NationStates Jolt Archive

It looks like the Americans are not the only troops that lack the equipment the need to get the job done. Not only do the British troops lack helicopters, but also such mundane and necessary equipment as armored vehicles and binoculars. Looks like their pay also leaves something to be desired.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=56774260-2765-4e5b-b109-fadc83145194&

God bless all the allied troops.

Oh god, not more civilians telling the military what they need.:rolleyes:

Oh god, not more civilians telling the military what they need.:rolleyes:

...did you just call Celtlund a civilian?

That is Celtlund, isn't it?

...did you just call Celtlund a civilian?

That is Celtlund, isn't it?

No, i called a Daily Telegraph reporter a civilian.

Oh god, not more civilians telling the military what they need.:rolleyes:
So you advocate not supplying British troops?

Sucks

So you advocate not supplying British troops?

I advocate giving the military what they goddamn ask for and not what they say that they don't need. A little while back, civilians told the U.S. military that we needed more body armor and more armor for our HMMVS. Now we have lots of body armor taking up space on shelves and HMMVS that can't do 35.

I advocate giving the military what they goddamn ask for and not what they say that they don't need.

I vaguely remember this once.

Civilian: I want this done with 100,000 troops.

General: We need 300,000 troops at least or we won't be able to conduct this op successfully.

Civilian: You're fired.

I vaguely remember this once.

Civilian: I want this done with 100,000 troops.

General: We need 300,000 troops at least or we won't be able to conduct this op successfully.

Civilian: You're fired.

I never thought that you'd be supporting my position in an argument. But i like a nice surprise every once in a while.

Alas the problem with Civilian oversight of the military. Of course the military overseeing itself isn't good.

You think that is bad, our guys should up to a war in the dessert wearing green.

I never thought that you'd be supporting my position in an argument. But i like a nice surprise every once in a while.

I don't agree for the reasons of it, but since I lack a time machine to change the past, I figured I might as well point out other stupid things that civilians in charge do when they aren't qualified to make decisions on it.

The downsides of a democracy I suppose. Joe schmuck with an IQ of a vegetable more often than not gets in power.

I advocate giving the military what they goddamn ask for and not what they say that they don't need. A little while back, civilians told the U.S. military that we needed more body armor and more armor for our HMMVS. Now we have lots of body armor taking up space on shelves and HMMVS that can't do 35.

My best friend in the Marines is thanking God for the armored HMMWV (funny that I know the acronym and you as a Marine don't) he finally got. Saved his life when someone decided to blow up their car smack in front of him.

One of my other friends, from the Army, is cursing not having an armored HMMWV while he is learning to walk with prosthetic legs.

Just because you don't want the armor doesn't mean the military in general doesn't want it.

My best friend in the Marines is thanking God for the armored HMMWV (funny that I know the acronym and you as a Marine don't) he finally got. Saved his life when someone decided to blow up their car smack in front of him.

One of my other friends, from the Army, is cursing not having an armored HMMWV while he is learning to walk with prosthetic legs.

Just because you don't want the armor doesn't mean the military in general doesn't want it.

You don't go to war to be safe. You go to war, to win a war. A vehicle, that can't do shit, won't win that war and will, ultimately, make our forces less safe.

You don't go to war to be safe. You go to war, to win a war. A vehicle, that can't do shit, won't win that war and will, ultimately, make our forces less safe.

Yet oddly my friend with an armored HMMWV got his job done quite well, and he has his legs.

The goal is to win a war, and loosing soldiers needlessly doesn't help you do it.

You don't go to war to be safe. You go to war, to win a war. A vehicle, that can't do shit, won't win that war and will, ultimately, make our forces less safe.
You fail. Thread over.

Yet oddly the friend with an armored HMMWV got his job done quite well, and he has his legs.

The goal is to win a war, and loosing soldiers needlessly doesn't help you do it.

Having a lot of shooter not be able to get out of a kill zone, chase the bad guys, go on long duration patrols or, generally, be combat effective is not an asset to our forces. Not to mention the maintenance needed to keep them running.

You fail. Thread over.

Way to suck. Keep it up.

Having a lot of shooter not be able to get out of a kill zone, chase the bad guys, go on long duration patrols or, generally, be combat effective is not an asset to our forces. Not to mention the maintenance needed to keep them running.

That sentence didn't even make sense. Way to demonstrate intelligence. Care to tell me why my friends unit came back with very few losses and its mission accomplished despite having this evil armor?

That sentence didn't even make sense. Way to demonstrate intelligence. Care to tell me why my friends unit came back with very few losses and its mission accomplished despite having this evil armor?

Yes that sentence does make sense. And what do you mean by mission accomplished? Status quo? PM me his unit and name.

PM me his unit and name.

I'm not PMing you squat, I have no idea who you really are, and I am not giving you personal information of someone else. I wasn't born yesterday, you don't give that stuff out to random people on the internet. Also no, your sentence did not make sense. It didn't even make grammatical sense.

I might be mistaken but I believe the British infantryman has long been considered the best trained in NATO, as well as one of the worst equipped.

I'm not PMing you squat, I have no idea who you really are, and I am not giving you personal information of someone else. I wasn't born yesterday, you don't give that stuff out to random people on the internet.

A name isn't going to kill anyone.

All that the armor has done is increase the power of IED's and reduced our combat effectiveness. Now we are seeing Iran get involved by supplying shaped charges. It has just escalated to the point where we can't get rid of it but if we hadn't gotten it, we would be in a much better place.

A name isn't going to kill anyone.While he's at it he might as well include his SS number....you know to make it easier to confirm whether or not his friend actually was in the military.

A name isn't going to kill anyone.

All that the armor has done is increase the power of IED's and reduced our combat effectiveness. Now we are seeing Iran get involved by supplying shaped charges. It has just escalated to the point where we can't get rid of it but if we hadn't gotten it, we would be in a much better place.

A name and unit can, depending on who you are in real life. It can assist in crimes such as stalking, identity theft, etc. No, you aren't getting it.

That isn't an argument against armor any more than the eventual development of the SA-2 is an argument against buying the B-52 before the SA-2 was deployed. The fact that they have to resort to more powerful IEDs in order to kill our troops only means we are doing something right.

The answer is to continue to develop technologies that will allow our troops to accomplish their mission, and not die and thereby stress our already weak numbers and inability to recruit enough.

I suppose you won't be happy until all of your fellow leathernecks are dead, though. I for one want to still have them as friends, and not attend another funeral. My cousin's was enough for me. If you want, I will give you his name. Lieutenant Colonel David S. Greene.

A name and unit can, depending on who you are in real life. It can assist in crimes such as stalking, identity theft, etc. No, you aren't getting it.
I'm certainly not an expert but I'm pretty certain that it can not. Are you going to stop telling people your name now?

That isn't an argument against armor any more than the eventual development of the SA-2 is an argument against buying the B-52 before the SA-2 was deployed. The fact that they have to resort to more powerful IEDs in order to kill our troops only means we are doing something right.
If no B-52's would be able to penetrate and all it would be was a waste of money that would get more people killed, then that argument would be pretty damn good.

The fact that they have to resort to them is good. The fact that they are is bad. It means that we have much more lethal explosives to deal with.

The answer is to continue to develop technologies that will allow our troops to accomplish their mission, and not die and thereby stress our already weak numbers and inability to recruit enough.
The answer is to secure the roads by having enough assets in country. There is no other solution.
I suppose you won't be happy until all of your fellow leathernecks are dead, though. I for one want to still have them as friends, and not attend another funeral. My cousin's was enough for me. If you want, I will give you his name. Lieutenant Colonel David S. Greene.
No, the increased armor only creates a situation of escalation where more are killed and we are less effective.

And my condolences to your family for your loss and I don't mean to be callous but his death has nothing to do with armor.

I never thought that you'd be supporting my position in an argument. But i like a nice surprise every once in a while.

Hey, it's an obvious position. If you're gonna have a military such as the US's (more than a defensive militia), they're going to need certain supplies for certain operations. Best to have those who know best take care of supplies.

EDIT: And if we can't afford the EQ, we can't do the op.

It looks like the Americans are not the only troops that lack the equipment the need to get the job done. Not only do the British troops lack helicopters, but also such mundane and necessary equipment as armored vehicles and binoculars. Looks like their pay also leaves something to be desired.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=56774260-2765-4e5b-b109-fadc83145194&

God bless all the allied troops.

They should join the Canadian military. Not only do we have helicopters, but they also routinely 'land' at very high velocity :p

If no B-52's would be able to penetrate and all it would be was a waste of money that would get more people killed, then that argument would be pretty damn good.

By your logic, we should scrap the entire military. Every piece of tech and equipment we have will in the future be countered by the enemy. We should not by F-22s now, because in the future someone will develop the ability to get through its stealth. We should retire all battle tanks, because in the future our enemies will be able to defeat them easily. We should get rid of ....

The argument that the enemy had to get more powerful stuff in order to accomplish the goal of killing us is proof that better armor works. It is also evidence that the battlefield isn't static.

until there is not one casualty on our side in result from a war there will always be "reports" of our troops not being equipped enough. even then they would still say that they are not equipped well enough.

through out history wars have been fought by soldiers that have not been fully equipped. its not much of a surprise that this one is any different.

And my condolences to your family for your loss and I don't mean to be callous but his death has nothing to do with armor.

I never claimed it did. Show me where I said David would be alive if he had more armor. He actually HAD armor, he was in a Cobra that has armor.

It is also evidence that the battlefield isn't static.

Maybe some sort of stasis ray is in order?

I never claimed it did. Show me where I said David would be alive if he had more armor. He actually HAD armor, he was in a Cobra that has armor.

So i heard.

By your logic, we should scrap the entire military. Every piece of tech and equipment we have will in the future be countered by the enemy. We should not by F-22s now, because in the future someone will develop the ability to get through its stealth. We should retire all battle tanks, because in the future our enemies will be able to defeat them easily. We should get rid of ....
That's not at all what I'm saying. If doing something is counter-productive, you shouldn't do it. If we hadn't upped the armor, we would still have the less lethal IED's, our forces would have more mobility (if you look to people like William Lind, that is key in the COIN op) and it's very possible that Iran wouldn't have gotten involved in the way that it has.

The argument that the enemy had to get more powerful stuff in order to accomplish the goal of killing us is proof that better armor works. It is also evidence that the battlefield isn't static.
It's real simple

Before- Small IEDs, a few deaths

After- Big IEDs that armor can't stop and death rate in attacks is increased b/c of bigger explosions and the more potential for fragments of armor flying through the air at high velocities.

It's the difference between American Football and Rugby - we British simply do not need mounds of equipment to 'keep us safe' while playing these testosterone 'games of war'. The Americans need tight running pants, huge reinforced breastplates and shoulder pads, titanium helmets and incomprehensible rules, which combat the natural US tendency to cheat.

We need a pair of shorts, a collared top and a keen sense of fair play.

That's what won us the Empire!

God save the Queen tra la la

That's not at all what I'm saying.

It is precisely what you are saying. Look at what you are typing. Here, I'll try my hand at it.

Before: our aircraft are susceptible to detection by enemy radar and tracking by air defense systems and SAMS.

Solution: Buy F-22

After: Enemy develops better radar and SAMs, so the F-22 can be shot down.

By your logic, we should scrap all military equipment.

It is precisely what you are saying. Look at what you are typing. Here, I'll try my hand at it.

Before: our aircraft are susceptible to detection by enemy radar and tracking by air defense systems and SAMS.

Solution: Buy F-22

After: Enemy develops better radar and SAMs, so the F-22 can be shot down.

By your logic, we should scrap all military equipment.

If we had that advantage for any time at all, it would be a good investment. If they immediately developed the radar and SAMs it was a waste of time and money that could have been spent on better TTPs or a revolutionary system.

If we had that advantage for any time at all, it would be a good investment. If they immediately developed the radar and SAMs it was a waste of time and money that could have been spent on better TTPs or a revolutionary system.

Given that the enemy did not "immediately" have better IEDs, and such, they had to make them and/or buy them, you just made my argument for me. Thanks for that.

Given that the enemy did not "immediately" have better IEDs, and such, they had to make them and/or buy them, you just made my argument for me. Thanks for that.

Thus creating the IED industry. Yup, that's a HUGE plus.

And yes, it was almost immediately.

Thus creating the IED industry. Yup, that's a HUGE plus.

And yes, it was almost immediately.

The IED industry already existed, in fact it had since before we went into Iraq. It existed in other wars.

Define "almost immediately". Hell, let's put it into the context of another war. World War II. In that war, especially in the air, equipment might go from cutting edge to obsolete in a couple of months. War brings technology advancement, anyone following history would know that.

The answer then was not to stick with old outdated equipment that got your pilots killed. It isn't to stick with old equipment or lack thereof that gets our soldiers killed today. Yeah, it is expensive to keep up. If we don't like spending the money, maybe we should not have gotten into this war of choice rather than war of necessity.

I believe USMC was argueing that heavy armour for Hummers reduces their effectiveness for their stated mission/purpose/whatever, that being a light recon/transport vehicle. Theyre trucks, not tanks, and as such they dont do well when you throw six inches of plate steel on the sides.
Of course, the humvee wasnt intended for use in the circumstances which its presently being employed, I'd say that the streets of urban Iraq are more suited to Bradleys right now meself, but that would look bad to the Iraqi's of course, since nobody wants tanks rolling down their streets every day.
So, for the purposes of patrolling the streets of Baghdad, yes, slapping extra armour on the sides of your humvee is probobly a good idea unless you have an IFV handy.

(shrug)

Of course, the best way to win the war in Iraq would simply be to firebomb everything within a mile radius of any sort of insurgent activity, but THAT would be bad for international relations.
Would look pretty from the ISS though.

American's aren't the only ones...? Whu? I was expecting any sort of thread on this to be the other way round.

I've always been under the impression that US troops are the ideal to aspire to when considering equipment. At least that's the way the humour goes in the UK. And I'm fairly sure the British armed forces do complain frequently about their equipment. That is when you also consider the British armed forces penchant for British traditions - like having a stiff upper lip and all that.

I think what it mainly comes down to is the SA80.
This poor reputation lead to regular criticism by British soldiers and marines, a fact picked up by the UK media, for example the Bremner, Bird and Fortune satirical comedy documentary 'Between Iraq and a Hard Place' included the line: "The SA80 is a lethal weapon, especially for the person trying to fire it," stolen from a description of the Vietnam War era M16.

American's aren't the only ones...? Whu? I was expecting any sort of thread on this to be the other way round.

I've always been under the impression that US troops are the ideal to aspire to when considering equipment. At least that's the way the humour goes in the UK. And I'm fairly sure the British armed forces do complain frequently about their equipment. That is when you also consider the British armed forces penchant for British traditions - like having a stiff upper lip and all that.

I think what it mainly comes down to is the SA80.

It largely comes down to operating with less than you are used to, in my days in the British Army we thought we were in paradise when a (Dutch) mobile shower unit turned up, whereas the Americans seemed to have a mobile Disneyland that came and set up for them. When US troops were tasked to operate with us they couldn't believe the conditions we were expected to endure, but equally I was always amazed that in the German army you had to be a SNCO or officer before you got a map, everyone else had to make sketches of their operational area, so one man's unacceptable level of supply is another man's SOP.

I never had a problem with the SA80, in fact I went from being lucky to hit a cows arse with a banjo whilst using the SLR to getting 98 out of a possible 100 with the SA80. That being said I never used it in extreme conditions.

The British Army is now, and has been for years, hideously badly equipped.

This from the mouths of squaddies - not enough helis, land rovers, the weapons break (less often than they used to), our boots only recently stopped melting in the heat, our Warriors' main guns jam a lot, we don't have enough Warriors, we don't have enough troops (not surprisingly, people don't want to volunteer to die), we don't have enough infra-red, enough binoculars, etc etc etc.

On the plus side, the British soldier is one of the best in the world. As a result, they cope...

...but I still say that it's madness to have an armed forces with crap logistics ability, crap equipment, and designed to die on the plains of Germany be fighting a 21st Century war in the deserts of the middle east and central asia.

I don't know about you, Captain Leathernecks, but I for one would like to know that the poor bastards dying as auxiliaries for your country's fucked-up foreign policy at least had enough armoured inserts for flak jackets to go around.

As far as "wah armour doesn't mean shit", you're talking out of your arse, mate.

Yes, a sufficiently large roadside bomb will ruin anyone's day, cf. the Merkava the IDF lost in 2004/5 to a 1 ton bomb in the Gaza strip. HOWEVER, giving troops armoured vehicles will reduce casualties, improve morale, and - even better - give cover when they get ambushed with small arms. As far as speed goes, that's what heliborne insertion and the special forces are for; regular infantry can quite happily pootle around at 40-50mph and defeat the enemy.

It looks like the Americans are not the only troops that lack the equipment the need to get the job done. Not only do the British troops lack helicopters, but also such mundane and necessary equipment as armored vehicles and binoculars. Looks like their pay also leaves something to be desired.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=56774260-2765-4e5b-b109-fadc83145194&

God bless all the allied troops.

This isn't really anything new, at the beginning of the Iraq war there were complaints that they weren't even armoured properly. If all they're missing now is binoculars, I'd call that an improvement!

That's not at all what I'm saying. If doing something is counter-productive, you shouldn't do it. If we hadn't upped the armor, we would still have the less lethal IED's, our forces would have more mobility (if you look to people like William Lind, that is key in the COIN op) and it's very possible that Iran wouldn't have gotten involved in the way that it has.


It's real simple

Before- Small IEDs, a few deaths

After- Big IEDs that armor can't stop and death rate in attacks is increased b/c of bigger explosions and the more potential for fragments of armor flying through the air at high velocities.


So, you are saying with absolute certainty that the insurgents would not have continued to refine IEDs to inflict maximum damage were it not for armour? That shaped charges and other more powerfull weapons would not have been developed because the insurgents are content with inflicting minimal damage?


Interesting position to be taking, however I'm somewhat doubtful of the premise.

Or indeed, to refute your entire BS premise:

I advocate giving the military what they goddamn ask for and not what they say that they don't need. A little while back, civilians told the U.S. military that we needed more body armor and more armor for our HMMVS. Now we have lots of body armor taking up space on shelves and HMMVS that can't do 35.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/07armor.html?ex=1294290000&en=ff21d2fbfcae4825&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

...

For the first time, the study by the military's medical examiner shows the cost in lives from inadequate armor, even as the Pentagon continues to publicly defend its protection of the troops.

Officials have said they are shipping the best armor to Iraq as quickly as possible. At the same time, they have maintained that it is impossible to shield forces from the increasingly powerful improvised explosive devices used by insurgents in Iraq. Yet the Pentagon's own study reveals the equally lethal threat of bullets.

...

Military officials said they had originally decided against using the extra plates because they were concerned they added too much weight to the vests or constricted the movement of soldiers. Marine Corps officials said the findings of the Pentagon study caused field commanders to override those concerns in the interest of greater protection.


Similarly, and lest we forget, it was a soldier in the field asking why they were having to sift through landfills to up-armour their own humvees with scrap metal that led to Rummy's infamous "you go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you wished to have" comment.

But hey, that's only the soldiers in the field requesting armour both for personal and vehicular use. But WTF do they know?


After all, it's the civillians pushing it on them... not them asking for it... right?

WRONG!

The British Army is now, and has been for years, hideously badly equipped.

This from the mouths of squaddies - not enough helis, land rovers, the weapons break (less often than they used to), our boots only recently stopped melting in the heat, our Warriors' main guns jam a lot, we don't have enough Warriors, we don't have enough troops (not surprisingly, people don't want to volunteer to die), we don't have enough infra-red, enough binoculars, etc etc etc.

On the plus side, the British soldier is one of the best in the world. As a result, they cope...

...but I still say that it's madness to have an armed forces with crap logistics ability, crap equipment, and designed to die on the plains of Germany be fighting a 21st Century war in the deserts of the middle east and central asia.

A wonderful British tradition which goes back centruies.
I believe the British army was one of the few during the 1870's which was replacing its breech-loading cannons with muzzle-loaders, on the basis that muzzle-loaders were more accurate. It took them five years to realize that muzzle-loaders were on the way out and to start frantically buying up every spare Austrian gun they could lay their hands on.
Gotta love the various military high commands with their policies on not changing anything unless they absolutly have to.

Oh god, not more civilians telling the military what they need.:rolleyes:

Newsflash

In a democratic society, the civilians are in charge of the military.

These shiny uniforms that the Marines and Army and Navy wear on parades? They are there to designate that the soldiers are a separate class of society – a servant class.

We honor soldiers, and we pay them, and so forth – but it is the civilian government, elected by civilians, that decides what funding is necessary for the military.

And it is fully legitimate for civilians to decide, and advocate, and vote, for their views on how the military is funded and what it is for, and what actions it will take.

The soldier's oath of service, in a democratic society, binds him as a servant for the will of the people.

It is civilians that decide to send soldiers to die for a worthless island thousands of miles away, it is civilians that decide to increase military funding or decrease it, to go to war over ideology, land, security, whatever.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Soldiers are not in charge of society.

Civilians are in charge. Soldiers are servants. Willing servants, professional servants, valiant and noble servants – but servants nonetheless.

Yes, this sometimes gets in the way of military effectiveness.

But in a modern society, the civilians do not exist for the soldiers.

The soldiers exist, and fight, and die for the civilians.

Yeah, this may not exactly make soldiers happy.

But the alternative is fascism.

It largely comes down to operating with less than you are used to, in my days in the British Army we thought we were in paradise when a (Dutch) mobile shower unit turned up, whereas the Americans seemed to have a mobile Disneyland that came and set up for them. When US troops were tasked to operate with us they couldn't believe the conditions we were expected to endure, but equally I was always amazed that in the German army you had to be a SNCO or officer before you got a map, everyone else had to make sketches of their operational area, so one man's unacceptable level of supply is another man's SOP.
Quite.

The main issue people are having at the moment, as far as what people over there now have said to me, is that we still have too many green uniforms on show in Afghanistan.

Even if it's now only translators who get them in proper combat units, they're still marked out horribly from most of the terrain, and for troops back in base, unless the cameras are on, it's green all-'round.

That and the fact that we're still mostly using water bottles instead of those backpack-with-a-straw-or-two devices people spend quite a bit of money on taking with them because they're not supplied as standard.
I never had a problem with the SA80, in fact I went from being lucky to hit a cows arse with a banjo whilst using the SLR to getting 98 out of a possible 100 with the SA80. That being said I never used it in extreme conditions.
Nor have people I know using it in Iraq and Afghanistan - after the A2 was brought out properly, most of the jamming problems have gone, and we're left with a particularly excellent weapon.

Just a shame that bored ex-Marines with nothing better to do in their spare time write into the Telegraph and complain about it, saying that the SLR was oh so much better etc. etc.

Yet oddly my friend with an armored HMMWV got his job done quite well, and he has his legs.

The goal is to win a war, and loosing soldiers needlessly doesn't help you do it.

What your friend apparently did is not good enough to form an argument tbh.

well currently the British supply strategy is based off a supermarkets (Tesco) which has gone tits up because a 'just on time' strategy doesn't work in operation zones

not that we haven't always had a problem with are jam stealer's

Nor have people I know using it in Iraq and Afghanistan - after the A2 was brought out properly, most of the jamming problems have gone, and we're left with a particularly excellent weapon.

one of the best guns in the world IMO even if it has cost a few million to get it working and the bayonet can't cut laces :p

You folks do realise that our 'Leatherneck' is not really a Marine yes?

You folks do realise that our 'Leatherneck' is not really a Marine yes?

not really no, either that or he is very good at being a silly American soldier

not really no, either that or he is very good at being a silly American soldier

When it comes to military matters and foreign affairs...silly is a good reference.

Newsflash

In a democratic society, the civilians are in charge of the military.

These shiny uniforms that the Marines and Army and Navy wear on parades? They are there to designate that the soldiers are a separate class of society – a servant class.

We honor soldiers, and we pay them, and so forth – but it is the civilian government, elected by civilians, that decides what funding is necessary for the military.

And it is fully legitimate for civilians to decide, and advocate, and vote, for their views on how the military is funded and what it is for, and what actions it will take.

The soldier's oath of service, in a democratic society, binds him as a servant for the will of the people.

It is civilians that decide to send soldiers to die for a worthless island thousands of miles away, it is civilians that decide to increase military funding or decrease it, to go to war over ideology, land, security, whatever.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Soldiers are not in charge of society.

Civilians are in charge. Soldiers are servants. Willing servants, professional servants, valiant and noble servants – but servants nonetheless.

Yes, this sometimes gets in the way of military effectiveness.

But in a modern society, the civilians do not exist for the soldiers.

The soldiers exist, and fight, and die for the civilians.

Yeah, this may not exactly make soldiers happy.

But the alternative is fascism.

Thing is, if the Field Marshals, Admirals and the "insert RAF equivalent" wanted to they could take over the country and kill allot of people. It’s because a fear of a coo that the British armed forces are never gathered together in significantly large numbers on native soil.

And it is fully legitimate for civilians to decide, and advocate, and vote, for their views on how the military is funded and what it is for, and what actions it will take. Civilians are not military professionals. What should happen is the Government asks the heads of the forces to do something, and then the leaders of the Forces take the appropriate action. After that point all they need is money from the Government. You wouldn’t get a barrister to do an accountants job would you?

When it comes to military matters and foreign affairs...silly is a good reference.

I rest my case

I rest my case

Have a cushion ;)

What your friend apparently did is not good enough to form an argument tbh.

It is as good as anything Leathernecks has brought.

It’s because a fear of a coo that the British armed forces are never gathered together in significantly large numbers on native soil.


Whoa, where'd that one come from?

I prefer the Steyr Aug better, though I admit I have handled neither the Sa80A2 or the Steyr Aug F88.

Civilians are not military professionals. What should happen is the Government asks the heads of the forces to do something, and then the leaders of the Forces take the appropriate action. After that point all they need is money from the Government.

I'd agree with that though there still has to be a large amount of oversight.

A series of civilian military advisors would be useful for the g'ment and military as well.

...did you just call Celtlund a civilian?

That is Celtlund, isn't it?

Yep, it's me. That's OK as he probably didn't know me in my former life. :D

No, the increased armor only creates a situation of escalation where more are killed and we are less effective.

I have no doubt in my military mind that you have no idea what you are talking about. You sound like a wantabe soldier or a shavetale with less than six months in service. If you are the later, you need to learn a whole lot more.

I have no doubt in my military mind that you have no idea what you are talking about. You sound like a wantabe soldier or a shavetale with less than six months in service. If you are the later, you need to learn a whole lot more.

Well, he does have a small point in regards to escalation. But if we took it to it's logical extreme, all wars would be fought with fists and mud. LG would love it.

What should happen is the Government asks the heads of the forces to do something, and then the leaders of the Forces take the appropriate action.


And then they screw up, and regular joes elect a new Government which appoints new Generals, Marshals, etc. :D

Well, he does have a small point in regards to escalation. But if we took it to it's logical extreme, all wars would be fought with fists and mud. LG would love it.

Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make when I told Leathernecks that by his logic, we would scrap every piece of military we currently have, or at the very least cancel every future military project.

Military tech is, has been, and always will be a race between you and the other guy trying to out do you.

Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make when I told Leathernecks that by his logic, we would scrap every piece of military we currently have, or at the very least cancel every future military project.

Military tech is, has been, and always will be a race between you and the other guy trying to out do you.

No, not quite. This race is a bit different. We are taking an ill equipped vehicle and turning it into a vehicle that it can't be. In doing this, we force the insurgency to up the power of its explosives, a very easy task. With this, the IEDs can now take out M1s. We took our problem of humvees getting hit, fucked up our humvees, and made all of our other vehicles vulnerable.

The correct solution would not have been to lessen the effectiveness of our humvees but to change our TTPs. We should have integrated with the population from the beginning. That was a mistake that is now being acknowledged and is trying to be rectified.

Oh god, not more civilians telling the military what they need.:rolleyes:

Unless you live in Bangladesh or Pakistan USMC, the military does whatever the civilian authority tells them to do, it's called democracy.

Unless you live in Bangladesh or Pakistan USMC, the military does whatever the civilian authority tells them to do, it's called democracy.

Did I say that orders wouldn't be followed? No. Did I say that when people who aren't qualified to make decisions, make decisions, things get messed up? Yes.

Did I say that orders wouldn't be followed? No. Did I say that when people who aren't qualified to make decisions, make decisions, things get messed up? Yes.

Qualified? Your elitism shines through clearly, the common elected representative has more right in military matters than the general, who wasn't elected by the people.

Qualified? Your elitism shines through clearly, the common elected representative has more right in military matters than the general, who wasn't elected by the people.

That makes no sense at all. Would you consider it elitist if a doctor were to say that an HMO was not qualified to make medical decisions? No, it would be common sense. The same applies here.

That makes no sense at all. Would you consider it elitist if a doctor were to say that an HMO was not qualified to make medical decisions? No, it would be common sense. The same applies here.

There is no contradiction, everyone has a brain and everyone has an opinion, and it doesn't take more than a few days to read a book, I am saying that eduction does not put anyones view above anyone elses. I mean for Pete sake, I know more about military hardware from wiki reading than my brother who is an army reservist.

There is no contradiction, everyone has a brain and everyone has an opinion, and it doesn't take more than a few days to read a book, I am saying that eduction does not put anyones view above anyone elses. I mean for Pete sake, I know more about military hardware from wiki reading than my brother who is an army reservist.

You are suggesting that it doesn't matter if you know what the hell you are talking about, your opinion is equal to anyone else's. That notion is just false. And on a side note, knowing hardware has no affect on knowing what to do and how to handle certain situations.

I'd have to agree with one of you in this particular topic.

I'd have to agree with one of you in this particular topic.

Which one?

You'll have to guess that :D . EDIT: In response to the below post, yes, I agree with you.

You'll have to guess that :D .

You agree with me. End of story.


And I suspect that Andaras does also. He thought the argument was about civilian control over the military and, upon being told that it wasn't, is just being stubborn.

You agree with me. End of story.


And I suspect that Andaras does also. He thought the argument was about civilian control over the military and, upon being told that it wasn't, is just being stubborn.

Was was once a non-answer may indeed contain it.

Was was once a non-answer may indeed contain it.

Unless I am missing something, that sentence makes no sense.

Unless I am missing something, that sentence makes no sense.

I may have edited a post...

The thing is that Western militaries -- especially the poorer ones -- have been forced to resort to commercial logistics mechanisms that are not practical in the military situation. In such a situation, simple things can become real problems. Things like machine gun barrels that are worn through because there are not enough spare barrels to cope with an extended war. Minor things cause massive problems in a long shooting war.

The British armed forces -- all services -- had enough, relatively, to go round in peacetime, but with the replacement of ageing equipment, such as aircraft carriers, destroyers, fighter aircraft, etc., taking a significant portion of the existing defence budget as well as an expensive war effort in two distant theatres, the three services are suffering terribly.

The US armed forces may have less to complain about -- except, perhaps, the M16-M4 weapon family because of direct impingement recoil mechanism and its associated issues as well as the relative lack of stopping power of the 5.56mm round -- but they are overextended as well, especially because of the present government's decision to do things "on the cheap".

With respect to IEDs, the insurgents would have developed weapons that could punch through a tank's armour in any case. After all, it isn't just the HMMVW's the insurgents were after. The "technology" has been around since the 1940s, is readily available via the internet or other sources (such as one's local library or television shows), and other insurgents, such as Palestinian groups, the remnants of various European Red Brigades, etc., as well as from Iran. The evolution of the IEDs striking power may have been significant, but almost inevitable.

The thing is that Western militaries -- especially the poorer ones -- have been forced to resort to commercial logistics mechanisms that are not practical in the military situation. In such a situation, simple things can become real problems. Things like machine gun barrels that are worn through because there are not enough spare barrels to cope with an extended war. Minor things cause massive problems in a long shooting war.

The British armed forces -- all services -- had enough, relatively, to go round in peacetime, but with the replacement of ageing equipment, such as aircraft carriers, destroyers, fighter aircraft, etc., taking a significant portion of the existing defence budget as well as an expensive war effort in two distant theatres, the three services are suffering terribly.

The US armed forces may have less to complain about -- except, perhaps, the M16-M4 weapon family because of direct impingement recoil mechanism and its associated issues as well as the relative lack of stopping power of the 5.56mm round -- but they are overextended as well, especially because of the present government's decision to do things "on the cheap".

With respect to IEDs, the insurgents would have developed weapons that could punch through a tank's armour in any case. After all, it isn't just the HMMVW's the insurgents were after. The "technology" has been around since the 1940s, is readily available via the internet or other sources (such as one's local library or television shows), and other insurgents, such as Palestinian groups, the remnants of various European Red Brigades, etc., as well as from Iran. The evolution of the IEDs striking power may have been significant, but almost inevitable.

Yeah I agree, deregulation of the economy and privatisation in the military (as was also done in the public sector in the 90s) has made both the military beholden to commercial interest, and extremely inefficient in duplication of effort and waste.

Yeah I agree, deregulation of the economy and privatisation in the military (as was also done in the public sector in the 90s) has made both the military beholden to commercial interest, and extremely inefficient in duplication of effort and waste.


I thought the beef was with the military having too much, too good expensive weapons?

Private military suppliers are what gave the world the most important weapons developements in the last 200 years.

To wit:

Standartization of parts, Smokeless powder, semi-automatic and automatic weapons, stealth aircraft, nonlethal denial systems, anti-IED weapons, etc.

I thought the beef was with the military having too much, too good expensive weapons?

Private military suppliers are what gave the world the most important weapons developements in the last 200 years.

To wit:

Standartization of parts, Smokeless powder, semi-automatic and automatic weapons, stealth aircraft, nonlethal denial systems, anti-IED weapons, etc.

The US has enormous problems with getting efficient equiptment between the contractor and the military itself. Plus on the political side having non-state private firms with their own agendas holding the means of production for military equiptment which is used to defend the polity of a specific nation is dangerous in the extreme.

The US has enormous problems with getting efficient equiptment between the contractor and the military itself. Plus on the political side having non-state private firms with their own agendas holding the means of production for military equiptment which is used to defend the polity of a specific nation is dangerous in the extreme.

On this argument, having private entities (individuals) with their own agendas recruited on a volunteer basis, for pay, to defend the polity of one specific naiton is dangerous in the extreme.

On this argument, having private entities (individuals) with their own agendas recruited on a volunteer basis, for pay, to defend the polity of one specific naiton is dangerous in the extreme.

Is every individual as powerful as Haliburton, no.

Is every individual as powerful as Haliburton, no.

Think of it... it only makes sense... when the population does not support the war anymore, enlistment falls off. This is bad for moral and strategic power. We need the draft back. (that's essentially the final conclusion from your argument).

For me, it's a question of the "just in time" logistics method enacted by politicians and politicised senior officers as a cost-saving measure based on the spurious peacetime logic of "well, the troops don't need it now, so why buy it?" Once a war does come around, however, problems arise. That's especially true nowadays when it can take several months (up to a year, if not longer) to produce a complicated modern weapon such as a tank or aircraft, times that cannot be shortened because certain production processes, like preparing thermoplastic airframe components, ceramics, etc., cannot be accelerated.

I advocate giving the military what they goddamn ask for and not what they say that they don't need. A little while back, civilians told the U.S. military that we needed more body armor and more armor for our HMMVS. Now we have lots of body armor taking up space on shelves and HMMVS that can't do 35.

<----In Iraq

Where were you at that you didn't have to wear your IBA or need a frag5 kit? Please let me know so I can put in a 4187 requesting to be moved there.

-SPC 'Arizonora'

<----In Iraq

Where were you at that you didn't have to wear your IBA or need a frag5 kit? Please let me know so I can put in a 4187 requesting to be moved there.

-SPC 'Arizonora'

Don't ask him questions like that, now he's got to go and look up IBA, frag5 kit and 4187 in his Walter Mitty's book of the Marine Corps before he can answer you.

<----In Iraq

Where were you at that you didn't have to wear your IBA or need a frag5 kit? Please let me know so I can put in a 4187 requesting to be moved there.

-SPC 'Arizonora'

My Battalion Cmmdr left it up to each CO to decide the SOP for armor. I gave orders to up armor all of the humvees but left the body armor optional to each Marine.

My Battalion Cmmdr left it up to each CO to decide the SOP for armor. I gave orders to up armor all of the humvees but left the body armor optional to each Marine.

Of course you did.

Don't ask him questions like that, now he's got to go and look up IBA, frag5 kit and 4187 in his Walter Mitty's book of the Marine Corps before he can answer you.

IBA: ___ Ballistic armour?

Frag5: Is it a medical kit?

4187: ..... I have no clue what that is.....

IBA: ___ Ballistic armour?

Frag5: Is it a medical kit?

4187: ..... I have no clue what that is.....

We used to have NIBA which stood for Northern Ireland Body Armour, and then we got INIBA which was Improved Northern Ireland Body Armour, so IBA could be Iraq Body Armour, but I'd probably go with Individual Body Armour, or Armor them being Septics and incapable of writing the Queen's English;)

frag5, no idea

4187 I Imagine from the context is some form of request for a transfer.

My Battalion Cmmdr left it up to each CO to decide the SOP for armor. I gave orders to up armor all of the humvees but left the body armor optional to each Marine.

Why would you give orders to up the armor for the Humvees when you have multiple times stated that disables their tactical capabilities? Does it make them useless or doesn't it?

Why would you give orders to up the armor for the Humvees when you have multiple times stated that disables their tactical capabilities? Does it make them useless or doesn't it?

I would have much rather just changed the way that we operated, from inside the town. Instead of commuting in.

I gave orders to up armor all of the humvees but left the body armor optional to each Marine.

What kind of an order did you give? Was it a legal order or a lawful order? Is there a difference between the two? Who can give which type of order?

What kind of an order did you give? Was it a legal order or a lawful order? Is there a difference between the two? Who can give which type of order?

What the hell are you talking about?

What the hell are you talking about?

If you do not know the difference between a legal order and a lawful order, you are not in the military. But let's try another question. Who in the military can give a lawful order?

The terms are interchangable to my knowledge. And if there is a difference, I assume that you'd have to be JAG to be taught it.

Let's try these;
1. Who in the military can give a lawful order?
2. Can an E-8 in the Air Force give an order to an E-5 in the Navy?
3. What is the highest enlisted rank in Marine Corps?
4. Which of the following is the higher rank WO-3 or O-2?

Let's try these;
1. Who in the military can give a lawful order?
2. Can an E-8 in the Air Force give an order to an E-5 in the Navy?
3. What is the highest enlisted rank in Marine Corps?
4. Which of the following is the higher rank WO-3 or O-2?

1. Anybody from higher rank to lower

2. Yes

3. E-9

4. O2

1. Anybody from higher rank to lower

2. Yes

3. E-9

4. O2

#2 Wrong answer. Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps is the correct answer.

#2 Wrong answer. Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps is the correct answer.

While the SMOMC does have superiority, he is also an E-9.

Originally Posted by USMC leathernecks2 View Post
The terms are interchangable to my knowledge. And if there is a difference, I assume that you'd have to be JAG to be taught it.

By the way, they are not interchangable and you do not have to be a JAG to know the difference. The difference is taught to all military members in basic training. So, why did you delete your answer?

Originally Posted by USMC leathernecks2 View Post
The terms are interchangable to my knowledge. And if there is a difference, I assume that you'd have to be JAG to be taught it.

By the way, they are not interchangable and you do not have to be a JAG to know the difference. The difference is taught to all military members in basic training. So, why did you delete your answer?

Why did I delete it? Because I realized that I was probably wrong. And no, I was never taught it. You are the one who doesn't even know that the SMOMC is an E-9.

Why did I delete it? Because I realized that I was probably wrong. And no, I was never taught it. You are the one who doesn't even know that the SMOMC is an E-9.

But, to turn it around, not every E-9 is the SMOMC.

His answer was more specific than yours.

But, to turn it around, not every E-9 is the SMOMC.

His answer was more specific than yours.

And my answer was completely accurate.

*Looks at all of the stuff self doesn't know*

And my answer was completely accurate.


I'm not saying that your answer wasn't technically correct. I'm just saying that telling him that his more specific answer was incorrect is bullsh*t.

Unless, of course, you are saying that the SMMC does not feel that he outranks all other E-9s?

I'm not saying that your answer wasn't technically correct. I'm just saying that telling him that his more specific answer was incorrect is bullsh*t.

Unless, of course, you are saying that the SMMC does not feel that he outranks all other E-9s?

I didn't say that his answer was wrong. I said that he didn't know that the SMOMC was an E-9. There is no contradiction.

I would have much rather just changed the way that we operated, from inside the town. Instead of commuting in.

You did not answer my question. You have gone on and on telling us that adding armor to Humvees disables their being of any use.

I am questioning why you would give an order that you claim disables your Humvees. I at this point am also beginning to question whether or not you are actually in the military.

You did not answer my question. You have gone on and on telling us that adding armor to Humvees disables their being of any use.
Yes, I did answer your question. While I feel that the armor has initiated a sort of arms race that is not good for us, my small part would not change that arms race. Better I have the minimally extra protection for my Marines than not if we were going to continue fighting the way that we were.
I am questioning why you would give an order that you claim disables your Humvees. I at this point am also beginning to question whether or not you are actually in the military.

Go to armyocs.com, make an account and pm at VKB.

Yes, I did answer your question. While I feel that the armor has initiated a sort of arms race that is not good for us, my small part would not change that arms race. Better I have the minimally extra protection for my Marines than not if we were going to continue fighting the way that we were.

Still not answering the question. Ignoring it, in fact.

Go to armyocs.com, make an account and pm at VKB.

And what would that prove? If I can create an account, than obviously those not currently in the military can create an account, and PMing you there wouldn't be proof of anything.

Still not answering the question. Ignoring it, in fact.

Ummmm, no
And what would that prove? If I can create an account, than obviously those not currently in the military can create an account, and PMing you there wouldn't be proof of anything.

Except that you can have your service verified by that site and I have done that.

Ummmm, no

Then answer me why you would order your humvees to be disabled and incapable of carrying out their mission.

Then answer me why you would order your humvees to be disabled and incapable of carrying out their mission.

I didn't say that they were incapable of carrying out their mission on the tactical level. On the strategic level, it was a bad decision.

Yes, I did answer your question. While I feel that the armor has initiated a sort of arms race that is not good for us, my small part would not change that arms race. Better I have the minimally extra protection for my Marines than not if we were going to continue fighting the way that we were.
So not armoring the humvees would cause them to use less powerful bombs? Less powerful bombs that would still kill them because of no armoring.

Your logic fails.

So not armoring the humvees would cause them to use less powerful bombs? Less powerful bombs that would still kill them because of no armoring.

Your logic fails.

1) The less powerful bombs against the less armored humvees were less effective.

2) Mobility is reduced.

3) Much more maintenance is required, often times they are unfixable.

4) More powerful bombs can hit a more vast array of vehicles.

5) Who invited you?

I didn't say that they were incapable of carrying out their mission on the tactical level. On the strategic level, it was a bad decision.

Oh really? Let's review then:

You claimed that the armored humvees can't do shit.

You don't go to war to be safe. You go to war, to win a war. A vehicle, that can't do shit, won't win that war and will, ultimately, make our forces less safe.

You then listed a number of TACTICAL level deficiencies, as well as calling them not combat effective.

Having a lot of shooter not be able to get out of a kill zone, chase the bad guys, go on long duration patrols or, generally, be combat effective is not an asset to our forces. Not to mention the maintenance needed to keep them running.

I could go on and on quoting you. So, given all of the claims that you have made about armored humvees, how can you live with yourself when you have given an order to disable your force and make them combat ineffective?

snip
We didn't use them in a manner in which those situations would arise. We had enough LAVs so that Humvees were not required for patrols. Just resupply missions. Not much chasing on resupply missions.

We didn't use them in a manner in which those situations would arise. We had enough LAVs so that Humvees were not required for patrols. Just resupply missions. Not much chasing on resupply missions.

In other words, armored humvees are not, as you have claimed, entirely useless and worthless?

I'd add that my friend in the Marines WAS using his humvee on chasing and patrol missions in the desert, and had his life saved by that armor.

In other words, armored humvees are not, as you have claimed, entirely useless and worthless?

I'd add that my friend in the Marines WAS using his humvee on chasing and patrol missions in the desert, and had his life saved by that armor.

1) How do you know that he would have been injured if he had been in another lightly armed humvee?

2) How many might have gotten away from them?

3) How many have been killed b/c their unit had no humvees b/c they keep breaking down under the weight?

4) The up armored humvees are necessary to an extent b/c we started making them. Without the initial making of them, it is likely that they wouldn't be necessary.

1) How do you know that he would have been injured if he had been in another lightly armed humvee?

His own statement, which given that I actually know and trust him is better than any claim you make here.

2) How many might have gotten away from them?

You don't "get away" from an IED, the point of a roadside bomb is that you don't know it is there until it goes off.

3) How many have been killed b/c their unit had no humvees b/c they keep breaking down under the weight?

He never once expressed to me his unit being short humvees, so I guess no one in his unit.

4) The up armored humvees are necessary to an extent b/c we started making them. Without the initial making of them, it is likely that they wouldn't be necessary.

Bullshit, our troops were dying from IEDs and small arms fire long before armored humvees were there in any number.

3) How many have been killed b/c their unit had no humvees b/c they keep breaking down under the weight?

Also, if this is truly the case, why would you order armor for your humvees that would result in your force breaking down?

His own statement, which given that I actually know and trust him is better than any claim you make here.
There is no way that he could actually no that. End of story.


You don't "get away" from an IED, the point of a roadside bomb is that you don't know it is there until it goes off.
By them I meant the Marines.


He never once expressed to me his unit being short humvees, so I guess no one in his unit.
You are missing the point. There are many units with this problem.


Bullshit, our troops were dying from IEDs and small arms fire long before armored humvees were there in any number.
And now the ratio between deaths and successful attacks has gone up.

Also, if this is truly the case, why would you order armor for your humvees that would result in your force breaking down?

B/c that was not a concern with our supply of vehicles.

There is no way that he could actually no that. End of story.

You seem pretty damn sure of that. You there, or seen pictures of the incident, or know what happened? Considering you are willing to imply that the armor had nothing to do with saving him, how can you know that?

By them I meant the Marines

Which is what I answered.

You are missing the point. There are many units with this problem.

Show me statistics.

And now the ratio between deaths and successful attacks has gone up.

Show me statistics. Including those specific to armored humvees, so we can answer whether they are safer or not.

B/c that was not a concern with our supply of vehicles.

Having working vehicles is a concern for every vehicle.

1) The less powerful bombs against the less armored humvees were less effective.
So they wouldn't have improved the bombs to do more damage because the humvees didn't get more armor?

I don't even think armchair hawks are this dumb.

Having working vehicles is a concern for every vehicle.

Ummm...

Ummm...

Yes?

So they wouldn't have improved the bombs to do more damage because the humvees didn't get more armor?

I don't even think armchair hawks are this dumb.

To answer the relevant point- There is a good chance that they wouldn't have upped the armor. And if, and only if they had would we have upped the armor (or change our TTPs which would be my preference).

To go on a rant- Let's think about a key position that hawks and doves disagree on. Doves want to use the military for humanitarian missions and to prevent suffering while hawks don't, they would rather use it only for operations that would help themselves. One of the biggest reasons for staying in Iraq right now is to prevent genocide. That is clearly a dove position.

Yes?

Read what you wrote.

Read what you wrote.

Maintenance is a concern for every vehicle in use. Or do you just keep driving them when they break down?

One of the biggest reasons for staying in Iraq right now is to prevent genocide. That is clearly a dove position.

I can't imagine that US forces will prove up to that task, even if this particular line does become the new propaganda.

The weight added makes maintenance needed more frequently, more costly, and more difficult. And quite frankly, many units do not have the resources to keep up.

So, you order armor for vehicles that you feel is not effective anymore, and adds to the cost of maintenance. Again, why do you do this? You make zero sense when actually reading your own claims.

EDIT: TIMETRAVEL

Maintenance is a concern for every vehicle in use. Or do you just keep driving them when they break down?

The weight added makes maintenance needed more frequently, more costly, and more difficult. And quite frankly, many units do not have the resources to keep up.

So, you order armor for vehicles that you feel is not effective anymore, and adds to the cost of maintenance. Again, why do you do this? You make zero sense when actually reading your own claims.

EDIT: TIMETRAVEL

I didn't say that it wasn't effective anymore. It does cost more in the form of maintenance but the situation created by other units adopting it forced my to take the same steps.

I can't imagine that US forces will prove up to that task, even if this particular line does become the new propaganda.

I can't imagine what would make me respect your opinion.

I didn't say that it wasn't effective anymore. It does cost more in the form of maintenance but the situation created by other units adopting it forced my to take the same steps.

What situation? Explain. Can you actually answer the bloody question already?

What situation? Explain. Can you actually answer the bloody question already?

The escalation in power of IED's. As I have stated maybe 10 ten times already.

I can't imagine what would make me respect your opinion.

Knowing that I am diametrically-opposed to most everything you've espoused here in one guise or another?

Knowing that I am diametrically-opposed to most everything you've espoused here in one guise or another?

I have only used three names here. USMC leathernecks, USMC leatherneck, and USMC leathernecks2

The escalation in power of IED's. As I have stated maybe 10 ten times already.

Yet you have also stated that this new armor doesn't work against these escalated IEDs, and everyone knows the unarmored humvees were susceptible to both the first generation Iraqi IEDs, and small arms fire.

Your logic is missing.

EDIT: I am the Earl of time travel

I have only used three names here. USMC leathernecks, USMC leatherneck, and USMC leathernecks2

I'm still diametrically-opposed to everything you've espoused on NSG. I am the Yin to your Yang, or something.

I'm still diametrically-opposed to everything you've espoused on NSG. I am the Yin to your Yang, or something.

You think that invading Iraq was a good idea?!?!

It looks like the Americans are not the only troops that lack the equipment the need to get the job done. Not only do the British troops lack helicopters, but also such mundane and necessary equipment as armored vehicles and binoculars. Looks like their pay also leaves something to be desired.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=56774260-2765-4e5b-b109-fadc83145194&

God bless all the allied troops.

This is news? Half of our troops didn't even have body armour when they went into Iraq.

You lot are sort of off topic. This thread is about the British army not having enough supplies, not the American one. I think that if we were fighting a war that was actually important the RN, Army and RAF would be restored to their former glory. But at the moment the British people aren’t under any real threat, so therefore don’t care so much for the armed forces. I’m sure if France or Germany started acting a bit iffy things would be different.

Why did I delete it? Because I realized that I was probably wrong. And no, I was never taught it. You are the one who doesn't even know that the SMOMC is an E-9.

Sure I did. But the question was "What is the highest enlisted rank in the USMC." He or she outranks all other E-9s in the USMC. Oh, and I wasn't even a Marine.

Still not answering the question. Ignoring it, in fact.

Yes, he/she likes to do that. Gives him/her time to look the answer up on GOGLE. :eek:

I didn't say that they were incapable of carrying out their mission on the tactical level. On the strategic level, it was a bad decision.

What is the difference between strategic and tactical? Any E-1 should be capable of answering that after basic training. :eek:

1) How do you know that ...SNIP

I guess JROTC hasn't taught you very much. :(

Sure I did. But the question was "What is the highest enlisted rank in the USMC." He or she outranks all other E-9s in the USMC. Oh, and I wasn't even a Marine.

If you are going to designate it by a letter and number, it is E-9. No harm, no foul. Move on. And no, you are not taught the difference between legal and lawful in OCS or Boot.

...after the A2 was brought out properly, most of the jamming problems have gone, and we're left with a particularly excellent weapon.

Shame it cost lots of millions of pounds and decades to get to that stage tho'...! :p

What is the difference between strategic and tactical? Any E-1 should be capable of answering that after basic training. :eek:
In laymens terms:
Strat- big picture

Tact- Small picture

It's really simple and I used the words correctly in my argument so I have no idea why you are asking.

I guess JROTC hasn't taught you very much. :(

Nothing will teach you how to know something that is impossible to know. Maybe god actually.

The weight added makes maintenance needed more frequently, more costly, and more difficult. And quite frankly, many units do not have the resources to keep up.

...cough...cough...http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/kngt.gif

Knowing that I am diametrically-opposed to most everything you've espoused here in one guise or another?

I think we are feeding a TROLL. :eek:

I think we are feeding a TROLL. :eek:

Who's puppet are u? Just so I know who I'm talking to.

... But at the moment the British people aren’t under any real threat, so therefore don’t care so much for the armed forces.

So, there have been no bombings in the UK and no innocent civilians have died? :mad: Oh, I forgot! That was before and there is no threat now. :rolleyes:

And no, you are not taught the difference between legal and lawful in OCS or Boot.

Well, we were taught that in the Air Force a long time ago, and they still are taught that. Perhaps you slept through the class on the UCMJ in JROTC.

Who's puppet are u? Just so I know who I'm talking to.

Oklatex is not a puppet. Oklatex is a reincarnation of Celtlund. I retired from the USAF after 26 years of service. I think that gives me a little knowledge of the military. I respect and honor all who have served in every branch of the U.S. military. I have absolute disgust for those who either are snot nosed skinheads in the military who think they know everything and even more disgust for those who pretend they are in the military. Now do you know who you are dealing with?

So, there have been no bombings in the UK and no innocent civilians have died? :mad: Oh, I forgot! That was before and there is no threat now. :rolleyes:

There's been one, admittedly spectacular one, but to be honest it's nothing compared to the IRA, PIRA, RIRA, etc. and their 30 year insurgency.

We didn't equip our troops well then, nor when 3rd Shock Army was facing down the Berlin Brigade, why the fuck should we equip them well when Talib abu-Talib and his trusty RPG-7 poses less of a threat to us than Paddy McShane and his truck-mounted mortars did - let alone the Red Army and its Rocket Forces of Strategic Designation!

There's been one, admittedly spectacular one, but to be honest it's nothing compared to the IRA, PIRA, RIRA, etc. and their 30 year insurgency.

We didn't equip our troops well then, nor when 3rd Shock Army was facing down the Berlin Brigade, why the fuck should we equip them well when Talib abu-Talib and his trusty RPG-7 poses less of a threat to us than Paddy McShane and his truck-mounted mortars did - let alone the Red Army and its Rocket Forces of Strategic Designation!

Well, I guess that's for you to figure out. I do think that the IRA (I strongly resent the racist word Paddy) is gone; it is obvious the other terrorists are not.

Oh please. Paddy, racist? It happens to be a diminutive of my sodding name, among other things. :p

The IRA is indeed gone. Hurrah for that. They were more of a threat to us - i.e. the Great British Public - than the Al Qaeda and Co lot are.

The post you criticised argued that the reason our troops are badly equipped is because there's no threat to the GBP and so we don't care.

You said there is.

I'm saying that, comparatively, there isn't much of one. Which is worse, a few bombs in London or the Topol-Ms of the Red Army's RFSD? A few bombs in London or a 30-year urban war that cost thousands of lives?

There's a threat to our soldiers, yes... but not to the GBP. So we don't care.

It's a shame, our military budget SHOULD mean that the British Armed Forces are ultra-top-notch but ... no.

I'd just like to get a bit of flag-waving in here now:

British troops do more with worse and less than anyone else! :p

Well, we were taught that in the Air Force a long time ago, and they still are taught that. Perhaps you slept through the class on the UCMJ in JROTC.

Well, apparently, they don't teach it in the Marine Corps. It really makes sense why they would for the AF and not USMC. The AF OODA loop can be much slower and take more time to decide things so more factors can be included. Infantry don't have that luxury.

Oklatex is not a puppet. Oklatex is a reincarnation of Celtlund. I retired from the USAF after 26 years of service. I think that gives me a little knowledge of the military. I respect and honor all who have served in every branch of the U.S. military. I have absolute disgust for those who either are snot nosed skinheads in the military who think they know everything and even more disgust for those who pretend they are in the military. Now do you know who you are dealing with?

I have the proof to back up my service, you don't.

I'd just like to get a bit of flag-waving in here now:

British troops do more with worse and less than anyone else! :p

Yes they do. And they did an awesome job in the Falcon Islands war.

I have the proof to back up my service, you don't.

Yes, it's called an Honorable Discharge and retirement orders. :eek:

Yes, it's called an Honorable Discharge and retirement orders. :eek:

And how do I know that you have either of those?

And how do I know that you have either of those?


You don't and neither do I have any "proof" of your so service. However, based on my experience and your posts...well thing just don't add up. Again, your response to my questions indicates that you are either a "know it all" skinhead or an outright "Marine wanabe" both of which are despicable.

Here are two types of people in the world. Those with hemorrhoids and those without hemorrhoids. Which type are you?

It is obvious to anyone that has been in the military that you are the latter.

No further discussion is necessary. Oh, and please stop pretending that you were or are in the military. It is obvious from those of us who have served, and many who haven’t, that you are not now, never have been, and never will be in the Marines. After all, they do have very high standards, even higher than the Air Force. Simper Fi to all the real Marines out there.

You don't and neither do I have any "proof" of your so service. However, based on my experience and your posts...well thing just don't add up. Again, your response to my questions indicates that you are either a "know it all" skinhead or an outright "Marine wanabe" both of which are despicable.

Here are two types of people in the world. Those with hemorrhoids and those without hemorrhoids. Which type are you?

It is obvious to anyone that has been in the military that you are the latter.

No further discussion is necessary. Oh, and please stop pretending that you were or are in the military. It is obvious from those of us who have served, and many who haven’t, that you are not now, never have been, and never will be in the Marines. After all, they do have very high standards, even higher than the Air Force. Simper Fi to all the real Marines out there.

I have already given you a way to verify my service. Personal insults are not necessary and are only making you look unintelligent.

I have already given you a way to verify my service. Personal insults are not necessary and are only making you look unintelligent.

12 or 13, a very nice age. Good bye.

12 or 13, a very nice age. Good bye.

I always found that ignoring reality was a good way to communicate also.

Yes they do. And they did an awesome job in the Falcon Islands war.

Although admittedly the Falklands were 'defended' by an army whose officers didn't know how many men they had and whose general level of morale can be summed up as "Bum". Still, it is impressive what the task force accomplished.

If only we weren't squandering these superb people in an illegal war of occupation. :(

I always found that ignoring reality was a good way to communicate also.
Which explains all of your posts in this topic.

Yes they do. And they did an awesome job in the Falcon Islands war.
... You mean the Falklands, right?

So, there have been no bombings in the UK and no innocent civilians have died? :mad: Oh, I forgot! That was before and there is no threat now. :rolleyes:
...

57 people died... once.

Possibly there were other plots, but I have my suspicions about the whole damned thing (not in terms of people dying, more in terms of the supposed plots).

In the time it took to read your post, quote it, and post a reply, more people have died of easily-curable illnesses.

I don't really see why this means we should spend billions on sorting out our forces when all they're doing at the moment is pissing everyone off in the Middle East.

I have the proof to back up my service, you don't.

IBA- interceptor body armor

Frag5- The latest-greatest HMMWV armor

DA 4187- Personnel Request


USMC I've decided your base age is between 14-17, get a life. I'd like to hear what Sec Gates, Gen Patraeus or Odierno has to say about the 'order' you gave- because if I was given such an unlawful command such as that I might have just shot it up the chain.

Frag5- The latest-greatest HMMWV armor

What's that like? When I was over there in OIF1 people were either welding scrap metal to their trucks or going without. Of course, IEDs weren't quite so prevalent back then...

What's that like? When I was over there in OIF1 people were either welding scrap metal to their trucks or going without. Of course, IEDs weren't quite so prevalent back then...


Without giving away to much-

A civilian company owned by ITT (the same people that make the SINCGARS and accessories) installs the armor itself, no more hillbilly armor as far as doors and cab goes. Some people opt to get the electric turrets installed as part of the kit, some don't.

Without giving away to much-

A civilian company owned by ITT (the same people that make the SINCGARS and accessories) installs the armor itself, no more hillbilly armor as far as doors and cab goes. Some people opt to get the electric turrets installed as part of the kit, some don't.

Are the electric turrets like the .50 on the M1?

Are the electric turrets like the .50 on the M1?

You might be talking about the CROWS system, which I've seen on more than just the Abrams out here. No, it's a manned turret powered by an electric motor mounted on it, charged by the truck's battery- the gunner controls it with a joystick in the ringmount. Good concept, but it's functionality and design suck (in my experience). I'd prefer an IBISTEK turret, but with the same motor and seat as the Frag5 kits.

You might be talking about the CROWS system, which I've seen on more than just the Abrams out here. No, it's a manned turret powered by an electric motor mounted on it, charged by the truck's battery- the gunner controls it with a joystick in the ringmount. Good concept, but it's functionality and design suck (in my experience). I'd prefer an IBISTEK turret, but with the same motor and seat as the Frag5 kits.

Things have certainly changed since I got out in 2004. I was a 19D and all we had were the straight ringmount turrets on HMMWVs with the backs of M113 seats 100mph taped to straps for seats.