Pentagon Peacocks

from JoeUser Forums

What this country needs is the return of Rosie the Riveter to speed up the armor needed in Iraq. It is inconceivable that in a war of choice the Pentagon did not have a contingency plan for insurgency. The “planners” were flaunting peacocks in that they were so confident that all the invasion required was shock and awe to accomplish the mission without a front line. Rummy and his generals should go back to military school and relearn the art of war.

Another lesson to be learned is that without an industrial base, such as we had in WWII, we had better declare a moratorium on war.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: December 17, 2004.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

politics
2,644 views 9 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
By: stevendedalus
Posted: Friday, December 17, 2004 on http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com/
Message Board: Politics
What this country needs is the return of Rosie the Riveter to speed up the armor needed in Iraq. It is inconceivable that in a war of choice the Pentagon did not have a contingency plan for insurgency. The “planners” were flaunting peacocks in that they were so confident that all the invasion required was shock and awe to accomplish the mission without a front line. Rummy and his generals should go back to military school and relearn the art of war.
Another lesson to be learned is that without an industrial base, such as we had in WWII, we had better declare a moratorium on war.


You do realize of course that only the army is having that problem? Check the link.

Link
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Despite the link, Marines did not have sufficient armored vehicles; in fact, they complained that the army had priority.
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #2 By: stevendedalus - 12/17/2004 3:24:15 AM
Despite the link, Marines did not have sufficient armored vehicles; in fact, they complained that the army had priority.


Sorry but that is pure BS. The marines are doing their own What they were complaining about is the army had first dibs on the steel production. Check these links before you say anymore.

Link


Link.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I notice a lot of people, while discussing the "up armor" situation, forget is that the conversion entails more than merely putting armor and balistic glass on a HMMWV. A HMMWV is designed to carry anywhere between 1.5 to 2.5 tons (depending on configuration), if they use up all the payload in armor, the vehicle will become pretty useless.

The conversion must include adjustments to the suspension, transmission and other parts of the vehicle itself.

This is not to say that they shouldn't bother, but it is a bigger job than most people seem to understand.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #4 By: ParaTed2k - 12/17/2004 6:28:34 AM
I notice a lot of people, while discussing the "up armor" situation, forget is that the conversion entails more than merely putting armor and balistic glass on a HMMWV. A HMMWV is designed to carry anywhere between 1.5 to 2.5 tons (depending on configuration), if they use up all the payload in armor, the vehicle will become pretty useless.

The conversion must include adjustments to the suspension, transmission and other parts of the vehicle itself.


No does not nessicarily mean adjustments to the suspension. Up-armor kits add approx 900 lbs to Gross Vehicle Weight.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
In spite of it all, we shouldn't be sending troops into battle without proper gear--the way I look at it they should all be driving round in Sherman tanks!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
........ we had better declare a moratorium on war.


Great concept! I can live with this.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #6 By: stevendedalus - 12/21/2004 1:38:29 AM
In spite of it all, we shouldn't be sending troops into battle without proper gear--the way I look at it they should all be driving round in Sherman tanks!


RPG's can do just as big a number on a Sherman as they can on an armored humvee. And just an FYI.... we no longer use Sherman tanks. We use the Abrams now. And I'm glad that your not in charge of military spending. Do you have any idea what the difference in cost is? If they did ya'll would be up in arms over the spent money. Cost of a Abrams is 4.5 million per unit, cost of an armored humvee is $205K per, big difference. Plus it would not be easy to use a Abrams in a house to house urban combat zone
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah, I read the same cost article. Granted a WWII vet thinks Sherman. To be serious, tanks support troops behind on foot, forcing them to be much more alert, and house to house they would have the tank's ominous presence to do damage via guns and flamethrowers. And if the Abrams is that vulnerable then resurrect the SHerman.