Armor Effort 'Good News Story' for Troops

[BBond]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

So, are you arguing against the war or the method in which it was waged? I think you need to decide on one or the other if you want to have any sort of reasonable discussion. I guess it probably makes you feel better to throw in an anti-war paragraph in every post because it makes it sound like you have something to say, but it doesn't add much to the discussion.

I don't need to decide. I disagree with the war and the way in which it is being waged. The war was unnecessary, unprovoked, and illegal. Sending troops into combat without the proper equipment is inexcusable.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: BBond
I don't need to decide. I disagree with the war and the way in which it is being waged. The war was unnecessary, unprovoked, and illegal. Sending troops into combat without the proper equipment is inexcusable.

This thread isn't a debate on the legitimacy of the war. Since you're unfamiliar with the protocols required to develop, specify, test, and equip troops with new equipment, there's not much point in my arguing with you about it. All I can tell you is that the troops went in with the best that we had at the time and that the 'new armor' that our troops are getting was literally developed and manufactured after this whole thing started in the media. It hasn't been tested at all. Now, are you going to blame Bush if this armor is actually inferior to what our troops had before?

 

[BBond]

The armor wasn't inferior. The armor wasn't there. Don't obfuscate the issue. The vehicles were unarmored and our troops were sent into combat, unnecessarily, with those unarmored vehicles. Period.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: BBond
The armor wasn't inferior. The armor wasn't there. Don't obfuscate the issue. The vehicles were unarmored and our troops were sent into combat, unnecessarily, with those unarmored vehicles. Period.

OK, I'll have to admit that I've been living in a hole for the last few weeks (quite literally - a room in the basement of the enginerd building with no windows), so I don't know about the vehicles. What vehicles do we have that were/are unarmored?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: BBond
The armor wasn't inferior. The armor wasn't there. Don't obfuscate the issue. The vehicles were unarmored and our troops were sent into combat, unnecessarily, with those unarmored vehicles. Period.

OK, I'll have to admit that I've been living in a hole for the last few weeks (quite literally - a room in the basement of the enginerd building with no windows), so I don't know about the vehicles. What vehicles do we have that were/are unarmored?

Troops were sent into combat in unarmored humvees.

Durbin demands answers on soldiers' lack of protective equipment

U.S. to Spend $4B on Iraq Armor

Dems Demand Answers on Lack of Iraq Armor

 

[EagleKeeper]

The Hummers were not intended to have armour, they were designed to be the equival;ent of a WWII jeep. They are small capacity troop transports, not Bradleys.

Adding armor to the vehicle would exceed the original design limits, damaging the frame and drive train due to the extra weight.

The suspension and other parts need to be reworked when the aditional armor is added (properly).

It becomes a choice of sending the troops into combat or not.
Small arms fire was not the problem, EIDs were.

Very few of the incidents were due to portable weapons (ie RPGs).