"Kevin" wrote in message
om...
Swingman wrote:

"Kevin" wrote in message

Swingman wrote:


wrote in message



Expense. A proper armored personel carrier like the Strycker is
much more expensive than a Humvee plus a half dozen body bags.


.... anybody who would believe that is one sick puppy.


.... and anybody who doesn't is in denial.


Go ahead, read the original statement again and then tell me "in denial"
of
what?

As I understand the OP, he believes the gov't/military decided it is
cheaper to replace personnel than purchase proper equipment.

As I understand your reply, you believe this is the product of a warped
mind, and you do not believe our gov't/military could or would make such
a decision.

Somewhere in this thread was mentioned the augmentation seen on Shermans
in WWII, almost as justification for the inadequately prepared Humvees.
That augmentation was needed because then, as now, the higher ups
refused to prepare for the inevitable and sent woefully under-armed and
under-armored tanks against the fearsome 88mm gun and thick armor the
Germans deployed. The Brits called the Sherman the "Tommy-toaster".

The Sherman only prevailed by virtue of quantity, not quality. In other
words: our side could afford to fill more body than their side.

Have you never heard the infantry referred to as "Mk I, Mod I Bullet
Catchers"?

Ergo, I maintain you are in denial.



How do we know what's "best," so we can buy it, and not waste time and money
on intermediate products?

How do we fight the next war when we only know the last?

More to the point, how can we plan or purchase anything military without the
press and Senator Lenin telling us we don't need it at all?

BTW, it wasn't just the Sherman which was vulnerable. One of my old Soviet
tactics instructors fought at Kursk in the T34, and had nothing but respect
for what an 88 could do to _any_ tank.