Dirty Little Secrets, a mini-review
Henry Spencer
From he...@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
"Dirty Little Secrets", subtitled "Military information you're not supposed
to know", by James F. Dunnigan and Albert A. Nofi, William Morrow 1990.
Quick summary: disappointing, don't bother.
There is very little in this book that lives up to either the title or
the subtitle. It would be fine preparation for a military variant of
Trivial Pursuit, but that's about all. There are interesting tidbits
here and there, but it's not worth the price. I expected better from
Dunnigan.
This was all the more disappointing because it *could* have been a
fascinating, if perhaps slightly thinner, book if the authors had really
done some digging. There *are* dirty little secrets that you're not
supposed to know. (Samples... After the first operational Polaris
missiles were already at sea, it was discovered that their nuclear
warheads were defective and would not work. Nobody knows whether
Minuteman missiles could be launched from the operational Minuteman
silos, because every attempt to launch one from an operational-type
silo failed. [The Vandenberg training silos, which have launched many,
are a totally different design.] The great USAF-USN "shootout" between
Falcon and Sidewinder ended in humiliation for the USAF when repeated
attempts failed to so much as *launch* a Falcon. Aluminum armor is so
dangerous to troops behind it that Israeli soldiers will ride on the
*outside* of their aluminum-armored M113 APCs when there is risk of
serious enemy fire... and guess what the M2 Bradley uses for armor.
Flying a jet at 50 feet -- the altitude where most of them would try
to be in a real war against a dangerous opponent -- is so different
from flying at 200 feet that it takes considerable training for pilots
to fly effectively at the lower altitude, yet only two air forces in
the world train for it [the USAF not among them]. And so on.) Don't
expect to find any of them in this book.
--
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
-Dick Dunn | he...@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Tom Slager
From slag...@uther.calvin.edu (Tom Slager)
Interesting what you have to say about the Bradley. I worked with a Marine
this summer who had come back from the Gulf shortly after the war. We were
talking about equipment and he said, "Look at the pictures of the Bradleys.
You never see anyone riding in them because they aren't safe."
Some other tidbits he told me (I aint gonna vouch for their accuracy/truth)
The Apache has trouble with its cannon. If they try to shoot something
like more than 10 degrees off of forward, the circuts blow, and have to be
reset. Also, some of the electronics in this piece of aircraft can't deal
with humidity. Crews have to carry heaters to bake them and dry them out in
we climate areas.
Maybe this is all common knowledge, or even untruth, but that is what he told
me.
--
Is the hand on your shoulder from the Lord above | slagerto@
Or is it the Devil himself, come to give you a | uther.calvin
shove? | .edu
Gert Niewahr
From bpro...@netcom.com (Gert Niewahr)
In article <1992Mar26.0...@cbnews.cb.att.com> he...@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>From he...@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
[...]
>Aluminum armor is so
>dangerous to troops behind it that Israeli soldiers will ride on the
>*outside* of their aluminum-armored M113 APCs when there is risk of
>serious enemy fire... and guess what the M2 Bradley uses for armor.
One of the claims that came out of the Gulf War was the operational
vindication of the Bradley. Is there any *hard* evidence that this
is valid? In all the reports I heard, the only Bradleys that took
serious hits (more than small arms fire) were those poor guys who
got torched by our own Hellfires (those were Bradleys, weren't
they?). Obviously the Bradley wasn't intended to survive that kind
of hit, but if I correctly recall the tests that the Army faked
with the soaked dummies, collateral fatalities from pyrophoric
burning of the Bradley's aluminum armor were supposed to be an
additional danger from anti-armor missile hits. Was there any
evidence of this in the Gulf or is the Pentagon not talking?
I suppose it was lucky that this was a desert war and the Bradley
crews never had to use those fording skirts. I believe that the
problems disclosed in the failed swim tests were also supposed to
be "fixed" but never were.
Are there any analytical books on the Bradley program like Fallows'
book on the M-16 and F-16 development cycles?
Brian D. Howard
From qxlr...@camelot.bradley.edu (Brian D. Howard)
In <1992Mar27....@cbnews.cb.att.com> bpro...@netcom.com (Gert Niewahr) writes:
>One of the claims that came out of the Gulf War was the operational
>vindication of the Bradley. Is there any *hard* evidence that this
>is valid? In all the reports I heard, the only Bradleys that took
>serious hits (more than small arms fire) were those poor guys who
>got torched by our own Hellfires (those were Bradleys, weren't
>they?). Obviously the Bradley wasn't intended to survive that kind
>of hit, but if I correctly recall the tests that the Army faked
>with the soaked dummies, collateral fatalities from pyrophoric
>burning of the Bradley's aluminum armor were supposed to be an
>additional danger from anti-armor missile hits. Was there any
>evidence of this in the Gulf or is the Pentagon not talking?
One of my best friends drives an M3 Bradley (The cavalry vehicle) in
the army, currently in Germany. He has specifically mentioned two
cases where Bradleys in the gulf conflict were hit. In both cases
they were anti-tank shells. One shell passed clear through doing
minor damage. In the other case, the shell stopped (in the engine
block, as I recall) after passing through the commanders leg.
In both cases, the Bradleys were considered in bad shape, but there
were bo fires involved. One of the two shots was a DU round, although
I don't recall which. (Probably the first, all things considered... :-)
--
qxlr...@camelot.bradley.edu ---- If you can't pronounce qxlrnglx properly,
you're probably better off calling me Q like everyone else...
All of my opinions are public domain. Feel free to use them....
Barry Wise
From bw...@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
> In article <1992Mar26.0...@cbnews.cb.att.com>
he...@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> >Aluminum armor is so
> >dangerous to troops behind it that Israeli soldiers will ride on the
> >*outside* of their aluminum-armored M113 APCs when there is risk of
> >serious enemy fire...
This was also true in Viet Nam, but there I was told the problem was land
mines. They would pack the inside floor with sand bags and everybody rode
on top.
--
Barry Wise
(bw...@hemlock.mitre.org)
TWZ...@psuvm.psu.edu
From <TWZ...@psuvm.psu.edu>
In article <1992Mar27....@cbnews.cb.att.com>, slag...@uther.calvin.edu
(Tom Slager) says:
>
>From slag...@uther.calvin.edu (Tom Slager)
>
>Interesting what you have to say about the Bradley. I worked with a Marine
>this summer who had come back from the Gulf shortly after the war. We were
>talking about equipment and he said, "Look at the pictures of the Bradleys.
>You never see anyone riding in them because they aren't safe."
>
>Some other tidbits he told me (I aint gonna vouch for their accuracy/truth)
>
>The Apache has trouble with its cannon. If they try to shoot something
>like more than 10 degrees off of forward, the circuts blow, and have to be
>reset. Also, some of the electronics in this piece of aircraft can't deal
>with humidity. Crews have to carry heaters to bake them and dry them out in
>we climate areas.
>
>Maybe this is all common knowledge, or even untruth, but that is what he told
>me.
>
Concerning the Bradley, it was not designed to survive direct hits from
much except small arms fire. I would imagine if you are travelling through an
area where enemy armor is about, you might be wary of riding inside but it
seems to me that the rapid advances of the armored spearheads would not have
been possible if everyone was afraid to ride in their Bradleys.
Concerning the Apache, the CBS show "60 Minutes" released footage of AH-64
gunships during Op. Just Cause showing the jamming of the gun on a combat
mission and the terrible vibration of the entire helo. when the gun was firing
at enemy targets. They also had an interview with the pilot of the Apache
involved in the infamous "friendly fire" incident at Khafji. Although it was
not the focus of the show, they did mention that the AH-64 fired a Hellfire at
the USMC LAV-25 because its gun was jammed. The pilot was unsure that his
target wasn't an American, so he thought about peppering it with 30mm to find
out. However, he had only his Hellfire left, and thus seven Marines lost
their lives.
--Tom--
"Do you trust what I trust...?"
Don Johnson
From Don Johnson <joh...@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil>
>Quotes from bpro...@netcom.com (Gert Niewahr)
>and he...@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>deleted
The discussion and conjecture re: Bradley survivability during ODS is
interesting and the comments made so far bring back memories of the Bradley
Live Fire, Sixty Minutes and COL Burton.
My >> personal << opinion is that Infantry Fighting Vehicles were designed
and purchased primarily for transportation; to rapidly move foot soldiers
to the battle. My impression is that during ODS, dismounted infantry
operations were virtually non-existent. The Bradley, in fact, was used as a
light tank. The worldwide trend to up-gun IFVs confirms the fact that a
light tank that is able to carry a few grunts is the wave of the future.
My previous opinions of the Merkava were not very good. But maybe they are
just twenty years ahead of the rest of the world.
--
W. Donald Johnson
Brian Holtz
From ho...@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz)
In article <1992Mar28.0...@cbnews.cb.att.com>
TWZ...@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> at enemy targets. They also had an interview with the pilot of the Apache
> involved in the infamous "friendly fire" incident at Khafji. Although it was
> not the focus of the show, they did mention that the AH-64 fired a Hellfire at
> the USMC LAV-25 because its gun was jammed. The pilot was unsure that his
> target wasn't an American, so he thought about peppering it with 30mm to find
> out. However, he had only his Hellfire left, and thus seven Marines lost
> their lives.
*He* had only his Hellfire left, but they said on 60 Minutes that
there where other Apaches with him on the mission. Why didn't the
*other* Apaches try to fire *their* cannon?
--
Brian Holtz
Shahar Brovender
From Shahar Brovender <sha...@shum.huji.ac.il>
In sci.military you write:
>From Don Johnson <joh...@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil>
>My previous opinions of the Merkava were not very good. But maybe they are
>just twenty years ahead of the rest of the world.
>--
>W. Donald Johnson
The Merkava is only one of a whole range of sexy "future" combat vehicles.
Old Israeli tanks are now converted into IFVs - turret assembly removed,
ammunition stowage removed and a fighting compartment created.
Here comes the cavalry :-)
Shahar