Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

OMG, our soldiers have to buy their own body armor

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by jimmyboy, Mar 27, 2004.

  1. jimmyboy

    jimmyboy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    OMG, our soldiers have to buy their own body armor

    Just hot off the press.

    Looks like our soldiers are spending their own money to buy their own body armor, since the army are screwing up logistics. One soldier spent 4 months in Iraq without bullet proof vests and his wife is pissed at the army. Of course army's position is that they're against soldiers buying their own armor, because they can't guarantee its safety.

    Are they freeking kidding? I hope somebody's head rolls for this.
     
  2. Underseer

    Underseer IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,063
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Where have you been? Our troops have to spend a lot of their own money on a lot of the equipment they use. Even when they are issued stuff for free, it's usually crap.

    All that stuff about us having the "best-equipped military" only applies to porkilicious big-budget weapon systems. When you start looking at more mundane items, the claim of having the best equipped military falls flat on its face.

    The really sad thing about all of this is that amounts to a sort of "stealth tax" that affects those at the bottom of the pay scale the most, as they are generally the most dependent on that quality of their equipment.

    Before any conservatives get their panties bunched up, I am not making a partisan accusation here. The problem has more to do with congress than the president, and congresscreatures from both sides of the aisle have created this problem with their pork-craving ways.
     
  3. jimmyboy

    jimmyboy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    I have understood where our weapons and equipment suck. Soldiers in Iraq often swap their M16s for Iraqi AKs, buying their own sidearms, etc. But here they were getting nothing... nada. A simple pat on the back and "don't worry, you're not in a danger zone" explanation.

    What a freaking embarassment.
     
  4. Underseer

    Underseer IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,063
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Considering all that's going on, this is fairly minor.
     
  5. masterazn

    masterazn Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5,025
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    According to Sarge, IIRC, AK-47's are fully automatic assault rifles while M16's are not, which is why they might want to trade. Also, I think AK's are not allowed to US soldiers.
     
  6. Steve_Kow

    Steve_Kow Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd say the quality of small arms and other sundry items carried by ground pounders has increased greatly over what was carried in WWII, Korea, Vietnam et.c.

    Name one other country that could field and equip a 140,000 man army overseas better than we have. It may not be perfect, but we're doing a helluva better job than the Russians could do.
     
  7. IDupedInMyPants

    IDupedInMyPants Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,522
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As far as I know there are three settings and you can get an AK with either safe/single shot/full auto, or safe/single shot/three shot burst.
     
  8. Gigas

    Gigas IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    62
    I remember a while back, when Something Awful took up a collection to buy a unit body armor.

    It just warmed my heart, it did.
     
  9. Steve_Kow

    Steve_Kow Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    An AK might be a superior choice if the fighting is within close quaters, however I *believe* that their serious shortcoming is a lack of accuracy at range.
     
  10. Freet

    Freet IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    466
    It's been a long time since I was in the Army, but when I was, my M16, and everybody elses for that matter, was fully automatic and accurate for a long distance.

    A properly functioning M16 was one of the best weapons there was.
     
  11. cyclotronic

    cyclotronic IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,792
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    The afk is really inacurate at long range. It had burst and fullyauto. Its is however one of the most reliable guns out there. Drag them through sand for hours and theyll shoot everytime.
     
  12. Underseer

    Underseer IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,063
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    That's not saying much. :p

    That's like boasting your nation has fewer alcoholics than Japan or more personal freedom than Saudi Arabia.

    I should like to think we hold ourselves to a higher standard than that when it comes to how we treat our troops.
     
  13. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,563
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    467
    My God, that's the most reasonable thing I've ever heard Underseer say! Quick, somebody get a screenshot!
     
  14. asdf

    asdf IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    when were you in the army? since the 80's i think the US military has switched over to m16a2's which fire a maximum of 3-round bursts. no full-auto option.
     
  15. Killswitch Engage

    Killswitch Engage IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    Most probably Israel.

    You may not believe it, but the Israeli army is superior to the american army from alot of different aspects.
    I mean, yeah we probably could only send like 100,000 troopers (we only have like 300,000 if not recruiting I think), however the Israeli's weaponary system is among the best in the world.

    Most of the american weaponary systems' software and perhaps a large portion of the machinary as well is Israeli oriented.

    Still, don't get me wrong, the sheer number of soldiers / money / equipment the USA could raise in comparison to Israel is... very very high, however as far as quality goes, Israel is the leading empire of weapons.

    Just one example for you guys, the new F-16I Fighter Jet, which costs tens of millions of dollar a piece, is running on an Israeli Radar, Israeli radar software, and electronic weaponary systems.

    We also wanted to arm (both for us and the USA) the F-16I with Israeli laser-guided missiles, some brand new type that we have invented, but the americans felt like too much of the aircraft was built of israeli machinary / weaponary systems, and therefore switched for an american missile-weaponary system, even though they have admitted it's inferior to the israeli one.

    So Israel could probably do a good job. Not that the americans didn't do a good job, don't get me wrong...
     
  16. Steve_Kow

    Steve_Kow Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Israel doesn't have the logistical infrastructure to field any sized army beyond its borders. How would they send them food and supplies?

    Israel also imports most of its weaponry from the U.S too eh? If they're so good then why are they so dependant on American tech?
     
  17. Steve_Kow

    Steve_Kow Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Isrealis don't contribute technologically to the equipment, but generally the overall picture would have the Isrealis depending more on the U.S than the other way around, and the U.S having access to the best stuff sooner than anyone else.
     
  18. Geeno

    Geeno IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,972
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    346
    I never leave home without mine.
     
  19. Freet

    Freet IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    466
    It's been since well before the 80's since I have been in the Army and I was using the M16A1 when I was there.

    When I was in they would train you to shoot in 3 round bursts. This was effective, would conserve ammo and keep the barrel from getting overheated. Not to mention how inaccurate the weapon is if you just keep the trigger squeezed. I can name other disadvantages to to going full auto but I've bored you enough.

    In all actuality, there is little or no need for a fully automatic weapon. If you do find yourself fighting off a hoarde of bad guys a rifle isn't gonna save your butt anyway.
     
  20. dantose

    dantose IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    2,935
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    AK's are crap. M-16 is better and we are developing stuff even better than that. As far as currently feilded weapons I like the Irish armies weapon better than ours.
    http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/army/steyr.shtml
    If you need fully automatic fire we have the M249 and the M240B. M-16's were never meant to fill that role.

    Freet: in a few training places they still have the old M-16A1's with the full auto so you aren't THAT dated yet.

    In all honesty, we don't even use burst that much. For most situations all you need is semi auto

    EDIT: forgot to reply to the original post.

    The only times I have ever had to buy gear are:
    a) when I lost something outside of training (training loses are covered)
    b) when I wanted something extra like warmer underwear, bungee cords, or more comfortable gloves/boots

    Enlisted soldiers get a "unifrom allowance" in their pay in addition to regular pay. this is generally more than enough to buy anything neccessary. Will supply mess up and not have gear there when it is needed occationally? Of course, I've never heard of an army with a perfect supply chain.
     

Share This Page