Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (21224)	3/12/2002 10:14:03 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

i am going to drop this in a minute...just a few more comments. the minimum range for a 120 is about 6-800 yards...the battlefields were not that big. mortars are not point type weapons...they are best against troop units in the open...they are useless against caves and major fortifications. mortars are very inaccurate in mountainous terrain and windy weather conditions. direct fire weapons such as LAWs, Recoiless and wire guided are mucho better. i would not assign too much value to comments from a marine pilot working at the pentagon...advancing army units relying on air force support is quite normal...the air force has that mission....the USMC and US Navy are not assigned the job of providing air support for the army...though it is occasionally done...perhaps the USMC air assets were busy doing there job of providing support to the USMC units in country. as far as piling on...you cannot have it both ways...either pull back and let supporting fires work or attack...cannot do both simultaneously. there is not an army unit commander anywhere, worth his salt, who would recommend piling into a situation with our light infantry troops when the enemy is in heavy and well defended fortifications without massive support including tanks and APCs, which in this case have no maneuverability...and it was not done. sticking one's nose into hornet's nests is exactly how our army earns their pay...the mission of the US Army Infantry is still, "To close with, kill and destroy the enemy." considering all of the difficult factors involved here...i believe out troops and leaders on the ground are doing a magnificent job...and considering the size and equipment of the enemy forces being encountered and their willingness to fight to the death...our casualties are incredibly low. so far the current critique is coming from a marine pilot and others at the pentagon and a coupla comments from privates and reporters in the field...,the real story will be told by the company grade officers and NCOs...lets wait until they have their say before we judge. uw