Out of curiosity, what's that thing on your chest?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
120mm
Really? Rumsfeld telling the truth is dangerous?
Personally, I hate to actually experience a political and military leadership too cowardly to allow soldiers to dump their "modern body armor" and force them to stay in their MRAPs/M-ATVs. I'd prefer winning, which you cannot do if you are married to Michelin man suits and your vehicle the size of a three story building.
So you would prefer not to improve HMMWVs with additional armor and future chimneys? There's no value in getting farther from the COP in a M-ATV or JLTV that is survivable? Getting out of the vehicle is another matter entirely unrelated to the need for survivable vehicles against major current (and future) battlefield killers. If you get to the patrolling area before exerting yourself excessively walking there, seems to me you have more energy to go farther and stay more alert during the patrol. You also cover a larger patrolling area and have a vehicle to carry your supplies.
At 6 gallons of water per Soldier per day, how much weight would Soldiers at Wanat have carried if they had "patrolled" to COP Kahler instead of driving there? They also would have been carrying two .50 cal machine guns and tripods, two 40mm grenade launchers, and two mortar systems, plus an LRAS3.
Quote:
I'm assuming you have no idea what you are talking about, here. The armor weighs the same, though it's more effective. And every time something gets made lighter, military morons in the leadership use that occasion to find something worthless to add to the soldiers' load.
Cowardice on the part of leaders and risk aversion is not how you win a war, COIN or not.
I'd choose greater casualties and a will to do what it takes to succeed over better body armor 7 days a week.
Military cooling vests already are available to include for Soldiers, dogs, and military pilots. Nobody used body armor in Vietnam because it was heavier back then or unavailable and they did not have cooling vest technology. If a vest can be made around 2 pounds and the Army spends more for body armor 2 pound lighter, my peabrain head calculator indicates no increase in Soldier load.
Casualties not experienced are casualties that don't take several to all troop's attention away from the patrol, yes?
Have less than fond memories of an incident where I was training Soldiers in MOPP IV conducting a road march and a Soldier experienced a heat injury...in springtime Germany. Of course I was the bad guy.
Bottom line. Just because guys like you and me are in reasonable shape does not mean today's 18-30 year old is. Get them in shape, sure. But physiology and body heat remain a concern in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and elsewhere no matter your condition.
Some day I'll tell you all about the study I volunteered for where they sent us out flying after being injected with atropine in varying quantities...and what that does to your body temperature and how they measure it.:eek:
The Chest known as 120mm can take care of itself but it's a slow Sunday...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cole
So you would prefer not to improve HMMWVs with additional armor and future chimneys?
A poor truck can only take so much unplanned weight...:(
Quote:
There's no value in getting farther from the COP in a M-ATV or JLTV that is survivable? Getting out of the vehicle is another matter entirely unrelated to the need for survivable vehicles against major current (and future) battlefield killers.
That's not entirely correct. A capability provided will be used; if it increases 'safety' its use will be demanded. That leads to a self defeating spiral.
Quote:
If you get to the patrolling area before exerting yourself excessively walking there, seems to me you have more energy to go farther and stay more alert during the patrol.
Yes and no -- but it's obvious you haven't been on many real patrols. That's not a slam, it's something one has done or has not and one who has done it knows that the movement is a big part of the object of the patrol in a great many cases. It depends on what the purpose of the patrol happens to be.
Not to mention that Infantry, by definition, walks...:wry:
Quote:
You also cover a larger patrolling area and have a vehicle to carry your supplies.
Again yes and no, many variables in that statement, too many to address here but I will note that the ability to carry your supplies is a mixed blessing. Room for more junk and nice to have stuff that can often detract from mission success.
Quote:
At 6 gallons of water per Soldier per day, how much weight would Soldiers at Wanat have carried if they had "patrolled" to COP Kahler instead of driving there?
Nobody needs that much water. Nobody.
Quote:
They also would have been carrying two .50 cal machine guns and tripods, two 40mm grenade launchers, and two mortar systems, plus an LRAS3.
Nor would anybody with any sense contemplate taking a .50 or a 40mm AGL on a foot patrol or in a foot borne approach march -- if it's an approach march to establish a COP (dumb idea...) you'd fly the stuff in later.
Quote:
Nobody used body armor in Vietnam because it was heavier back then or unavailable
Some -- few -- did use it, most did not. It was available, it was lighter than current Vest / plate carriers but it was too constricting and it encased the torso (as does any current model...) and that induced heat casualties. It also too severely impeded mobility and most Commanders at the time knew that and they wanted -- and needed -- that mobility. It was a different Army, different mores...
ADDED: Just for info; USMC M1951 vest weighed ~8 lbs, USA M1952 about 10 lbs. and today's Interceptor about 16 to 25 lbs depending on plates and add-ons.
Quote:
and they did not have cooling vest technology. If a vest can be made around 2 pounds and the Army spends more for body armor 2 pound lighter, my peabrain head calculator indicates no increase in Soldier load.
Your calculator works, the rest of the brain isn't considering Drew's statement -- the 'leaders' will compensate for that weight reduction by adding something else -- that is, regrettably, pretty much proven by history. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Casualties not experienced are casualties that don't take several to all troop's attention away from the patrol, yes?
No. False choice. Casualties in combat are a fact of life. Having the technical ability to avoid some only lessens or weakens the skills needed to avoid others and thus increases those others -- sooner or later, in most (not all) circumstances, one has to leave one's vehicles. One should know how to do that. Increased reliance on vehicles lessens the skill in dismounted efforts.
It's a trade off. The real issue is not casualties and where and how caused but tactical and operational success, stasis or failure. That's the choice.