Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Armor Extra body armor _ the lack of which caused a political storm in the United States _ has flooded in to Iraq, but many Marines here promptly stuck it in lockers or under bunks. Too heavy and cumbersome, many say. "The reason they issued (the plates), I think, is to make people back home feel better," said Lance Cpl. Philip Tootle of Reidsville, Ga. "I'm not wishing they wouldn't have issued them. I'm just wishing that they wouldn't make them mandatory." Reminds me many years ago when I was a tanker in the Cav. Went through a period where we had to wear flak vests, until someone with a brain stepped in. Flack vests? I'm in a friggen tank, for Christs sake. Anyway, the quote I've highlighted pretty well sums it up. Some poor grunt that works for a living will be that much more exausted at the end of the day, so folks here can feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 ArmorReminds me many years ago when I was a tanker in the Cav. Went through a period where we had to wear flak vests, until someone with a brain stepped in. Flack vests? I'm in a friggen tank, for Christs sake. Anyway, the quote I've highlighted pretty well sums it up. Some poor grunt that works for a living will be that much more exausted at the end of the day, so folks here can feel better 642873[/snapback] We should do away with body armor. Obvviously the comfort of the GI at the end of the day should be of paramount importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Author Share Posted March 27, 2006 We should do away with body armor. Obvviously the comfort of the GI at the end of the day should be of paramount importance. 642886[/snapback] I take it you've never been on patrol in 100 degree weather? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I take it you've never been on patrol in 100 degree weather? 642889[/snapback] No, but if I had it my way, 130,000+ servicmen wouldn't be either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Damn I have been saying this for years Paul. Don't you listen? This has always been the case. The stuff may help but dying ofdehydration/exhaustion sucks works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Damn I have been saying this for years Paul. Don't you listen? This has always been the case. The stuff may help but dying ofdehydration/exhaustion sucks works. 642891[/snapback] Got any statistics on the relative number of GIs that have died from dehydration/exhaustion as opposed to enemy action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Author Share Posted March 27, 2006 Damn I have been saying this for years Paul. Don't you listen? This has always been the case. The stuff may help but dying ofdehydration/exhaustion sucks works. 642891[/snapback] No, because I've been saying it too. Extra plates available? Fine. But don't make them mandatory. But now it seems to be getting to the point where public opinion has made it to the battlefield, which would be OK if more than 1 out of 10 of the public had a clue as to what they were talking about. I got to thinking about all the debates here when people were complaining that trucks weren't armored like tanks. In 20 years in the army, I can't recall one time where that was an issue to us troops. But, it's 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 ArmorReminds me many years ago when I was a tanker in the Cav. Went through a period where we had to wear flak vests, until someone with a brain stepped in. Flack vests? I'm in a friggen tank, for Christs sake. 642873[/snapback] Hey BIB, I understand it gets really hot in that armor. Maybe we should do away with all armored vehicles as well. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Author Share Posted March 27, 2006 Hey BIB, I understand it gets really hot in that armor. Maybe we should do away with all armored vehicles as well. What do you think? 642894[/snapback] Are you being obstinate just for fun, or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 No, because I've been saying it too. Extra plates available? Fine. But don't make them mandatory. But now it seems to be getting to the point where public opinion has made it to the battlefield, which would be OK if more than 1 out of 10 of the public had a clue as to what they were talking about. I got to thinking about all the debates here when people were complaining that trucks weren't armored like tanks. In 20 years in the army, I can't recall one time where that was an issue to us troops. But, it's 2006. 642893[/snapback] And how many times in those 20 years were you involved in a counter insurgency where the insurgents primary targets where the supply trucks that you were driving? Maybe you trained for a different war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Author Share Posted March 27, 2006 And how many times in those 20 years were you involved in a counter insurgency where the insurgents primary targets where the supply trucks that you were driving? Maybe you trained for a different war? 642897[/snapback] Trains have always been a target in warfare, going back to Roman times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Trains have always been a target in warfare, going back to Roman times. 642900[/snapback] The Romans had trains? You learn something new every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Got any statistics on the relative number of GIs that have died from dehydration/exhaustion as opposed to enemy action? 642892[/snapback] Doesn't matter if it's one. Dehydration is a bad thing. Exhaustion gets you and your squad killed. But hey, feel good, your public opiinion got through those body armor to all those guys, who don't want them. Oh and it case you missed it because they were pushed through testing about 100,000 were recalled last year because of cracks in the plates, thus public opinion not only forced a bunch of guys to wear stuff most don't or won't wear, it also gave them poorly tested crap. But keep it up, people like you help the cause. Just not the right one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Doesn't matter if it's one. Dehydration is a bad thing. Exhaustion gets you and your squad killed. But hey, feel good, your public opiinion got through those body armor to all those guys, who don't want them. Oh and it case you missed it because they were pushed through testing about 100,000 were recalled last year because of cracks in the plates, thus public opinion not only forced a bunch of guys to wear stuff most don't or won't wear, it also gave them poorly tested crap. But keep it up, people like you help the cause. Just not the right one. 642902[/snapback] If I had it my way, none of those 130,000+ troops would need the body armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 The Romans had trains? You learn something new every day. 642901[/snapback] Mule trains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Author Share Posted March 27, 2006 Trains is a phrase used to describe supply columns and their staging areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Mule trains. 642904[/snapback] Tough to up armor a mule. Not particularly difficult to up armor a tractor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 27, 2006 Author Share Posted March 27, 2006 Hey BIB, I understand it gets really hot in that armor. Maybe we should do away with all armored vehicles as well. What do you think? 642894[/snapback] I think if we did away with all those submarines that put food on your table, we could armor more trucks. Makes about as much sense as anything you've said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I think if we did away with all those submarines that put food on your table, we could armor more trucks. Makes about as much sense as anything you've said. 642907[/snapback] Most of my funding comes from surface ships now. Nice non seqitur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Tough to up armor a mule. Not particularly difficult to up armor a tractor. 642906[/snapback] Why, you have forced vehicles that weren't meant to be armored have armor. Now those humvees, etc... waste more gas, can't go offroad, because they sink from the extra weight, or the undercarraige can't handle the weight and bumps. How many guys have died because their vehicles broke down/ran out of gas. How many really died from lack of armor? Do you really know? Also, even if they had the armor, how many would have really worn it? And yes the mule trains/elephants were armored. You may want to read some history and understand stuff before you question things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts