Mikey is crocked!

Showing 1-9 of 9 messages
Mikey is crocked! Velovich 5/1/98 12:00 AM

  On mikey's page there are several "Fix-it" articles.  Below is part of a
series that will, as Mikey wants, "discuss the issues".  I don't think he'll
appreciate my views, so I'd like as many as possible to coment.

<<
What's the matter with Mechanized Infantry?

A U.S. Army Infantry Captain writes:
"I will always think of Mech Infantry as having grunts in the trunk.
They spend a lot of time driving around pretending they are tankers and
they never want to let the grunts out of the back. I was a light guy I
never wanted to be treated as cargo."
>>

  Which is different from what Mech Officers might think.  This lacks
relevance.

<<
THE MINDSET OF A TANKER, MISSION OF A GRUNT?
He has described in a "nutshell", what I call "Mech infantry disease". I
could never understand why if you take a light infantry squad and ADD an
Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV) to them, why we end up with LESS fighting
power from them? You should have MORE.
>>

 Mikey claims to be Mech trained (see next para), but he doesn't seem to have
actually analyzed the mission of Mech units.  The reason for the IFV is to
protect the troops from artillery, small arms, and NBC threats.  The IFV allows
the Troops to keep up with tanks, thereby providing security to them from light
froces that might ambush them, as well as giving a heavy unit the ability to,
when the enemy is found in closed in terrain, go in after him.
  The M-113 APC cannot keep up with the M-1 Abrahms or the Proposed (and
cancelled) M-8 AGS.  The M-113 does not have the same armor protection, or the
NBC protection of the M-2 series vehicles.  Finally, the M-113 does not have
the firepower to truly assist the infantrymen once they dismount.  .50 Cal
machineguns are normal armament, and I have seen M-60s.
  The continued use of the M-113 APC would therefore hamper high speed, long
distance operations, such as the Gulf War of 1991.  A cornerstone of modern
combined arms tactics is, and has been since the Germans developed it in the
30s, moving faster than the enemy can adjust for.  That is, moving so fast your
opponent is reacting to what you did an hour ago and he's already behind the
curve.

<<
As being Mech infantry at one time, I know why. First, what happens is the guys
with a vehicle to carry their stuff, stop living "light".
>>

  "Living Light" isn't an offical Army term.  Take a Mech squad off the Bradley
and you have the <I>same</I> TA-50 the light guys have.  There <I>are</I> fewer
dismounted personnel, but they are still infantry, and the lack of numbers is
made up by the ability to carry heavier weapons, <I>much</I> more ammo, and
they have the M-2 for fire support (see my next post on Mikey's comments on
that!)

<<
 They start taking coolers and their rucks are not ready to go. The AFV becomes
their "RV" of sorts.
>>

  While this does happen at NTC and Ft Hood, not elsewhere.  In Germany, during
the Cold War (last part, too.  Gorby might have been pushed too far - Our NCOs
couldn't predict we wouldn't wake up the next day in a shooting war), we had
our rucks packed all the time.  The exception was during inspections and when
we were doing routine TA-50 PMCS.
  Extra bags are permitted, to a point.  Usually these take the form of Pogey
bags, or a kit bag (pilot's, 1 ea.) with extra socks and uniforms.  extra bags
were always a luxury we knew we couldn't count on in a real war.

<<
 Next, you have the nature of the Armored fight where deep down inside, the
tankers do not want to stop and have the Mech infantry dismount, they want them
to stay mounted and fight there.
>>

  Never met too many tankers, huh?  Or did you just alienate them with your
"You're not Airborne (tm)!!!!!"  Ask a tanker whether or not he likes having
grunts along, and he'll say, "Yeah!  I'm not going into that dense brush.  Not
even within 500  meters of it till the Infantry clear it!"

<<
 Now that the Bradley A2 model's firing ports are covered up by extra armor
panels, the infantry "squad" in back sits inside doing nothing because noone is
willing to open the top hatch for them to stand up and face out with their
weapons like you can in a M113A3 out of fear the M2 Bradley turret will spin
around and kill them.
>>

  This isn't going to happen, because the Turret has a safety feature that
kicks the barrel up to max elevation so it won't hit the cargo hatch and damage
something.  Besides - when the TOW fires, the Backblast is killer!

<<
 The Bradley is actually a Medium tank...with a few infantry in back. It weghs
the same as a M4 Sherman tank from WWII: 33 tons. Thus, they are blind "cargo"
as the Captain said.
>>

  So it weighs as much as a Sherman tank?  The M-1 weighs more thn a Tiger, but
I don't recomend taking it on like you would a Tiger.  Good way to get dead.
The "Captian" has no experience with the Mech Infantry, so he isn't qualified
to comment.  You might want to find Melvin D Hull, USA.  He was IN a Mech unit,
hated it, he'd give you better info.  Not that he was a good platoon leader,
just that he'd buy into your line and be more credible.

<<
 Then you throw in the disdain the light fighters have towards the Mech guys,
and you have a less than ideal situation...
>>

  You have soldiers with a personal problem.  I seem to remember the Army's
policy on Personal Problems.  The "disdain" you mention is much like your own.
And REAL soldiers don't have this problem, except for a an institutional joke,
meant in all fun.

<<
but one that can be corrected with LEADERSHIP. These guys are great Soldiers,
they just need better leadership.
>>

  Yep!  If you'd had better leadership during your formative years in the Army,
you'd have gotten rid of you pissant attitude for the Heavy Units.

<<
LEADERSHIP DRIVEN BY MODERN BATTLEFIELD REALITIES

This all needs to change. First the superb M113A3 Gavin Armored Fighting
Vehicle.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/5265/M113A3.htm

...with its RPG and auto-cannon resistant applique' armor attached needs
to be provided in about a dozen vehicles each to every U.S. Army Light
Infantry Division instead of a dozen trucks that weigh exactly the same:
22,000 pounds. This vehicle allows the Soldiers to stand up and fire
weapons as the vehicle moves, see the battlefield and dismount with an
idea where they are going. This would give light divisions the "punch"
they need ORGANIC to them so they can train with them and be ready, and
not have them denied as the Rangers were not supplied with AFVs in
Somalia.
>>

  Unfortuately, the M-113 won't go where the Light divisions need to go.  In
Viet Nam, the M-113 couldn't be used in areas where an Army presence was
required.  Your solution won't work.  The 10th Mountain would die laughing the
first time one of "their" M-113s slid down a slope easily climbed by a man on
foot.
  Somalia was a clusterfuck in the Viet Nam/Operation Eagle Claw pattern.  Too
much micromanagement from CONUS, too restrictive Rules of Engagement.  You go
into an area, tell the warlords to leave or else, when they do not, send in teh
troops or a flight of Apaches and blow them away.  Yes, there may be civilian
casualties, but that happens in war.  Next time, the civilians will stay away
from the Warlord's weapons warehouse.  (One might even turn that into a combat
intel tool - the places the civvies keep away from, like croos the street, go
down the street, and recross - good chance that you'd want to search that row
of buildings for a weapons cache.)

<<
Next, in ALL MECH Infantry units videos of the current generation of
signature-less Russian anti-tank guided missiles needs to be viewed so they
realize the "Sagger drill" upon muzzle flash will in the future not work. There
will be no muzzle flash. The only thing you will see will be the missile
creaming your vehicle. Thus, MECH infantry will need to clear out possible ATGM
firing positions ahead of the M1 MBT tankers by advance detection using forward
looking infared (FLIR) devices like the Dragon ATGM night tracker sight which
is too heavy to hump and gets left in the arms room doing nothing, and good
patrolling skills.
>>

 Would you care to elaborate on these "new Russian ATGMs"?

  In our unit, we went to the field, the Dragon trackers went with.  Our
platoon's Dragon gunner was well trained and knew his shit.  Even had an idea
on how to "Kirk" his tracker to benefit the Platoon.

<<
To get the latter, we need a better, more tactically oriented Infantry
AIT taught by a Combat/Survival cadre not drill sergeants from a
One-Station Unit Training parade ground drill & ceremony mindset.
<<

  My Drills taught me useful skills.  Sure there are always a few bad apples,
even in the (hush) Special Forces (Oh! the Humanity!  He accused some
individuals with SF training of impropriety!!!!).

<<
This would deliver, a tactically ready, Soldier able to step in from day one at
an Infantry unit and contribute to the fight, not require in-house training
from scratch as takes place now.
>>

  This never happened in my unit.  Sure, a private needed time to see how what
he was just taught fit into the real world, but that applies to any job and
will <I>never</I> be gotten rid of.

<<
Next, the realization that we no longer "own the night". We must practice the
stand-off attack, where the noisy vehicles stop short of the target outside of
enemy detection range as the assault force speed marches at 4-7 mph on foot
(like IDF paratroops or our own Darby's Rangers in WWII) along routes secured
first by security elements with "eyes on" the target for days beforehand....to
close in on the enemy to assault him. Once the shooting starts, the AFVs close
in and provide
direct fire support.
>>

  Been There, Done That.  In the winter, no less.  Company night movement by
foot to an objective.  This skill is alive and well in the Mech Infantry, one
of the things we enjoyed in training.

<<
We need MECH infantry to not be "slugs", for without them and we try to fight
"light" pure we will get October 3, 1993 "Somalias" or 1943 "Cisternas". If
they hide out in their vehicles we will get Grozny. We can stop the Mech
infantry from being looked down upon by rewarding ALL U.S. Army Combat Arms
Soldiers their own Brown Beret upon completion of their AITs.
>>

  When I was in, the big beal was an Infantry Blue beret.  Me, I liked Rifle
Green, just like the Europeans - as in, the Panzer Grenadiers and RM
Commandoes.  BTW, for those that don't know, the SF beret isn't Rifle Green.
Much darker, blends in better.  Rifle Green is rich, non-natural, medium green.
 Anybody know where I can find one?  The one I bought in Germany was ruined in
a basement flood!
<<
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/bberet.htm"

USING YOUR TAX DOLLARS WISELY
We need VICTORY as we got in Panama by a Air-delivered MECH-LIGHT-ARMOR
team weakoned with the abandonment of the M551 Sheridan and M8 Ridgway
 Armored Gun Systems. We still have M113A3s, we ought to use them.
Instead of wasting money on expensive $28 million dollar fighter jets
that marines crash and burn in a dozen a year, we should use the money
to buy a platoon of light, air droppable Ridgway tanks at $5 million
each that would last us for decades like the M551 Sheridans did. The M8
uses the same engine as Army trucks and parts from other AFVs already in
use so its adoption would be inexpensive.
>>


  We <I>need</I> the M-8 AGS, true.  Unfortuately, it's gone.  The Sheridan was
a piece of junk.  The Gun's recoil made the sights useless for firing the
Missile.  When it rained, the electrical system shorted out.  Mean Time Between
Maintenance Fialures was about 90 minutes.
  The idea of dumping the Bradley is also rediculous.  The M-113 <I>cannot</I>,
no way, no how, keep up with the M-1.  Using the M-113 will either slow down
the M-1, or the tankers will routinely, in the excitement of combat, leave
their infantry behind.  One little thing Mikey left out of the Items about the
bradley is that there are vision blocks and an intercom.  The grunts can see
out (I even took a picture of a German town through one), and the Dismount
Leader can hear all radio calls and the Squad Leader's instructions.  So much
for blind and unknowing...

More to come!!!
<*>
Velovich
"Who IS Keyser Souze?"

NOTICE TO BULK E-MAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter
II, 227, and all nonsolicited commercial e-mail sent to this address is subject
to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US.

Mikey is crocked! Mark Flacy 5/1/98 12:00 AM

velo...@aol.com (Velovich) writes:

[stuff between "<<" ">>" are quotes from Mike "whatsaklew" Sparks]


> <<
>  Then you throw in the disdain the light fighters have towards the Mech
> guys, and you have a less than ideal situation...
> >>
>
>   You have soldiers with a personal problem.  I seem to remember the Army's
> policy on Personal Problems.  The "disdain" you mention is much like your
> own.  And REAL soldiers don't have this problem, except for a an
> institutional joke, meant in all fun.

In my Armor Officer Advanced Course, our class leader was an airborne
ranger who had spent his 2LT to CPT years in one of the Ranger battalions.
He was amazed at the number of maps we would be given at the start of each
exercise and how much terrain a company team could defend/operate
within. He had mentioned that his battalion used to maneuver within ONE
1:50,000 mapsheet for around a week.

The tactical speed of mechanized warfare was an eye opener for him.

--
Mark A. Flacy       (972) 685-8347
moc.wfd-tena@ycalf

Mikey is crocked! just me 5/1/98 12:00 AM

Mark Flacy wrote in message ...

>In my Armor Officer Advanced Course, our class leader
was an airborne
>ranger who had spent his 2LT to CPT years in one of
the Ranger battalions.
>He was amazed at the number of maps we would be given
at the start of each
>exercise and how much terrain a company team could
defend/operate
>within. He had mentioned that his battalion used to
maneuver within ONE
>1:50,000 mapsheet for around a week.
>
>The tactical speed of mechanized warfare was an eye
opener for him.
>Mark A. Flacy       (972) 685-8347
>moc.wfd-tena@ycalf

Amen... I spent my first 3 years in the military
humping the jungles of Panama....  Then 1 1/2 years at
a cushy Fort Jackson training post....
When I got to Germany in my first mech unit, I was
surprised at the speed we had to navigate....  Those
tankers surprised the hell out of me....  Instead of
just half a map-sheet, you would use 2 full ones for
just a short operation....  2 different worlds...
equally important.

Just me.

So V-man of all people SAYS Mike is crocked? Mike Sparks 5/6/98 12:00 AM

V-man is making progress but so far you are just riding emotions.

Lets start with the basics. The most mobile ground vehicle in the Vietnam
war, period was the M113. Period. Bar none.

The people fighting Vietnam were "light" ie: the M113A3 could go as far
along with them as any vehicle can go.

The M113A3 model has a higher horsepoer to weight ratio than the Bradley, so
it actually can "keep up" with the M1/M2s. This is why the Army is keeping
the A3s and putting things like 120mm mortars inside.

Again we hit a wall here mentally, when you have ZERO Armored fighting
Vehicles (AFVs) to stop bullets you get hurt  as in Somalia. Light infantry
has no AFVs, the M113A3 is exactly what they need to act as an APC and a
heavy weapons platform.

Is the Bradley better protected? Where is its fuel tank? Look at the big
target it presents to enemy gunners? Why can't the infantry inside fire
their weapons?

In contrast, the M113A3 has the men standing outward firing weapons for
situational awareness, and has applique' armor a smaller target profile and
has fuel tanks outside of the vehicle. Not getting hit in the first place is
the best armor protection.

So you have the M113A3 which can go anywhere and is thus predictable and you
have the Bradley which can't really swim and can't just roll over any
bridge.....which is more likely to go where the enemy has placed an
anti-tank mine?

Now lets talk about the meaning of Mech Infantry! Is it to support the
advance of tanks? In other words the grunts are mini-tankers? Or are they
mobile infantry?

If Velovitch would read my  Armor magazine article on the M113A3/M2
comparison he would see that I propose that we split off into Armored
Infantry in M2s and Mech Infantry in M113A3s, they being two seperate
entities. We need Air-deployable Mech/mobile infantry, we have enough
Armored Infantry.

Airborne!!!

Mike


--

Velovich wrote in message
<199805010527...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...

> Then you throw in the disdain the light fighters have towards the Mech
guys,
>and you have a less than ideal situation...
>>>
>
>  You have soldiers with a personal problem.  I seem to remember the Army's
>policy on Personal Problems.  The "disdain" you mention is much like your
own.
>And REAL soldiers don't have this problem, except for a an institutional
joke,
>meant in all fun.
>
><<

So V-man of all people SAYS Mike is crocked? kim overstreet 5/7/98 12:00 AM

 
> Again we hit a wall here mentally, when you have ZERO Armored fighting
> Vehicles (AFVs) to stop bullets you get hurt  as in Somalia. Light
infantry
> has no AFVs, the M113A3 is exactly what they need to act as an APC and a
> heavy weapons platform.
>
> Is the Bradley better protected? Where is its fuel tank? Look at the big
> target it presents to enemy gunners? Why can't the infantry inside fire
> their weapons?
>
> In contrast, the M113A3 has the men standing outward firing weapons for
> situational awareness, and has applique' armor a smaller target profile
and
> has fuel tanks outside of the vehicle. Not getting hit in the first place
is
> the best armor protection.
Where does he get his info?????Not from experience!!! Mikey's smokin' shit
again!!!


So V-man of all people SAYS Mike is crocked? Velovich 5/7/98 12:00 AM

>
>V-man is making progress but so far you are just riding emotions.
>
>Lets start with the basics. The most mobile ground vehicle in the Vietnam
>war, period was the M113. Period. Bar none.
>
>

  I always thought the guys on foot were teh most mobile ground transportation.
 Followed closely by Jeeps and 2.5 tons.


>The M113A3 model has a higher horsepoer to weight ratio than the Bradley, so
>it actually can "keep up" with the M1/M2s. This is why the Army is keeping
>the A3s and putting things like 120mm mortars inside.

  Hmmm... use a mortar carrier, with it's vunerability to light MGs as a PC...
There was/is an M-2 variant with no turret and a mortar inside.  I'd rather see
that.  there's a reason the M-113 isn't on the front lines.  Careful, you might
have to use a brain cell...  Oh, damn!  You Brain Farted instead...

> Light infantry
>has no AFVs, the M113A3 is exactly what they need to act as an APC and a
>heavy weapons platform.

  Light Infantry/Heavy Weapons...  Sort of makes them not light anymore.  The
wrong troops were used in Somalia.  Heavy forces to conduct patrols and raids,
with light troops to establich secure camps.  there is your solution.  No big
effort on anyone's part but you.

>
>Is the Bradley better protected? Where is its fuel tank? Look at the big
>target it presents to enemy gunners? Why can't the infantry inside fire
>their weapons?
>
>

  Yes, much better protected.  Two fuel tanks, one immune to enemy fire.  The
other behind two layers of armor plate (original M-2), with a nice spacing
between to diffuse HEAT warheads.  Even more armor now.
  The grunts don't need to use their weapons from FPs, not if the crews do
their job right.  If they don't do thier job right, then they didn't do their
job right.  that's all that means, not that a "fix" is needed.  Your posts show
a marked lack of REAL Mech experiance.

>Not getting hit in the first place is
>the best armor protection.
>

  But he M-113 CDR has no thermal sight to detect the enemt with.  These CAN be
fooled, but it takes soldiers that have Ranger/SF level skills.  As this is
usually not extant, the htermals will do nicely.  And not getting hit IS the
key, and the best way is to spot the enemy first - enter the thermals...


>
>So you have the M113A3 which can go anywhere and is thus predictable and you
>have the Bradley which can't really swim and can't just roll over any
>bridge.....which is more likely to go where the enemy has placed an
>anti-tank mine?

  Anywhere the M-113 can go, so can the M-2 series.  And the M-2s can go a few
places more.  Get a grip.  7.62mm, 25mm, TOW missiles.  Lots of firepower, lots
more protections, faster, better night vision...  Can't beat it.

>
>Now lets talk about the meaning of Mech Infantry! Is it to support the
>advance of tanks? In other words the grunts are mini-tankers? Or are they
>mobile infantry?

  No they are not mini tankers.  This is a ill-informed as the "Oh, It can beat
a tank, but since it looks like one..." argument.  They are grunts.  The job is
the same.  Get out, get close to the bad guy, kill him.  ONLY difference is the
tempo of operations.  
  The Mech DIvisions are used as infantry divisions, and the tank divisions are
Tank divisions.  Two different missions, but the same equipment.  Learn some
Combined Arms tactics and operational art...
  The "Mobile Infantry" is a creation of Robert Heinlien, and is very much
science fiction.  Fully armored individual infantrymen.  get a grip!  When we
have them, the Tankers will be driving Bolos (Make mine a Mk XXX!)


Velovich
"Who IS Keyser Souze?"

NOTICE TO BULK E-MAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter
II, 227, and all nonsolicited commercial e-mail sent to this address is subject
to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US.

So V-man of all people SAYS Mike is crocked? Velovich 5/10/98 12:00 AM

  YO! Crocked Mikey!  Still waiting for you off-the-cuff, smart ass response to
this!  Waiting since Thursday!  Come on!  Let's talk issues!!!!
  Yeah... Right!
So V-man of all people SAYS Mike is crocked? Mark Flacy 5/13/98 12:00 AM

"Mike Sparks" <sat...@aol.com> writes:

> Lets start with the basics. The most mobile ground vehicle in the Vietnam
> war, period was the M113. Period. Bar none.

Oh, I'd say the Gamma Goat was more mobile than a M113, myself.

> The M113A3 model has a higher horsepoer to weight ratio than the Bradley, so
> it actually can "keep up" with the M1/M2s. This is why the Army is keeping
> the A3s and putting things like 120mm mortars inside.

<sputter, laugh>

The Army keeps the A3 and puts stuff in 'em because they are cheap. The
suspension of the M113 is incapable of handling bumps at M1 speeds.  


> Now lets talk about the meaning of Mech Infantry! Is it to support the
> advance of tanks? In other words the grunts are mini-tankers? Or are they
> mobile infantry?

Try looking up the word "dragoon".


--

Mark A. Flacy       (972) 685-8347
moc.wfd-tena@ycalf

So V-man of all people SAYS Mike is crocked? Glenn Dowdy 5/13/98 12:00 AM

Mark Flacy wrote:
>
> "Mike Sparks" <sat...@aol.com> writes:
>
> > Lets start with the basics. The most mobile ground vehicle in the Vietnam
> > war, period was the M113. Period. Bar none.
>
> Oh, I'd say the Gamma Goat was more mobile than a M113, myself.
>
Especially if you count the barrel rolls.

Glenn Dowdy