I guess it would keep out a haistly thrown rock & maybe some sand, but
not much else- especially not a bullet

If you built a plywood box and filled it with sandbags you would have
something. Maybe the news geeks didn't understand what they were looking at.

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 ?

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.

Andy Dingley wrote:
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 ?

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

--

FF

"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

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.

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

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:25:37 -0700, Wes Stewart
wrote:

That may be true for RPGs but other shaped charges can't be dismissed
so easily. TOW missiles use shaped-charge warheads. We (Hughes
Aircraft) learned and/or predicted that it was actually better to
start the plasma earlier, not later,

Depends on the thickness of the target. The optimum is some classified
number (about 2.1, AFAIK) times the max armour thickness. TOW is a
heavy missile intended for heavy armour. RPGs are a much lighter thing
- there's no point in giving them a long standoff, they'd just lose
the jet's cohesion.

The point of the spaced armour though is not to provide a "long"
standoff, so much as a "different" standoff from the one designed for.

--
Smert' spamionam

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:18:12 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

It's a war, Andy .

It's not - it's the on-going occupation of an unruly civil population.
The biggest single lesson of NI was the disaster of Bloody Sunday,
that kicked so much of it off. The Paras are great as soldiers for
fighting wars, but they're lousy policemen. This is _not_ a war - you
can tell this, because you're not allowed to get the big toys out. A
civil situation like this needs a different approach and it's not one
that infantry are trained for.

.. 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

Sure, but we're talking about plywood. Plywood _does_ have uses
against RPGs, odd though this might appear at first.

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

I'd extend it to the military planners. They're supposed to be the
experts, not Congress itself.

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:18:12 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

It's a war, Andy .

It's not - it's the on-going occupation of an unruly civil population.
The biggest single lesson of NI was the disaster of Bloody Sunday,
that kicked so much of it off. The Paras are great as soldiers for
fighting wars, but they're lousy policemen. This is _not_ a war - you
can tell this, because you're not allowed to get the big toys out. A
civil situation like this needs a different approach and it's not one
that infantry are trained for.

Your distinction is theorectical, impractical and spoken like a civilian. A
rose by any other name ... when the bullets are flying, it's a _war_ to
those having to duck..

.. 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

Sure, but we're talking about plywood. Plywood _does_ have uses
against RPGs, odd though this might appear at first.

No argument, as I said, we used chain link fence ... but not as "armor".

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

I'd extend it to the military planners. They're supposed to be the
experts, not Congress itself.

Congress appropriates the funding and approves, cuts, or increase budgets
for the military planners/designers based on administration. IIRC, The
previous administration did a lot of cutting in that area.

Nonetheless, all these current equipment design decisions were made years
ago. The military commander has to fight with the tools available, and
improvise from there, which is what is being done, and has been done in
every war. The equipment lag time, often based on "lessons learned", is
never in favor of those who have to fight now, never has been, and never
will be.

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

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:42:19 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

when the bullets are flying, it's a _war_ to
those having to duck..

The distinction isn't about whether someone is shooting at you,
it's about whether you're allowed to shoot back.

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:42:19 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

when the bullets are flying, it's a _war_ to
those having to duck..

The distinction isn't about whether someone is shooting at you,
it's about whether you're allowed to shoot back.

Total, absolute, nonsense ... it would really help if you would stick to
what you know. Although ROE's may change according to the situation, our
soldiers, and your's, operate under specific Rules of Engagment that allow
them to use deadly force in self-defense and in defending others from death
or serious bodily injury.

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

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

Use your imagination, Ed. What does it mean when every person in a
country we are occupying with our armies starts shooting at us? Hmmm?

Use your head, Larry. "Every" person? Patently ridiculous and you know it.
How about just the radical Islamic fundamentalist, who would kill Larry
Jacques anywhere they can find Larry Jacques, including Larry Jacques' own
street, in case your memory is that short.

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

On 25 Jan 2005 11:26:36 GMT, Ed Clarke vaguely
proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

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.

I think the point is that they were not expecting civilians to have weapons
of that kind. They beat the army, but now every arsehole in the country is
flipping rockets at them.

Well said.....

On 25 Jan 2005 11:26:36 GMT, Ed Clarke vaguely
proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

De inimico non loquaris sed cogites

OK. You tell me......

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.

In article , Old Nick wrote:
On 25 Jan 2005 11:26:36 GMT, Ed Clarke vaguely
proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

De inimico non loquaris sed cogites

OK. You tell me......

Don't wish ill for your enemy; plan it.

--
"De inimico non loquaris sed cogites."

"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?

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

"Old Nick" wrote in message

On 25 Jan 2005 11:26:36 GMT, Ed Clarke vaguely
proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

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.

I think the point is that they were not expecting civilians to have
weapons
of that kind. They beat the army, but now every arsehole in the country
is
flipping rockets at them.

Well said.....

Just as long as you don't ignore the fact that Islamic fundamentalist are
decidedly not "civilians" in their methods of eradicating you, the infidel
.... but, as they can be considered "arseholes", the inclusive "every" fits
in this narrow example.

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

In article ,
"Swingman" wrote:

snip]

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

Is it safe to assume that the current planners are aware of the
limitations of what is available to them?
HumV's aren't APC's. They are used in that role though, which begs the
question, what's wrong, the equipment or the application thereof?

0¿0

Rob--- who's just asking, not trying to start anything.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:49:43 -0600, "Swingman"
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

That money comes before bodies in wartime. I agree that whoever
believes is a sick puppy, but I think that the people in control of
these situations do believe just that. That was what Andy was saying,
I think.

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

On 24 Jan 2005 08:52:23 -0800, vaguely
proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

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

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


Sorry. I just attributed this to Andy

On 25 Jan 2005 15:48:08 GMT, Ed Clarke vaguely
proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

De inimico non loquaris sed cogites

OK. You tell me......

Don't wish ill for your enemy; plan it.

Ah. Thanks. I tried searching around but could not find it.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:03:19 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:

That was what Andy was saying, I think.

No, not at all

In fact I'd disagree with it. Bush has just asked for another
squillion dollars without batting an eyelid, but photographing
bodybags is a major thoughtcrime these days.

My point is that Team America is tooled up for fighting the 1991 war,
and they're being asked to do something quite different instead.
Winning "the war" would be easy - call in a couple of airstrikes,
destroy the ville in order to save it, that kind of thing.

Instead though they don't _have_ that option. It stops being a "war"
when you lose the option to use military-grade force in response. If
you have to work under those constraints, you need to think and act
differently from being an infantryman (as the Brits learned after
Bloody Sunday). Some of this includes bringing along vehicles and
armour that's appropriate to the threat in hand (there should be brass
rolling in the Pentagon for that screwup).

And it's not a war anyway, as Bush keeps telling us, because that
would mean the Geneva Conventions would apply and America really can't
face having that.

--
Smert' spamionam

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:04:48 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:

On 24 Jan 2005 08:52:23 -0800, vaguely
proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

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

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


Sorry. I just attributed this to Andy

... and it's just about the most dumb-a**ed statement anybody could make.
Even, for the sake of argument, accepting the premise that the leaders in
this country or war don't value the lives of their troops -- they still
value results. The purpose of sending troops out on a mission of any sort
is to have them accomplish their objectives. An absolutely free humvee and
no-cost bodybags in which the humvee is destroyed and no objectives are
achieved vs. a very expensive Stryker that accomplishes its mission and
returns with few or no casualties is an easy trade even for someone who
doesn't value life but does value results.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Old Nick wrote:

De inimico non loquaris sed cogites

OK. You tell me......

Don't wish ill for your enemy; plan it.

Ah. Thanks. I tried searching around but could not find it.

That's not what it says. It says "Don't talk about your enemy, but think."
Anything else you get out of it is a question of interpretation.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:28:17 +0000, Andy Dingley
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:03:19 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:

That was what Andy was saying, I think.

No, not at all

But good chance for a rant! G Sorry. I misattributed it.

In fact I'd disagree with it. Bush has just asked for another
squillion dollars without batting an eyelid, but photographing
bodybags is a major thoughtcrime these days.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:14:00 -0700, Mark & Juanita
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

..........no...
... and it's just about the most dumb-a**ed statement anybody could make.
Even, for the sake of argument, accepting the premise that the leaders in
this country or war don't value the lives of their troops -- they still
value results. The purpose of sending troops out on a mission of any sort
is to have them accomplish their objectives. An absolutely free humvee and
no-cost bodybags in which the humvee is destroyed and no objectives are
achieved vs. a very expensive Stryker that accomplishes its mission and
returns with few or no casualties is an easy trade even for someone who
doesn't value life but does value results.

Note crossposting and follow-ups.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:04:48 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:

On 24 Jan 2005 08:52:23 -0800, vaguely
proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

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

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


Sorry. I just attributed this to Andy

... and it's just about the most dumb-a**ed statement anybody could
make.
Even, for the sake of argument, accepting the premise that the
leaders in
this country or war don't value the lives of their troops -- they
still
value results. The purpose of sending troops out on a mission of any
sort
is to have them accomplish their objectives. An absolutely free
humvee and
no-cost bodybags in which the humvee is destroyed and no objectives
are
achieved vs. a very expensive Stryker that accomplishes its mission
and
returns with few or no casualties is an easy trade even for someone
who
doesn't value life but does value results.


False dichotomy. A mission may be accomplished despite casualties.

Why did the administration refuse the manufacturer's offer to increase
delivery of the up-armor kits for Humvees if not for budgetary reasons?
--

FF

"Robatoy" wrote in message
In article
"Swingmanwrote:

snip]

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

Is it safe to assume that the current planners are aware of the
limitations of what is available to them?
HumV's aren't APC's. They are used in that role though, which begs the
question, what's wrong, the equipment or the application thereof?

0¿0

Rob--- who's just asking, not trying to start anything.

Well, read the last paragraph again:

The military commander has to fight with the tools available, and
improvise from there, which is what is being done, and has been done in
every war.

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

wrote in message
oups.com...
Note crossposting and follow-ups.


No - screw the crossposting. Why would you go and start that crap? Please
don't take up on this crossposting stuff. Kindly keep comments within your
own group.
--

-Mike-

In article ,
"Swingman" wrote:

Well, read the last paragraph again:

The military commander has to fight with the tools available, and
improvise from there, which is what is being done, and has been done in
every war.

I read that. I just can't get my head around it.
Having said that, I also don't understand civilians, who have never
spent a day in the service, who know f*uck-all about warfare, giving
orders to the military.

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message

And it's not a war anyway, as Bush keeps telling us, because that
would mean the Geneva Conventions would apply and America really can't
face having that.

Horse**** ... you know better than that. Spoken from emotion with no reason
whatsoever. Take the time to read Section II. Combatants and Prisoners of
War, then note who it is that qualifies as such, and who it is beheading
prisoners and violating every tenet of same.

And you want to treat them as POW's under the GC?

Wake up, Andy ... your way of life, and very possibly your life and the
lives of those whom you love, is on the line.

Go ahead ... bitch, moan, and sit around _waiting_ for the next shoe to
fall. Just hope like hell that there is still someone around to protect you
from yourself by _carrying_ the fight to those just waiting fo the
opportunity to eradicate your infidel ass.

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

"Robatoy" wrote in message
In article
"Swingman" wrote:

Well, read the last paragraph again:

The military commander has to fight with the tools available, and
improvise from there, which is what is being done, and has been done
in
every war.

I read that. I just can't get my head around it.

What's so hard about understanding that, as a military commander charged
with a mission, you are duty bound to do your utmost to perform that
mission, regardless of whether you have "armored" vehicles for the
situation?

Keep firmly in mind that TOE (Table of Organization and Equipment) does NOT
normally contain armored transport resources for those units deployed as
infantry ... they normally WALK.

You improvise and do the best you can ...a time honored solution to the time
honored fact of politicians hamstringing the fighting man.

It ain't like this administration invented, or even had that much to do,
with the situation under discussion.


Having said that, I also don't understand civilians, who have never
spent a day in the service, who know f*uck-all about warfare, giving
orders to the military.

Well, it _is_ a Constitutional safeguard which we damn well better fight to
preserve.

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

In article , Silvan wrote:
Old Nick wrote:

De inimico non loquaris sed cogites

OK. You tell me......

Don't wish ill for your enemy; plan it.

Ah. Thanks. I tried searching around but could not find it.

That's not what it says. It says "Don't talk about your enemy, but think."
Anything else you get out of it is a question of interpretation.

Damn it, you're right! Never believe a usenet translation. Should be
something with optatio and malus.


--
"Never believe a Latin translation on Usenet"

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:18:12 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:


"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.

Read Blackhawk Down...
the movie was dramatic... the book will make anyone who's been there
and done that feel it as much as read it..

The Humvee is a jeep replacement, NOT a tank or armored personnel
carrier...
One of my sons is a HV mechanic, and he says that a HV with armor has
no speed or agility and needs a tanker truck following it to replace
what that turbo diesel drinks... just not practical as an armored
vehicle because the armor is way too heavy and that it's NOT built to
be armored, any more than a WWII jeep was..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

In article ,
"Swingman" wrote:


[snip]

What's so hard about understanding that, as a military commander charged
with a mission, you are duty bound to do your utmost to perform that
mission, regardless of whether you have "armored" vehicles for the
situation?

Shouldn't there be a measured chance of succes in undertaking any
mission? Will a man, blindly, go over a hill with a pocket knife to take
out a machine-gun nest? (I amplify the hypothesis to illustrate a point)
Is there NO point at which a CO says: "Can't be done, my men will not go
commit suicide (or commit crimes)." ?

Again... just asking.

0¿0


Rob

mac davis wrote:

vehicle because the armor is way too heavy and that it's NOT built to
be armored, any more than a WWII jeep was..

I finally saw one of those up close and personal. Wow. Not armored is an
understatement. Nothing gives you a feeling of security in an under-fire
situation like sitting on a cushion directly on top of a gas tank, right?

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Ed Clarke wrote:

That's not what it says.**It*says*"Don't*talk*about*your*enemy,*but
think." Anything else you get out of it is a question of interpretation.

Damn it, you're right!**Never*believe*a*usenet*translation.**Shoul d*be
something with optatio and malus.


"Never believe a Latin translation on Usenet"

Nunquam credes... Um... Dang.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:57:08 -0500, Silvan
wrote:

Nothing gives you a feeling of security in an under-fire
situation like sitting on a cushion directly on top of a gas tank, right?

Best place for it. Two things that I want really well protected are my
ass, and the fuel tank. At least it's not in the main exit doors, like
a BMP ( d'oh! ).

Secondly, it's diesel not petrol. That's a small comfort.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:59:13 -0500, Silvan
wrote:

Ed Clarke wrote:

That's not what it says.**It*says*"Don't*talk*about*your*enemy,*but
think." Anything else you get out of it is a question of interpretation.

Damn it, you're right!**Never*believe*a*usenet*translation.**Shoul d*be
something with optatio and malus.


"Never believe a Latin translation on Usenet"

Nunquam credes

Vulgates (Vulgato?) ...

... Um... Dang.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+