look who's not supporting the troops AGAIN

[Mephisto]

Mephisto, this information comes from the military, and is a part of the process by which our military decides how best to equip our troops.

Thanks, Mycroft.

I'm pretty familiar with the military testing process which may, or may not taint my opinions

Eighty percent seems like an awful lot of soldiers to me, and a figure that should raise some concern in the government somewhere. My experience is that the military will request something and the government will debate whether or not it's feasible, too expensive or whatever. Meantime, the troops in the field suffer.

No one is in a better position to support the troops than the government and if an inordinant amount of soliders are dying because of inadequate equipment I feel they should toss aside the committes and do something about it.

 

[Mephisto]

Appreciated, but not necessary for me. I am now only a drilling Reservist and will probably only be that for a short while longer; it is unlikely I will be activated/deployed again. I know many who are going again (most for the second time), though, so I'll pass your thoughts to them.

Well I'm glad that you're stateside again.

I hope it's unlikely that you'll be deployed again, but these days who can tell?

I've never been to Ft. Knox, but worked with testing aspects of the M1 (in the SW desert). I'm sure you'll have a much better chance at finding work with a defense contractor now that you're going to be an EX-combat veteran (as though your service will ever fade from memory). I'll keep my fingers crossed for you and your family (I noticed you have kids). Still, keep some of that good luck I wished you nearby, being a decorated veteran doesn't carry that much weight in the real world as we're led to believe.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Completely aside from the surrounding political issues, shouldn't the fact that the soldiers in Iraq are facing an increased number of roadside bombs, ambushes, and are being sent to respond to attacks against security forces, as backup, mean that their vehicles should favor heavier armor over heigher manueverability? Classicaly, there''s a balance that needs to be struck between those two needs, but in this case, it seems that the balance needs to be further towards armor.

 

[Johnny Pixels]

Certainly this is a concern for the grunt who has to shoulder the extra weight, but it shouldn't be a problem for the grossly underarmored vehicles. Why aren't they better armored? How many soldiers have we lost to IEDs obliterating the interior of their vehicles compared to those who died by gunshot?

I would be very interested in hearing from the troops themselves whether or not they'd be willing to carry extra armor.

I'd agree with this, vehicles should be used as they were designed. Humvees weren't designed for patrol where they'd come under fire like they are in Iraq.

Maybe body armour should be personal choice. If a soldier wants the extra protection then let him have it, if he feels restricted then he could carry less armour, but the full amount should be available to anyone who wants it. Cost shouldn't be an object in this area, if it saves lives it's worth it.

 

[a_unique_person]

There's always going to be more ways in which to protect troops, but there has to be limits drawn somewhere. You could armour every square inch of a soldiers body which would reduce injuries, but there are practicalities to be taken into account.

New technology always appears to be the answer to everything, but then traditional or alternative methods are often over looked. For instance British troops on patrol after capturing Basra reverted to their berets instead of helmets, as it was less threatening to the locals. Instead of just applying more armour to protect themselves from insurgents, they changed their approach.

Obviously this isn't an answer applicable to US marines who are directly in the line of fire, but I think people need to recognise that piling on more armour is not always the answer.

As technology improves, does this mean the return of the Knight?

 

[Manny]

As technology improves, does this mean the return of the Knight?

Almost! Happily, today's warriors get the benefit of better materials than the pig iron and leather coverlets of old. But yes, US and other troops are increasingly going to war with advanced cover of increasing portions of their bodies to protect against at least small arms fire, shrapnel and similar.

 

[davefoc]

I believe that the Bush presidency is probably the worst of my lifetime. Still not everything that his administration gets dumped on for is justified.

This one strikes me as particularly unfair. Not only, as has been pointed out, is there the age old militarty issue of strength of armour versus mobility, there is this fact of life of life: There is almost always a better way of doing something than the way it is being done and unless one expects to wait for the results of infinite testing and infinite development what is deployed is going to be inferior to something that wasn't deployed.

If the Bush administration is to be nailed on this one legitimately, somebody needs to find political or financial motivation in the decision process put there by the Bush administration or maybe another Mike Brown (ex FEMA director) lurking around.

You're probably referring, then, to the HMMWVs which were not envisioned in the role they are being used in. Hence, the up-armor package. But it is not possible to armor a transport vehicle to the point of having it impervious while retaining its initial purpose.

Maybe, this hits on one of the main issues of the occupation. What exactly is the US military trying to accomplish with soldiers driving around Iraq? Why nearly three years after the beginning of the war are US soldiers still actively involved in what appears to be a civil war? At this point I could believe that American soldiers might be helping to patrol a border or perhaps protecting the seat of a fledgling Iraqi government. But maybe the problem here from the start is that there was a view that instead of letting the Iraqi officials understand that the US and Britain would be there for a limited time and for a limited mission the coalition pushed the idea that the coalition would solve all problems. This was an impossibly large mission and the time for letting the Iraqi government understand that the days of Americans riding around the country in humvees playing Roy Rogers (except that in the case of Iraq the bullets don't magically zip around this Roy Rogers) is about to end.

 

[Garrette]

Maybe body armour should be personal choice. If a soldier wants the extra protection then let him have it, if he feels restricted then he could carry less armour, but the full amount should be available to anyone who wants it.

Well, the choice should be placed closer to the front than it typically is, at least when I was there, but the individual soldier is too close. The choice needs to be an order coming from the commander, one step above the ranking soldier on the actual mission. The mission commander can make a case one way or another, but the commander NOT going makes it.

Cost shouldn't be an object in this area, if it saves lives it's worth it.

Well, cost is always an issue, but for stuff that is immediately life-saving, the margin can be higher than usual, though certainly not limitless.

Then you get into things about availability, even if the will to buy all the latest greatest stuff is there. The military doesn't own factories.

 

[Garrette]

Maybe, this hits on one of the main issues of the occupation. What exactly is the US military trying to accomplish with soldiers driving around Iraq? Why nearly three years after the beginning of the war are US soldiers still actively involved in what appears to be a civil war? At this point I could believe that American soldiers might be helping to patrol a border or perhaps protecting the seat of a fledgling Iraqi government. But maybe the problem here from the start is that there was a view that instead of letting the Iraqi officials understand that the US and Britain would be there for a limited time and for a limited mission the coalition pushed the idea that the coalition would solve all problems. This was an impossibly large mission and the time for letting the Iraqi government understand that the days of Americans riding around the country in humvees playing Roy Rogers (except that in the case of Iraq the bullets don't magically zip around this Roy Rogers) is about to end.

I'll agree with massive mishandling and (apparently) poor planning. I got in Baghdad right after Saddam's regime fell and worked first with and then in CPA. I got to travel most of the country more than once. Two issues were apparent to us on the ground there:

1. Civil War was a lurking monster even in the summer of 2003 and held at bay only by US presence.

2. CPA was a mistake. The occupation should have been named an occupation with the military commander in complete charge, declaring martial law. This would have been in accord with Geneva-Hague, made one chain-of-authority as opposed to the two that were there, and demonstrated clearly to the then-only-potential insurgents that we were serious. You will think I'm joking, but there were several occasions (on the street, in meetings with Iraqi officials, and working at CPA) when Iraqis approached me and emphatically said words to the effect "Why don't you shoot them? You must shoot the looters and the bandits! They will respect nothing else." We were in a be-nice mode at the time.