From: Glen Bedel (GBedel@designforum.com)
Date: Tue Apr 08 2003 - 11:44:34 PDT
I was watching the footage on "FOX", when the Saddamites attacked an armored
column with what looked to be a Toyota corolla.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Ball [mailto:vought@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 2:40 PM
To: mil-veh@mil-veh.org
Subject: Re: [MV] List of Inadequate Eqiupment used in Iraq
All this "obsolete" equipment only has to work for one trip. You may just
get a chance to put it in your shed and clean the grit from the gear boxes
for years to come as many of us collectors are doing with the antiquated
hardware purchased from Gov liquid from the last trip to the dunes. If you
ask me it doesn't matter what the soldiers are driving they are doing a
hellava good job with it. I saw an M1 Skinny killer turn the 50 on some
skinnies dumb enough to climb an embankment thinking they could flank it
nothing left but dirty laundry. Anyone see the British ram the door to one
of the palaces with what looked like a Rover?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. A. Moir aka RAM" <cyclopsram@starband.net>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [MV] List of Inadequate Eqiupment used in Iraq
> I suppose the M915 series of CCC trucks would qualify... the 400 HP
Cummins
> mated to the lamo Caterpillar air operated transmission and not
> fitted
with
> a air dryer or filter ..I believe I got a glimpse of a couple of them
> in a convoy.... RAM
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ronzo" <rojoha@attbi.com>
> To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 12:49
> 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>
> >
>
>
> ===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>
>
===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