VABills Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 Those "trucks" that have a 5th wheel and drag trailers behind them (sea containers, tankers etc.) are tractors. 643223[/snapback] And humvees also transport stuff and are trucks as well. regardless, the needless armoring of them has caused issues that you choose to ignore. Of course CNN is cool, that ran a story with an expert who was complaining that all the armor is eaing more gas. He recommended that the troops should turn off their vehicles rather then let them idle when they are just hanging out on patrol.
Scraps Posted March 27, 2006 Posted March 27, 2006 And humvees also transport stuff and are trucks as well. regardless, the needless armoring of them has caused issues that you choose to ignore. 643232[/snapback] I chose to focus on the supply lines that were repeatedly attacked, which to the best of my understanding involved tractor trailer rigs. Hence I specifically used the word tractor so as to avoid the Mickey like merry go round. As for the Humvees, why were soldiers in the field complaining about a lack of armored Humvees and up armoring Humvees themselves? Of course CNN is cool, that ran a story with an expert who was complaining that all the armor is eaing more gas. He recommended that the troops should turn off their vehicles rather then let them idle when they are just hanging out on patrol. Nobody agreed with your take on that story and your reading comprehension obviously has not improved. The person who suggested shutting down engines instead of letting them idle was Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, not some CNN expert. Whether or not that advice extended to soldiers on patrol is unclear to me since patrols were not mentioned in the article.
yall Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Why not provide an armored exo-skeleton to every soldier? We can do that, right? Why did no one complain that Jeeps and Deuce's in WW2 didn't have enough armor? I'm pretty sure that even an MP42 could have torn up a Willy in a few seconds. Because it's war, that's why. You can't protect every single soldier without compromising your goals and becoming completely ineffective. Yes Scraps, we know you are not in favor of the war or the current administration. What you have also demonstrated is a lack of knowledge on the subject matter. This is essentially an non issue to most of the troops, and has been blown wildly out of proportion by the media. The notion that the "right wing" is actually in favor of making a warzone less safe is preposterous, and is nothing more than a fabrication.
Scraps Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Why not provide an armored exo-skeleton to every soldier? We can do that, right? Why did no one complain that Jeeps and Deuce's in WW2 didn't have enough armor? I'm pretty sure that even an MP42 could have torn up a Willy in a few seconds. Because it's war, that's why. You can't protect every single soldier without compromising your goals and becoming completely ineffective. Yes Scraps, we know you are not in favor of the war or the current administration. What you have also demonstrated is a lack of knowledge on the subject matter. This is essentially an non issue to most of the troops, and has been blown wildly out of proportion by the media. The notion that the "right wing" is actually in favor of making a warzone less safe is preposterous, and is nothing more than a fabrication. 644781[/snapback] Oh wise sage. Please enlighten this poor ignorant soul. How would adding armor to tractors compromise our goals to the point of becoming completely ineffective? Where have I said that the "right wing", of which I am a part of, is in favor of making a warzone less safe?
erynthered Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Why not provide an armored exo-skeleton to every soldier? We can do that, right? Why did no one complain that Jeeps and Deuce's in WW2 didn't have enough armor? I'm pretty sure that even an MP42 could have torn up a Willy in a few seconds. Because it's war, that's why. You can't protect every single soldier without compromising your goals and becoming completely ineffective. Yes Scraps, we know you are not in favor of the war or the current administration. What you have also demonstrated is a lack of knowledge on the subject matter. This is essentially an non issue to most of the troops, and has been blown wildly out of proportion by the media. The notion that the "right wing" is actually in favor of making a warzone less safe is preposterous, and is nothing more than a fabrication. 644781[/snapback] Aw, leave scrapper alone, he might get in a huff and leave again. I like reading his stuff, makes me laugh.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Oh wise sage. Please enlighten this poor ignorant soul. How would adding armor to tractors compromise our goals to the point of becoming completely ineffective? Where have I said that the "right wing", of which I am a part of, is in favor of making a warzone less safe? 644801[/snapback] Because five years ago you would have bitched that they were wasting money armoring non-combat vehicles. Funny how you focus on trucks and not C-130s or C-17s being unarmored. Those are transports that get shot at with little protection for the crew. Probably Blackhawks as well. Why just trucks?
BB27 Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Oh wise sage. Please enlighten this poor ignorant soul. How would adding armor to tractors compromise our goals to the point of becoming completely ineffective? Where have I said that the "right wing", of which I am a part of, is in favor of making a warzone less safe? 644801[/snapback] This guy really needs to move to france.
SilverNRed Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 This guy really needs to move to france. 644872[/snapback] Things aren't going so well over there right now.
Scraps Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Because five years ago you would have bitched that they were wasting money armoring non-combat vehicles. Funny how you focus on trucks and not C-130s or C-17s being unarmored. Those are transports that get shot at with little protection for the crew. Probably Blackhawks as well. Why just trucks? 644855[/snapback] Isn't it presumptuous on your part to say what stance I may have had on a topic 5 years ago? I chose to focus on tractors. I chose to focus on tractors because 1. I have some knowledge of them having drive them and large trucks in the past. 2. I've seen or read stories about soldiers uparmoring them in the field. 3. They have account for a disproportionate amount of casulaties. 4. I've read arguments against uparmoring them in the past that have focused on the lamest excuses (i.e. reduced load, wear and tear on the axels, wear and tear on the roads). There are reasons I can think of why this may not be cut and dried easy, but I haven't seen one one mentioned yet. I didn't focus on humvees, jeeps, deuces or any other wheeled vehicles because the ability of those vehicles to handle the weight of armor and perform their mission is completely different from that of a tractor. Each platform will have its own trade offs and I have no inclination to go into all the trade offs for every vehicle that every tom, dick and harry in this thread might think of. Funny how you focus on trucks and not C-130s or C-17s being unarmored. Those are transports that get shot at with little protection for the crew. Probably Blackhawks as well. Why just trucks? Because in the asymetric war we've been fighting in Iraq, the supply lines, made up of tractor trailers, were a favorite target. I believe they made up a disproportionate number of casualties. At the same time, they had inferior equipment in terms of body armor. I'm not sure why you would expect me to focus on C-130s or C-17s except that you may believe I am some liberal who does not recognize that Iraq is a war zone and that I believe that all GIs can and must be made totally safe in a war zone. You and a few others seem to be circling like a pack of hyenas. C-130s and C-17s may well be shot at, but how many have we lost? I think the British may have lost 1, but I can't recall any others. We are shipping more cargo by air than we used to because of the dangers to the land supply convoys.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 28, 2006 Author Posted March 28, 2006 Because five years ago you would have bitched that they were wasting money armoring non-combat vehicles. Funny how you focus on trucks and not C-130s or C-17s being unarmored. Those are transports that get shot at with little protection for the crew. Probably Blackhawks as well. Why just trucks? 644855[/snapback] Because airplanes and helicopters theoretically need to be light enough to fly?
BB27 Posted March 29, 2006 Posted March 29, 2006 Things aren't going so well over there right now. 644923[/snapback] Based on all of his posts, he seems to think things are not going so well here. france would be a good place for him. He can sit around the eiffel tower and B word and moan about AMERICANS and our foreign policy.
Scraps Posted March 29, 2006 Posted March 29, 2006 Based on all of his posts, he seems to think things are not going so well here. france would be a good place for him. He can sit around the eiffel tower and B word and moan about AMERICANS and our foreign policy. 645087[/snapback] Where have I been bitching about Americans?
yall Posted March 29, 2006 Posted March 29, 2006 I would just be satisfied if Scraps stopped saying "tractors".
KRC Posted March 29, 2006 Posted March 29, 2006 I would just be satisfied if Scraps stopped saying "tractors". 645910[/snapback] What do you have against farm equipment?
Ghost of BiB Posted March 29, 2006 Author Posted March 29, 2006 I would just be satisfied if Scraps stopped saying "tractors". 645910[/snapback] Maybe politics aside, Scraps knows his subject? We just normally disagree. Doesn't mean he doesn't know what a truck is.
Acantha Posted March 29, 2006 Posted March 29, 2006 Because airplanes and helicopters theoretically need to be light enough to fly? 644956[/snapback] I know that was meant as sarcasm, but it does illluminate a point that was made earlier. When armor is added to cargo aircraft, it significantly reduces the amount of cargo that can be transported. Often time decisions have to be made whether to send the armored planes or not depending on how much cargo is needed vs how fast they need it vs how much danger the planes are in getting there. It can be quite the pain the ass. Oh, and Scraps, the military is all about safety. Believe it or not there is much more put into the decision of armoring any vehicle besides "to do it or not". Money is just one. Many other examples have also been listed. As a quick and easy example I can also add how fast a vehicle is able accelerate away from a danger zone. I'm not sure what your opinion of armor is, but reading your posts I come to the conclusion that you don't realize how heavy it really is and what kind of changes need to happen to accomadate it. Maye you do, it's just not how I've read things. There are so many aspects to this argument that it is really impossible to see everything. And really, I think for you to maket his argument based on things you have read or heard is VERY presumptious. You have not been there. You just simply don't know as much as you think you do.
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 1, 2006 Posted April 1, 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] I am not in the military... But, my father was in 7th Army... Wasn't it Patton who had the crazy idea of wearing football helmets in his tanks? My question is... If something enters the tank... The thing is gonna bounce around for a while... Won't the flak jacket protect you?
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 1, 2006 Posted April 1, 2006 Didn't read through the whole thread... But, wasn't there a similar situation in Vietnam?... They would send you in fresh with an "ALICE" pack and a lot of stuff... Half the stuff should have been "shaken down." Not saying I can't carry a 60 lb pack, I can... But, it creates a lot of probs when I wanna be "light" and mobile. That is why I always took the "armor debate" with a grain of salt...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 1, 2006 Author Posted April 1, 2006 I am not in the military... But, my father was in 7th Army... Wasn't it Patton who had the crazy idea of wearing football helmets in his tanks? My question is... If something enters the tank... The thing is gonna bounce around for a while... Won't the flak jacket protect you? 649176[/snapback] I was in M551 Sheridans. If something made it inside, trust me - it wouldn't matter.
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 1, 2006 Posted April 1, 2006 I was in M551 Sheridans. If something made it inside, trust me - it wouldn't matter. 649194[/snapback] Okay... What about protecting you from a broken rib getting into the thing?
Recommended Posts