Monte Carlo Posted September 16, 2010 Posted September 16, 2010 ^ I can't let it go, there are a lot of seriously bright people in the military despite popular misconceptions to the contrary. The Team America tendency in the Bush Whitehouse merely compounded the lazy, flabby errors and indifference of the Clinton years.
Calax Posted September 16, 2010 Posted September 16, 2010 part of the afganistan and iraq bungling was that the administration didn't follow marine standard doctrine for that sort of thing. Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.
Walsingham Posted September 17, 2010 Author Posted September 17, 2010 To suggest that the Somali mission failed because no heavy weapons were allowed is - to overuse my favourite term - bonkers. You think that the midpoint of Blackhawk Down should have been the sight of 155 howitzers blatting away at downtown Mogadishu? What precisely do you think would have happened next? Having said that I can't agree that uparmoured light vehicles made sense in the 1990s. Firstly, the IED threat had barely evolved. Secondly, if you uparmour a light vehicle you get a medium weight vehicle. They move slower, they have more accidents, they cost more to buy and maintain. So you pile on the firepower, and you get less of them. If you know of a way to juggle the equation differently you should bloody patent it and give Thales a ring. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
Wrath of Dagon Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 To suggest that the Somali mission failed because no heavy weapons were allowed is - to overuse my favourite term - bonkers. You think that the midpoint of Blackhawk Down should have been the sight of 155 howitzers blatting away at downtown Mogadishu? What precisely do you think would have happened next? No, but sending some Bradleys to the rescue would have made hell of a lot more sense than sending in Humvees. Not to mention they were ridiculously undermanned for what they were trying to do, and apparently had no contingency plans. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
Gfted1 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I hope we wont need the F-22 in 20 years. Looks like I was off by 19 years. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Walsingham Posted January 12, 2011 Author Posted January 12, 2011 To suggest that the Somali mission failed because no heavy weapons were allowed is - to overuse my favourite term - bonkers. You think that the midpoint of Blackhawk Down should have been the sight of 155 howitzers blatting away at downtown Mogadishu? What precisely do you think would have happened next? No, but sending some Bradleys to the rescue would have made hell of a lot more sense than sending in Humvees. Not to mention they were ridiculously undermanned for what they were trying to do, and apparently had no contingency plans. Not contingency planning is a feature of all 'imperial' warfare against 'natives'. No-one ever wants to admit that the locals might know how to fight after 1000 years of doing little else. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now