VABills Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 Does anyone know whether the fuel trucks are even supposed to be armored? My understanding is no. Can someone shed more light on this. 74226[/snapback] No they are not. Transport trucks never are and never will be. Kind of cuts down on the ability to carry things when a truck can haul 40 tons and you throw 30 tons of armor on it. Sure would limit the transporting of supplies. These "columns" are supposed to move at irregular times so that the likelyhood of encountering resistance is minimized. Meaning don't have a 7:30 milk run everyday. As far as security goes, you usually have a humvee with mounted .50 cals in front and back and thats about it. Kind of slows it down if you go with armored track vehicles whose top speed is 30 mph.
UConn James Posted October 18, 2004 Author Posted October 18, 2004 He would have lasted about 5 minutes in the Corps. What did he do reach the rank of PFC after 10 years with that attitude. 74204[/snapback] Spec 5 in 2. He was drafted. My uncle had just about the same attitude in the Corps. Has the same attitude today, God bless him. Two tours.
VABills Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 Spec 5 in 2. He was drafted. My uncle had just about the same attitude in the Corps. Has the same attitude today, God bless him. Two tours. 74240[/snapback] Yeah and what he tells you about questioning things probably didn't happen. He is probably just puffing his feathers for you. In reality you do it too often, some Sergeant will take your headoff. Trust me I said no once too often as a Lcpl, and the SSGT just about put my head through a wall.
DC Tom Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 Does anyone know whether the fuel trucks are even supposed to be armored? My understanding is no. Can someone shed more light on this. 74226[/snapback] No, though they do have a mount for a .50-cal machine gun, from what I understand. Cargo and utility vehicles (including Humvees) are invariably unarmored, because for every pound of armor you have (and armor weighs a lot), it's a pound less cargo you can carry, and because armor's expensive, hence limited by cost to combat vehicles. The exceptions tend to be special, field modifications (e.g. the combat trucks the SAS used in the desert in WWII). The solution's not armoring the trucks anyway. The solution is aggressive patrolling of the convoy route.
UConn James Posted October 18, 2004 Author Posted October 18, 2004 Yeah and what he tells you about questioning things probably didn't happen. He is probably just puffing his feathers for you. In reality you do it too often, some Sergeant will take your headoff. Trust me I said no once too often as a Lcpl, and the SSGT just about put my head through a wall. 74247[/snapback] Bear in mind that this is a man who's on 100% disability. Call Howard Stern and ask him about the crazy MFer who hanged him out of an office window in Hartford by his feet. Call the Chevy dealership when they refused to take his new lemon of a truck back or fix it. You don't have to be crazy, but it does help.
DC Tom Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 It's about equally effed up. Like my brother who was in AF Raven Team in a C-130 whose landing gears wouldn't deploy. The pilot turned circles for a hour while the crew cranked the manual override/release and that didn't work either. Rosen landing in "a place we shouldn't have been." Survived b/c the pilot was good and extremely lucky. Point being that taxpayers spend a billion dollars on a plane; maybe something should actually work when they use it. If you're on the plane and the landing gears don't work and they tell you to go anyway, do you? 74230[/snapback] Uhhh...yeah. Mission still needs doing. Thousands of airmen throughout the last century did just that: took worn-out machines into combat because they had a mission to perform, and were ultimately extremely unlucky returning (fact: operational aircraft losses accounted for more deaths than combat in WWII.) Your brother's plane may have been a tired, old bird...but he still went, didn't he? And who was maintaining the plane? How many hours did the airframe have on it? Was the regular maintenance being performed properly? Like it or not...on military hardware, when it's actually used, things tend to break. Warfare tends to be a constant state of improvisation and "making do" with old, worn-out equipment.
Evil Bastard Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 It's about equally effed up. Like my brother who was in AF Raven Team in a C-130 whose landing gears wouldn't deploy. The pilot turned circles for a hour while the crew cranked the manual override/release and that didn't work either. Rosen landing in "a place we shouldn't have been." Survived b/c the pilot was good and extremely lucky. Point being that taxpayers spend a billion dollars on a plane; maybe something should actually work when they use it. If you're on the plane and the landing gears don't work and they tell you to go anyway, do you? 74230[/snapback] Your story points out a scenario where they find out afterwards that there is a mechanical problem with the landing gear, but you are asking me to answer a question where I know there is a problem beforehand? Nice try. It must be nice to live in a fantasy world, where everyone gets everything they want, regardless of practicality.
blzrul Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 Your story points out a scenario where they find out afterwards that there is a mechanical problem with the landing gear, but you are asking me to answer a question where I know there is a problem beforehand? Nice try. It must be nice to live in a fantasy world, where everyone gets everything they want, regardless of practicality. 74267[/snapback] It's a tough decision. My cousin was part of the ill-fated attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran in the 70's. He told his superiors at least one of the aircraft was not going to make it (and why), recommended against a delay or scratching the craft(s) in question, was ignored, they went anyway and the rest is history. But he said it never occured to him or anyone else to refuse orders.
Alaska Darin Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 It's about equally effed up. Like my brother who was in AF Raven Team in a C-130 whose landing gears wouldn't deploy. The pilot turned circles for a hour while the crew cranked the manual override/release and that didn't work either. Rosen landing in "a place we shouldn't have been." Survived b/c the pilot was good and extremely lucky. Point being that taxpayers spend a billion dollars on a plane; maybe something should actually work when they use it. If you're on the plane and the landing gears don't work and they tell you to go anyway, do you? 74230[/snapback] Sounds to me like alot of people failed in that scenario. Preflight checklists pencil whipped, etc. The military is the ultimate government entity. They literally have EVERYTHING covered by regulation, task orders, checklists, etc. Yet airplanes still suffer from sudden massive deceleration trauma, good men get sent out without required gear, shot by our own people, etc. I know you have family in the military but the worm's eye view isn't normally correct. The problem is systemic. No matter how ideological you desire the world to be, it just isn't possible when human beings are involved in the process. There's always going to be someone in a position of power who is more concerned with individual might than right.
VABills Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 It's a tough decision. My cousin was part of the ill-fated attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran in the 70's. He told his superiors at least one of the aircraft was not going to make it (and why), recommended against a delay or scratching the craft(s) in question, was ignored, they went anyway and the rest is history. But he said it never occured to him or anyone else to refuse orders. 74410[/snapback] You know that is probably your most intelligent post ever.
Alaska Darin Posted October 18, 2004 Posted October 18, 2004 It's a tough decision. My cousin was part of the ill-fated attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran in the 70's. He told his superiors at least one of the aircraft was not going to make it (and why), recommended against a delay or scratching the craft(s) in question, was ignored, they went anyway and the rest is history. But he said it never occured to him or anyone else to refuse orders. 74410[/snapback] That entire mission was a debacle from the planning stages. Charlie Beckwith just wanted the glory. It was a stupid plan and the end result proved it. Happens all the time.
Recommended Posts