Comments on: Slow, Fat “Future” for Army

By: Panther6170

Panther6170 — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:44:26 +0000

I MUSS ZIB

By: Panther6170

Panther6170 — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:43:59 +0000

I MUSS ZIB

By: justin milam

justin milam — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:09:08 +0000

first i dont hate on the army for god sake, the in there for the same reason as anyone in any branch second my father was a army sf iv seen him beet the living crap out of many before him and i see a lot of wisdom in him and third you are right about boot camp in marines its just basic skills not trying to stuff as much in themm and send them off to war, its said the only thing equall to a marine is an army ranger none are better then eachother but a regular army soilder fresh from basic and a marine fresh from basic easy pickn for that marine. so you can whine about it are you can suck it up (like a marine) and Acknowledge those marines and what they joined the marines for( if you think the army is so tough then why does the army have to compare there special forces to a normal marine{not that theres anything normal about them}that does not sound to tough)

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 24 May 2009 16:42:24 +0000

Justin Milam, either your daddy wasn’t Army SF or your just a fool. Army SF would pummel the living s#@% out of a marine any day. A marine fresh out of boot has limited experience in anything. Bootcamp is NOT combat training. In bootcamp you learn some fighting, and some shooting. But as an Army SF soldier you are an EXPERT in hand to hand combat, in weapons, and about 20 other items. So shut your mouth you ignorant fools. You are all around 15 years old and play too many video game SHUT YOUR MOUTHS!

By: justin milam

justin milam — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:46:36 +0000

im sick of this army crap, ive never herd a soilder shut up with this “marines arent that good”. NO there better then army its all about speed and intensity which the army doesnt have, but dont get me wrong my dad was army special forces, he was a ranger and a real killer in paintball, but a marine fresh from basic put my dad to shame. basicly i dont hear marines talk crap cus they are marines, army talks crap cus they can never be marines, most amry soilders are rejected marines anyhow its not the other way around
Email me, i love to argue if you disagree

By: SWP

SWP — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 03:29:49 +0000

We have a fast rapid response military force…it’s called the Marine Corps. Idk why the army is even trying to move into the Corps area of expertise. The Army’s job is to be the big slow lumbering force of “heavy infantry” and heavy armor units that go in and hold territory and launch large scale military actions against enemies. The Army is NOT our/should not be our quick response force. Forcing them into that role just creates a large, bloated, and redundant force. If we are to go through and make the Army a primarily light infantry force rather than a heavy mechanized force then we either need to fold them into the Marines or vice versa; it just becomes redundant and expensive to operate two services that will have basically the same mission plan If you want a rapid response force look no further than the Marine Expeditionary Force(s) that are deployed around the world. They are already lighter, & faster. Basically to sum it all up: Marines=Light Rapid Response force that can react quickly to hot spots around the world, but they can’t hold ground for indefinate periods of time…that’s where the Army comes in the big heavy force that moves in after the Marines have secured a foothold for the big hitters to move in and finish up. Marine=Light Army=Heavy why change a winning formula?

By: joehudsonjr@earthlink.net

joehudsonjr@earthlink.net — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:09:14 +0000

it sounds like we need my commander n chief-REAGEN.THE M-109 IS OLD AND OUT DATED.we need the CRUSADER.

By: Nameless

Nameless — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:06:24 +0000

The way I look at it, we are trying to solve a policy problem with a technological solution.
We want faster global deployment with less casaulties.
So the obvious solution is to rely on our strategic arsenal and punish the aggressors. When a conventional response is needed, hire some cheap local thugs/criminals and mercenaries and get it done on the cheap. Plus, these guys are totally disposable.….no need for “informational dominance”.
I will guarantee you it will be cheaper than $45B.
A military force should be used as a purveyor of death and destruction, no more, no less.

By: Freethinker_LIRN

Freethinker_LIRN — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 03:50:33 +0000

Maybe instead of designing whole new vehicles a low power point defense laser system could be mounted on existing vehicles and used to detonate RPGs before they hit. It could be made out of currently existing technology, certainly for less than those 450 billion. The complex part would be developing an automatic fire system that could react on time but i’m pretty sure with those kinds of funds it could be done.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:43:29 +0000

what we need to do is start with and new armour to use on vehicles. then to start with a common base for tankes and truck so that there are interchangeable so if one breakdowns or if there is an update to armour you just swich the passenger and storge sections. so theres two part the engine and the passenger compartment, which helps save money with common part.