Hi Art,
that I know.
But not all Patriots follow blindly, either :)
We (many Germans) followed blindly back in 1933 and what a mess we created.
Therefore I stick with Teddy:
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we
are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (Teddy
Roosevelt 1918)
Michael "still having many friends in the military" :)
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:46:07 -0800, Art Bahrs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi Michael :)
> You are welcome And Remember George in "It's A Wonderful Life" Not all
>Patriots serve :)
>
> Art :)
>
>=======================================================
>Art Bahrs, CISSP Information Security The Regence Group
>(503) 225-4992 FAX (503) 220-3806
>
>
>
> "Michael
> Baier"
> <h_michael_bai To
> [log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
> Sent by: cc
> "HP-3000
> Systems Subject
> Discussion" Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Body Armor Humor
> <HP3000-L@RAVE From a Grunt
> N.UTC.EDU>
>
>
> 01/17/2006
> 11:40 AM
>
>
> Please respond
> to
> "Michael
> Baier"
> <h_michael_bai
> [log in to unmask]>
> |------------|
> | [ ] Secure |
> | E-mail |
> |------------|
>
>
>
>
>
>Art,
>
>thank you for serving.
>Not a chicken hawk and xbox-warrior like Brice, Denys, Shawn.
>Wonder why they never went. Specially without any body-armor and such.
>I'd even get them a black-powder rifle and they can play "patriot"
>
>Michael "always in flame-suit" Baier
>
>
>On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:49:30 -0800, Art Bahrs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>Hi All :)
>> Ok... a humorous note on Body Armor.... back during the first Iraq War
>>I was the acting Supply Sergeant for a National Guard Infantry unit here
>in
>>Oregon... and had to turn back in to "The System" all of our Body Armor
>>(Flak Vests) for reissue to units going over to Iraq...
>>
>> So, I opened the boxes since almost 75% of my vests were brand new in
>>the box... I pulled the instruction booklet from one of the vests and took
>>a quick read... after all ... everything in the Army has instructions :)
>>
>> The instructions include on the last page a "Record of Hit Form" that
>>is to be filled out whenever the vest takes a hit... the instructions are
>>held on in a "pouch/pocket" designed into the inside of the back of the
>>vest ...
>>
>> The instructions included a question (to be filled out at the time of
>>the hit) "Were you able to continue with your mission?" The exact wording
>>I forget but the question was wordied in the First Person!
>>
>> And you all say the Army doesn't have a sense of humor :) :) hehehe
>>I posted the form on my Supply "Shack" door for review :) And boy the
>>instructions for how to make sure a Claymore Mine is properly emplaced
>>facing the enemy and not you... those are funny :)
>>
>>Art "Claymores ... the key to a Bang Up Job!" Bahrs
>>
>>=======================================================
>>Art Bahrs, CISSP Information Security The Regence Group
>>(503) 225-4992 FAX (503) 220-3806
>>
>>
>>
>> "Denys
>> Beauchemin"
>> <denysnospamwa To
>> [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
>> r.com> cc
>> Sent by:
>> "HP-3000 Subject
>> Systems Re: [HP3000-L] OT: The Century
>> Discussion" Ahead
>> <HP3000-L@RAVE
>> N.UTC.EDU>
>>
>>
>> 01/16/2006
>> 06:31 AM
>>
>>
>> Please respond
>> to
>> [log in to unmask]
>> rr.com
>> |------------|
>> | [ ] Secure |
>> | E-mail |
>> |------------|
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Body armor has become an interesting issue in this war. If one looks to
>>history, at some point in the past, heavily armored soldiers were simply
>>submerged by far more agile opponents or more powerful weapons. The sun
>>set
>>on personal armor after the last knight fell, pun fully intended.
>>
>>The only piece of body armor in use after that was the helmet; steel,
>>Kevlar, whatever. In WWII, bomber pilots and crew used flak jackets in an
>>attempt to ward off the fragments of shells exploding around, above and
>>mainly below them, which is why many pilots simply sat on their jackets.
>>
>>The soldiers on the ground only had their helmets for armor. Of course,
>>tanks and other armored vehicles were used, but again these vehicles could
>>easily be overwhelmed and destroyed by infantry, which is why they never
>>advanced without covering infantry.
>>
>>Tanks got progressively faster to the point they were actually able to
>>outrun the opposing infantry if need be. In more recent years, tanks have
>>become so well armored and agile they are able to advance without infantry
>>support but, tanks are not something you usually want in urban warfare, at
>>least not without infantry support. To help infantry keep up with faster
>>moving tanks, the APC (Armored Personnel Carrier) was developed and over
>>the
>>years has taken on many forms, culminating in the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
>>for the US military.
>>
>>The HMMWV (High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle) or Humvee was
>>developed as the follow on to the Jeep of WWII, Korea and Vietnam fame.
>>The
>>Jeep was not armored in any way. It was meant to be fast, agile and
>>maneuverable. Some people of a certain age and beyond may recall the TV
>>program, The Rat Patrol. When tanks had to stop to aim and fire, they
>>could
>>get away with that; I would not try that nowadays.
>>
>>The Humvee is a far superior vehicle compared to the Jeep, being extremely
>>agile, much faster and actually able to go in places which would have
>>stopped a Jeep cold. This incredible vehicle has proven itself well since
>>its introduction in the 1980s. It's one weakness is that it is not
>>armored,
>>it was not designed to be armored, check again what the first two letter
>of
>>its acronym stand for.
>>
>>In Iraq, most Humvees have been up-armored to ward of EIDs use by
>>terrorists, but this has reduced its performance, agility and its
>>capability
>>to go virtually anywhere. The armor is heavy and so not all soldiers want
>>a
>>heavy Humvee.
>>
>>In the US military personal armor came into vogue during and mostly after
>>Desert Storm. However, the issue becomes how much armor do you want to
>>carry and which body parts do you leave unarmored. Bulletproof vests
>worn
>>by police are classified by threat levels. Some can stop a handgun bullet
>>and a knife but are easily defeated (in this case, penetrated) by a rifle
>>bullet. Others can stop rifle bullets but they will weight you down and
>>they do not cover all sides or the neck and face. So, how much armor do
>>you
>>want to carry?
>>
>>When the anti-gunners started making a big fuss about bullets that could
>>penetrate bulletproof vests currently worn by police, they actually got
>>more
>>cops killed because they made the criminals aware of the fact police had
>>bulletproof vests, the criminals started to aim for unprotected areas.
>>(You
>>may also remember the Lethal Weapon movie where a "cop-killer" handgun
>>bullet was able to easily penetrate a bulldozer blade. Yeah, there's
>>reality for you.)
>>
>>So now the anti-Iraqi Freedom folks are making a big stink about body
>>armor,
>>detailing as much as possible which parts of the body are covered and
>which
>>are not and what it takes to penetrate the existing armor. That is very
>>supportive of the troops in harm's way right now, not. I would suggest the
>>concern expressed by these people is totally faked and meant to harm the
>>troops by providing information to the enemy. Which is why we see
>soldiers
>>shot at with an RPG instead of a rifle.
>>
>>These activists are only interested in doing anything they can to
>embarrass
>>the administration and if soldiers die because of their actions, well
>>that's
>>just too bad. To them, making Bush look inept is far more important than
>a
>>few soldiers' lives and since the military votes Republican by a wide
>>margin, they deserve what they get. (Trust me, I check out The Daily Kaos
>>every once in a while. I know what the mainstream liberals are saying.)
>>
>>I came across this report:
>>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060108/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_body_armor
>>
>>US Soldiers Question Use of More Armor. Read it all.
>>
>>
>>
>>Denys
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>>Of Johnson, Tracy
>>Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 9:51 AM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: The Century Ahead
>>
>>That's because they're working on the Bleex2.
>>
>>http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2384
>>
>>http://bleex.me.berkeley.edu/bleex.htm
>>
>>http://www.gizmag.com/go/2683/
>>
>>Tracy Johnson
>>Measurement Specialties, Inc.
>>
>>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
==========================================================================
>
>=
>>IMPORTANT NOTICE: This communication, including any attachment, contains
>information that may be confidential or privileged, and is intended solely
>for the entity or individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
>intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified
>that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is strictly
>prohibited. Nothing in this email, including any attachment, is intended
>to be a legally binding signature.
>>
>
==========================================================================
>
>=
>>
>>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>>=========================================================================
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
>
>
>
>
===========================================================================
=
>IMPORTANT NOTICE: This communication, including any attachment, contains
information that may be confidential or privileged, and is intended solely
for the entity or individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified
that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is strictly
prohibited. Nothing in this email, including any attachment, is intended
to be a legally binding signature.
>
===========================================================================
=
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
