Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/30/2004 1:48:30 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 1:53:35 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 2:03:24 PM EST
tagged
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 2:07:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 2:08:40 PM EST by CAMPYBOB]
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 2:14:09 PM EST
I agree with most of the article, but you have to remember were dealing with an enemy with a very limited AT capability.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 2:15:56 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 2:16:13 PM EST
Good article. Personally for me, I wish they would nuke the place, and bring our men and women home from that hell hole.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 2:23:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 4:58:56 PM EST by warlord]

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
But the Army should always be ready to use armor, even against lightly armed guerrillas, Colonel Macgregor said. "The idea in war is to crush your enemy," he said. "If you're in a fight with a fly, use a baseball bat."


This is not television or a game, this the real deal; the USA is not looking for a fair fight, we're looking to kill with overwhelming fire power.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 2:24:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/30/2004 2:39:44 PM EST by M38]

Originally Posted By Mach1:
I agree with most of the article, but you have to remember were dealing with an enemy with a very limited AT capability.


Good point, might've been a different story if they had been going up against first rate infantry units with modern, western anti-tank weapons.



Exactly. If that had happened and four of the tanks were taken out we would have been reading an article about the neandrathal thinking of an inflexiable, heavy tank bound military unable to cope with guerilla insurgancy a la Vietnam .
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 3:00:30 PM EST
We have to learn this lesson time and time again. After every war the army becomes obsessed with becoming lean and mobile, only to find that, when the shooting starts, there is no substitute for heavy forces. The same thinking gave us the Sherman and light division structure in WWII, as well as a lot of dead GIs.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 3:04:21 PM EST
Nothing nastier than tanks with infantry, air, and artillery support. It holds true regardless of the terrain.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 3:23:59 PM EST
Nice article.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 3:36:59 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 3:57:51 PM EST
That was a very good article.

Amazingly, it appeared in the opinion section, and above the fold.

The one piece worth reading in 12 pages of leftist drivel.

Mike
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 4:26:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By CAMPYBOB:
oh hell...infantry?...armour?..whatever happened to good old fashioned theater tactical nukes?!?!

i'll call it the "imam ali bbq rib pit"!



Link Posted: 8/30/2004 4:46:51 PM EST
It's only a matter of time until they get their hands on effective anti-tank weapons. I think the best way to beat them is to surround them, cut off their power, water, sewage, etc. and don't let anybody in or anybody out until they behave themselves. I have no idea what I'm talking about, though.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 5:06:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By lu380:
It's only a matter of time until they get their hands on effective anti-tank weapons. I think the best way to beat them is to surround them, cut off their power, water, sewage, etc. and don't let anybody in or anybody out until they behave themselves. I have no idea what I'm talking about, though.



They'll get them through the Iranians. And I wouldn't even bother with making them behave. Just kill them. It's the only thing that seems to be understood over there.
Link Posted: 8/30/2004 5:31:24 PM EST
Top Top