Gi's refuse to drive unarmored trucks
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,118
From: San Lorenzo
Car Info: 2000 2.5 RS
Gi's refuse to drive unarmored trucks
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
The military-side of me says that they are cowards who jepordized many more lives by not performing their job...a job they volunteered & are paid for.
Think the job is "too hazardous?"
Tough shiznit, suck it up & drive on with the mission, cause real soldier's lives may be depending on the material that you are delivering.
The military, thankfully, isn't a Democracy, and these people must be punished.
The civilian-side of me says what moronic CO would send a convoy out using non-armored vehicles?
Think the job is "too hazardous?"
Tough shiznit, suck it up & drive on with the mission, cause real soldier's lives may be depending on the material that you are delivering.
The military, thankfully, isn't a Democracy, and these people must be punished.
The civilian-side of me says what moronic CO would send a convoy out using non-armored vehicles?
VIP Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 797
From: champaign, IL
Car Info: black pearl sti
The military side of me says that you while you shouldn't have a problem with being in harms way as you signed up for it you don't have to follow blindly either. Thats ridiculous that they didn't have armor and they were perfectly within their rights under the contract they signed and any court, military or civilian would agree with that.
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
I understand it's a supporting quartermaster unit but if every person who felt they were unprepared or undermanned refused to go out on missions we would have a serious problem. While I have some empathy for the soldiers, the NCO's failed them.
It would have been nice to have some grunts riding shotgun to the objective but I'm not buying this crap. Regardless of MOS, everyone is a shooter first in a war zone. A matter of fact, one of the most decorated men of this operation is a Quarter master NCO (SS, BS, 2PH) IIRC. Even though most of these men probably never anticipated a real-world mission like this, they damn well knew it was possible. If you're not a grunt you're supporting them and the effort... even if it means you have to go beyond your wildest expectations.
Another thing... why weren't the trucks deadlined if they weren't good to go? Did they even do proper PMCS and 2404's on the vehicles? Where was the XO during all this and why wasn't anything done to prevent this? This is due to poor leadership and/or poor logistics beyond their control.
Regardless, everyone of those junior enlisted needs to be given a field grade article 15 with maximum punishment. Those NCO's/O's directly involved need to be taken in front of a Courts Martial. Any O's indirectly involved but responsible for this gaggle-**** needs to be reviewed and relieved of their position asap.
It would have been nice to have some grunts riding shotgun to the objective but I'm not buying this crap. Regardless of MOS, everyone is a shooter first in a war zone. A matter of fact, one of the most decorated men of this operation is a Quarter master NCO (SS, BS, 2PH) IIRC. Even though most of these men probably never anticipated a real-world mission like this, they damn well knew it was possible. If you're not a grunt you're supporting them and the effort... even if it means you have to go beyond your wildest expectations.
Another thing... why weren't the trucks deadlined if they weren't good to go? Did they even do proper PMCS and 2404's on the vehicles? Where was the XO during all this and why wasn't anything done to prevent this? This is due to poor leadership and/or poor logistics beyond their control.
Regardless, everyone of those junior enlisted needs to be given a field grade article 15 with maximum punishment. Those NCO's/O's directly involved need to be taken in front of a Courts Martial. Any O's indirectly involved but responsible for this gaggle-**** needs to be reviewed and relieved of their position asap.
Guest
Posts: n/a
the real issue is that Army equipment, cargo trucks specifically, are designed with the cold war in mind, clear FLOTs (forward line of troops). The equipment issued to the CSS community is not good for insurgent warfare, they offer no protection at all, they are soft targets, always. The Army has done little to improve the situation for CSS troops, while they continue to be the highest casualty rate. Say what you will about being cowards, but you can not say **** until you start seeing your friends come back from convoys missing body parts.
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
How do you explain those that walk into downtown Fallujah & Sadr City in modified wedge wearing LPC's and a ceramic plate? Those are the really soft targets yet you don't see them complaining about being put in harms way. This boils down to poor leadership first, intestinal fortitude second and logistics/equipment third.
Guest
Posts: n/a
you are an idiot, when is the last time you visited Iraq?
all soldiers have the right to max protection availible, wether you are driving a truck or not, when we invaded some soldiers were afforded better protection, ie.. armor plates in their vests, kevlar blankets. Were is justice in that, people in the same convoy have more protection because someone Fu*ked up and didn't buy enough or didn't want to spend the money?? explain
all soldiers have the right to max protection availible, wether you are driving a truck or not, when we invaded some soldiers were afforded better protection, ie.. armor plates in their vests, kevlar blankets. Were is justice in that, people in the same convoy have more protection because someone Fu*ked up and didn't buy enough or didn't want to spend the money?? explain
Last edited by Gogats; Oct 18, 2004 at 11:00 AM.
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by Gogats
you are an idiot, when is the last time you visited Iraq?
all soldiers have the right to max protection availible, wether you are driving a truck or not, when we invaded some soldiers were afforded better protection, ie.. armor plates in their vests, kevlar blankets. Were is justice in that, people in the same convoy have more protection because someone Fu*ked up and didn't buy enough or didn't want to spend the money?? explain
all soldiers have the right to max protection availible, wether you are driving a truck or not, when we invaded some soldiers were afforded better protection, ie.. armor plates in their vests, kevlar blankets. Were is justice in that, people in the same convoy have more protection because someone Fu*ked up and didn't buy enough or didn't want to spend the money?? explain
You couldn't have this conversation to a WWII/Korean Veteran without mentioning pussification of our service and the "kinder, gentler Army" This is the same flesh and blood veteran that followed similar orders of his time and didn’t back down.
Last edited by Salty; Oct 18, 2004 at 11:16 AM.
Guest
Posts: n/a
look I agree with you, the soldiers are wrong, however this is a strong statement they made (poorly made but made never the less) The army has and will continue to do a poor job at protecting and taking of people, these are just my sentiments based off experience, I would have never turned a mission down or let one of my soldiers say no for a chicken **** excuse like that, however, they make a good point. All efforts should be made to protect people, for they are the heart and soul of the army, and REMFs are no longer REMFs. There is no rear echelon
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,312
From: UCIrvine
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Salty, I know what you're saying...these soldiers didn't sack up. But I think their complaint was more along the lines of feeling that other convoys and troops were getting more protection than they had. In Normandy, they all had the same protection...in Iraq, some had armored trucks and some had regular transports.
