Simon Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 This statement is not entirely correct. I can't speak to the vehicle armor but the "body armor" that everyone was clammoring for in the media was not available at the beginning of the war. I was only referring to the vehicle armor as the open doors and soft tops seem really short-sighted, particularly in territory where the bad guys so easily blend in with the populace. I didn't really even consider the body-armor as I assume a lot of them wouldn't even be willing to wear it in that climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Are you suggesting that the main production model of the P-51 was available in Europe early in the war? From what I understand it didn't go into mass production until '43 and wasn't widely available in Europe until the spring of '44. Regarding the Corsair, I thought it didn't become available until after we'd already been at war with Japan for a year or so. Am I in need of some correction here? As for the German tanks, the Panzers were obviously far superior and we had no answer for them. The only way we could compete with them was to pour far greater numbers of Shermans on them, which we eventually did, but not until we were capable of doing so. The difference in the current situation is that while these kids spent an awful lot of time buzzing around on patrol in Iraq, vulnerable to small-arms fire in Humvees with inadequate armor, there was technology available to supplement the equipment, as opposed to the earlier years of WWII when I don't think that technology was available. Given that the Army even admitted it was too slow to fortify its Humvees, I think it makes this situation somewhat different. Cya 155680[/snapback] Dude, we were bitching about HMMWV's and their lack of armor THE FIRST TIME AROUND. This ain't news and it's further proof that the military brass doesn't care anywhere near as much about the little things as they should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Dude, we were bitching about HMMWV's and their lack of armor THE FIRST TIME AROUND. This ain't news and it's further proof that the military brass doesn't care anywhere near as much about the little things as they should. 155708[/snapback] Darin, that seems to be true. As you have stated too many chiefs. They are not out in the sh--, so a lot of times they don't know. But it is also a problem when the people in the sh-- don't get the word up the line and they have to circumvent authority and make them look bad. You know damn well these guys probably put their careers if they wanted one in the military into the ground. That was not the way to make a point. And the reporter is an ass. But I do agree with your overall assestment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Dude, we were bitching about HMMWV's and their lack of armor THE FIRST TIME AROUND. This ain't news and it's further proof that the military brass doesn't care anywhere near as much about the little things as they should. Seriously? I'm not close to any military personell and had no idea this was something that had been viewed as a problem for so long. I can't believe that over the course of 3 different administrations, 2 different wars and nearly 15 years that the big chiefs are just now getting around to adressing a problem as serious as inadequate armor on widely-utilized frontline vehicles. ANd it's not as if they can cry about funding as from what I understand it only costs about 60-70K more to produce the upgraded vehicle. Are these guys just completely focused on techtoys to the point where essentials get pushed aside? Is the bureaucracy become so complicated that nobody can make a simple decision to armor patrol vehicles? Has anybody even ever attempted to give a rationale as to why something so obvious was allowed to fester for so long? That's just f'in crazy..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Are you suggesting that the main production model of the P-51 was available in Europe early in the war? From what I understand it didn't go into mass production until '43 and wasn't widely available in Europe until the spring of '44. Regarding the Corsair, I thought it didn't become available until after we'd already been at war with Japan for a year or so. Am I in need of some correction here? As for the German tanks, the Panzers were obviously far superior and we had no answer for them. The only way we could compete with them was to pour far greater numbers of Shermans on them, which we eventually did, but not until we were capable of doing so. The difference in the current situation is that while these kids spent an awful lot of time buzzing around on patrol in Iraq, vulnerable to small-arms fire in Humvees with inadequate armor, there was technology available to supplement the equipment, as opposed to the earlier years of WWII when I don't think that technology was available. Given that the Army even admitted it was too slow to fortify its Humvees, I think it makes this situation somewhat different. Cya 155680[/snapback] No, I'm suggesting that the P-51 could have been available (fallacious reasoning, anyway...bombers weren't escorted because American doctrine specified they wouldn't be, not because planes weren't available), the Corsair could have been available (it was a pre-war design, it could have entered production in late '41), tanks better than the Sherman could have been produced (again, the Sherman's design was dictated by doctrine, not technology)... That none of those things happened weren't the result of non-availability, they were the result of specific decisions regarding the systems based on pre-war assumptions on how they would be used (the USAAF was ordering P-51s in early '42...as dive bombers. The Sherman was designed as an infantry support tank, by people who never thought tanks would fight tanks.) Likewise, the reason vehicles assigned to support troops aren't armored is doctrine-based: support vehicles - light and heavy trucks, fuel trucks, HETs - don't fight. Hence, they don't get armor. Same kind of judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Seriously? I'm not close to any military personell and had no idea this was something that had been viewed as a problem for so long. I can't believe that over the course of 3 different administrations, 2 different wars and nearly 15 years that the big chiefs are just now getting around to adressing a problem as serious as inadequate armor on widely-utilized frontline vehicles. ANd it's not as if they can cry about funding as from what I understand it only costs about 60-70K more to produce the upgraded vehicle.Are these guys just completely focused on techtoys to the point where essentials get pushed aside? Is the bureaucracy become so complicated that nobody can make a simple decision to armor patrol vehicles? Has anybody even ever attempted to give a rationale as to why something so obvious was allowed to fester for so long? That's just f'in crazy..... 155732[/snapback] Believe it. It's not alot different with the M16, which is a horribly designed weapon. Everyone knows the carbon blows back into the breech, which will eventually cause a malfunction (jamming), and requires the weapon to be cleaned ALOT. It's been a problem since the damn thing debuted in VIETNAM. The latest replacement supposedly fixes it. Or replacing the M60 with the SAW. The SAW is cheaper, but it doesn't have anywhere near the required firepower to accomplish the actual mission. Why would that matter? The military has way to many layers of managment and not enough fighters. Period. Each of these bureaucrats has to spend most of their time justifying their existance, so they slow roll the issues because it keeps them employed. The HMMWV is a horribly designed vehicle and a maintenance nightmare, but it looks cool. Why would it be designed to handle small arms fire, anyway? Just because it has turret mounting ability for machine guns and rapid fire grenade launchers? Over $400,000,000,000.00 a year and we're still stuck with substandard crap and contracts awarded to the lowest bidder. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts