RE: [MV] List of Inadequate Eqiupment used in Iraq

From: Bill Chambers (bchambers@hoovers.com)
Date: Tue Apr 08 2003 - 10:00:42 PDT


That was one of the best posts in a long time!
Too bad most of the folks around me will not get it.
Just like the love of green steel!
OOH-RAH!

regards,
Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Ronzo [mailto:rojoha@attbi.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 11:49 AM
To: mil-veh@mil-veh.org
Subject: [MV] List of Inadequate Eqiupment used in Iraq

Hey all !!
    How about starting a list of equipment used by Uncle Sugar in Iraq that
was deemed uneconomical, too complicated or expensive to maintain, or just
not sexy enough to keep in the inventory, but seems to do just fine in bogus
conditions.

Things like:

    1) A10 Thunderbolt II (aka Warthog) [obsolete, no "GEE WHIZ" factor]
     2) M113 family of APCs [unreliable, too slow]
     3) M35A2 trucks [too expensive to maintain, obsolete]
     4) SUSV [no planned invasion of Norway in near future?]
      5) M151 {one reported sighting}
      6) B52 {Block one aircraft frame found in Le Brea tar pits in
1873]
       7) Commercial vehicles Like the International Box trucks seen
accompanying the 3rd ID deep in the desert (Sand tan cab, big white boxes
with power tailgates)

How about unworkable concepts that the brains at Fort Fumble say are too old
to work.....

        Marines..... for amphibious assaults only, close to the shore line ,
supposedly ineffective for deep penetration. Presently 150 miles into Iraq
because:
        1) Army Generals forget about them, didn't notice they will soon
overrun Baghdad, then continue through Turkey, Balkans, France and Germany,
pacifying all countries encountered and reaching English Channel before
reaching the point where they only have 5 days of supplies left and are
manadatorily required to call the Pentagon for resupply. If they go to half
rations, they could cross the Atlantic and take Quebec, which would get more
of the Canadians to back us. This is because, Marines, being rather, shall
we say, "literal minded", were told "The only way home is through Baghdad".

        2) They are USUALLY told to stop when they run out of beach sand
and let the Army land and pass through them. Still got sand under treads. If
not careful they may get pissed when Baghdad falls and make a right turn
when sent back to reload on ships in Kuwait, taking the entire Arabian land
mass and settling the Palestinian and other geographic problems specific to
that AoR.
    (Hope they don't send the second MEF north that they unloaded last week,
since they already been afloat for six months and might be a bit more testy
than the Marines already in Iraq..... they might just seize the Soviet Union
for spite and then we'd have all them Russians on US welfare and rebuild
payment plans)

    Maintaining amphibious off load capability generic to the Army, such as
the landing craft, LSTs and barges and Tugboats recently handed over to DRMS
for disposal since we have......
   a) Lots of Army Divisions on ships that require piers to unload....since
we got allies all over the place that will let us transit their country, who
needs barges,eh?
    b) Lots of C5's and C17's and soooo many allied airfields all over the
place with long term usage agreements.

    Putting all the GEE WHIZ electronics only in the equipment state side,
not the forward deployed stuff. Since we can rapidly load and transit an
entire division and reach ANYPLACE in the world in 21 DAYS from the GO
order. Then sit around for 4 weeks looking for dock space.(Hmmm...where did
I put that landing craft thingy that the Marines used?)

    Any others?

===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 13:30:47 PDT