OT: Ping Roy, Larry & other Vets
From : mac davis
Q: i dont know if you guys are following the army body armor thing basically the grunts parents are trying to buy better or different body armor for their kids and the army keeps changing its mind big improvement since the 60s the army has a mind now about whether to allow this or maybe reimburse for it.. im having trouble getting my head wrapped around this one and wanted to see what your opinions were... im sort of split... i want to see our troops protected as much as possible.... i also realize that the army has to be uniform/standardized/whatever... military discipline and individual style and weapons sort of went out with the minute men.. were we just too dumb to get something better than flak jackets or is it that the volunteer army is looser and the media coverage closer i remember how much we hated giving up our m-14s for the crappy then m-16... if we didnt like it why didnt we go buy something better im really on the fence on this... not sure which way to jump... having a kid in the army and knowing that pinnacle armor maker of dragon skin is a few miles from here really whack the military discipline and standard thing around.. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .
Replies:
From : roy
on fri 31 mar 2006 110124 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote thats where im kind of stuck... i can see the extra weapon shit... the guys coming back say that its easy to buy anything you want over there mostly knock offs made in pakistan.. its the armor that im hung up on... if it works give it to everyone if it isnt as good as the issued stuff get the issued stuff to everyone.. bro stop and think about it for a second. we are talking about a government that wanted to put our troops into the bradly that was a friggin bomb. they gave us a ar that at first caused the deaths of a number of troops. i have no confidence in them getting the best for them and the best is what they should have. what are the independents wearing what about the blackwater folks they are supposed to be one of the better groups. doubtful the independents are skimping on their stuff. roy .
From : mac davis
on sat 1 apr 2006 153012 -0700 azwiley1 azwiley1@cox.net wrote mac in answer to your pointed question about should they only have to rely on issued equipment or not. my answer as a former soldier being in a combat zone and as a parent is a profound hell no!!! if we have to ability to better protect they by sending something that though is not issued but will keep them alive they military more specifically the fucking politicians should not bitch. if they think they know so much better let them go there and use what they are demanding we use. ok.. thats sort of what i wanted to hear larry... kind of getting evidence for any future fight i may have if clay ends up going anywhere that theyre shooting.. and of course trying to look at it from both sides... well maybe not specifically the army side but more the real world like platoon and squad leaders side... they 9mm pistol is a piece of shit and they should have stayed with the 45. if not they at least step up to something like a sig 357 or 40! they must of changed the .45 since the 60s... most of the crap issued then was only accurate if you could throw it straight... after an entertaining event when i emptied a magazine from about 40 away lying prone because that was as low as i could get the guy had 2 rounds in him... i got a .38 the next trip in.. the m16 is out dated and does not pack the punch needed to put some one down for good. average three rounds to the chest on a male target more then about 150 meters away to keep them down. that has been proven by kbr contractors over there. i was blessed... got mcnamarassp first load of 16s before they slowed em down and stuff... if you look at pictures of grunts in the 60s youll usually see if anyone was actually wearing a helmet 2 piece cleaning rods stuck in the camo webbing... thats because if you were lucky you could get 4 or 5 rounds out before it jammed... then you tried to stay alive long enough to put the rod together pull the bolt back ram the rod down the barrel until the round was ejected and got ready to fire again.. we called em muskets.. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .
From : roy
on sat 1 apr 2006 153012 -0700 azwiley1 azwiley1@cox.net wrote mac i was blessed... got mcnamarassp first load of 16s before they slowed em down and stuff... if you look at pictures of grunts in the 60s youll usually see if anyone was actually wearing a helmet 2 piece cleaning rods stuck in the camo webbing... thats because if you were lucky you could get 4 or 5 rounds out before it jammed... then you tried to stay alive long enough to put the rod together pull the bolt back ram the rod down the barrel until the round was ejected and got ready to fire again.. we called em muskets.. didnt that feeling suck talk about the pucker factor when that puppy jammed. sad when mr.charles ak was a better weapon than what we had. never heard any bs being directed at those that carried captured aks. made for a interesting fire fight with green tracers going both ways. actually it fucked up charlie on a couple of occasions. roy mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .
From : proteusdiver
budd cochran wrote what would i like to see read the book robert heinleins starship troopers. the movie screwed the story up royally strength augmenting self-sufficient impervious full coverage body armor with built in recoiless launchers of incendiary he rounds and hud sighting for built in machine guns flight capability optional . it is an excellent book totaly distorted in the movie... it made me think things differently...i wish i had read it before i served my 2 years in the army... only objection i would have against exosceletons which by the way are under consideration and some prototypes tested iirc in japan of all places is the power requirement if something goes bad to the power then the soldier would either be immobilised or forced to ditch the suit and move totally naked in a battlefield designed and fought with armor in mind. if us of a army works the way the greek army was the time i served 83-85 then who cares what the issue items are if you find it better in aftermarket and you dont get in trouble using it-wearing it then by all means use the best... if my daughter was to enlist highly unlikely as it is i would go as far as i could in order to give her the advantage... the army anyway does not consider people as people but as assets in combat statistics... .
From : mac davis
on sun 2 apr 2006 132113 -0400 roy roy@home.net wrote didnt that feeling suck talk about the pucker factor when that puppy jammed. sad when mr.charles ak was a better weapon than what we had. never heard any bs being directed at those that carried captured aks. made for a interesting fire fight with green tracers going both ways. actually it fucked up charlie on a couple of occasions. roy i remember a patrol along a river and i had traded my 16 with the scout for his little m-2 carbine.. he was on point and flushed a vc out of the trees.. he got 2 rounds of on semi before it jammed.. you could hear him yell goddamn number 10 american weapon for miles.. lol i carried an ak for about 6 months when i was doing lurp with the viet rangers... worked real well but you had to make sure that everyone on your side knew you were carrying it or it could ruin your whole day.. *g* it was a heavy slow firing sob but it would cut bamboo down like the m-60 and m-14 did and not deflect and tumble like that damn 16 round.. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .
From : roy
i dont know if you guys are following the army body armor thing having a kid in the army and knowing that pinnacle armor maker of dragon skin is a few miles from here really whack the military discipline and standard thing around.. bro tell your kid thanks for me. roy .
From : roy
i dont know if you guys are following the army body armor thing basically the grunts parents are trying to buy better or different body armor for their kids and the army keeps changing its mind big improvement since the 60s the army has a mind now about whether to allow this or maybe reimburse for it.. i was reading one article that says the grunts arent wearing the b/a because of the weight slows them down. i can see that as a problem. im having trouble getting my head wrapped around this one and wanted to see what your opinions were... im sort of split... i want to see our troops protected as much as possible.... im with ya bro whatever it takes. i also realize that the army has to be uniform/standardized/whatever... military discipline and individual style and weapons sort of went out with the minute men.. fta and the standard/ uniform. were we just too dumb to get something better than flak jackets or is it that the volunteer army is looser and the media coverage closer bro we never used the flak jacket. we ditched that for more ammo. dumped the helmet for the boonie as well. i see our foks as carrying way too much crap. light and fast was the way to go. now it looks like they are carrying everything sam issued. give me some water and all the ammo i can carry if it gets too heavy ill use some of it. sorry ran out once. i remember how much we hated giving up our m-14s for the crappy then m-16... if we didnt like it why didnt we go buy something better stole a 12 pump from the mps. worked real well. im really on the fence on this... not sure which way to jump... having a kid in the army and knowing that pinnacle armor maker of dragon skin is a few miles from here really whack the military discipline and standard thing around.. bro it is all about keeping him all in one piece that is all that is about. were it me id send him all the stuff that would help. dont ask dont tell. get him a piece to stick in his boot too never can tell when he might need it. what are they going to do if sombody says somthing i doubt there would be a problem. if so maybe a article 15 it blows my mind the army cant get it right but they yell about unauthorized equipment weapons or whatever. roy mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .
From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net
mac im not a vet. all i had a son in the navy. i would like to give my opinion but if you would rather not have it i understand. -- budd cochran i dont know if you guys are following the army body armor thing basically the grunts parents are trying to buy better or different body armor for their kids and the army keeps changing its mind big improvement since the 60s the army has a mind now about whether to allow this or maybe reimburse for it.. im having trouble getting my head wrapped around this one and wanted to see what your opinions were... im sort of split... i want to see our troops protected as much as possible.... i also realize that the army has to be uniform/standardized/whatever... military discipline and individual style and weapons sort of went out with the minute men.. were we just too dumb to get something better than flak jackets or is it that the volunteer army is looser and the media coverage closer i remember how much we hated giving up our m-14s for the crappy then m-16... if we didnt like it why didnt we go buy something better im really on the fence on this... not sure which way to jump... having a kid in the army and knowing that pinnacle armor maker of dragon skin is a few miles from here really whack the military discipline and standard thing around.. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .
From : azwiley1
give away old man! vbg mac im not a vet. all i had a son in the navy. i would like to give my opinion but if you would rather not have it i understand. -- budd cochran i dont know if you guys are following the army body armor thing basically the grunts parents are trying to buy better or different body armor for their kids and the army keeps changing its mind big improvement since the 60s the army has a mind now about whether to allow this or maybe reimburse for it.. im having trouble getting my head wrapped around this one and wanted to see what your opinions were... im sort of split... i want to see our troops protected as much as possible.... i also realize that the army has to be uniform/standardized/whatever... military discipline and individual style and weapons sort of went out with the minute men.. were we just too dumb to get something better than flak jackets or is it that the volunteer army is looser and the media coverage closer i remember how much we hated giving up our m-14s for the crappy then m-16... if we didnt like it why didnt we go buy something better im really on the fence on this... not sure which way to jump... having a kid in the army and knowing that pinnacle armor maker of dragon skin is a few miles from here really whack the military discipline and standard thing around.. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .
From : azwiley1
mac first i could give a flying f^&* about the army anymore after all the shit i went through. however our troops survival is a totally different story. the interceptor ballistic armor that they were issuing was not too bad though it is very bulky and does make doing somethings cumbersome. i am sure there is something like cumbersome and able to protect better out there. the problem is the damn politicians and the entire political game that has to be played. get rid of that and they might actually get what they need. i dont know if you guys are following the army body armor thing basically the grunts parents are trying to buy better or different body armor for their kids and the army keeps changing its mind big improvement since the 60s the army has a mind now about whether to allow this or maybe reimburse for it.. im having trouble getting my head wrapped around this one and wanted to see what your opinions were... im sort of split... i want to see our troops protected as much as possible.... i also realize that the army has to be uniform/standardized/whatever... military discipline and individual style and weapons sort of went out with the minute men.. were we just too dumb to get something better than flak jackets or is it that the volunteer army is looser and the media coverage closer i remember how much we hated giving up our m-14s for the crappy then m-16... if we didnt like it why didnt we go buy something better im really on the fence on this... not sure which way to jump... having a kid in the army and knowing that pinnacle armor maker of dragon skin is a few miles from here really whack the military discipline and standard thing around.. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .
From : mac davis
on 3 apr 2006 012802 -0700 proteusdiver proteusdiver@hotmail.com wrote if us of a army works the way the greek army was the time i served 83-85 then who cares what the issue items are if you find it better in aftermarket and you dont get in trouble using it-wearing it then by all means use the best... if my daughter was to enlist highly unlikely as it is i would go as far as i could in order to give her the advantage... the army anyway does not consider people as people but as assets in combat statistics... part of my point... right now you can get in trouble for wearing non-issue.. then again like we used to say when deciding if something was worth the chance of getting caught what were they going to do to us send us to nam maybe even back to the world for a court martial oh please dont throw me into that brian patch.. lol mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .
From : roy
on sun 2 apr 2006 132113 -0400 roy roy@home.net wrote didnt that feeling suck talk about the pucker factor when that puppy jammed. sad when mr.charles ak was a better weapon than what we had. never heard any bs being directed at those that carried captured aks. made for a interesting fire fight with green tracers going both ways. actually it fucked up charlie on a couple of occasions. roy i remember a patrol along a river and i had traded my 16 with the scout for his little m-2 carbine.. he was on point and flushed a vc out of the trees.. the m-2 was a nice weapon. easy to move with. he got 2 rounds of on semi before it jammed.. you could hear him yell goddamn number 10 american weapon for miles.. lol i dont blame him at all. they sucked but it was the cheapest thing going so they bought it for us. i carried an ak for about 6 months when i was doing lurp with the viet rangers... worked real well but you had to make sure that everyone on your side knew you were carrying it or it could ruin your whole day.. *g* yup it sure could! bfg it was a heavy slow firing sob but it would cut bamboo down like the m-60 and m-14 did and not deflect and tumble like that damn 16 round.. and it wouldnt jam and get ya zapped. roy mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm -- guy.com 30gb $9.95 carry forward and on demand bandwidth .
From : cavhbc
on sun 2 apr 2006 132113 -0400 roy roy@home.net wrote didnt that feeling suck talk about the pucker factor when that puppy jammed. sad when mr.charles ak was a better weapon than what we had. never heard any bs being directed at those that carried captured aks. made for a interesting fire fight with green tracers going both ways. actually it fucked up charlie on a couple of occasions. roy i remember a patrol along a river and i had traded my 16 with the scout for his little m-2 carbine.. he was on point and flushed a vc out of the trees.. the m-2 was a nice weapon. easy to move with. he got 2 rounds of on semi before it jammed.. you could hear him yell goddamn number 10 american weapon for miles.. lol i dont blame him at all. they sucked but it was the cheapest thing going so they bought it for us. i carried an ak for about 6 months when i was doing lurp with the viet rangers... worked real well but you had to make sure that everyone on your side knew you were carrying it or it could ruin your whole day.. *g* yup it sure could! bfg it was a heavy slow firing sob but it would cut bamboo down like the m-60 and m-14 did and not deflect and tumble like that damn 16 round.. and it wouldnt jam and get ya zapped. so..... if a guy had on order a socom2...... http//www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles.shtml http//www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-socom-ii.shtml ta go with his new xd45..... roy mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm -- guy.com 30gb $9.95 carry forward and on demand bandwidth .
From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net
thanks larry but since mac asked in respect for his service to the usa i wish his permission. you know its the army sergeant thing we had drilled into us. respect the rank always but respect the person more if he deserves it. -- budd cochran give away old man! vbg mac im not a vet. all i had a son in the navy. i would like to give my opinion but if you would rather not have it i understand. -- budd cochran i dont know if you guys are following the army body armor thing basically the grunts parents are trying to buy better or different body armor for their kids and the army keeps changing its mind big improvement since the 60s the army has a mind now about whether to allow this or maybe reimburse for it.. im having trouble getting my head wrapped around this one and wanted to see what your opinions were... im sort of split... i want to see our troops protected as much as possible.... i also realize that the army has to be uniform/standardized/whatever... military discipline and individual style and weapons sort of went out with the minute men.. were we just too dumb to get something better than flak jackets or is it that the volunteer army is looser and the media coverage closer i remember how much we hated giving up our m-14s for the crappy then m-16... if we didnt like it why didnt we go buy something better im really on the fence on this... not sure which way to jump... having a kid in the army and knowing that pinnacle armor maker of dragon skin is a few miles from here really whack the military discipline and standard thing around.. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** *** free account sponsored by secureix.com *** *** encrypt your internet usage with a free vpn account from http//www.secureix.com *** .
From : coasty uscgret at comcast dot net
i spent 21.5 years off and on wearing body armor for law enforcement. my son in the army 18 months in kosovo some years back and 14 months in the sand box in iraq. he is a special ops como 10th mountain and has worn at least 3 versions of body armor all us issue i had worn two different versions and there were not the same as my sons. he was telling me that when they were training the guardsmen heading to iraq most of them had what i had used it was 20+ years old. many of the regulars gave the guardsmen their old stuff because it was better than what they had and many of the reserves/guardsmen did not have any body armor when they got deployed. right now the us army has thrown up a green curtain to cover their butts because they dropped the ball early on. as of right now the military has issued body armor for all their combat soldiers however is all is not the same nor does it all protect the same. early in my career i wore some body armor that weighed over 20 lbs and some of the soldiers are still using the old stuff especially the reserves and guardsmen. the latest and greatest is a heck of a lot lighter and made of ceramic and kevlar but with full field gear you are looking at humping 70+ pounds 24-7 try that. i can see the concerns of the parents and i would not put my faith in our government to provide our soldiers with the proper tools they need to get the job done because i know that they did not. hell 3/4 of all the hummers deployed were not armored. when my son got deployed he installed the armor in his hummer before it was shipped and he was glad he did. the thing looked like a brick of swis cheese with all the small arms fire that it took. it is a discrase that our government does not provide the appropriate tools for our young men and women. hell i had to ship my son extra mags for his sidearm because they were only issued two mags and good thing i did it saved his ass several times. coasty i dont know if you guys are following the army body armor thing basically the grunts parents are trying to buy better or different body armor for their kids and the army keeps changing its mind big improvement since the 60s the army has a mind now about whether to allow this or maybe reimburse for it.. im having trouble getting my head wrapped around this one and wanted to see what your opinions were... im sort of split... i want to see our troops protected as much as possible.... i also realize that the army has to be uniform/standardized/whatever... military discipline and individual style and weapons sort of went out with the minute men.. were we just too dumb to get something better than flak jackets or is it that the volunteer army is looser and the media coverage closer i remember how much we hated giving up our m-14s for the crappy then m-16... if we didnt like it why didnt we go buy something better im really on the fence on this... not sure which way to jump... having a kid in the army and knowing that pinnacle armor maker of dragon skin is a few miles from here really whack the military discipline and standard thing around.. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .
From : mac davis
on fri 31 mar 2006 190518 -0700 azwiley1 azwiley1@cox.net wrote yeah larry... thats always the problem... most stuff that they get is chosen by who has the most lobby power for their state not who makes the best product... right now the government is telling pinnacle armor to give them a few hundred to inspect if they pass inspection theyll test them... translate to well all be retired by the time anyone makes a decision.. mac first i could give a flying f^&* about the army anymore after all the shit i went through. however our troops survival is a totally different story. the interceptor ballistic armor that they were issuing was not too bad though it is very bulky and does make doing somethings cumbersome. i am sure there is something like cumbersome and able to protect better out there. the problem is the damn politicians and the entire political game that has to be played. get rid of that and they might actually get what they need. i dont know if you guys are following the army body armor thing basically the grunts parents are trying to buy better or different body armor for their kids and the army keeps changing its mind big improvement since the 60s the army has a mind now about whether to allow this or maybe reimburse for it.. im having trouble getting my head wrapped around this one and wanted to see what your opinions were... im sort of split... i want to see our troops protected as much as possible.... i also realize that the army has to be uniform/standardized/whatever... military discipline and individual style and weapons sort of went out with the minute men.. were we just too dumb to get something better than flak jackets or is it that the volunteer army is looser and the media coverage closer i remember how much we hated giving up our m-14s for the crappy then m-16... if we didnt like it why didnt we go buy something better im really on the fence on this... not sure which way to jump... having a kid in the army and knowing that pinnacle armor maker of dragon skin is a few miles from here really whack the military discipline and standard thing around.. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .
From : mac davis
on fri 31 mar 2006 110124 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote i was reading one article that says the grunts arent wearing the b/a because of the weight slows them down. i can see that as a problem. yeah i saw a few interviews that the guys said the same thing... but this dragon skin is supposed to be lighter and more flexible... fta and the standard/ uniform. well i can see the need for standardization of some things like the weapons.. bro we never used the flak jacket. we ditched that for more ammo. dumped the helmet for the boonie as well. i see our foks as carrying way too much crap. light and fast was the way to go. now it looks like they are carrying everything sam issued. give me some water and all the ammo i can carry if it gets too heavy ill use some of it. sorry ran out once. i think we were in a different type of fight but i see what you mean... the only time we wore flak jackets was when we were in base camp on guard duty and an officer might raise hell... most of the guys over there are riding or patrolling street... i guess they need night vision gloves goggles etc... cal osha but then thats why they drafted kids instead of ol farts... i can see some poor nco saying lets go and everyone getting out their cells phones and discussing it first.. *g* i remember how much we hated giving up our m-14s for the crappy then m-16... if we didnt like it why didnt we go buy something better stole a 12 pump from the mps. worked real well. yeah we did a bit of that.. i dumped that pos .45 in a hurry and bought a .38 from an af guy... but that was against regs we just took the chance... not sure if it applies here bro it is all about keeping him all in one piece that is all that is about. were it me id send him all the stuff that would help. dont ask dont tell. thats where im kind of stuck... i can see the extra weapon shit... the guys coming back say that its easy to buy anything you want over there mostly knock offs made in pakistan.. its the armor that im hung up on... if it works give it to everyone if it isnt as good as the issued stuff get the issued stuff to everyone.. get him a piece to stick in his boot too never can tell when he might need it. what are they going to do if sombody says somthing i doubt there would be a problem. if so maybe a article 15 it blows my mind the army cant get it right but they yell about unauthorized equipment weapons or whatever. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .
From : mac davis
on fri 31 mar 2006 120819 -0500 roy roy@home.net wrote i dont know if you guys are following the army body armor thing having a kid in the army and knowing that pinnacle armor maker of dragon skin is a few miles from here really whack the military discipline and standard thing around.. bro tell your kid thanks for me. roy for what he had a choice of korea again or iraq... and went to korea.. we told him that if he chose iraq we might kill him.. *g* i know what you mean though and will pass it on... hes gonna be in for 20 if we have any choice.. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .
From : mac davis
on fri 31 mar 2006 121232 -0700 budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom spam.net wrote mac im not a vet. all i had a son in the navy. i would like to give my opinion but if you would rather not have it i understand. i appreciate your asking budd.. but not only dont i own the ng id really like to hear anyone that has an opinion.. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .
From : budd cochran
thanks my friend. i apprecite the chance to speak. imho all our troops and police need the best available and they need it yesterday. too much politicking and cost cutting wastes lives in more ways than just the military but the military is the situation you expect to see lives lost. the police need better armor and weapons to avoid another socal shootout for example. what can be done cut waste in government spending and redirect that money to r&d for the military and police forces. give them right now the best available. what would i like to see read the book robert heinleins starship troopers. the movie screwed the story up royally strength augmenting self-sufficient impervious full coverage body armor with built in recoiless launchers of incendiary he rounds and hud sighting for built in machine guns flight capability optional . yes its far fetched but given todays technology carbon fiberdeep sea suit joints rebreathers powered artificial limbs is it all that far fetched in reality budd mac davis wrote on fri 31 mar 2006 121232 -0700 budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom spam.net wrote mac im not a vet. all i had a son in the navy. i would like to give my opinion but if you would rather not have it i understand. i appreciate your asking budd.. but not only dont i own the ng id really like to hear anyone that has an opinion.. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .
From : mac davis
on sat 1 apr 2006 061839 -0500 coasty uscgret at comcast dot net wrote i spent 21.5 years off and on wearing body armor for law enforcement. my son in the army 18 months in kosovo some years back and 14 months in the sand box in iraq. he is a special ops como 10th mountain and has worn at least 3 versions of body armor all us issue i had worn two different versions and there were not the same as my sons. he was telling me that when they were training the guardsmen heading to iraq most of them had what i had used it was 20+ years old. many of the regulars gave the guardsmen their old stuff because it was better than what they had and many of the reserves/guardsmen did not have any body armor when they got deployed. right now the us army has thrown up a green curtain to cover their butts because they dropped the ball early on. as of right now the military has issued body armor for all their combat soldiers however is all is not the same nor does it all protect the same. early in my career i wore some body armor that weighed over 20 lbs and some of the soldiers are still using the old stuff especially the reserves and guardsmen. the latest and greatest is a heck of a lot lighter and made of ceramic and kevlar but with full field gear you are looking at humping 70+ pounds 24-7 try that. i can see the concerns of the parents and i would not put my faith in our government to provide our soldiers with the proper tools they need to get the job done because i know that they did not. hell 3/4 of all the hummers deployed were not armored. when my son got deployed he installed the armor in his hummer before it was shipped and he was glad he did. the thing looked like a brick of swis cheese with all the small arms fire that it took. it is a discrase that our government does not provide the appropriate tools for our young men and women. hell i had to ship my son extra mags for his sidearm because they were only issued two mags and good thing i did it saved his ass several times. coasty i appreciate your info.. but im looking for sort of moral answers too.. should the troops be allowed to wear and use whatever they want or should it all be issue i saw a grunt on the that got a medical discharge after being hit... the army was charging him for his body armor because they cut it off of him in the er and didnt either ship it to the hospital with him or make a note that they took possession of the armor.. *sigh* as for the humvees they shouldnt be armored imo... thats what my kid does motor pool sgt. working on humvees... he says that they are too heavy as it is and with armor they need a diesel tanker following them... bottom line on the humvee imho is that it replaced the friggin jeep.. not the sherman tank or apc... use it for a jeep and not an attack vehicle and you wont need armor.. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .
From : mac davis
on 1 apr 2006 124028 -0800 budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom.net wrote thanks my friend. i apprecite the chance to speak. imho all our troops and police need the best available and they need it yesterday. too much politicking and cost cutting wastes lives in more ways than just the military but the military is the situation you expect to see lives lost. the police need better armor and weapons to avoid another socal shootout for example. what can be done cut waste in government spending and redirect that money to r&d for the military and police forces. give them right now the best available. what would i like to see read the book robert heinleins starship troopers. the movie screwed the story up royally strength augmenting self-sufficient impervious full coverage body armor with built in recoiless launchers of incendiary he rounds and hud sighting for built in machine guns flight capability optional . yes its far fetched but given todays technology carbon fiber deep sea suit joints rebreathers powered artificial limbs is it all that far fetched in reality budd my problem with that is where does it stop we get those suits.... they get those suits... we develop better armor piercing ammo etc... back to the old bigger sword bigger shield thing... mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .
From : azwiley1
mac in answer to your pointed question about should they only have to rely on issued equipment or not. my answer as a former soldier being in a combat zone and as a parent is a profound hell no!!! if we have to ability to better protect they by sending something that though is not issued but will keep them alive they military more specifically the fucking politicians should not bitch. if they think they know so much better let them go there and use what they are demanding we use. they 9mm pistol is a piece of shit and they should have stayed with the 45. if not they at least step up to something like a sig 357 or 40! they m16 is out dated and does not pack the punch needed to put some one down for good. average three rounds to the chest on a male target more then about 150 meters away to keep them down. that has been proven by kbr contractors over there. on sat 1 apr 2006 061839 -0500 coasty uscgret at comcast dot net wrote i spent 21.5 years off and on wearing body armor for law enforcement. my son in the army 18 months in kosovo some years back and 14 months in the sand box in iraq. he is a special ops como 10th mountain and has worn at least 3 versions of body armor all us issue i had worn two different versions and there were not the same as my sons. he was telling me that when they were training the guardsmen heading to iraq most of them had what i had used it was 20+ years old. many of the regulars gave the guardsmen their old stuff because it was better than what they had and many of the reserves/guardsmen did not have any body armor when they got deployed. right now the us army has thrown up a green curtain to cover their butts because they dropped the ball early on. as of right now the military has issued body armor for all their combat soldiers however is all is not the same nor does it all protect the same. early in my career i wore some body armor that weighed over 20 lbs and some of the soldiers are still using the old stuff especially the reserves and guardsmen. the latest and greatest is a heck of a lot lighter and made of ceramic and kevlar but with full field gear you are looking at humping 70+ pounds 24-7 try that. i can see the concerns of the parents and i would not put my faith in our government to provide our soldiers with the proper tools they need to get the job done because i know that they did not. hell 3/4 of all the hummers deployed were not armored. when my son got deployed he installed the armor in his hummer before it was shipped and he was glad he did. the thing looked like a brick of swis cheese with all the small arms fire that it took. it is a discrase that our government does not provide the appropriate tools for our young men and women. hell i had to ship my son extra mags for his sidearm because they were only issued two mags and good thing i did it saved his ass several times. coasty i appreciate your info.. but im looking for sort of moral answers too.. should the troops be allowed to wear and use whatever they want or should it all be issue i saw a grunt on the that got a medical discharge after being hit... the army was charging him for his body armor because they cut it off of him in the er and didnt either ship it to the hospital with him or make a note that they took possession of the armor.. *sigh* as for the humvees they shouldnt be armored imo... thats what my kid does motor pool sgt. working on humvees... he says that they are too heavy as it is and with armor they need a diesel tanker following them... bottom line on the humvee imho is that it replaced the friggin jeep.. not the sherman tank or apc... use it for a jeep and not an attack vehicle and you wont need armor.. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .
From : coasty uscgret at comcast dot net
mac in answer to your pointed question about should they only have to rely on issued equipment or not. my answer as a former soldier being in a combat zone and as a parent is a profound hell no!!! if we have to ability to better protect they by sending something that though is not issued but will keep them alive they military more specifically the fucking politicians should not bitch. if they think they know so much better let them go there and use what they are demanding we use. they 9mm pistol is a piece of shit and they should have stayed with the 45. if not they at least step up to something like a sig 357 or 40! they m16 is out dated and does not pack the punch needed to put some one down for good. average three rounds to the chest on a male target more then about 150 meters away to keep them down. that has been proven by kbr contractors over there. many of the specops already have gon back to the apc 45. coasty on sat 1 apr 2006 061839 -0500 coasty uscgret at comcast dot net wrote i spent 21.5 years off and on wearing body armor for law enforcement. my son in the army 18 months in kosovo some years back and 14 months in the sand box in iraq. he is a special ops como 10th mountain and has worn at least 3 versions of body armor all us issue i had worn two different versions and there were not the same as my sons. he was telling me that when they were training the guardsmen heading to iraq most of them had what i had used it was 20+ years old. many of the regulars gave the guardsmen their old stuff because it was better than what they had and many of the reserves/guardsmen did not have any body armor when they got deployed. right now the us army has thrown up a green curtain to cover their butts because they dropped the ball early on. as of right now the military has issued body armor for all their combat soldiers however is all is not the same nor does it all protect the same. early in my career i wore some body armor that weighed over 20 lbs and some of the soldiers are still using the old stuff especially the reserves and guardsmen. the latest and greatest is a heck of a lot lighter and made of ceramic and kevlar but with full field gear you are looking at humping 70+ pounds 24-7 try that. i can see the concerns of the parents and i would not put my faith in our government to provide our soldiers with the proper tools they need to get the job done because i know that they did not. hell 3/4 of all the hummers deployed were not armored. when my son got deployed he installed the armor in his hummer before it was shipped and he was glad he did. the thing looked like a brick of swis cheese with all the small arms fire that it took. it is a discrase that our government does not provide the appropriate tools for our young men and women. hell i had to ship my son extra mags for his sidearm because they were only issued two mags and good thing i did it saved his ass several times. coasty i appreciate your info.. but im looking for sort of moral answers too.. should the troops be allowed to wear and use whatever they want or should it all be issue i saw a grunt on the that got a medical discharge after being hit... the army was charging him for his body armor because they cut it off of him in the er and didnt either ship it to the hospital with him or make a note that they took possession of the armor.. *sigh* as for the humvees they shouldnt be armored imo... thats what my kid does motor pool sgt. working on humvees... he says that they are too heavy as it is and with armor they need a diesel tanker following them... bottom line on the humvee imho is that it replaced the friggin jeep.. not the sherman tank or apc... use it for a jeep and not an attack vehicle and you wont need armor.. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .
From : azwiley1
they needed too. mac in answer to your pointed question about should they only have to rely on issued equipment or not. my answer as a former soldier being in a combat zone and as a parent is a profound hell no!!! if we have to ability to better protect they by sending something that though is not issued but will keep them alive they military more specifically the fucking politicians should not bitch. if they think they know so much better let them go there and use what they are demanding we use. they 9mm pistol is a piece of shit and they should have stayed with the 45. if not they at least step up to something like a sig 357 or 40! they m16 is out dated and does not pack the punch needed to put some one down for good. average three rounds to the chest on a male target more then about 150 meters away to keep them down. that has been proven by kbr contractors over there. many of the specops already have gon back to the apc 45. coasty on sat 1 apr 2006 061839 -0500 coasty uscgret at comcast dot net wrote i spent 21.5 years off and on wearing body armor for law enforcement. my son in the army 18 months in kosovo some years back and 14 months in the sand box in iraq. he is a special ops como 10th mountain and has worn at least 3 versions of body armor all us issue i had worn two different versions and there were not the same as my sons. he was telling me that when they were training the guardsmen heading to iraq most of them had what i had used it was 20+ years old. many of the regulars gave the guardsmen their old stuff because it was better than what they had and many of the reserves/guardsmen did not have any body armor when they got deployed. right now the us army has thrown up a green curtain to cover their butts because they dropped the ball early on. as of right now the military has issued body armor for all their combat soldiers however is all is not the same nor does it all protect the same. early in my career i wore some body armor that weighed over 20 lbs and some of the soldiers are still using the old stuff especially the reserves and guardsmen. the latest and greatest is a heck of a lot lighter and made of ceramic and kevlar but with full field gear you are looking at humping 70+ pounds 24-7 try that. i can see the concerns of the parents and i would not put my faith in our government to provide our soldiers with the proper tools they need to get the job done because i know that they did not. hell 3/4 of all the hummers deployed were not armored. when my son got deployed he installed the armor in his hummer before it was shipped and he was glad he did. the thing looked like a brick of swis cheese with all the small arms fire that it took. it is a discrase that our government does not provide the appropriate tools for our young men and women. hell i had to ship my son extra mags for his sidearm because they were only issued two mags and good thing i did it saved his ass several times. coasty i appreciate your info.. but im looking for sort of moral answers too.. should the troops be allowed to wear and use whatever they want or should it all be issue i saw a grunt on the that got a medical discharge after being hit... the army was charging him for his body armor because they cut it off of him in the er and didnt either ship it to the hospital with him or make a note that they took possession of the armor.. *sigh* as for the humvees they shouldnt be armored imo... thats what my kid does motor pool sgt. working on humvees... he says that they are too heavy as it is and with armor they need a diesel tanker following them... bottom line on the humvee imho is that it replaced the friggin jeep.. not the sherman tank or apc... use it for a jeep and not an attack vehicle and you wont need armor.. mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .
From : mac davis
on mon 3 apr 2006 113233 -0400 roy roy@home.net wrote i remember a patrol along a river and i had traded my 16 with the scout for his little m-2 carbine.. he was on point and flushed a vc out of the trees.. the m-2 was a nice weapon. easy to move with. yeah as long as you didnt have to shoot someone with it... had about as much stopping power as a pellet gun.. *g* mac https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis https//home.comcast.net/mac.davis/woodstuff.htm .