Actually several of them, to those who might
know. I'm more than willing to have it taken off-
list if someone wants to reply to my e-mail
instead of the list.
1) I read about US forces skirmishing with Republican Gaurd. The reporter
mentioned
(repeatedly) 50mm machine-gun fire. I know
50mm is.... *rather large* for what I consider a machinegun. But I also don't
know what US vehicle is equipped with such a monster? I thought most of the
Apaches, Warthogs,
Bradleys, etc. were equipped with 20-30mm
guns of various varieties. What carries a 50mm? Or is the reporter full of hot
wind?
2. I keep seeing these sideways V symbols on various armoured vehicles. Some
seem to point back, others forward. Any armour crew out there who can suggest
what their purpose is?
3. I've heard about several 'friendly fire' incidents. One involved two Brit
tanks (Challengers I'll assume, but I could be wrong). Don't the tanks have
some sort of IFF system? (I'd have thought so).
4. I have heard that the Iraqis are using pickups with TOW mounts. Ignoring
the question of how they got there, does this remind anyone else of
the DS2 size 1 vehicle with GMS/H which we
always tend to lament about? Panzer Nissan anyone? (and effective, by all
accounts)
Thanks for the information.
Tomb
PS - Is anyone else annoyed that they keep
differentiating servicemen and women on combat operations killed in aircrashes
etc. "accidental" casualties as differentiated from "combat" casualties? That
really burns my butt. The distinction will be largely lost upon the families I
suspect.
> Republican Gaurd. The reporter mentioned
I watch less TV than Glenn does, but I'm assuming he means
.50cal--anything in the 20mm+ range should be called a ""cannon"
rather than a "machine gun"
> 1) I read about US forces skirmishing with
Probably meant to say.50 caliber.
> 2. I keep seeing these sideways V symbols on
Don't know.
> 3. I've heard about several 'friendly fire'
I always thought the "IFF" on tanks were centered around the gunner and
commander finding, identifying, and killing armor. But I havn't been in the
army since '94 so who knows what they've come up with since then.:)
Damond
> On 26 Mar 2003 at 15:36, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> 1) I read about US forces skirmishing with
Presumably a mistake, and it's really.50 cal. I've seen.22 refered to as 22mm
before now.
> 3. I've heard about several 'friendly fire'
Yeah, they were Challengers in the reports I've seen.
> Don't the tanks have some sort of IFF system?
And the systems work perfectly all the time? Though in this case they seem to
be ruling out system failure.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2887235.stm
Those are ID markings - easily identified from a distance or through a
scope. IIRC they used to have other geometric shapes to differentiate
companies/battalions using stuff like squares and triangles. They
probably switched to arrowheads to reduce the ease of targeting shapes like
circles.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> 1) I read about US forces skirmishing with
I also saw a mention of a 30 caliber anti-aircraft cannon (likely a
23mm Russian unit based on what I saw)
The reporter just doesn't understand caliber vs mm nomenclature. I've spent a
bit of time with several talking heads explaining how 9mm is larger and yet
smaller than say.30 caliber (30.06 or.308).
> 2. I keep seeing these sideways V symbols on
Recognition signs that indicate allied of some sort. As long as it's different
than what the Iraqi's have.
> 3. I've heard about several 'friendly fire'
No IFF on tanks as far as I know beyond the Mk 1 Eyeball. One has to figure
the Brit tank crews were in street combat and both unmasked opposite each
other and they took snap shots with reduced SA. Kind of sucks, but that's
murphy.
> 4. I have heard that the Iraqis are using pickups
Probably not Tows. Probably Russian made weapons.
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Actually several of them, to those who might
[...]
> 2. I keep seeing these sideways V symbols on
Oo! Oo! This one I can answer (mostly). :-)
According to my now-currently-misplaced Bradley
Fighting Vehicles book, those are company markings: A Company, B Company, C
Company, D Company. The
inverted (upward-pointing) "V" is for A Company.
The regularly down-pointed "V" is for C Company.
I can't remember which ways D and B Companies are supposed to point. I want to
say B Company points to the right and D to the left, but...
Mk
> -----Original Message-----
In SW Asia only US supplied allies use the TOW (Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait).
Iran has almost 2000 due to Iran-Contra.
More likely the Russian version the AT-4 "Spigot":
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/at4spigot.htm
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:36:09 -0500, "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@magma.ca>
wrote:
> PS - Is anyone else annoyed that they keep
I don't see much of a problem differentiating them. It's because of the high
numbers of casualties due to friendly fire and mechanical problems during the
1st Gulf War (as most Americans refer to what others call the 2nd Gulf War;
the 1st Gulf War in that case is known by many as the Iran-Iraq War).
I understand the reason why TomB is steamed at this, but from a reporting
point of view it's actually an important differentiation. I don't think it
denigrates the person's sacrifice at all. When telling what happened you have
to explain the situation (accident versus enemy action versus friendly fire).
When summing the casualties, it's important for us to know how many people
were hurt from enemy action and how many were hurt from "preventable" causes.
For me, it only serves to outline the fact that soldiering is a hazardous
profession even when you are nowhere near the frontline. It makes _me_
appreciate soldiers more, and I find the accidental deaths more tragic than
those from taking fire.
I can see TomB's point, but I guess I see it differently. What bugs me is how
some reporters still don't understand that casualty does not equal
"dead".
Casualties are those killed, missing, and wounded...
> 3. I've heard about several 'friendly fire'
> From what I understand of it, Challenger II's have no IFF system on
I'm sure it's more complex than that but it sums it up well.
> At 2:58 PM -0700 3/26/03, B Lin wrote:
They also had a number of F-14s. Not that any one of them is flyable
in combat form as they stopped receiving parts shipments way back when.
> At 10:36 PM +0000 3/26/03, Jim Morrison wrote:
Is Clansman 30 years old already?
The square box that looks like a cooling vent on the front/side/rear of
the
US/UK vehicles is some sort of highly reflective identifier, to Infra
Red/Thermal Imaging sensors at least. The boxes look about two foot
square and have 4 or 5 white[ish] horizontal louves.
IFF systems are "active" which is generally a bad thing as it means the
emeny can see/detect you easier. I also read somewhere today that one
problem with tank IFF systems is that it may prevent you from firing at the
enemy, if the line of fire is too close to friendlies.
Lee
"Friendly fire isn't!"
[quoted original message omitted]
Third world maintenance is worse than other kinds... Will these TOWs still
work?
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:50:16 -0500 Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
writes:
> At 2:58 PM -0700 3/26/03, B Lin wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:58:23 -0700 "B Lin" <lin@rxkinetix.com> writes:
<snip>
> In SW Asia only US supplied allies use the TOW (Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait).
Another wise short-term decision that has ramifications in the
long-term...
Anyone given any thought how this might be reflected in a DS 2 setting??
Gracias,
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:36:09 -0500 "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@magma.ca>
writes: <snip>
> 2. I keep seeing these sideways V symbols on
I thought these were used last war to help identify "our guys" from "their
guys"... <snip>
> 4. I have heard that the Iraqis are using pickups
They borrowed them from Chad?
There is nothing new under the sun...
> Thanks for the information.
Very true but...
I prefer to have them differentiated for the reason that it
1) reminds me that there are losses with no combat occurring - back a
tank over yourself directing it to a parking spot... Automobile accidents (a
favorite American casualty...) and people are casualties from disease (STD and
the more discuss able kind) are still casualties
2) reminds me that flight operations are not necessarily more dangerous as
more unforgiving of error
3) is an indicator (by comparing losses) of level of combat (more combat
a higher % of losses are combat losses - 18 year old soldiers drive
pretty much the same in combat and out of combat...
Gracias,
> 1) I read about US forces skirmishing with
.50 Caliber. Ma Duece. 1/2 inch caliber. Virtually everything that rolls
that's American has one
> 3. I've heard about several 'friendly fire' incidents. One involved
Life gets exciting when people are shooting at you. It's easy to get a bit
over enthusiastic in that circumstance. There is also the fact that many of
these crews have been denied horizontal sleep for 70+ hours, wearing the
same clothes for a week (including essentially a rubber suit) unable to bath.
I can't imagine what the inside of that tank smells like. There is something
called sensory overload that everyone can experience when so much information
is being thrown at you at once and the need to be hyperalert because of death
from every direction.
These are not lead soldiers. Many are in need of real rest, without which
mistakes will be made.
> 4. I have heard that the Iraqis are using pickups with TOW mounts.
Ignoring the question of how
> they got there, does this remind anyone else of the DS2 size 1
Russians invented the TOW (Generic term for optically tracked and wire guided
antitank weapon. I think that we called them saggers way back when.
> PS - Is anyone else annoyed that they keep differentiating servicemen
casualties as differentiated from "combat" casualties? That really burns my
butt. The distinction will be largely lost upon the families I suspect.
I would expect that sort of reporting. Indeed, it seems that the accidents are
winning. Of course flying helicopters in sandstorms can't be called a normal
peacetime operation.
Note: I was Air Force, but flew so I understand sensory overload and fatigue.
Your message was received at 9:14:48 PM on the 3/26/2003, and your
address has been logged.
Be advised that this server has users that are under 18 years of age. Only
personal messages and requested commercial messages (verified) are permitted.
Any other messages of a Business or Adult nature are a violation of our
systems and privacy policy. Adult messages that reach accounts used by minors
will be reported to the appropriate authorities.
Any Person or Organization sending messages that breach our usage policies
agree to remit the fee of $50 US Dollars, per message received by our server.
Receipt of this message constitutes agreement with the above terms.
Stuart?
> Stuart Ford wrote:
> Your message was received at 9:14:48 PM on the 3/26/2003, and your
Does this mean we won't hear from Stuart again?
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
I don't know but, it looks as if "Big Brother" is watching....(
Don
[quoted original message omitted]
> Two comments to what Mike Hillsgrove wrote:
> Russians invented the TOW (Generic term for optically tracked and wire
The generic terms for this type of weapons are ATGM (Anti-Tank Guided
Missile)/ATGW (Anti-Tank Guided Weapon). TOW is one specific series of
US-designed ATGMs, just like the Sagger refers specifically to the
Soviet-designed AT-3.
It wasn't the Russians who invented the ATGM concept, either - the
Germans
did that during WW2, but as with so many other of their wonder-weapons
they did it too late to have any effect on the outcome.
Regards
What was the line from Ice Station Zebra? Something like "We're up here to
capture some pictures on film made by our German scientists, taken with a
camera made by their German scientists from a satellite made by your German
scientists" (English intelligence operative to US Sub commander)
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
What was the line from Ice Station Zebra? Something like "We're up here to
capture some pictures on film made by our German scientists, taken with a
camera made by their German scientists from a satellite made by your German
scientists" (English intelligence operative to US Sub commander)
From: "Don M" <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com>
> What was the line from Ice Station Zebra? Something like "We're up
As opposed to, say the CSU-90 sonar on Swedish subs, made in Germany by
> In SW Asia only US supplied allies use the TOW (Saudi-Arabia,
I read recently (either in Air Forces Monthly or Air International - I
forget which but read both) that the Iranian Airforce still operationally
flies the F-14's, though they didn't say how many. Supposedly they've
integrated Soviet/Russian weapons, and manufacture their own spare
parts. I think I read they were considering reengining the aircraft with
Russian supplied engines, like the South Africans did with that Mirage they've
been shopping around with a bigass Russian engine as an upgrade.
Same with the F5's.
Actually, they developed a pretty clever upgrade program for the F5's,
including a cockpit stretch turning single seaters into two seaters.
They also have put into production reverse-engineered Bell helicopters,
and
have kept their AH-1 Cobras operational. Those served well during the
Iran-Iraq war (as did the F14's, which had air-to-air combat victories
over Iraqi aircraft, IIRC).
The Iranians are creating themselves, slowly but surely, a rather capable
arms industry - unlike most of the other Gulf states, the Iranians seem
to be determined to have native industry independent of the West or Russia...
********************************************
[quoted original message omitted]
I'm currently w/o cable TV, but I've got internet, so I'm getting 80% of
my news via the web - that can be a very surreal experience...
Just a couple of links from the fringes of Shrub's Crusade:
Really really wierd: a spoof blog "from" Saddam Hussein:
http://saddamhussein.blogspot.com/
I might have posted this before, but there seems to be a real, legit
web-logger in Baghdad:
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
..and a blog that might be from a US soldier somewhere in Kuwait:
http://www.lt-smash.us/
(I haven't gotten into the blog thing until now, but there's a lot of them,
and some of them link to very good information...)
Straight news site worth following: Bahrain's Gulf Daily News (the only place
I've found that's attempting to keep a running count of the casualties in this
mess...)
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/
On TomB's "50mm machine gun" thing - Dog, there's some technically
illiterate reporters out there! I read one report of "F-17" fighters
being
used over Iraq. F-what? Likewise, the Brit Warrior APC is *always*
referred to as a tank. Ditto the Bradley, and that big thing the USMC is
hauling around in.
Newpaper rule of war: If it's got camo paint and treads, it's a tank. Full
stop. (even if it's just an M-113 w/ .50 on top...)
On the Warrior: the Brits ran some sort of smash-n-grab raid outside of
Basra Tuesday, apparently, grabbing a Baath Party nob before he could
vanish into the sandstorm. To get into the (two-story, brick) building,
they *rammed* a Warrior into the damn wall, *backed* it out, and invited
themselves in through the door they'd made. The same Warrior that created the
entry point was used to carry the nob off to POW camp. Tough damn vehicle,
evidently.
Personally, I'm still opposed to this whole fiasco. I rather liked Michael
Moore's Oscar speech, although the man has a slight tendancy toward hysteria.
Drop Bush (and Cellucci!), not bombs...
> On TomB's "50mm machine gun" thing - Dog, there's some technically
Full
> stop. (even if it's just an M-113 w/ .50 on top...)
Regardless of my views on the war, this is one thing that is bugging me. I
have never been in the armed forces nor do I have qualifications in military
tactics. But through reading military history and through various discussions
on this list (amongst others) I wince every time the Sky news military
analysts or any other news channel for that matter starts spouting on about
intended military tactics, fighting
capabilities of various units/enemy etc.
They don't know what they are talking about. How do you get to be a military
analyst anyway? I bet you don't have to serve in the forces first.
Jeremey
Brian Burger schrieb:
> Straight news site worth following:
This site keeps a running count of civilian deaths:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Total numbers somewhere between 200 and 300 at the moment :-(
Greetings Karl Heinz
Sounds like a great money maker, sign on to a list, the list sends you message
(sooner or later,) you send this, then you try and collect the cash as later
messages roll in. Nice theory anyway...
I have no clue as to it's legality (questionable to my non-legal mind,)
effectiveness (LOL! Not from any list I have been on!!) or seriousness (has
"Stuart" posted before? Is he human or an autobot type program? Was
he hacked? Does he have a wickedly off-tangent sense of humor? Is he
ROFLOL?) but he woke me up circa 0430 this morning...
Gracias, Glenn
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:14:48 -0600 Stuart Ford <stuart@forddata.com>
writes:
> Your message was received at 9:14:48 PM on the 3/26/2003, and your
From: "Germ" <germ@germy.co.uk>
> They don't know what they are talking about. How do you get to be a
On TV or for real?
For Real - you probably qualify, or could if you worked at it.
On TV - it depends on how you look, not how you think. Those that know
something about warfare are loath to comment too much, as they know how easily
they can look like horse's arses due to the fog of war. They give it their
best shot, based on
> At 11:42 AM +0100 3/27/03, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
Compare that to the first week of Normandy and then get back to us.
Who sponsors this site and does it report how these Iraqi civilians became
casualties?
Jason
[quoted original message omitted]
> >This site keeps a running count of civilian deaths:
Civilian deaths "from US action"? I gather that the total "from
Saddam's action" would be higher--by several orders of magnitude.
As no other posted URL's have received this kind of questioning, though
perhaps they should have, may I suggest it would be a good time to allow this
thread to die?
The_Beast
TOW's supposedly have a maintenance free shelf life of 20 years. So they
should be good for a few more years.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
I would like to second The_Beast's motion.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: devans@nebraska.edu
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:19:44 -0600
> As no other posted URL's have received this kind of questioning, though
> At 11:00 AM 3/27/2003 -0500, you wrote:
It looks like we're about to teeter over into the political side of discussion
about the war. Can we all take a minute to take a deep breath?
Also, Brian, can you cut with the snide comments about "Shrub's War"? This
war is a hell of a lot more complex than some of the idiot anti-war
folks
want to admit; reducing it to this sort of bumper-sticker philosophy
doesn't help, particularly if it could be perceived as slipping in
editorial comments in otherwise on-topic posts.
I thought it was great, woke me up when I first read it!.
I admit I had no clue what was going on. An blanket responder to spam, nice
idea. Tell you wife it was impressive enough! Althougfh my ideas
are more oriented to HEL/5...
Gracias, Glenn
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:08:30 -0600 "Stuart Ford" <stuart@forddata.com>
writes:
> Woops,
Very interesting. A warranty that works!
Gracias, Glenn
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:19:59 -0700 "B Lin" <lin@rxkinetix.com> writes:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:52:36 +1100 "Alan and Carmel Brain"
> <aebrain@webone.com.au> writes:
<snip>
> Hence US Marine Corps M1A1s get described as British Royal Marine
Well, they got Marine right...
Gracias,
just as a small side note, if I remember rightly the US marines actually have
more tanks than the British army.
[quoted original message omitted]
Well don't know about the warranty, after all if the Iranians use some and
they don't work, I'm pretty sure the US government isn't going to refund their
money or replace the items!:)
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Don Greenfield wrote:
> At 11:00 AM 3/27/2003 -0500, you wrote:
This
> war is a hell of a lot more complex than some of the idiot anti-war
Fair 'nuff; no more calling it "Shrub's Crusade" in my list posts...
> PS It ought to be said that I'm not claiming that the entire anti-war
Like the SanFran "vomit-in" folks last week? I know I've been posting
odd links, but that's just excessively strange. (and gross...)
This one is funny, though, in light of the "is Saddam dead or alive" debate:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,923848,00.html
Thought of the Day: If we can't tell whether Saddam is dead or alive, does
that make him Schrodinger's Dictator?
News link worth following: links to news sites across the Muslim world -
get a different set of biases from the Western media's!
http://media.fares.net/
Have a good war,
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:54:49 -0800 (PST) Brian Burger
> <yh728@victoria.tc.ca> writes:
<snip>
> Thought of the Day: If we can't tell whether Saddam is dead or alive,
Can we strap buttered bread to his back? Oops, wrong species...
> News link worth following: links to news sites across the Muslim world
Fair enough, at work on the monitors I saw that a US company has an Arabic
language TV station broadcasting Western view point.
> Have a good war,
War monger that I am, I have never found one good off the table.
> Brian.
Gracias,
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:54:49 -0800 (PST), Brian Burger
<yh728@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> Thought of the Day: If we can't tell whether Saddam is dead or alive,
No, it means he was bombed in a forest...
<<snipped>>> The Iranians are creating themselves, slowly but
> surely, a rather capable
Don't forget China!
Today while doing "research" I came across a BBC article on how the Russians
hope to be come a major supplier of military hardware in the near future (This
time for cash! Well, duh!) but the problems they are having with their ageing
work force and developmental budget woes.
Gracias, Glenn
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:38:45 -0800 (PST) Foxx Travis
> <lordkalvin2002@yahoo.com> writes:
In a message dated 3/27/03 2:01:03 AM,
> owner-gzg-digest@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU writes:
<< Tomb
PS - Is anyone else annoyed that they keep
differentiating servicemen and women on combat operations killed in aircrashes
etc. "accidental" casualties as differentiated from "combat" casualties? That
really burns my butt. The distinction will be largely lost upon the families I
suspect.
> [quoted text omitted]
Well, I read in Digest, and I'm just getting caught up so here my 2 cents
worth.
I greatful that the news media are telling us that these are "accidental" (aka
should have been prevented) deaths, vrs death from enemy combat actions (aka
where it is "expected").
This way you can see that we are once more doing a greater damage to ourselves
then the enemy is doing to us.
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:17:36 EST DOCAgren@aol.com writes:
<snip
> This way you can see that we are once more doing a greater damage to
Being an old military historian by one college degree, I can honestly say it
is my impression that the ratio of combat casualties since about 1500
BC have been less than non-combat casuaties in most wars if not all (I
wish I had the URL to STD [gonoorrhea, et. al.] statistics but i don't do that
anymore.) And think about how young almost adult drivers drive through most
urban neighborhoods and I would expect more vehicular casualties except for a
remanent of discipline and maturity from
Basic/Technical Training, "If I live, the Sarge will kill me," and some
overworked MP's. And maybe a little Grace of God...
Gracias,