Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Durkin Tactical Franklin Armory
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 6:55:50 AM EST
[#1]
cmmg
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 6:56:37 AM EST
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OLY,

I think you are mistakenly reading my post as anti-3ID.
It is not.
That you find it necessary to denigrate the Corps is unfortunate.

The Marines and the Army had two different routes.
The Corps' was FAR more populated, and had many bridges to secure.  Much more urban situations.

If it is your intention to insult the Marines because of a friendly fire incident don't.  
But remember, [red]the first US Forces to reach Baghdad were indeed Army- unfortunately they were POWs at the time.[/red]

The premise of this thread is that those individuals on that site are obnoxious asses.  Do you wish to emulate them?
View Quote


No you're already doing too good of a job. I'll let you go. Since in every post you seem to run down the Army.  
View Quote


Tell me, what in this post "runs down the army"?:
Quoted:
Don't forget....

The LAV can ford rivers.
They float and have propellers.

As far as the Marines being a little slower on the advance to Baghdad...
...they were given a MUCH more populated route.
Constant contact with the enemy, and the irregular forces.
The 3ID moved fast, but if they had been given the Corps' route, they too would have been slowed down.

[red]Just like during the first War.
The Army swings up on the left, the Corps goes head first right up the middle.[/red]
View Quote


No where did i say anything negative about your beloved 3ID, but you come back at me with derogatory crap about the Corps.
You apparently are bit paranoid.
View Quote


POW's huh, no that's not negative.

WW-I you should learn more about history. Perhaps you should research the Battle of the Marne. Then look up the 3-ID's nickname.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:01:04 AM EST
[#3]
That was in RESPOSNE to your bile.
Look at my original post.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:06:41 AM EST
[#4]
Quoted:
The war in (not against) Iraq favored light to medium forces that could move quickly against an unmodivated, poorly trained and led army. Is that the only type of warfare possible? needed? to prepare for?

View Quote


??? I would think of the units involved,

101st, 173rd, and the Ranger battalions are "light".

USMC could be light or medium depending on the force composition.

But 3rd ID, 4th ID, and the 1st ID, are all, *ID, Mechanized, Heavy, according to the Army.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:10:00 AM EST
[#5]
Quoted:
Do AAAV's or LAV's have AT or AA capablilty besides the gun?

View Quote


LAV Anti Tank (TOW):
[img]http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/7e931335d515626a8525628100676e0c/984f215605eb7eea8525628300585bd4/$FILE/LAVAT.JPG[/img]

LAV AG (90mm)
[img]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/lav_90mm-ags-s.jpg[/img]

LAV AD (air defense)
[img]http://www.olive-drab.com/images/id_lavad_full.jpg[/img]

Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:14:03 AM EST
[#6]
Quoted:
That was in RESPOSNE to your bile.
Look at my original post.
View Quote


This is like the 3rd thread I've seen your act in. This is the first one I started before you. You are also the reason I stayed away from the whole "mother of all threads".

When you start with Army supply units........ blah, blah.

But when I mention one of the friendly fire incidents the USMC had, thats below the belt.

Well that's real nice. If you want to run down Army units it's fair game, but pointing out problems that the USMC had, that's just unfair.

Yup, you are a little spin doctor. YOu should stop take a breath, then consider learing something about the other services.

It used to be when these threads would start up I would be one of the people asking that everyone remember that USMC, USA, USN, USAF, USCG, USF+G, and so forth all started with US. I have grown tired of your little USMC rules, everyone else sucks routine. Firstly because it ain't true. I shouldn't have to go further.

But I'm not going to be ignoring your tripe.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:18:51 AM EST
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do AAAV's or LAV's have AT or AA capablilty besides the gun?

View Quote


LAV Anti Tank (TOW):
[url]http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/7e931335d515626a8525628100676e0c/984f215605eb7eea8525628300585bd4/$FILE/LAVAT.JPG[/url]

LAV AG (90mm)
[url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/lav_90mm-ags-s.jpg[/url]

LAV AD (air defense)
[url]http://www.olive-drab.com/images/id_lavad_full.jpg[/url]

View Quote


How many of those vehicles exsist?

You realize that Bradleys, M2/M3 have the 25mm gun AND 2 TOW missiles? That the Bradley M9 has a 25mm gun AND AA missiles?

3-ID has an ADA Battalion that includes M9 Bradleys, and I think HMMV AA vehicles.

Off the top of my head 3-ID has 4-5 mech. inf battalions equipped with M2/M3 Bradleys, plus a Cav. Bn with Bradleys. For abouy 320 Bradleys in the division.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:20:07 AM EST
[#8]
Parts of the light forces did very well. The SF in western Iraq, for example. The 173rd plus the pesh in northern Iraq did well, but (again from press reports) it seemed that the Iraqi army was able to break contact and fall back to successive defensive lines when faced by only light forces plus air power. They wouldn't have gotten away with that crap if faced by a heavy unit; they'd have been crushed the moment they moved out of their positions, or overrun if they stayed in them.

The heavy unit (3 ID) had the best results against the heaviest resistance. I don't think light units or the USMC could have done the urban mechanized raids in Baghdad that clinched the war. They'd have used different tactics, and I think probably have lost more troops and taken longer.

I don't think the war is a ringing endorsement of light forces plus airpower. I think you can make an argument that the precision weapons and surveilance reduced the need for lots of heavy units, and made the single heavy unit there more effective, but there still needed to be a heavy unit.

The official histories will be interesting.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:57:58 AM EST
[#9]
The author needs to be a little more stealth in hiding the chip on his shoulder.

"Air Force Warden worshippers" - puhlease.

Lower case m in "marine" - riiiight.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:58:27 AM EST
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
That was in RESPOSNE to your bile.
Look at my original post.
View Quote


This is like the 3rd thread I've seen your act in. This is the first one I started before you. You are also the reason I stayed away from the whole "mother of all threads".

When you start with Army supply units........ blah, blah.

But when I mention one of the friendly fire incidents the USMC had, thats below the belt.
View Quote


You mentioned that in response to what?
I ask again.
I didn't "start with Army supply units".
I didn't mention it.

Here's my post and your reply:

Quoted:
Don't forget....

The LAV can ford rivers.
They float and have propellers.

As far as the Marines being a little slower on the advance to Baghdad...
...they were given a MUCH more populated route.
Constant contact with the enemy, and the irregular forces.
The 3ID moved fast, but if they had been given the Corps' route, they too would have been slowed down.

Just like during the first War.
The Army swings up on the left, the Corps goes head first right up the middle.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[red] then you say:[/red]

The 3-ID has more M-1's than the USMC. They had appx 300 Bradleys. Again that is a lot compared to a USMC unit would have. Bradleys are more capable IFV's than what the USMC has.

That heavier, more capable force structure allowed 3-ID to "overrun" opposition. or bypass them. They also fought what was called a major tank battle on the way to Baghdad.
{edit}
Pop Quiz #1 What branch of the US Armed Forces had a company level fire fight between to of it's units during Operation Iraqi Freedom?
View Quote


You fired first.
Probably because you were stewing in your own juices for a bit too long.
You said it yourself that you abstained from the "mother of all threads":
This is like the 3rd thread I've seen your act in. This is the first one I started before you. You are also the reason I stayed away from the whole "mother of all threads".
View Quote


But read that thread again.
The participants all agreed, and were roundly praised for NOT turning it into a flame-fest.

As evidenced HERE, that was no doubt thanks to your NOT paticipating.

Link Posted: 5/8/2003 8:09:45 AM EST
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do AAAV's or LAV's have AT or AA capablilty besides the gun?

View Quote


LAV Anti Tank (TOW):
LAV AG (90mm)
LAV AD (air defense)
View Quote


How many of those vehicles exsist?

View Quote


LAR Bn Org:
[img]http://www.strategypage.com/articles/ibct_files/image012.gif[/img]

If your contention is that the Army is "heavier", well duh.
Of course it is.

So what?
Why go through such contortions to prove that which is a given?
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 8:16:01 AM EST
[#12]
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 11:33:34 AM EST
[#13]
What isn't seen in this piece is the honest and hard apprasial that each piece of equipment gets following its use in a confict. We'll be examining every thing down to web gear and flashlights in extreme detail looking to do it better next time.
View Quote


Will we? Rumsfeld seems to be declaring victory for himself and a end to heavy forces that he doesn't beleve won the war.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 11:43:29 AM EST
[#14]
Inter-service rivalry aside, I am proud of every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen, and Marine for their actions. I cannot say who had it tougher, nor do I care. What matters to me is that we achieved victory with fewer casualties than was expected. I hope some honest AARs will contribute to the improvement of the force overall. Mistakes were made by every service involved so those that live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Improve:

IFF capabilities. 1 friendly fire incident is one too many. All units should be able to positively identify their intended target before sending rounds down range. I am unsure how to achieve this but it needs to be investigated.

Transportation. Heavy air and sealift capabilities to bring our forces rapidly into theater. The ground side is also going to have to look at ways to lighten itself also.

Training. All REMFs should receive infantry training. After bootcamp Soldiers should do what the Marines do and attend a month of combat training. It is successful in the Corps and I think the Army would benefit also.

Sustain:

MOUT training. This singular training event saved lives. Thank you GEN Krulak for have the foresight to implement this program.

Riflemans Load. The new bullet proof vest, M-16 improvements, and other equipment saved lives, keep spending money to improve the quality of life for the branch that sustains the most casualties, the infantry.

Regardless of what anyone says, ALL of our troops did a hell of a job and set a new precedence for land warfare.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 2:35:42 PM EST
[#15]
Quoted:

Quoted:
[red]Someone will be along soon to say the Marines did more with less, took the more populated route [/red](leaving out, that it was a far shorter route, and they only faced 1 regiment of Republican Guard, and militia), and that even though the Army went 3 times as far no one was in their way (until the 6 Republican Guard Divisions in Baghdad, but we'll skip that little detail)
View Quote


Fifth post in the thread, and like I said, the first time anyone made mention of the Marine Corps aside from the twisted fuck who wrote the article that ArmdLbrl quoted.
View Quote


Yeah I was crazy for that prediction.

Quoted:
Don't forget....

The LAV can ford rivers.
They float and have propellers.

As far as the Marines being a little slower on the advance to Baghdad...
...they were given a MUCH more populated route.
Constant contact with the enemy, and the irregular forces.
The 3ID moved fast, but if they had been given the Corps' route, they too would have been slowed down.

Just like during the first War.
The Army swings up on the left, the Corps goes head first right up the middle.
View Quote


Why was my crystal ball so accurate?
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 3:05:37 PM EST
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
HOWEVER when they stick to talking about just how to improve the US Army, they usually have very sound ideas. They are quite creative.
View Quote

"They" who? It's one guy, as I said. He's blinded to anything regarding the Marine Corps by the grudge he holds because he [b]could not hack it[/b] and was passed over and forced out.
View Quote


[liberal] Well then he has established bona-fides doesn't he?? After all, he was IN ths Marines!! [/liberal]
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 3:15:12 PM EST
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Damn those A-10's were effective.  Why did we ever want to get rid of them?  We should order some more....."
View Quote


The A-10 doesn't have a large enough "COOL" factor to the brass, to the contractors, or to the politicians.
Sure, it get's the job done! But that doesn't cut it in defense contracting.
We need something "NEW" and "HIGH TECH"......
Something that requires years of "development" and BILLIONS of $$$$.
Can't have something as "old" and "ugly" as the A-10 back in production. Yuck...paaatooie!

Nope!....We need something "Cool" like the DEATH RAY SKYFLASH 2004 ......... that will be the FIREBOLT OF GOD to the enemy......

Something proven, reliable, and successful, like the A-10 just don't cut it.

Can you tell I haven't had my coffee yet this morning?
View Quote



This like all the talk about legacy systems. The military makes it sound like everything that isn`t the latest thing is an antiquated peice of crap. They forget the reason we still have those systems is because they are effective in their roles. You know like the Nimitz class, the M 1A1 Abrams, and the F 14D.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 3:31:27 PM EST
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
HOWEVER when they stick to talking about just how to improve the US Army, they usually have very sound ideas. They are quite creative.
View Quote

"They" who? It's one guy, as I said. He's blinded to anything regarding the Marine Corps by the grudge he holds because he [b]could not hack it[/b] and was passed over and forced out.
View Quote


[liberal] Well then he has established bona-fides doesn't he?? After all, he was IN ths Marines!! [/liberal]
View Quote


No the ideas on that website are not the production of one man, read the credits. However the guy who is the webmaster/owner does have a problem with Marines.

That does NOT however make the ideas on the sight any less valid. You cannot ignore ideas soley because you do not like the person or persons, or because you find the manner they are presented offensive Jarhead.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 4:49:25 PM EST
[#19]
All this anger over one cancelled system, the Crusader. Wow!

Let's face it, we were lucky in that the war against Iraq allowed us to build up a force, wait, keep building up the force, wait, and then attack. not all future situations will be like that.

What the SECDEF wants out of the Army is not more heavy systems. (As someone stated just because a system is old doesn't mean it is obsolete.) Our heavy systems, overall, are the best in the world. What the SECDEF wants from the Army is the ability to get to the battlefield quickly. It took the 3rd ID a long time to get in theater, and they already had 1/3 of their strength in Kuwait. Look how long it took the 4th ID to get from Turkey to Kuwait once the decision was made, and Turkey was just around the bend, so to speak.

The army needs a light to medium force that can conduct offensive operations quickly. The Army doesn't posses such a force as of yet. The USMC is building their force to that standard. If the Army doesn't realize they need such a force too, then it will be hard to justify the high costs of the Army when the USMC is deploying to all the hotspots with the Army chronically late due to their insistance on heavy forces. SECDEF knows this. I believe the change is, in the long run, for the Army's own good.

We learned several lessons from GWII. The combined arms team of the USMC is ideal for getting a force ashore in hostile territory quickly and sustaining them there; however, for deep penetrating blitzkrieg type operations they are not well suited as the Army. I think the Army needs to break away from their reliance on the Air Force for CAS. The Army needs the A-10, a mission the blue suiters don't want, and they need to integrate like a MAGTF. I think the Army would benefit greatly.

As for vehicles, the AAAV (Sea Dragon) will be more comparable to the Bradley than the AAV7. The AAV7 is underpowered, undergunned, and underarmored. The LAV was never meant to be comparable to the Bradley. They were meant to be used as recon. However, Marines being Marines, LAVs in this latest conflict found themselves engaging T-55's with only a 25mm chain gun. A role the vehicle was never meant for (I'm no ground-pounder, but I think the more prudent move would be beat feet and call in the Super Cobras).

Regarding the rate of advance:  remember that the Marines diverted 3 battalions to secure An Nasirayh after the Army had already bypassed the town. An Nasirayh was a critical point on the LOCs for both the 3rd ID and the 1st MEF. The Marines were involved in a lot of mopping up. However, the Army's mission is deep strike advances, and the Army showed it remains the best in the world. Even if they only have one division to do it with.

There is still a role for the Army's heavy forces that probably will never go away. However, we cannot continue to procure weapons systems based on the assumption that we will have to defend West Germany against a Warsaw Pact attack or that we will have weeks and even months to build up forces to fight an enemy. It's just not realistic. Future regional conflicts will be decided on who gets there firstest with the mostest. Considering that no other nation on earth can mount an offensive land operation against CONUS, we must be able to go overseas with a land force that can mount credible offensive operations in a very short amount of time.

Quoted:
Inter-service rivalry aside, I am proud of every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen, and Marine for their actions. I cannot say who had it tougher, nor do I care. What matters to me is that we achieved victory with fewer casualties than was expected. I hope some honest AARs will contribute to the improvement of the force overall. Mistakes were made by every service involved so those that live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Improve:

IFF capabilities. 1 friendly fire incident is one too many. All units should be able to positively identify their intended target before sending rounds down range. I am unsure how to achieve this but it needs to be investigated.

Transportation. Heavy air and sealift capabilities to bring our forces rapidly into theater. The ground side is also going to have to look at ways to lighten itself also.

Training. All REMFs should receive infantry training. After bootcamp Soldiers should do what the Marines do and attend a month of combat training. It is successful in the Corps and I think the Army would benefit also.

Sustain:

MOUT training. This singular training event saved lives. Thank you GEN Krulak for have the foresight to implement this program.

Riflemans Load. The new bullet proof vest, M-16 improvements, and other equipment saved lives, keep spending money to improve the quality of life for the branch that sustains the most casualties, the infantry.

Regardless of what anyone says, ALL of our troops did a hell of a job and set a new precedence for land warfare.
View Quote


These are all excellent points!  The "three block war" concept was a concept whose time had come. Kudos to the Army for developing the interceptor body armor. Lord knows the Marines, always short on funds, would have never had the capital to develop such a system. Sea and Airlift are critically short. One wonders why we continue to turn such a blind eye to such an important aspect of moder military operations. I know of no officer who envisions combat at home, so why don't we prepare adequate transportation to get our troops overseas?
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 5:26:18 PM EST
[#20]
Dport...good post.

I believe that, and I hate saying this, that Rummy was 100% correct in canceling the Crusader. BUT...our ground forces absolutely NEED an effective and reliable mobile artillery system. When the weather closes in just like it did for 2-3 days of sandstorms, CAS was not available and the King of Battle was. The M198 is being replaced by the LW155 but it is still towed artillery. A mobile system such as the Caesar, FH77, or G6 Rhino. Right now the SCBT is scheduled to use M198s.

I think a big part of the problem is what DOD is defining as mission. What is the mission of the American forces? The 2 MRC model is out the window from what I have read. The key is deployability. We need our heavy forces, but we also need a force that is light enough to be rapidly deployed but heavy enough to hold its own. I like the concept of the SCBT but I think the Army has made a mistake. Originally they wanted every Stryker variant to be C-130 deployable. But 8 of the 10 variants are too heavy or too tall to be C-130 deployable combat ready. I just don't understand why they continue to march in light of this. If you want a capable vehicle that is C-130 deployable then buy one. Dont change the spec or ord just because the manufacturer cannot fulfill your needs, find someone who can.

There are changes that need to be made to improve the force, but contrary to the SECDEFs opinion, airpower is not the solution to every problem. Combined arms is.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 5:51:07 PM EST
[#21]
About light-medium Army forces.

The Army has several "light" infantry divisions. Unfortunatley they aren't as mobile, with trucks and tracks, once they hit the ground as the probably should be. The also lack offensive punch.

The Army has heavy divisions, but getting them to the fight, and supplying them with food, fuel, and bullets is a large job. Once they get on the field they are unmatched in combat firepower, and protection.

Unforyunately there is a large gap between light and heavy.

The M1 tank for instance uses a turbine engine, 1500 hp. The problem with turbine type engines, is that they use about the same amount of fuel at idle as they do at wide open throttle. In combat areas tank probably won't shut down. That's a lot of fuel to provide 24/7.

The USMC kept M60's for a while after M1's came out. The M-60's are lighter, and have a regular old diesel engine. They were still capabple tanks when they were phased out. USMC tanks had ERA supplemental armor packages available. I think the USMC kept the M60's because the were easier to transport, keep fueled, and maintain.

If either force deploys an M1, it takes a lot of transport capability to get it to where it has to go, and a lot to keep it gassed. Some have indicated 1,500 gallons of diesel a day.

That kinda rules it out of a light forces concept. There is a Stryker AT vehicle [rolleyes]. I think the Armed Forces needs to look at getting a light-medium tank, with a palin old diesel engine. M8's or Stingray MK-II's have been proto'ed and tested. Both have 105mm guns. The M8 was actually a US Army weapons development effort. Why can't US forces get a lighter tank?

The Crusader, I thought the thing was overweight, overpriced, etc. But the M109/M548's should be replaced. Air power isn't always available. Sure the Crusader is a "heavy" weapon. But tube arty should be deployable with every US ground formation. That doesn't mean that Crusaders should be the ONLY arty system. Towed arty should still be the support arm in the lighter formations.

Our laser guided, gps homing stuff worked great. Against an enemy that has miles of flat land, and desert, with no signifigant ADA threat. I would hate to see our forces dependent on air-delivered-ordinance, face an enemy with ADA, gps jammers, and laser countermeasures available. Then artilery looks like a much better weapons delivery system.  
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 6:24:22 PM EST
[#22]
Is it just me, or does that LAV look kind of like like a Soviet BTR or BRDM???

Wheels... EEWWW it has Wheels!
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 6:46:18 PM EST
[#23]
Yes the M1 consumes 1500 gal of JP8 every 24hr. A Chinook will eat that much in 3 hours.

Every thing is relative. Buy more C-17's.

12 C-17 sorties a day carrying fuel containers would keep a mech brigade going. If you have a runway big enough it drops to 8 C-5 sorties.

We have 100 C-17's and 126 C-5 aircraft at the present. 20 more C-17s are still to be delivered on current contracts. The Air Force wants 100 more beyond that. We need to buy more like 200 and accelerate the delivery schedual to something more than the current one a month.

And develop a better, lightweight container for hauling JP8
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 6:48:22 PM EST
[#24]
Quoted:
Is it just me, or does that LAV look kind of like like a Soviet BTR or BRDM???

Wheels... EEWWW it has Wheels!
View Quote


And it isn't much better protected than BTRs and BRDMs-which if you recall you can shred with a Ma Duce or Mk 19. Even HEDP from a M203 will put a hole in one.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 6:56:00 PM EST
[#25]
Quoted:
Someone will be along soon to say the Marines did more with less, took the more populated route (leaving out, that it was a far shorter route, and they only faced 1 regiment of Republican Guard, and militia), and that even though the Army went 3 times as far no one was in their way (until the 6 Republican Guard Divisions in Baghdad, but we'll skip that little detail)

View Quote


Yeah, that's why they Marines were fighting all of those seasoned fighters aka "terrorists" from Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.! Real wussies....NOT

Unlike the "Elite" republican guard, these foreign fighters DID actually fight.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:26:23 PM EST
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone will be along soon to say the Marines did more with less, took the more populated route (leaving out, that it was a far shorter route, and they only faced 1 regiment of Republican Guard, and militia), and that even though the Army went 3 times as far no one was in their way (until the 6 Republican Guard Divisions in Baghdad, but we'll skip that little detail)

View Quote


Yeah, that's why they Marines were fighting all of those seasoned fighters aka "terrorists" from Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.! Real wussies....NOT

Unlike the "Elite" republican guard, these foreign fighters DID actually fight.
View Quote


Dude take your interservice pissing match somewhere else.

The Marines moved slower against comparible resistance and sustained heavier casualties because they had fewer modern AFVs PERIOD. For them the fix is already on the way.

The problem is those who think that this makes it ok to downgrade the Armies equipment. THAT is the issue.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:36:41 PM EST
[#27]
I will say one thing about the Crusader though, it can put steel on steel like NOBODY'S business. It had some good points but was TOO heavy. I wonder if they can incorporate alot of the FC systems into a lighter tracked or wheeled configuration?

Wait to find out I guess.
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top