"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:02:45 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

Horse****, Andy ...RPG's have been around for a long time and to state
they
were not "expected" is either spin or ignorance, but ludicrous in either
case.

So why are the Americans taking so many casualties from them ?

It's a war, Andy ... and if you were really paying attention you would know
that it is NOT the RPG so much as the IED that is the cause of the flurry to
jury rig armor on utility vehicles that were never intended to be used
solely for troop transport. They are designed as military "utility"
vehicles, not "armored" vehicles.

Blame Congress and previous administrations that designed, budgeted and
built them, not the current battle planners and those executing the plan.

Ground troops ... their mission is to pound the ground, not ride into
batlle, therefore these vehicles were not designed solely for troop
transport. Give a foot soldier the choice or riding in an unarmored vehicle,
or walking, and he'll take the ride any day regardless of the danger ...
IOW, he'd take a bicycle rather than walk.

Given the choice between a Humvee and a CAMAC-armoured Landie, I know
which one I'd rather be in. Amazingly enough, the Brits know a thing
or two about CQB and dealing with a well-armed population with a
dislike for squaddies. The US troops seem to have taken all their
advice from the LAPD - Compton is a tough neighbourhood, but not as
well armed as the Bogside.

Your guys are doing a excellent job, and they undoubtably have more
experience in dealing with close quarter insurgency, but they're also
getting shot at with RPG's too, statistcially just not as frequently.

All but the most naive amongst you know that this "armored vehicle" thing is
being used as a rabbit trail ... and just like foolish, unaware coon dog,
many of you are being fooled by it.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04