awesome) esspecailly with the amount of money poured into testing, then take other nations, witch have much less resources, and money, and or don't put so much into them, yet come out with better and more reliable technology, its just plain akward. And the fact that the AK is derived from the Sturmgewehr 43 is a myth, Kalashnikov and other Russians invented a totally new system.

I didn't say it was derived from the StG44, I said it drew some elements from it. It's not a "totally new system", it's a system that uses explosive force to quickly accelerate an object down a tube, uses grooves to stabilise the projectile, iron sights to align the barrel with the target, a trigger to engage a firing pin... I could go on.
It's double locking lugs, unlocking raceway, and trigger mechanism are from the highly reliable Garand rifle. The cartridge, action, layout, and construction methods are similar to the StG44. The true innovation of the AK-47 is its manufacture: it can be mass-produced like nobody's business.

The M16 was designed in the same time frame as the AK-47. The reason we have a crappy assault rifle is because of politics.


Wasn't it because of the usual lowest bidder thing that most US projects get sent to? If memory serves, the M16A1s were so crappy that in Vietnam, most marines junked theirs in favor of scavenged AKs. Although that had a tendency to raise friendly fire issues due to it having a noticeable report.

I find it incredably ironic, the DOD will spend almost 500billion hard earned US $$$ to make it the best military in the world, double that of the next highest spender, and still come up short. The US assualt rifle, the M16 is one of the worst weapons ever given to any soldier, the new boots issued, destroy your feet, the armour is failing, the equipment just plain sucks, the HUMVV is incredably sad- no power, no speed, no armour, no firepower. The "friction" between the services is almost deadly, and nearly all equipment is a "use once, then throw away"- what an incredable waste of money and resources. And then the Russians, Chinese, or Germans, just slap some shit together in the heat of the moment and prduce some of the finest most reliable equipment and strategies on ever seen in the history of warfare, (the T34, the AK-47, the katyusha, the Type99, the king tiger, or the ME262)- The US has has this problem for about the past 40 years or so...quite sad.

You coudln't possibly more wrong about everything in this post. I'd disect it and point out your flaws but someone has already taken the libery of doing that.

Wasn't it because of the usual lowest bidder thing that most US projects get sent to? If memory serves, the M16A1s were so crappy that in Vietnam, most marines junked theirs in favor of scavenged AKs. Although that had a tendency to raise friendly fire issues due to it having a noticeable report.

Actually, you're half-right, I think. I believe the excellent AR-15 was remodelled into the M16A1 to cut costs.

Actually, you're half-right, I think. I believe the excellent AR-15 was remodelled into the M16A1 to cut costs.

The first M16 was like the second worst gun ever made; first being the French made ChauChau or ChauChaut, one of those two.

However, the gun is unmatched which is why US and the Israelies use it.

The first M16 was like the second worst gun ever made; first being the French made ChauChau or ChauChaut, one of those two.
Never heard of it. But still, how did they go from Napolean to this? It's ridiculous...

However, the gun is unmatched which is why US and the Israelies use it.
It has been a very reliable weapons ever since its initial problems were cleared up.

But, really, nothing is better? That seems unlikely...

You coudln't possibly more wrong about everything in this post. I'd disect it and point out your flaws but someone has already taken the libery of doing that.

not really....

However, the gun is unmatched which is why US and the Israelies use it.

Not really. The M16 is a some 30 odd year old product and there have been quite a few weapons that were significantly better than it in that time span. The reason why the armed forces haven't gone for something else was because there wasn't an overall improvement to a ludricous margin (200% I think) the upper levels wanted.

Look up the weapons that were being submitted into that 21st century soldier project they had going. Plenty of high spec candidates.

:

are you saying that it ever had a respectable army in six years?:mp5: :gundge: :upyours:

Well nations aren't successfully invading the US making jests at its army so they respect it to an extent.

The US assualt rifle, the M16 is one of the worst weapons ever given to any soldier

Not at all. The M16A2 and the M4 are perfectly good rifles. They're far more accurate than AK-47s and these days are quite reliable enough.

the new boots issued, destroy your feet

Where did you hear this? My desert boots worked just fine. I wore one pair for almost 8 months after tearing my other ones up with concertina wire.


[QUOTE=Barbaric Tribes]the armour is failing

What armour? The Interceptor Body Armor is a fantastic system, and the M1 and M2/3 are quite good AFV systems.


the HUMVV is incredably sad- no power, no speed no armour, no firepower.

It has quite sufficient power, I drove HMMWVs around Hohenfehls, Germany for about 6 months total and never got stuck once, and it was in clay mud almost 3 feet deep in places. I had my HMMWV going 80mph (it did take a while to get to that). The M1025/6 isn't armoured, but it wasn't built to be armoured. Driving an armoured HMMWV anywhere but on the road is an easy way to get it stuck. The armoured HMMWVs (M1048s I think) are extremely heavy and only suitable for operations on roads.

As for firepower they can mount M2 .50s, M240s, TOW systems, and Mk 19 automatic grenade launchers. How much more firepower do you want from a utility truck?


The "friction" between the services is almost deadly

Not at all. I was US Army and we worked with National Guard and USMC units on a regular basis. We got along quite well.

and nearly all equipment is a "use once, then throw away"- what an incredable waste of money and resources.

Where do you hear these things? My unit had tents from the 1980s, and both of my canteens were made in the 1970s. CIF (Central Issuing Facility) was one of the biggest headaches I had when in the Army because when you'd move from one unit to another you had to turn all of your equipment in. If it wasn't in immaculate condition you'd buy them a replacement.

the M16 and its predecessor (can't spell in english sorry) when originally used in vietnam had very rubbish rifling which wore out so quickly in combat that it caused the bullets to tumble so there was concern that the US was using dumdum bullets.

However it has matured into a resonable weapon, however in many ways the AK47 and its decendents are superior weapons being less tempermental and simpler and more robust (heavier as well but thats what you get) and the FAL/SLR (a contemporary weapon) was better for skilled troops (SAS who had been used to these weapons when using the M16 found that when they hit targets it didn't always take them down, also they found it had some problems with use in adverse conditions in comparison)

I personally think it falls into the middle ground between simplicity for conscript troops and being a fine tuned weaponsytem. Basicly I think as originally made it was cheap and nasty, but it has got better (though I don't see how it could have got much worse...)

Basically the FAL/SLR did what it was designed for as did the AK47 I don't think the M16 really did.

Also in a return comment to what someone said about a post I made in this thread.

What I was talking about was the fact that our units repair their own equipment except at the very high level where they get shiped off, for example our squadrons repair their aircraft which they can do as they are much higher trained then the US equivelents (I could give you the actual qualification levels but they are british levels which make no sense unless you know them)

The backlog of tanks and other broken-down armored vehicles are seen at the Anniston Army Depot in Anniston, Ala.
Huge backlog in broken-down gear
The military's ground forces are only beginning the vast and costly job of replacing, repairing and upgrading combat equipment -- work that will cost an estimated $17 billion to $19 billion annually for several more years, regardless of any shift in Iraq strategy. The Army alone has 280,000 major pieces of equipment in combat zones that will eventually have to be fixed or replaced. Before the war, the Army spent $2.5 billion to $3 billion a year on wear and tear.
That there is the whole problem.
In World War Two 8th Army had an excellent vehicle recovery program, DAK did too, nothing should go to waste if it is possible to rehaul or overhaul something it should be done, Units workshops worked to repair their gear, shipping it back to the US is just retarded.
That is just plain wasteful.
'Supply system can't keep up with us'
Workers at Anniston take pride in patching, rebuilding and testing the broken-down gear and returning it to like-new condition. Often, they must innovate by taking parts from wrecked vehicles if new parts do not exist or have not been ordered in time.
Somewhat remedies...
In the Pacific the New Zelanders got the Nickname Hydraulics, because they'd lift anything.
An American plane had crashed, just bring it back strip it for parts.





the M16 and its predecessor (can't spell in english sorry) when originally used in vietnam had very rubbish rifling which wore out so quickly in combat that it caused the bullets to tumble so there was concern that the US was using dumdum bullets.
The M-60 had the tumbling 'problem', or at least that is what i heard, though it could rip out chunks of flesh the size of a baseball, they didn't consider it much of a problem.;)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16047588/

More tanks are getting broken then built to replace the broken ones due to the war in Iraq.

did'nt know it was respected in the first place...

The M-60 had the tumbling 'problem', or at least that is what i heard, though it could rip out chunks of flesh the size of a baseball, they didn't consider it much of a problem.;)

The problem being that the bullets didn't actually hit where they were aimed. ...although considering the use of ammunition per killed Vietnamese one could argue that the soldiers weren't even trying to actually hit something, just shooting around to scare people.

Fried Tuna;12055234']The problem being that the bullets didn't actually hit where they were aimed. ...although considering the use of ammunition per killed Vietnamese one could argue that the soldiers weren't even trying to actually hit something, just shooting around to scare people.
I guess that is the problem with a large war industry, wastage.

I guess that is the problem with a large war industry, wastage.

Excuse me I am hijacking my own thread,

I take it people are pissed off at me because of the whole "we're going to die over money" thread I was incredibly stressed out that day and I only read up on the bright side of fuedsalism, my school's texbook only give out positive details on such subjects. (in fear of offending poeple) Now that I know that it was a greedy system thought up by hotheaded monarchs I resent the implication that I am a greedy socialistic bastard who simply disregaurds those unable to work. I prefer being seen as the confused USian git who tries to act British but can't and constantly falls victim to false information. :headbang: I just thought that would apply to the quote on the ecomony in the post above.

Hey, whatever. I've never heard of you before, though. So uhh... good luck - !

Excuse me I am hijacking my own thread,

I take it people are pissed off at me because of the whole "we're going to die over money" thread I was incredibly stressed out that day and I only read up on the bright side of fuedsalism, my school's texbook only give out positive details on such subjects. (in fear of offending poeple) Now that I know that it was a greedy system thought up by hotheaded monarchs I resent the implication that I am a greedy socialistic bastard who simply disregaurds those unable to work. I prefer being seen as the confused USian git who tries to act British but can't and constantly falls victim to false information. :headbang: I just thought that would apply to the quote on the ecomony in the post above.
So you are saying [NS]Fried Tuna is your puppet?

So you are saying [NS]Fried Tuna is your puppet?

No he's not. I quoted a quote on industry which has something to do with economyand because people misunderstood my ideals on economy they hate me now.

Fried Tuna;12055234']The problem being that the bullets didn't actually hit where they were aimed. ...although considering the use of ammunition per killed Vietnamese one could argue that the soldiers weren't even trying to actually hit something, just shooting around to scare people.

Apparently you've never heard of covering fire. War isn't call of duty or halo where you always see your enemy and shoot only to kill. You have to supress your enemy with large volumes of fire so that you can manuever on them and kill them. A platoon size flanking manuever consumes a lot of ammo. You should probably research before you talk next time.