"V-22 squadron achieves successin Iraq, USMC says"

[Mike[_7_]]

V-22 squadron achieves successin Iraq, USMC says
Aerospace Daily
01/25/2008 , page 12

U.S. Marine Corps Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 - the service's first
V-22 Osprey squadron - has been successful in its air operations of Al
Anbar province since arriving in October, the service reports.

The Marines took some heat when they gambled on Osprey development as
an aviation linchpin, and some industry experts wondered if the
aircraft would be able to survive combat operations.

2,000 missions

The squadron has completed more than 2,000 missions in the first three
months of the deployment, keeping about 8,000 people off dangerous
roadways and tallying about 2,000 flight hours, the Marines report.
The tiltrotors have accomplished every mission and met every schedule,
according to the service.

VMM-263 - the "Thunder Chickens" - has flown five Aeroscout missions,
one raid, more than 1,400 combat sorties, and maintained an average
mission capable readiness rate of 68.1 percent during its deployment,
the service reported.

The squad took over the entire range of combat medium-lift assault
support missions in support of Multi-National Forces - West from
Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 363 to include battlefield
circulation, raid and Aeroscout operations, helicopter/tiltrotor
governance, and tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel. The
Ospreys flew everywhere throughout the battlefield from Baghdad to Al
Qaim, providing an operational capability over distance and time that
has "effectively collapsed the battlespace," the Marines say.

'Much appreciated'

"Our area of operations is large and the aircraft's speed and range
has been much-appreciated by many of the folks the squadron has
supported," said Lt. Col. Paul Rock, VMM-263's commanding officer.
"The precision navigation and situational awareness systems in the
aircraft have enhanced our ability to perform desert landings in
brownout conditions."

During brownout, the MV-22's unique hover capability significantly
increases the safety of troops in the execution of combat missions,
enabling troops to deploy at precisely the desired coordinates, the
Marines said.

"The aircraft has performed better than expected," said Cpl. Daniel
Stratman, a VMM-263 crew chief. "We haven't had to replace any major
parts like prop boxes or anything; the main problem out here is
getting the parts for this aircraft. We can fix just about anything,
the only thing that slows us down is getting the parts."

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 4, 1:45 pm, Mike > wrote:
> V-22 squadron achieves successin Iraq, USMC says
> Aerospace Daily
> 01/25/2008 , page 12
>
> U.S. Marine Corps Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 - the service's first
> V-22 Osprey squadron - has been successful in its air operations of Al
> Anbar province since arriving in October, the service reports.
>
> The Marines took some heat when they gambled on Osprey development as
> an aviation linchpin, and some industry experts wondered if the
> aircraft would be able to survive combat operations.
>
> 2,000 missions
>
> The squadron has completed more than 2,000 missions in the first three
> months of the deployment, keeping about 8,000 people off dangerous
> roadways and tallying about 2,000 flight hours, the Marines report.
> The tiltrotors have accomplished every mission and met every schedule,
> according to the service.
>
> VMM-263 - the "Thunder Chickens" - has flown five Aeroscout missions,
> one raid, more than 1,400 combat sorties, and maintained an average
> mission capable readiness rate of 68.1 percent during its deployment,
> the service reported.
>
> The squad took over the entire range of combat medium-lift assault
> support missions in support of Multi-National Forces - West from
> Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 363 to include battlefield
> circulation, raid and Aeroscout operations, helicopter/tiltrotor
> governance, and tactical recovery of aircraft and personnel. The
> Ospreys flew everywhere throughout the battlefield from Baghdad to Al
> Qaim, providing an operational capability over distance and time that
> has "effectively collapsed the battlespace," the Marines say.
>
> 'Much appreciated'
>
> "Our area of operations is large and the aircraft's speed and range
> has been much-appreciated by many of the folks the squadron has
> supported," said Lt. Col. Paul Rock, VMM-263's commanding officer.
> "The precision navigation and situational awareness systems in the
> aircraft have enhanced our ability to perform desert landings in
> brownout conditions."
>
> During brownout, the MV-22's unique hover capability significantly
> increases the safety of troops in the execution of combat missions,
> enabling troops to deploy at precisely the desired coordinates, the
> Marines said.
>
> "The aircraft has performed better than expected," said Cpl. Daniel
> Stratman, a VMM-263 crew chief. "We haven't had to replace any major
> parts like prop boxes or anything; the main problem out here is
> getting the parts for this aircraft. We can fix just about anything,
> the only thing that slows us down is getting the parts."

In Iraq, Osprey Rocks the Cynics
Dallas Morning News
January 07, 2008

ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq - On a clear, cool December morning, two odd-
looking military aircraft zip along 8,000 feet above the empty desert
of western Iraq, preparing to perform a feat worthy of science
fiction.

As the V-22 Ospreys approach their dusty destination, a lonely Marine
Corps outpost near the Syrian border, each craft's huge wingtip
rotors, now serving as propellers, will steadily tilt upward - and in
effect turn the two airplanes into helicopters to land.

Over the past three months, the Osprey's trick of transforming itself
has become an everyday sight over Anbar province, where 10 of the
Texas-built tiltrotor transports have been flying in a combat zone for
the first time in the V-22's tumultuous 24-year history.

So far, the Osprey has defied the dire predictions of its most severe
critics. Citing the V-22's record of four crashes and 30 deaths in
test flights prior to 2001, some foes of the tiltrotor forecast more
crashes and deaths in Iraq.

As of Dec. 28, three months through a scheduled seven-month
deployment, the 23 pilots of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263,
known as VMM-263, had logged 1,639 hours of flight time in Iraq,
carried 6,826 passengers and delivered 631,837 pounds of cargo without
a mishap or even a close call.

That's good news not only for the Marines but also for Bell Helicopter
Textron Inc. of Fort Worth, Texas, and Boeing Co.'s helicopter
division, near Philadelphia, which make the Osprey in a 50-50
partnership. About 2,500 Bell employees work on the Osprey in Fort
Worth and Amarillo, where V-22s are assembled.

The Marines plan to buy 360 Ospreys in all. The Air Force is set to
purchase 50 and may buy more, for special operations. The companies
hope to sell dozens more to the Navy and potential foreign customers
as well. An unsuccessful first V-22 deployment could torpedo those
sales.

Headquartered at Al Asad, an isolated air base in the desert about 110
miles west of Baghdad, VMM-263's Ospreys spent their first two months
in Iraq largely flying "general support" missions - hauling troops and
supplies to and from forward operating bases.

"As long as they keep using it like a truck, I think they'll probably
be okay," said Philip Coyle, a former Pentagon weapons testing
director and a longtime Osprey critic.

In December, VMM-263 began to take on riskier tasks.

On Dec. 6, two of the Ospreys carried 24 combat-loaded Marines and 24
Iraqi troops on a raid near Lake Tharthar, 150 miles north of Baghdad,
to look for suspected insurgents.

"It turned out to be a dry hole, there was nothing there," said Capt.
Drew Norris, 30, of Dallas, a graduate of Jesuit College Preparatory
School and Texas A&M University who was one of the pilots on the raid.
As for the flight, he said, "It went off without a hitch."

Two days later, two Ospreys were included for the first time in a well-
established mission called "aeroscout," a sort of roving raid in which
troops aboard helicopters search for insurgents by air. The ground
troops commander scrubbed the mission when one Osprey needed to turn
back to base because one of its four generators failed.

The generator failure is symptomatic of one big question hanging over
the Osprey in Iraq: is the $70 million aircraft reliable enough, or
does it "break" too often?

One of the squadron's 10 Ospreys had to land in Jordan on the way into
Iraq in October and spend a couple of days there being fixed after a
wiring problem led the pilots to make a precautionary landing. Others
have been grounded for days at a time for similar problems in Iraq.

"That's the kind of thing that has plagued the Osprey, reliability
failures of one kind or another," Coyle said.


VMM-263 brought 14 contractor technicians with them to help deal with
such problems, and the Marine Corps and contractors have taken pains
to make sure the squadron gets all the parts it needs.

The squadron's readiness rate in Iraq - how many aircraft are ready to
fly - has varied from as low as 50 percent to 100 percent on a given
day, said Chief Warrant Officer 2 Carlos Rios, maintenance material
control chief. But the key question is whether enough aircraft are
available for the missions the squadron is assigned, he said.

Lt. Col. Paul Rock, commander of VMM-263, said his squadron had been
forced to turn down taskings for lack of aircraft only "one or two
days" during its first two months in Iraq.

In addition to flying troops and supplies, meanwhile, the Ospreys have
become a favorite way to fly for VIPs, such as generals who need a
fast way to get to the Marines' forward operating bases, which have no
runways. Anbar is roughly the size of South Carolina.

The Osprey can take off and land like a helicopter but tilts its
rotors all the way forward to fly like an airplane. That lets it fly
more than twice as fast and far as the CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters
the Marines are buying it to replace. It cruises thousands of feet
higher than helicopters do, as well.


The debate over the V-22 is far from over, though, in part because
while the Osprey is flying in a combat zone, there isn't much actual
combat in their zone these days.

When the Marines decided to send the Osprey to Iraq, Anbar was the
hotbed of the Sunni Muslim insurgency that wracked Iraq after the U.S.-
led invasion of 2003. By the time the squadron arrived in October,
Sunni rebels had turned against the jihadists affiliated with al-Qaida
and have been helping rather than attacking U.S. forces.

Through mid-December, none of VMM-263's pilots had reported any
evidence of being shot at, though some had seen tracer rounds well
below them while flying at night.

Under the circumstances, some critics might say that the Osprey isn't
really being tested, but "people are too impatient," said V-22
advocate Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington
Institute, a Washington think tank with close ties to the defense
industry.

"The kind of harrowing operations that people anticipated haven't
occurred so far, but what we're learning about the V-22 in Iraq is
that it can operate every day, it can perform a wide range of
missions, and - at least so far - it does not have deficient
reliability," he said. "However, there's a long way to go before we
grasp the potential of this aircraft. This is just the beginning."

[Mr.Smartypants[_2_]]

On Feb 4, 12:53*pm, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> On Feb 4, 1:45 pm, Mike > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > V-22 squadron achieves successin Iraq, USMC says
> > Aerospace Daily
> > 01/25/2008 , page 12
>


No one has really shot at them yet.

They'll be sitting ducks when in transition mode.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Feb 5, 6:07*am, "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 12:53*pm, Jack Linthicum >
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 4, 1:45 pm, Mike > wrote:
>
> > > V-22 squadron achieves successin Iraq, USMC says
> > > Aerospace Daily
> > > 01/25/2008 , page 12
>
> No one has really shot at them yet.
>
> They'll be sitting ducks when in transition mode.

Moreso than a hovering helicopter?

[Bill Kambic]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 06:02:02 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

>On Feb 5, 6:07*am, "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 12:53*pm, Jack Linthicum >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 4, 1:45 pm, Mike > wrote:
>>
>> > > V-22 squadron achieves successin Iraq, USMC says
>> > > Aerospace Daily
>> > > 01/25/2008 , page 12
>>
>> No one has really shot at them yet.
>>
>> They'll be sitting ducks when in transition mode.
>
> Moreso than a hovering helicopter?

Or a serene blimp? <badabing-badaboom>

[Typhoon502]

On Feb 5, 9:02*am, " > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 6:07*am, "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
>
> > No one has really shot at them yet.
>
> > They'll be sitting ducks when in transition mode.
>
> * * Moreso than a hovering helicopter?

That's helicopter mode. Mr. Smartypants thinks that somehow the
transition state, when the nacelles are neither horizontal nor
vertical, is something scary. The fact is, during transition, the
aircraft retains enough forward velocity to make the wings generate
useful lift, and if the pilot needs to lay on speed, those nacelles
can drop and those big blades can get that bird moving in a hurry.

Also, V-22 structures have been shot plenty of times in the test
phase. Its ability to take hits is not some nebulous unknown quantity.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 5, 9:10 am, Typhoon502 > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 9:02 am, " > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 5, 6:07 am, "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
>
> > > No one has really shot at them yet.
>
> > > They'll be sitting ducks when in transition mode.
>
> > Moreso than a hovering helicopter?
>
> That's helicopter mode. Mr. Smartypants thinks that somehow the
> transition state, when the nacelles are neither horizontal nor
> vertical, is something scary. The fact is, during transition, the
> aircraft retains enough forward velocity to make the wings generate
> useful lift, and if the pilot needs to lay on speed, those nacelles
> can drop and those big blades can get that bird moving in a hurry.
>
> Also, V-22 structures have been shot plenty of times in the test
> phase. Its ability to take hits is not some nebulous unknown quantity.

Cite

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Feb 5, 9:12*am, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 9:10 am, Typhoon502 > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 9:02 am, " > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 6:07 am, "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
>
> > > > No one has really shot at them yet.
>
> > > > They'll be sitting ducks when in transition mode.
>
> > > * * Moreso than a hovering helicopter?
>
> > That's helicopter mode. Mr. Smartypants thinks that somehow the
> > transition state, when the nacelles are neither horizontal nor
> > vertical, is something scary. The fact is, during transition, the
> > aircraft retains enough forward velocity to make the wings generate
> > useful lift, and if the pilot needs to lay on speed, those nacelles
> > can drop and those big blades can get that bird moving in a hurry.
>
> > Also, V-22 structures have been shot plenty of times in the test
> > phase. Its ability to take hits is not some nebulous unknown quantity.
>
> Cite-

http://www.navair.navy.mil/V22/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.detail&id=170

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 5, 9:25 am, " > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 9:12 am, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 9:10 am, Typhoon502 > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 9:02 am, " > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 5, 6:07 am, "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
>
> > > > > No one has really shot at them yet.
>
> > > > > They'll be sitting ducks when in transition mode.
>
> > > > Moreso than a hovering helicopter?
>
> > > That's helicopter mode. Mr. Smartypants thinks that somehow the
> > > transition state, when the nacelles are neither horizontal nor
> > > vertical, is something scary. The fact is, during transition, the
> > > aircraft retains enough forward velocity to make the wings generate
> > > useful lift, and if the pilot needs to lay on speed, those nacelles
> > > can drop and those big blades can get that bird moving in a hurry.
>
> > > Also, V-22 structures have been shot plenty of times in the test
> > > phase. Its ability to take hits is not some nebulous unknown quantity.
>
> > Cite-
>
> http://www.navair.navy.mil/V22/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.detail&id=170

This paragraph

"But what if the aircraft is hit by enemy fire? How vulnerable is it?
The MV-22 has undergone an extensive live fire test and evaluation
(LFT&E) program consisting of no less than 60 test events and totaling
more than 592 ballistic test firings (more than any aircraft in
Department of Defense history). All flight control actuators were
proven to be resistant to light antiaircraft artillery armor piercing
incendiary (API) at 90 percent muzzle velocity. During tests of the
wing structure, multiple 23mm (API and high-explosive incendiary
(HEI)) shots failed to compromise the load carrying integrity of the
wing. Portions of the structure were actually determined to be
invulnerable to all API and HEI projectiles up to and including 23mm.
Overall the LFT&E effort determined that the probability of an
aircraft kill (given a hit) was significantly less than that of
existing helicopters."

reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Feb 5, 9:58*am, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 9:25 am, " > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 9:12 am, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 9:10 am, Typhoon502 > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 5, 9:02 am, " > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 5, 6:07 am, "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > No one has really shot at them yet.
>
> > > > > > They'll be sitting ducks when in transition mode.
>
> > > > > * * Moreso than a hovering helicopter?
>
> > > > That's helicopter mode. Mr. Smartypants thinks that somehow the
> > > > transition state, when the nacelles are neither horizontal nor
> > > > vertical, is something scary. The fact is, during transition, the
> > > > aircraft retains enough forward velocity to make the wings generate
> > > > useful lift, and if the pilot needs to lay on speed, those nacelles
> > > > can drop and those big blades can get that bird moving in a hurry.
>
> > > > Also, V-22 structures have been shot plenty of times in the test
> > > > phase. Its ability to take hits is not some nebulous unknown quantity.
>
> > > Cite-
>
> >http://www.navair.navy.mil/V22/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.detail&id=170
>
> This paragraph
>
> "But what if the aircraft is hit by enemy fire? How vulnerable is it?
> The MV-22 has undergone an extensive live fire test and evaluation
> (LFT&E) program consisting of no less than 60 test events and totaling
> more than 592 ballistic test firings (more than any aircraft in
> Department of Defense history). All flight control actuators were
> proven to be resistant to light antiaircraft artillery armor piercing
> incendiary (API) at 90 percent muzzle velocity. During tests of the
> wing structure, multiple 23mm (API and high-explosive incendiary
> (HEI)) shots failed to compromise the load carrying integrity of the
> wing. Portions of the structure were actually determined to be
> invulnerable to all API and HEI projectiles up to and including 23mm.
> Overall the LFT&E effort determined that the probability of an
> aircraft kill (given a hit) was significantly less than that of
> existing helicopters."
>> reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
> unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
> tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
> Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.

I don't know....helicopters are not known for their survivability,
so the standard isn't necessarilly all that high. The Osprey can go
faster, higher, and longer with a greater payload. If it's just as
serviceable and survivable as a helicopter, it's a step forward.

[Bill Kambic]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 06:58:07 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> wrote:

>reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
>unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
>tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
>Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.

As opposed to 'Net presences making up war stories?

[William Black[_1_]]

> wrote in message
...
On Feb 5, 9:58 am, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 9:25 am, " > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 9:12 am, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 9:10 am, Typhoon502 > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 5, 9:02 am, " > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 5, 6:07 am, "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > No one has really shot at them yet.
>
> > > > > > They'll be sitting ducks when in transition mode.
>
> > > > > Moreso than a hovering helicopter?
>
> > > > That's helicopter mode. Mr. Smartypants thinks that somehow the
> > > > transition state, when the nacelles are neither horizontal nor
> > > > vertical, is something scary. The fact is, during transition, the
> > > > aircraft retains enough forward velocity to make the wings generate
> > > > useful lift, and if the pilot needs to lay on speed, those nacelles
> > > > can drop and those big blades can get that bird moving in a hurry.
>
> > > > Also, V-22 structures have been shot plenty of times in the test
> > > > phase. Its ability to take hits is not some nebulous unknown
> > > > quantity.
>
> > > Cite-
>
> >http://www.navair.navy.mil/V22/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.detail&id=170
>
> This paragraph
>
> "But what if the aircraft is hit by enemy fire? How vulnerable is it?
> The MV-22 has undergone an extensive live fire test and evaluation
> (LFT&E) program consisting of no less than 60 test events and totaling
> more than 592 ballistic test firings (more than any aircraft in
> Department of Defense history). All flight control actuators were
> proven to be resistant to light antiaircraft artillery armor piercing
> incendiary (API) at 90 percent muzzle velocity. During tests of the
> wing structure, multiple 23mm (API and high-explosive incendiary
> (HEI)) shots failed to compromise the load carrying integrity of the
> wing. Portions of the structure were actually determined to be
> invulnerable to all API and HEI projectiles up to and including 23mm.
> Overall the LFT&E effort determined that the probability of an
> aircraft kill (given a hit) was significantly less than that of
> existing helicopters."
>> reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
> unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
> tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
> Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.

I don't know....helicopters are not known for their survivability,
so the standard isn't necessarilly all that high. The Osprey can go
faster, higher, and longer with a greater payload. If it's just as
serviceable and survivable as a helicopter, it's a step forward.

-------------------------

I thought the major issue was their nasty tendency to fall out of the sky if
they fly too close together.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Feb 5, 10:17*am, "William Black" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Feb 5, 9:58 am, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 9:25 am, " > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 9:12 am, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 5, 9:10 am, Typhoon502 > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 5, 9:02 am, " > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 5, 6:07 am, "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > No one has really shot at them yet.
>
> > > > > > > They'll be sitting ducks when in transition mode.
>
> > > > > > Moreso than a hovering helicopter?
>
> > > > > That's helicopter mode. Mr. Smartypants thinks that somehow the
> > > > > transition state, when the nacelles are neither horizontal nor
> > > > > vertical, is something scary. The fact is, during transition, the
> > > > > aircraft retains enough forward velocity to make the wings generate
> > > > > useful lift, and if the pilot needs to lay on speed, those nacelles
> > > > > can drop and those big blades can get that bird moving in a hurry.
>
> > > > > Also, V-22 structures have been shot plenty of times in the test
> > > > > phase. Its ability to take hits is not some nebulous unknown
> > > > > quantity.
>
> > > > Cite-
>
> > >http://www.navair.navy.mil/V22/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.detail&id=170
>
> > This paragraph
>
> > "But what if the aircraft is hit by enemy fire? How vulnerable is it?
> > The MV-22 has undergone an extensive live fire test and evaluation
> > (LFT&E) program consisting of no less than 60 test events and totaling
> > more than 592 ballistic test firings (more than any aircraft in
> > Department of Defense history). All flight control actuators were
> > proven to be resistant to light antiaircraft artillery armor piercing
> > incendiary (API) at 90 percent muzzle velocity. During tests of the
> > wing structure, multiple 23mm (API and high-explosive incendiary
> > (HEI)) shots failed to compromise the load carrying integrity of the
> > wing. Portions of the structure were actually determined to be
> > invulnerable to all API and HEI projectiles up to and including 23mm.
> > Overall the LFT&E effort determined that the probability of an
> > aircraft kill (given a hit) was significantly less than that of
> > existing helicopters."
> >> reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
> > unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
> > tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
> > Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.
>
> * *I don't know....helicopters are not known for their survivability,
> so the standard isn't necessarilly all that high. The Osprey can go
> faster, higher, and longer with a greater payload. If it's just as
> serviceable and survivable as a helicopter, it's a step forward.
>
> -------------------------
>
> I thought the major issue was their nasty tendency to fall out of the sky if
> they fly too close together.
>
> --
> William Black
>
>
That seems to be a failure of darn near all aircraft.

[Tiger]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On Feb 5, 9:25 am, " > wrote:
>
>
>
> reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
> unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
> tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
> Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.


You know being a playa hater is not cool? The Anti Osprey crowd seems to
wish for any snipet of bad news. How about giving the Thunder Chickens
some credit? They have taken it to war and are getting the job done. Any
lack of firing on them again is a sign of good things. Like perhaps the
surge is really calming things over there. Exploding retarded ladies
excepted of course....

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 5, 10:14 am, Bill Kambic > wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 06:58:07 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>
> > wrote:
> >reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
> >unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
> >tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
> >Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.
>
> As opposed to 'Net presences making up war stories?

Yes Navair is filled with fans of the mercenaries, etc.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/V22/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.detail&id=170

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 5, 10:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 9:25 am, " > wrote:
>
> > reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
> > unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
> > tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
> > Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.
>
> You know being a playa hater is not cool? The Anti Osprey crowd seems to
> wish for any snipet of bad news. How about giving the Thunder Chickens
> some credit? They have taken it to war and are getting the job done. Any
> lack of firing on them again is a sign of good things. Like perhaps the
> surge is really calming things over there. Exploding retarded ladies
> excepted of course....

Are you ready for March when Moqtada al Sadr ends his truce?

[Typhoon502]

On Feb 5, 9:58*am, Jack Linthicum > wrote:

> reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
> unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
> tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
> Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.- Hide quoted text -

I'd like to see an UNCLASS T&E on how fast an F-22 really goes in full
afterburner but somehow I get the feeling that "really fast" is about
as much detail as DOD is willing to share. I imagine that you've
probably got all the detail you're going to get about the Osprey, too.
Whether you believe it or not is your problem.

[Bill Kambic]

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:24:07 -0500, Tiger >
wrote:


>You know being a playa hater is not cool? The Anti Osprey crowd seems to
>wish for any snipet of bad news. How about giving the Thunder Chickens
>some credit? They have taken it to war and are getting the job done. Any
>lack of firing on them again is a sign of good things. Like perhaps the
>surge is really calming things over there. Exploding retarded ladies
>excepted of course....

Not bloody likely.

Folks like him wish for, long for dead bodies and smoking holes to
validate their own prejudices,

The bird is now in the crucible. Now we'll find out what us taxpayers
have wrought.

Of course success will NOT quell the criticism. Reality seldom
intrudes into the zealot's consciousness.

Bravo Zulu to the Marines at the tip of the spear. They've got more
balls than any 'Net presence I've ever run accross.

[BlackBeard]

On Feb 5, 6:58*am, Jack Linthicum > wrote:

>
> reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
> unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
> tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
> Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.

Well I can vouch that the testing was done, extensively for about a
decade. The article in question mentions many of the systems tested
but there were more. Many of the successful tests mentioned I
witnessed, or in some cases I actually participated in them. I will
not talk about failures or weaknesses. Every aircraft out there has
trade-offs. There are no invincible platforms that I know of. There
are always systems that are vulnerable to the golden BB. The article
does not contain any falsehoods I am aware of. It is obviously
written with a Madison Ave. bias but that does not make it untrue.
It's up to you whether you want to take my word for it Jack. I can't
provide the documents you ask for. Debriefs, read-outs come into
play.

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 5, 3:01 pm, BlackBeard > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 6:58 am, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>
>
>
> > reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
> > unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
> > tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
> > Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.
>
> Well I can vouch that the testing was done, extensively for about a
> decade. The article in question mentions many of the systems tested
> but there were more. Many of the successful tests mentioned I
> witnessed, or in some cases I actually participated in them. I will
> not talk about failures or weaknesses. Every aircraft out there has
> trade-offs. There are no invincible platforms that I know of. There
> are always systems that are vulnerable to the golden BB. The article
> does not contain any falsehoods I am aware of. It is obviously
> written with a Madison Ave. bias but that does not make it untrue.
> It's up to you whether you want to take my word for it Jack. I can't
> provide the documents you ask for. Debriefs, read-outs come into
> play.
>
> BB
>
> I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
> It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

Can't ask for more.

http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-V22-dote-092005.pdf

[Vince]

Tiger wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 9:25 am, " > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
>> unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
>> tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
>> Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.
>
>
> You know being a playa hater is not cool? The Anti Osprey crowd seems to
> wish for any snipet of bad news. How about giving the Thunder Chickens
> some credit? They have taken it to war and are getting the job done. Any
> lack of firing on them again is a sign of good things. Like perhaps the
> surge is really calming things over there. Exploding retarded ladies
> excepted of course....
>

If you are flying toilet paper and VIPs from protected base to protected
base you can make all kinds of claims about "taking it to war" and
"getting the job done".

But the claims are crap since toilet paper and VIP transport were not
the rationale for this extremely expensive truck

Vince

[Mike[_7_]]

Live fire testing of the F-22 - National Research Council (U.S.).
Committee on the Study of Live Fire Survivability Testing of the F-22
Aircraft.
either at www.nap.edu or www.nas.edu or google them

DOD did a Operational Test and Evaluation and Live Fire Test and
Evaluation Report on the V-22 Osprey in 2000.
sources:
V-22 Osprey: Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker: Full Report. Center for
Defense Information.
http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/Gailliard%20on%20V-22.pdf

USNI Proceedings Magazine Issue: October 2007 Vol. 133/10/1,256 The
Osprey Goes to War
By Richard Whittle

then that ANSER V-22 study mentioned at
The short version is at http://www.navair.navy.mil/V22/index.cfm?fuseaction=documents.download&docId=29

JSF-F-35 in 2003

F-22 ooopps, can't write.....

Mike

[Typhoon502]

On Feb 6, 8:14*am, Vince > wrote:

> If you are flying toilet paper and VIPs from protected base to protected
> base you can make all kinds of claims about "taking it to war" and
> "getting the job done".
>
> But the claims are crap since *toilet paper and VIP transport were not
> the rationale for this extremely expensive truck

Yeah, they ought to go see if they can overfly Tehran.

You really are a dope, aren't you? "Screw operational common sense, if
you're not getting hit, you're not really fighting." I bet you think
they aren't real Marines if they're not charging in through the surf,
too.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 6, 10:11 am, Typhoon502 > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 8:14 am, Vince > wrote:
>
> > If you are flying toilet paper and VIPs from protected base to protected
> > base you can make all kinds of claims about "taking it to war" and
> > "getting the job done".
>
> > But the claims are crap since toilet paper and VIP transport were not
> > the rationale for this extremely expensive truck
>
> Yeah, they ought to go see if they can overfly Tehran.
>
> You really are a dope, aren't you? "Screw operational common sense, if
> you're not getting hit, you're not really fighting." I bet you think
> they aren't real Marines if they're not charging in through the surf,
> too.

The greetings committee for any overflight of Tehran. Overflight would
be a misnomer, ground inspection of the remains would be more
accurate. Remember the Iran-Contra Hawks?

AIRFORCE
SYSTEM Inventory
2005 2010

FIGHTER / ATTACK 302 302
F-4D/E / RF-4E PHANTOM 65 65
F-5E/F TIGER II 60 60
F-14 TOMCAT 25 25

F-7 (China J-7) 25 25
MiG-29A/UB 25 25

Su-25K 7 7
Su-24MK 30 30
Mirage F-1 25 25
MiG-23 FLOGGER 15 15

IIRC the Afghans knocked a similar sized box car the Hind out of the
air

[Typhoon502]

On Feb 6, 10:34*am, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:

> The greetings committee for any overflight of Tehran. Overflight would
> be a misnomer, ground inspection of the remains would be more
> accurate. Remember the Iran-Contra Hawks?
>
> AIRFORCE
> SYSTEM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Inventory
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2005 * *2010
>
> FIGHTER / ATTACK * * * * * * * * * *302 * * * * 302
> F-4D/E / RF-4E PHANTOM * * * * *65 * * * * * *65
> F-5E/F TIGER II * * * * * * * * * * * * *60 * * * * * *60
> F-14 TOMCAT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 25 * * * * * 25
>
> F-7 (China J-7) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 25 * * * * * 25
> MiG-29A/UB * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *25 * * * * * 25
>
> Su-25K * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *7 * * * * * 7
> Su-24MK * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *30 * * * * 30
> Mirage F-1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *25 * * * *25
> MiG-23 FLOGGER * * * * * * * * * * * *15 * * * *15
>
> IIRC the Afghans knocked a similar sized box car the Hind out of the
> air

Would anyone else be shocked if Iran had 25 Tomcats flying in 2010?

Anyway, my point was that other than the occasional CSAR pickup, there
should never be circumstances where Ospreys are making any kind of
landing under fire. For that matter, if you've got any kind of
presence in a battlespace, NO aircraft should be landing under fire.
Hot LZ? Hold the troop carriers outside of the zone and soften it with
air power or artillery, and/or use one of the alternates that you
should have identified in planning.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 6, 10:46 am, Typhoon502 > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 10:34 am, Jack Linthicum >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The greetings committee for any overflight of Tehran. Overflight would
> > be a misnomer, ground inspection of the remains would be more
> > accurate. Remember the Iran-Contra Hawks?
>
> > AIRFORCE
> > SYSTEM Inventory
> > 2005 2010
>
> > FIGHTER / ATTACK 302 302
> > F-4D/E / RF-4E PHANTOM 65 65
> > F-5E/F TIGER II 60 60
> > F-14 TOMCAT 25 25
>
> > F-7 (China J-7) 25 25
> > MiG-29A/UB 25 25
>
> > Su-25K 7 7
> > Su-24MK 30 30
> > Mirage F-1 25 25
> > MiG-23 FLOGGER 15 15
>
> > IIRC the Afghans knocked a similar sized box car the Hind out of the
> > air
>
> Would anyone else be shocked if Iran had 25 Tomcats flying in 2010?
>
> Anyway, my point was that other than the occasional CSAR pickup, there
> should never be circumstances where Ospreys are making any kind of
> landing under fire. For that matter, if you've got any kind of
> presence in a battlespace, NO aircraft should be landing under fire.
> Hot LZ? Hold the troop carriers outside of the zone and soften it with
> air power or artillery, and/or use one of the alternates that you
> should have identified in planning.

Again ask the Afghanis if they every did in a Hind while it was
landing. RPGs, mortars and 122mms would work if they always landed in
the same direction and at the same speed. Think of it as medium range
IED. Omar, the guy who sweeps the HQ, tags his cellphone and Omar's
brother and cousins drop mortar fire or RPGs on the spot. Asymmetrical
warfare.

[Tiger]

Vince wrote:
> Tiger wrote:
>
>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 5, 9:25 am, " > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
>>> unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
>>> tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
>>> Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.
>>
>>
>>
>> You know being a playa hater is not cool? The Anti Osprey crowd seems
>> to wish for any snipet of bad news. How about giving the Thunder
>> Chickens some credit? They have taken it to war and are getting the
>> job done. Any lack of firing on them again is a sign of good things.
>> Like perhaps the surge is really calming things over there. Exploding
>> retarded ladies excepted of course....
>>
>
> If you are flying toilet paper and VIPs from protected base to protected
> base you can make all kinds of claims about "taking it to war" and
> "getting the job done".
>
> But the claims are crap since toilet paper and VIP transport were not
> the rationale for this extremely expensive truck
>
> Vince
>

Well what would you call a Ch-46 or Ch-47? Neither are expected to be
"AIRWOLF" or "Blue Thunder." Yes, it's truck. A pricey truck. But a
better truck in the long run.

[Vince]

Tiger wrote:
> Vince wrote:
>> Tiger wrote:
>>
>>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 5, 9:25 am, " > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
>>>> unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
>>>> tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
>>>> Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You know being a playa hater is not cool? The Anti Osprey crowd seems
>>> to wish for any snipet of bad news. How about giving the Thunder
>>> Chickens some credit? They have taken it to war and are getting the
>>> job done. Any lack of firing on them again is a sign of good things.
>>> Like perhaps the surge is really calming things over there. Exploding
>>> retarded ladies excepted of course....
>>>
>>
>> If you are flying toilet paper and VIPs from protected base to
>> protected base you can make all kinds of claims about "taking it to
>> war" and "getting the job done".
>>
>> But the claims are crap since toilet paper and VIP transport were not
>> the rationale for this extremely expensive truck
>>
>> Vince
>>
>
> Well what would you call a Ch-46 or Ch-47? Neither are expected to be
> "AIRWOLF" or "Blue Thunder." Yes, it's truck. A pricey truck. But a
> better truck in the long run.

no ,not better, just pricey

Next will be the post office needing Ferrari mail trucks to move the
mail faster

Vince

[Kerryn Offord]

Tiger wrote:
> Vince wrote:
<SNIP>
>> If you are flying toilet paper and VIPs from protected base to
>> protected base you can make all kinds of claims about "taking it to
>> war" and "getting the job done".
>>
>> But the claims are crap since toilet paper and VIP transport were not
>> the rationale for this extremely expensive truck
>>
>> Vince
>>
>
> Well what would you call a Ch-46 or Ch-47? Neither are expected to be
> "AIRWOLF" or "Blue Thunder." Yes, it's truck. A pricey truck. But a
> better truck in the long run.
>

It's not a better "truck" for the job of delivering toilet paper (VIPs
might enjoy the faster ride etc) which is all it seems to be doing
currently.

It's payload per trip is less than that of other similar sized/ powered
helicopters.. And really, to deliver stores, speed isn't overly important.

And for range.. If the only way to get supplies to a base is via the
V-22.. They're in trouble...

As for CH-47s and CH-46s.. Sure they aren't expected to be "AIRWOLF" or
"BLUE THUNDER".. But there have been real reported cases of them being
involved in hot landings and evacuations... We await what happens "when"
the V-22 is used in similar circumstances...

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 6, 3:50 pm, Kerryn Offord > wrote:
> Tiger wrote:
> > Vince wrote:
> <SNIP>
> >> If you are flying toilet paper and VIPs from protected base to
> >> protected base you can make all kinds of claims about "taking it to
> >> war" and "getting the job done".
>
> >> But the claims are crap since toilet paper and VIP transport were not
> >> the rationale for this extremely expensive truck
>
> >> Vince
>
> > Well what would you call a Ch-46 or Ch-47? Neither are expected to be
> > "AIRWOLF" or "Blue Thunder." Yes, it's truck. A pricey truck. But a
> > better truck in the long run.
>
> It's not a better "truck" for the job of delivering toilet paper (VIPs
> might enjoy the faster ride etc) which is all it seems to be doing
> currently.
>
> It's payload per trip is less than that of other similar sized/ powered
> helicopters.. And really, to deliver stores, speed isn't overly important.
>
> And for range.. If the only way to get supplies to a base is via the
> V-22.. They're in trouble...
>
> As for CH-47s and CH-46s.. Sure they aren't expected to be "AIRWOLF" or
> "BLUE THUNDER".. But there have been real reported cases of them being
> involved in hot landings and evacuations... We await what happens "when"
> the V-22 is used in similar circumstances...

You know one of those last remaining al Qaeda in Anbar types is
stoking up the game to get just one V-22.

[Dean A. Markley]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On Feb 6, 3:50 pm, Kerryn Offord > wrote:
>> Tiger wrote:
>>> Vince wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>>> If you are flying toilet paper and VIPs from protected base to
>>>> protected base you can make all kinds of claims about "taking it to
>>>> war" and "getting the job done".
>>>> But the claims are crap since toilet paper and VIP transport were not
>>>> the rationale for this extremely expensive truck
>>>> Vince
>>> Well what would you call a Ch-46 or Ch-47? Neither are expected to be
>>> "AIRWOLF" or "Blue Thunder." Yes, it's truck. A pricey truck. But a
>>> better truck in the long run.
>> It's not a better "truck" for the job of delivering toilet paper (VIPs
>> might enjoy the faster ride etc) which is all it seems to be doing
>> currently.
>>
>> It's payload per trip is less than that of other similar sized/ powered
>> helicopters.. And really, to deliver stores, speed isn't overly important.
>>
>> And for range.. If the only way to get supplies to a base is via the
>> V-22.. They're in trouble...
>>
>> As for CH-47s and CH-46s.. Sure they aren't expected to be "AIRWOLF" or
>> "BLUE THUNDER".. But there have been real reported cases of them being
>> involved in hot landings and evacuations... We await what happens "when"
>> the V-22 is used in similar circumstances...
>
> You know one of those last remaining al Qaeda in Anbar types is
> stoking up the game to get just one V-22.
Wow Jack, did you not get laid recently or what? People here have
presented some pretty good evidence that the V-22 is working and that it
has been tested thoroughly. But you just keep sniping away! Your last
statement there is uncalled for. It really sounds like you are rooting
for terrorists to kill American soldiers.

Dean

[Vince]

Dean A. Markley wrote:

> Wow Jack, did you not get laid recently or what? People here have
> presented some pretty good evidence that the V-22 is working and that it
> has been tested thoroughly. But you just keep sniping away! Your last
> statement there is uncalled for. It really sounds like you are rooting
> for terrorists to kill American soldiers.
>
> Dean


it's at most "flying without crashing" two hours a day on safe missions
delivering toilet paper and VIPs from one base to another

and its 3 times the cost of the competition

Vince

[Tiger]

Vince wrote:
> Dean A. Markley wrote:
>
>> Wow Jack, did you not get laid recently or what? People here have
>> presented some pretty good evidence that the V-22 is working and that
>> it has been tested thoroughly. But you just keep sniping away! Your
>> last statement there is uncalled for. It really sounds like you are
>> rooting for terrorists to kill American soldiers.
>>
>> Dean
>
>
>
> it's at most "flying without crashing" two hours a day on safe missions
> delivering toilet paper and VIPs from one base to another
>
> and its 3 times the cost of the competition
>
> Vince

You know when Sikorsky invented the helicopter, people said the same
about it vs fixed wing aircraft. A C130 can do the same job, carry more
stuff & farther than your 30 yr old rotor craft. Only problem is a
runway. Competition? What competition? The Ch 46 And 47 will never go
any faster, fly any higher or further or be any more safe in a LZ.

[Tiger]

Vince wrote:

> Next will be the post office needing Ferrari mail trucks to move the
> mail faster
>
> Vince
>
>

It might help. My mail delivery is rather slow actually. A Mail truck
with a V-12 And paddle shifters would be kinda cool. :-)

[Billzz]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> Vince wrote:
>
>> Next will be the post office needing Ferrari mail trucks to move the mail
>> faster
>>
>> Vince
>>
>>
>
> It might help. My mail delivery is rather slow actually. A Mail truck with
> a V-12 And paddle shifters would be kinda cool. :-)

For today's trivia, the Sultan of Brunei has a custom-built Ferrari station
wagon, so there is one. And for today's coincidence, in the group
alt.autos.ferrari, one of the contributors is a woman, from the Tiger Racing
Team, with the name, "Tiger."

[Colin Campbell[_3_]]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:14:39 -0500, Vince > wrote:



>If you are flying toilet paper and VIPs from protected base to protected
>base you can make all kinds of claims about "taking it to war" and
>"getting the job done".
>
>But the claims are crap since toilet paper and VIP transport were not
>the rationale for this extremely expensive truck

Just as your claims of 'flying toilet paper' are crap.

Explain to us why we should listen to you instead of the people who
actually use the aircraft?

You know so little about the subject that myself and red spent days
ridiculing you - and you never even caught on!



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

[Colin Campbell[_3_]]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:42:58 -0500, Tiger >
wrote:


>Well what would you call a Ch-46 or Ch-47? Neither are expected to be
>"AIRWOLF" or "Blue Thunder." Yes, it's truck. A pricey truck. But a
>better truck in the long run.

Vince does not care about facts. He decided that the aircraft cannot
fly and no real world evidence can convince him otherwise.



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

[Colin Campbell[_3_]]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:50:24 +1300, Kerryn Offord
> wrote:


>It's not a better "truck" for the job of delivering toilet paper (VIPs
>might enjoy the faster ride etc) which is all it seems to be doing
>currently.

Vince has been making the claim that the V-22 has been delivering
toilet paper.

All this demonstrates is that the:
1) Has no clue about military logistics (and thus is totally
unqualified to comment on what type of aircraft is best for the
mission).
2) Has no clue about air operations in Iraq.

You see - Vince sits in a university (where the students have to
pretend to believe what he says in order to get a good grade) and as a
result feels that 'real world' information is irrelevant.

Of course Vince has a habit of pontificating on subjects he knows
nothing about. When I was in Iraq he tried to lecture me on enemy
car-bomb tactics when everything he knew about the subject came from
having lunch with an Irish policeman once.

Then he tried to lecture myself and red about Cavalry doctrine (both
myself and red served in the same Cavalry squadron about 10 years
ago).

Vince is little more than a source of amusement.



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

[BlackBeard]

On Feb 6, 1:19*pm, Jack Linthicum > wrote:

>
> You know one of those last remaining al Qaeda in Anbar types is
> stoking up the game to get just one V-22.

That is probably true. They will target everything from Humvees,
C-130's, and the Osprey. What is the point in that statement? They
will target anything to hurt us.
The sad thing is that some of the most outspoken critics of the
Osprey, some of our own citizens and members of this group, seem to be
hoping for it only to bolster their argument against it.
As I said before, every platform out there has weaknesses, there is
nothing, repeat nothing in our arsenal that can't be killed. Men will
die in the Osprey, it is going to happen. Who in this group is going
to find that to be a good event and use it to say "I told you so?" I
can think of a couple that will. And they disgust me.

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

[William Black[_1_]]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> Vince wrote:
>
>> Next will be the post office needing Ferrari mail trucks to move the mail
>> faster
>>
>> Vince
>>
>>
>
> It might help. My mail delivery is rather slow actually. A Mail truck with
> a V-12 And paddle shifters would be kinda cool. :-)
>

And the $25 stamp for a letter?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

[redc1c4]

Ponce wrote:
>
> Tiger wrote:
> > Jack Linthicum wrote:
> >> On Feb 5, 9:25 am, " > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
> >> unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
> >> tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
> >> Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.
> >
> >
> > You know being a playa hater is not cool? The Anti Osprey crowd seems to
> > wish for any snipet of bad news. How about giving the Thunder Chickens
> > some credit? They have taken it to war and are getting the job done. Any
> > lack of firing on them again is a sign of good things. Like perhaps the
> > surge is really calming things over there. Exploding retarded ladies
> > excepted of course....
> >
>
> If you are flying toilet paper and VIPs from protected base to protected
> base you can make all kinds of claims about "taking it to war" and
> "getting the job done".
>
> But the claims are crap since toilet paper and VIP transport were not
> the rationale for this extremely expensive truck
>
> Vince

do you need another block of instruction on logistics?

redc1c4,
you trotting out the same old lie doesn't make it any mre so. HTH! %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 6, 7:52 pm, "Dean A. Markley" > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 3:50 pm, Kerryn Offord > wrote:
> >> Tiger wrote:
> >>> Vince wrote:
> >> <SNIP>
> >>>> If you are flying toilet paper and VIPs from protected base to
> >>>> protected base you can make all kinds of claims about "taking it to
> >>>> war" and "getting the job done".
> >>>> But the claims are crap since toilet paper and VIP transport were not
> >>>> the rationale for this extremely expensive truck
> >>>> Vince
> >>> Well what would you call a Ch-46 or Ch-47? Neither are expected to be
> >>> "AIRWOLF" or "Blue Thunder." Yes, it's truck. A pricey truck. But a
> >>> better truck in the long run.
> >> It's not a better "truck" for the job of delivering toilet paper (VIPs
> >> might enjoy the faster ride etc) which is all it seems to be doing
> >> currently.
>
> >> It's payload per trip is less than that of other similar sized/ powered
> >> helicopters.. And really, to deliver stores, speed isn't overly important.
>
> >> And for range.. If the only way to get supplies to a base is via the
> >> V-22.. They're in trouble...
>
> >> As for CH-47s and CH-46s.. Sure they aren't expected to be "AIRWOLF" or
> >> "BLUE THUNDER".. But there have been real reported cases of them being
> >> involved in hot landings and evacuations... We await what happens "when"
> >> the V-22 is used in similar circumstances...
>
> > You know one of those last remaining al Qaeda in Anbar types is
> > stoking up the game to get just one V-22.
>
> Wow Jack, did you not get laid recently or what? People here have
> presented some pretty good evidence that the V-22 is working and that it
> has been tested thoroughly. But you just keep sniping away! Your last
> statement there is uncalled for. It really sounds like you are rooting
> for terrorists to kill American soldiers.
>
> Dean

I presume then that if Richard Clarke had gotten Condi Rice and John
Ashcroft to pay attention to the threat that became 911 you would have
decided he was just "rooting for terrorists to kill American(s)". It's
called "early warning" as in "wake up, stupid, we are flying large
targets into an area filled with people who don't like us:".

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 7, 12:03 am, BlackBeard > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 1:19 pm, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>
>
>
> > You know one of those last remaining al Qaeda in Anbar types is
> > stoking up the game to get just one V-22.
>
> That is probably true. They will target everything from Humvees,
> C-130's, and the Osprey. What is the point in that statement? They
> will target anything to hurt us.
> The sad thing is that some of the most outspoken critics of the
> Osprey, some of our own citizens and members of this group, seem to be
> hoping for it only to bolster their argument against it.
> As I said before, every platform out there has weaknesses, there is
> nothing, repeat nothing in our arsenal that can't be killed. Men will
> die in the Osprey, it is going to happen. Who in this group is going
> to find that to be a good event and use it to say "I told you so?" I
> can think of a couple that will. And they disgust me.
>
> BB
>
> I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
> It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

David Markley decided that my offering an "early warning" to those who
post in this group was some form of "rooting for American soldiers to
die". Far from it, the more the V-22 flies milk runs, the sooner some
bright type will work out a means of hitting it in the air or on the
ground.

[Vince]

Tiger wrote:
> Vince wrote:
>> Dean A. Markley wrote:
>>
>>> Wow Jack, did you not get laid recently or what? People here have
>>> presented some pretty good evidence that the V-22 is working and that
>>> it has been tested thoroughly. But you just keep sniping away! Your
>>> last statement there is uncalled for. It really sounds like you are
>>> rooting for terrorists to kill American soldiers.
>>>
>>> Dean
>>
>>
>>
>> it's at most "flying without crashing" two hours a day on safe
>> missions delivering toilet paper and VIPs from one base to another
>>
>> and its 3 times the cost of the competition
>>
>> Vince
>
> You know when Sikorsky invented the helicopter, people said the same
> about it vs fixed wing aircraft. A C130 can do the same job, carry more
> stuff & farther than your 30 yr old rotor craft. Only problem is a
> runway. Competition? What competition? The Ch 46 And 47 will never go
> any faster, fly any higher or further or be any more safe in a LZ.
>

And a camel won't do very well either
why do you pick the 46 47 comparison?. The V-22 is an incredibly more
expensive aircraft using twice the weight and power to deliver the same
or less cargo
The V-22 can't auto rotate and has almost twice the down wash. So
forget the More safe in a LZ crap

Vince

[Vince]

Tiger wrote:
> Vince wrote:
>
>> Next will be the post office needing Ferrari mail trucks to move the
>> mail faster
>>
>> Vince
>>
>>
>
> It might help. My mail delivery is rather slow actually. A Mail truck
> with a V-12 And paddle shifters would be kinda cool. :-)
>

2-3 million a pop and you've got it

I can sense the marine corps brass salivating right now

Vince

[Vince]

Colin Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:14:39 -0500, Vince > wrote:
>
>
>
>> If you are flying toilet paper and VIPs from protected base to protected
>> base you can make all kinds of claims about "taking it to war" and
>> "getting the job done".
>>
>> But the claims are crap since toilet paper and VIP transport were not
>> the rationale for this extremely expensive truck
>
> Just as your claims of 'flying toilet paper' are crap.
>

1) provide list of missions and cargo in an attack environment

> Explain to us why we should listen to you instead of the people who
> actually use the aircraft?


2) because they are afraid to provide the above
>
> You know so little about the subject that myself and red spent days
> ridiculing you - and you never even caught on!

horse****

They are moving toilet paper and VIPS from one safe paved based to another

Feel free to provide any cites for your nonsense


Vince

[Vince]

Colin Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:42:58 -0500, Tiger >
> wrote:
>
>
>> Well what would you call a Ch-46 or Ch-47? Neither are expected to be
>> "AIRWOLF" or "Blue Thunder." Yes, it's truck. A pricey truck. But a
>> better truck in the long run.
>
> Vince does not care about facts. He decided that the aircraft cannot
> fly and no real world evidence can convince him otherwise.
>

It flies, that's about it. it uses 12000 hp to lift a massive empty
weight aircraft.

its a turkey and all the crap that a 12,000 hp aircraft should be
classified as medium lift aircraft cant cover up the crap


This turkey is the same weight and HP as a Ch-53 with a small fraction
of the payload

Vince

[Vince]

Colin Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:50:24 +1300, Kerryn Offord
> > wrote:
>
>
>> It's not a better "truck" for the job of delivering toilet paper (VIPs
>> might enjoy the faster ride etc) which is all it seems to be doing
>> currently.
>
> Vince has been making the claim that the V-22 has been delivering
> toilet paper.
>
> All this demonstrates is that the:
> 1) Has no clue about military logistics (and thus is totally
> unqualified to comment on what type of aircraft is best for the
> mission).
> 2) Has no clue about air operations in Iraq.
>
> You see - Vince sits in a university (where the students have to
> pretend to believe what he says in order to get a good grade) and as a
> result feels that 'real world' information is irrelevant.
>
> Of course Vince has a habit of pontificating on subjects he knows
> nothing about. When I was in Iraq he tried to lecture me on enemy
> car-bomb tactics when everything he knew about the subject came from
> having lunch with an Irish policeman once.
>
> Then he tried to lecture myself and red about Cavalry doctrine (both
> myself and red served in the same Cavalry squadron about 10 years
> ago).
>
> Vince is little more than a source of amusement.

and all you have is personal attacks

sticks and stones

feel free to provide real cites and sources


how many combat attack missions where they take off and land un upaved
areas near enemy forces ?

otherwise it's toilet paper and VIPs no matter how much crap you throw

Vince

[Vince]

redc1c4 wrote:
> Ponce wrote:
>> Tiger wrote:
>>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>>> On Feb 5, 9:25 am, " > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> reads just like the discounted first few. I would like to see a nice
>>>> unclassified test and evaluation report, even a document number, that
>>>> tells me this has elements of the truth in it and is not some
>>>> Henderson Hall flack making up war stories.
>>>
>>> You know being a playa hater is not cool? The Anti Osprey crowd seems to
>>> wish for any snipet of bad news. How about giving the Thunder Chickens
>>> some credit? They have taken it to war and are getting the job done. Any
>>> lack of firing on them again is a sign of good things. Like perhaps the
>>> surge is really calming things over there. Exploding retarded ladies
>>> excepted of course....
>>>
>> If you are flying toilet paper and VIPs from protected base to protected
>> base you can make all kinds of claims about "taking it to war" and
>> "getting the job done".
>>
>> But the claims are crap since toilet paper and VIP transport were not
>> the rationale for this extremely expensive truck
>>
>> Vince
>
> do you need another block of instruction on logistics?


I got irelevant bull**** claims

Logistics has been a subject of military study since Marius. I've
studied French German and US systems evolved since the 1860s.

you presented bull**** with a smear of terminology laid on it

feel free to provide cites, not crap

Vince

[Typhoon502]

On Feb 7, 8:40*am, Vince > wrote:

> This turkey is the same weight and HP as a Ch-53 with a small fraction
> of the payload

Plus a hell of a lot more speed and range. Which, IIRC, is the entire
point behind the tiltrotor, that it can go faster and further than
conventional helos. They're not in helicopter mode until and unless
they're touching down somewhere. Even if it's just being used as a
transport, it's still getting from point A to point B faster. And I've
read at least one report that Ospreys have been sent out with Marines
on insurgent hunts.

[Dean A. Markley]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On Feb 7, 12:03 am, BlackBeard > wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 1:19 pm, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> You know one of those last remaining al Qaeda in Anbar types is
>>> stoking up the game to get just one V-22.
>> That is probably true. They will target everything from Humvees,
>> C-130's, and the Osprey. What is the point in that statement? They
>> will target anything to hurt us.
>> The sad thing is that some of the most outspoken critics of the
>> Osprey, some of our own citizens and members of this group, seem to be
>> hoping for it only to bolster their argument against it.
>> As I said before, every platform out there has weaknesses, there is
>> nothing, repeat nothing in our arsenal that can't be killed. Men will
>> die in the Osprey, it is going to happen. Who in this group is going
>> to find that to be a good event and use it to say "I told you so?" I
>> can think of a couple that will. And they disgust me.
>>
>> BB
>>
>> I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
>> It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...
>
> David Markley decided that my offering an "early warning" to those who
> post in this group was some form of "rooting for American soldiers to
> die". Far from it, the more the V-22 flies milk runs, the sooner some
> bright type will work out a means of hitting it in the air or on the
> ground.
Jack, my name is Dean. And I didn't decide anything. I merely stated
that your writing made it sound like you were rooting for American
soldiers to die. I know what you mean now that you have clarified it.
However your original writing was NOT that clear.

Dean

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 7, 4:30 pm, "Dean A. Markley" > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On Feb 7, 12:03 am, BlackBeard > wrote:
> >> On Feb 6, 1:19 pm, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>
> >>> You know one of those last remaining al Qaeda in Anbar types is
> >>> stoking up the game to get just one V-22.
> >> That is probably true. They will target everything from Humvees,
> >> C-130's, and the Osprey. What is the point in that statement? They
> >> will target anything to hurt us.
> >> The sad thing is that some of the most outspoken critics of the
> >> Osprey, some of our own citizens and members of this group, seem to be
> >> hoping for it only to bolster their argument against it.
> >> As I said before, every platform out there has weaknesses, there is
> >> nothing, repeat nothing in our arsenal that can't be killed. Men will
> >> die in the Osprey, it is going to happen. Who in this group is going
> >> to find that to be a good event and use it to say "I told you so?" I
> >> can think of a couple that will. And they disgust me.
>
> >> BB
>
> >> I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
> >> It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...
>
> > David Markley decided that my offering an "early warning" to those who
> > post in this group was some form of "rooting for American soldiers to
> > die". Far from it, the more the V-22 flies milk runs, the sooner some
> > bright type will work out a means of hitting it in the air or on the
> > ground.
>
> Jack, my name is Dean. And I didn't decide anything. I merely stated
> that your writing made it sound like you were rooting for American
> soldiers to die. I know what you mean now that you have clarified it.
> However your original writing was NOT that clear.
>
> Dean

You know one of those last remaining al Qaeda in Anbar types is
stoking up the game to get just one V-22.

I deal in realism, there seems to be a heavy air of fantasy about the
V-22 in this group. You know Cheney tried to get it canceled? It's
made in too many congressional districts. Mainly in Texas.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message
>,
Typhoon502 > writes
>On Feb 7, 8:40*am, Vince > wrote:
>
>> This turkey is the same weight and HP as a Ch-53 with a small fraction
>> of the payload
>
>Plus a hell of a lot more speed and range. Which, IIRC, is the entire
>point behind the tiltrotor, that it can go faster and further than
>conventional helos.

Trouble is, that lets you drop light infantry a lot further ahead of the
FEBA than ever before, without artillery or combat vehicles. If the
enemy is in the mood for a fight, the tactical models are places like
Arnhem or Dien Bien Phu...

That's not a particular technical fault of the V-22, it's a problem of
finding a role for it that justifies the cost.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Kerryn Offord]

Vince wrote:
> Tiger wrote:
>> Vince wrote:
>>
>>> Next will be the post office needing Ferrari mail trucks to move the
>>> mail faster
>>>
>>> Vince
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It might help. My mail delivery is rather slow actually. A Mail truck
>> with a V-12 And paddle shifters would be kinda cool. :-)
>>
>
> 2-3 million a pop and you've got it
>
> I can sense the marine corps brass salivating right now
>
> Vince


They can't do that..

Ferrari's should be red...

The white or black ones are bad enough (and as for the yellow ones). But
military "green" ...

[Vince]

Paul J. Adam wrote:
> In message
> >,
> Typhoon502 > writes
>> On Feb 7, 8:40 am, Vince > wrote:
>>
>>> This turkey is the same weight and HP as a Ch-53 with a small fraction
>>> of the payload
>>
>> Plus a hell of a lot more speed and range. Which, IIRC, is the entire
>> point behind the tiltrotor, that it can go faster and further than
>> conventional helos.
>
> Trouble is, that lets you drop light infantry a lot further ahead of the
> FEBA than ever before, without artillery or combat vehicles. If the
> enemy is in the mood for a fight, the tactical models are places like
> Arnhem or Dien Bien Phu...
>
> That's not a particular technical fault of the V-22, it's a problem of
> finding a role for it that justifies the cost.

It has more speed but not more range with any given payload


Vince

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 7, 5:01 pm, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
> On Feb 7, 4:30 pm, "Dean A. Markley" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > > On Feb 7, 12:03 am, BlackBeard > wrote:
> > >> On Feb 6, 1:19 pm, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>
> > >>> You know one of those last remaining al Qaeda in Anbar types is
> > >>> stoking up the game to get just one V-22.
> > >> That is probably true. They will target everything from Humvees,
> > >> C-130's, and the Osprey. What is the point in that statement? They
> > >> will target anything to hurt us.
> > >> The sad thing is that some of the most outspoken critics of the
> > >> Osprey, some of our own citizens and members of this group, seem to be
> > >> hoping for it only to bolster their argument against it.
> > >> As I said before, every platform out there has weaknesses, there is
> > >> nothing, repeat nothing in our arsenal that can't be killed. Men will
> > >> die in the Osprey, it is going to happen. Who in this group is going
> > >> to find that to be a good event and use it to say "I told you so?" I
> > >> can think of a couple that will. And they disgust me.
>
> > >> BB
>
> > >> I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
> > >> It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...
>
> > > David Markley decided that my offering an "early warning" to those who
> > > post in this group was some form of "rooting for American soldiers to
> > > die". Far from it, the more the V-22 flies milk runs, the sooner some
> > > bright type will work out a means of hitting it in the air or on the
> > > ground.
>
> > Jack, my name is Dean. And I didn't decide anything. I merely stated
> > that your writing made it sound like you were rooting for American
> > soldiers to die. I know what you mean now that you have clarified it.
> > However your original writing was NOT that clear.
>
> > Dean
>
> You know one of those last remaining al Qaeda in Anbar types is
> stoking up the game to get just one V-22.
>
> I deal in realism, there seems to be a heavy air of fantasy about the
> V-22 in this group. You know Cheney tried to get it canceled? It's
> made in too many congressional districts. Mainly in Texas.

A song from Vietnam that sounds familiar

Goodnight Saigon

We met as soul mates on Parris Island, we left as inmates from an
asylum
And we were sharp, as sharp as knives, & we were so gung ho to lay
down our lives
We came in spastic like tameless horses, we left in plastic as
numbered corpses
And we learned fast to travel light, our arms were heavy but our
bellies were tight

We had no home front, we had no soft soap
They sent us Playboy, they gave us Bob Hope
We dug in deep and shot on sight and prayed to Jesus Christ with all
of our might
We had no cameras to shoot the landscape
We passed the hash pipe and played our Doors tapes
And it was dark, so dark at night night night night
And we held onto each other, like brother to brother
We promised our mothers we'd write

And we would all go down together
We said we'd all go down together, yes, we would all go down together

Remember Charlie, remember Baker, they left their childhood on every
acre
And who was wrong and who was right right right right
It didn't matter in the thick of the fight

We held the day in the palm of our hand
They ruled the night and the night seemed to last as long as...

Six weeks on Parris Island we held the coastline, they held the
highlands
And they were sharp, as sharp as knives knives knives knives
They heard the hum of our motors, they counted the rotors & waited for
us to arrive

And we would all go down together
We said we'd all go down together, yes, we would all go down together

[Colin Campbell[_3_]]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:52:26 -0500, Vince > wrote:


>> do you need another block of instruction on logistics?
>
>
>I got irelevant bull**** claims
>
>Logistics has been a subject of military study since Marius. I've
>studied French German and US systems evolved since the 1860s.

I call BS.

If you had studied military logistics you would have noticed when me
and red began making fun of you.

In fact every one of your posts did nothing but drive home the point
that you do not have the first clue about logistics.

Liar.


--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

[Vince]

Colin Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:52:26 -0500, Vince > wrote:
>
>
>>> do you need another block of instruction on logistics?
>>
>> I got irelevant bull**** claims
>>
>> Logistics has been a subject of military study since Marius. I've
>> studied French German and US systems evolved since the 1860s.
>
> I call BS.
>
> If you had studied military logistics you would have noticed when me
> and red began making fun of you.
>

I noticed and ignored you making a fool of yourself


> In fact every one of your posts did nothing but drive home the point
> that you do not have the first clue about logistics.
>

more personal abuse from the persons with no facts


Vince

[redc1c4]

Ponce wrote:
>
> Colin Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:52:26 -0500, Vince > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> do you need another block of instruction on logistics?
> >>
> >> I got irelevant bull**** claims
> >>
> >> Logistics has been a subject of military study since Marius. I've
> >> studied French German and US systems evolved since the 1860s.
> >
> > I call BS.
> >
> > If you had studied military logistics you would have noticed when me
> > and red began making fun of you.
> >
>
> I noticed and ignored you making a fool of yourself
>
> > In fact every one of your posts did nothing but drive home the point
> > that you do not have the first clue about logistics.
> >
>
> more personal abuse from the persons with no facts

so you admit that your posts are just mental masturbation on your part....

your therapist will be pleased at this breakthrough, although we've known
it for years. after today's political news i needed a good laugh. thanks for
providing it at your expense.

i've yet to see you defend your claim that all ammunition resupply in Iraq
is transported via air assets. care to cite the message ID where you did that?
i certainly provided several definitive cites showing otherwise.

redc1c4,
your knowledge of logistical matters isn't even power point deep. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[Vince]

redc1c4 wrote:
> Ponce wrote:
>> Colin Campbell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:52:26 -0500, Vince > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> do you need another block of instruction on logistics?
>>>> I got irelevant bull**** claims
>>>>
>>>> Logistics has been a subject of military study since Marius. I've
>>>> studied French German and US systems evolved since the 1860s.
>>> I call BS.
>>>
>>> If you had studied military logistics you would have noticed when me
>>> and red began making fun of you.
>>>
>> I noticed and ignored you making a fool of yourself
>>
>>> In fact every one of your posts did nothing but drive home the point
>>> that you do not have the first clue about logistics.
>>>
>> more personal abuse from the persons with no facts
>
> so you admit that your posts are just mental masturbation on your part....
>

more abuse form the contentless poster

> your therapist will be pleased at this breakthrough, although we've known
> it for years. after today's political news i needed a good laugh. thanks for
> providing it at your expense.
>
> i've yet to see you defend your claim that all ammunition resupply in Iraq
> is transported via air assets. care to cite the message ID where you did that?
> i certainly provided several definitive cites showing otherwise.

then repeat them

please show how no outposts in Iraq are suppleid only by air

Vince

[Glenn Dowdy[_2_]]

"Vince" > wrote in message
. ..
> redc1c4 wrote:

>>
>> i've yet to see you defend your claim that all ammunition resupply in
>> Iraq
>> is transported via air assets. care to cite the message ID where you did
>> that?
>> i certainly provided several definitive cites showing otherwise.
>
> then repeat them
>
> please show how no outposts in Iraq are suppleid only by air
>
It's been a few years since my last logic course, but I'm pretty sure that
"all ammunition supply in Iraq is transported by air" and "no outposts in
Iraq are supplied only be air" are not even close to being the same
statement.

Glenn D.

[Vince]

Glenn Dowdy wrote:
> "Vince" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> redc1c4 wrote:
>
>>> i've yet to see you defend your claim that all ammunition resupply in
>>> Iraq
>>> is transported via air assets. care to cite the message ID where you did
>>> that?
>>> i certainly provided several definitive cites showing otherwise.
>> then repeat them
>>
>> please show how no outposts in Iraq are suppleid only by air
>>
> It's been a few years since my last logic course, but I'm pretty sure that
> "all ammunition supply in Iraq is transported by air" and "no outposts in
> Iraq are supplied only be air" are not even close to being the same
> statement.
>
> Glenn D.
>
>
feel free to quote a post where I made any such comment


Vince

[Glenn Dowdy[_2_]]

"Vince" > wrote in message
. ..
> Glenn Dowdy wrote:
>> "Vince" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> redc1c4 wrote:
>>
>>>> i've yet to see you defend your claim that all ammunition resupply in
>>>> Iraq
>>>> is transported via air assets. care to cite the message ID where you
>>>> did that?
>>>> i certainly provided several definitive cites showing otherwise.
>>> then repeat them
>>>
>>> please show how no outposts in Iraq are suppleid only by air
>>>
>> It's been a few years since my last logic course, but I'm pretty sure
>> that "all ammunition supply in Iraq is transported by air" and "no
>> outposts in Iraq are supplied only be air" are not even close to being
>> the same statement.
>>
>> Glenn D.
> feel free to quote a post where I made any such comment
>
>
Please post where I made that claim. Reading comprehension lagging today?

Glenn D.

[Vince]

Glenn Dowdy wrote:
> "Vince" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Glenn Dowdy wrote:
>>> "Vince" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> redc1c4 wrote:
>>>>> i've yet to see you defend your claim that all ammunition resupply in
>>>>> Iraq
>>>>> is transported via air assets. care to cite the message ID where you
>>>>> did that?
>>>>> i certainly provided several definitive cites showing otherwise.
>>>> then repeat them
>>>>
>>>> please show how no outposts in Iraq are suppleid only by air
>>>>
>>> It's been a few years since my last logic course, but I'm pretty sure
>>> that "all ammunition supply in Iraq is transported by air" and "no
>>> outposts in Iraq are supplied only be air" are not even close to being
>>> the same statement.
>>>
>>> Glenn D.
>> feel free to quote a post where I made any such comment
>>
>>
> Please post where I made that claim. Reading comprehension lagging today?
>
> Glenn D.
>
>
no I was very clear. I made no claim for you
check your glasses

Vince

[Colin Campbell[_3_]]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:02:45 -0500, Vince > wrote:

>Colin Campbell wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:52:26 -0500, Vince > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> do you need another block of instruction on logistics?
>>>
>>> I got irelevant bull**** claims
>>>
>>> Logistics has been a subject of military study since Marius. I've
>>> studied French German and US systems evolved since the 1860s.
>>
>> I call BS.
>>
>> If you had studied military logistics you would have noticed when me
>> and red began making fun of you.
>>
>
>I noticed and ignored you making a fool of yourself

BS

If you had noticed you would have not repeated the same comment we
were laughing at you about.

You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
understand.


>
>
>> In fact every one of your posts did nothing but drive home the point
>> that you do not have the first clue about logistics.
>>
>
>more personal abuse from the persons with no facts

We gave you lots of facts in the discussion. You were just to dumb to
learn anything.


--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

[Colin Campbell[_3_]]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:28:54 -0800, redc1c4
> wrote:


>i've yet to see you defend your claim that all ammunition resupply in Iraq
>is transported via air assets. care to cite the message ID where you did that?
>i certainly provided several definitive cites showing otherwise.

The most amusing thing was that the claimed to know how ammunition is
moved - but did not even catch on to the term 'Class V.'



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

[La N]

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
message ...
>
> You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
> you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
> understand.
>


Well, Vince, if nothing else, you can bust Colin on very bad grammar ... :)

- nilita

[Vince]

Colin Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:02:45 -0500, Vince > wrote:
>
>> Colin Campbell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:52:26 -0500, Vince > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> do you need another block of instruction on logistics?
>>>> I got irelevant bull**** claims
>>>>
>>>> Logistics has been a subject of military study since Marius. I've
>>>> studied French German and US systems evolved since the 1860s.
>>> I call BS.
>>>
>>> If you had studied military logistics you would have noticed when me
>>> and red began making fun of you.
>>>
>> I noticed and ignored you making a fool of yourself
>
> BS
>
> If you had noticed you would have not repeated the same comment we
> were laughing at you about.
>
> You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
> you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
> understand.
>
>
>>
>>> In fact every one of your posts did nothing but drive home the point
>>> that you do not have the first clue about logistics.
>>>
>> more personal abuse from the persons with no facts
>
> We gave you lots of facts in the discussion. You were just to dumb to
> learn anything.
>


more abuse without cites or facts or even quotes

I served on PhD examining committees on Military logistics with Mancur
Olsen, Author of "The economics of the Wartime shortage"

your abuse simply confirms your ignorance


Vince

[Vince]

Colin Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:28:54 -0800, redc1c4
> > wrote:
>
>
>> i've yet to see you defend your claim that all ammunition resupply in Iraq
>> is transported via air assets. care to cite the message ID where you did that?
>> i certainly provided several definitive cites showing otherwise.
>
> The most amusing thing was that the claimed to know how ammunition is
> moved - but did not even catch on to the term 'Class V.'

OFCS

You are simply adding to the demonstration of ignorance

"Class V" is a question of supply not logistics

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/63-2-1/Ch8.htm

"The Oxford English dictionary defines logistics as: “The branch of
military science having to do with procuring, maintaining and
transporting material, personnel and facilities.”Another dictionary
definition is: "The time related positioning of resources." As such,
logistics is commonly seen as a branch of engineering which creates
"people systems" rather than "machine systems""


Logistics decides inter alia what type of supply system you can organize


Sheesh

Vince

[Vince]

La N wrote:
> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
> message ...
> >
>> You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
>> you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
>> understand.
>>
>
>
> Well, Vince, if nothing else, you can bust Colin on very bad grammar ... :)
>
> - nilita
>
>

he does not know the difference between supply and logistics so the case
is closed


Vince

[La N]

"Vince" > wrote in message
. ..
> La N wrote:
>> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
>> message ...
>> >
>>> You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
>>> you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
>>> understand.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, Vince, if nothing else, you can bust Colin on very bad grammar ...
>> :)
>>
>> - nilita
>
> he does not know the difference between supply and logistics so the case
> is closed
>

Well, it has been an "interesting" debate between 2 people, each of whom has
never been known to admit when they have been wrong ...%)

- nilita

[Peter Skelton]

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:42:51 GMT, "La N"
> wrote:

>
>"Vince" > wrote in message
. ..
>> La N wrote:
>>> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
>>> message ...
>>> >
>>>> You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
>>>> you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
>>>> understand.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, Vince, if nothing else, you can bust Colin on very bad grammar ...
>>> :)
>>>
>>> - nilita
>>
>> he does not know the difference between supply and logistics so the case
>> is closed
>>
>
>Well, it has been an "interesting" debate between 2 people, each of whom has
>never been known to admit when they have been wrong ...%)
>
That is not a fair accusation when aimed at Vince.

Peter Skelton

[La N]

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:42:51 GMT, "La N"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Vince" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> La N wrote:
>>>> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
>>>> message ...
>>>> >
>>>>> You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
>>>>> you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
>>>>> understand.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, Vince, if nothing else, you can bust Colin on very bad grammar
>>>> ...
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> - nilita
>>>
>>> he does not know the difference between supply and logistics so the case
>>> is closed
>>>
>>
>>Well, it has been an "interesting" debate between 2 people, each of whom
>>has
>>never been known to admit when they have been wrong ...%)
>>
> That is not a fair accusation when aimed at Vince.
>

Well, maybe it's because he's never been wrong? .. ;)

He has never declared himself to be at the losing end of an argument, so I
guess, then, that Vince is always right? I like Vince, but he *does* - like
so many people - have an ego that prevents him from saying something to the
effect of, "Okay, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that." He is
always right, and the other person is always wrong.

- nilita

[Peter Skelton]

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:24:55 GMT, "La N"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:42:51 GMT, "La N"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Vince" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>> La N wrote:
>>>>> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
>>>>> message ...
>>>>> >
>>>>>> You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
>>>>>> you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
>>>>>> understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, Vince, if nothing else, you can bust Colin on very bad grammar
>>>>> ...
>>>>> :)
>>>>>
>>>>> - nilita
>>>>
>>>> he does not know the difference between supply and logistics so the case
>>>> is closed
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, it has been an "interesting" debate between 2 people, each of whom
>>>has
>>>never been known to admit when they have been wrong ...%)
>>>
>> That is not a fair accusation when aimed at Vince.
>>
>
>Well, maybe it's because he's never been wrong? .. ;)
>
>He has never declared himself to be at the losing end of an argument, so I
>guess, then, that Vince is always right?

That is simply not true. Like most, he simply abandons a point
when he yeilds it. Pragmatically speaking, it's the best thing to
do.


Peter Skelton

[La N]

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:24:55 GMT, "La N"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:42:51 GMT, "La N"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Vince" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>>> La N wrote:
>>>>>> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> message ...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
>>>>>>> you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
>>>>>>> understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, Vince, if nothing else, you can bust Colin on very bad grammar
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - nilita
>>>>>
>>>>> he does not know the difference between supply and logistics so the
>>>>> case
>>>>> is closed
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, it has been an "interesting" debate between 2 people, each of whom
>>>>has
>>>>never been known to admit when they have been wrong ...%)
>>>>
>>> That is not a fair accusation when aimed at Vince.
>>>
>>
>>Well, maybe it's because he's never been wrong? .. ;)
>>
>>He has never declared himself to be at the losing end of an argument, so I
>>guess, then, that Vince is always right?
>
> That is simply not true. Like most, he simply abandons a point
> when he yeilds it. Pragmatically speaking, it's the best thing to
> do.

Oh, I see ... whatever you say ....

- nilita

[Vince]

La N wrote:
> "Vince" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> La N wrote:
>>> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
>>> message ...
>>> >
>>>> You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
>>>> you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
>>>> understand.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, Vince, if nothing else, you can bust Colin on very bad grammar ...
>>> :)
>>>
>>> - nilita
>> he does not know the difference between supply and logistics so the case
>> is closed
>>
>
> Well, it has been an "interesting" debate between 2 people, each of whom has
> never been known to admit when they have been wrong ...%)
>
> - nilita
>
>

I have often been wrong.

I trusted George Bush that he would not pervert the intelligence
community to take this nation to war.

I was wrong


Vince

[Vince]

La N wrote:
> "Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:42:51 GMT, "La N"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Vince" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> La N wrote:
>>>>> "Colin Campbell" (remove
>>>>> underscore)> wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You said something dumb - then myself and red started
>>>>>> making fun of you by - using standardized logistics
>>>>>> terminology that you did not understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, Vince, if nothing else, you can bust Colin on very bad
>>>>> grammar ... :)
>>>>>
>>>>> - nilita
>>>> he does not know the difference between supply and logistics so
>>>> the case is closed
>>>>
>>> Well, it has been an "interesting" debate between 2 people, each
>>> of whom has never been known to admit when they have been wrong
>>> ...%)
>>>
>> That is not a fair accusation when aimed at Vince.
>>
>
> Well, maybe it's because he's never been wrong? .. ;)
>
> He has never declared himself to be at the losing end of an argument,
> so I guess, then, that Vince is always right? I like Vince, but he
> *does* - like so many people - have an ego that prevents him from
> saying something to the effect of, "Okay, we'll just have to agree to
> disagree on that." He is always right, and the other person is
> always wrong.
>
> - nilita


I am often wrong. I can't spell and my "than and then" is shaky.
On inferences I am always willing to agree to disagree

In my syllabus it states

"Participation points are not given for merely answering questions.
Participation points are awarded for special contribution to
discussions, especially sticking your neck out to argue the logic of a
class topic with me. Pointing out a significant error in my logic or
facts gets extra credit."

My engineers delight in catching me in a technical error
They get credit for it.


Vince















..

[Colin Campbell[_3_]]

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:16:35 -0500, Vince > wrote:

>Colin Campbell wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:28:54 -0800, redc1c4
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> i've yet to see you defend your claim that all ammunition resupply in Iraq
>>> is transported via air assets. care to cite the message ID where you did that?
>>> i certainly provided several definitive cites showing otherwise.
>>
>> The most amusing thing was that the claimed to know how ammunition is
>> moved - but did not even catch on to the term 'Class V.'
>
>OFCS
>
>You are simply adding to the demonstration of ignorance
>
>"Class V" is a question of supply not logistics

ROTFL!

Thank you for demonstrating that you have no clue.

Do you really think that 'classes of supply' and the logistics of
moving them are separate issues?

Here is a clue for you (now you can say you have one):

The term 'priority of supply' is part of the logistics annex in an
Operations Order. Each supply category is given a priority and the
highest priorities are the focus of the logistics effort.

Here is another clue for you (now you can claim to have _two_ clues!):

Each class of supply has different movement priorities. For example:
toilet paper (a Class II item) would not be moved by air because it
tends to be a very low priority item.

Class III and V are high cube and mass items that are typically moved
on the ground. However - air movement is always planned for as a
contingency because of its criticality in fighting a battle.


Besides - you have still not explained why we should take your
uninformed opinion as to the effectiveness of the aircraft over that
of the people who actually fly it and maintain it.



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

[Colin Campbell[_3_]]

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 07:27:59 -0500, Vince > wrote:


>I served on PhD examining committees on Military logistics with Mancur
>Olsen, Author of "The economics of the Wartime shortage"

So?

Your posts indicate that you have no understanding of how logistics
are handled in the _real world_.

If you had a clue you would not be providing so much entertainment for
myself and red - who have had to do this for real.


--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

[Colin Campbell[_3_]]

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:14:20 -0500, Vince > wrote:


>I have often been wrong.
>
>I trusted George Bush that he would not pervert the intelligence
>community to take this nation to war.
>
>I was wrong

So you were wrong about Clinton on this same issue also?


--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

[redc1c4]

Ponce wrote:
>
> Colin Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:02:45 -0500, Vince > wrote:
> >
> >> Colin Campbell wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:52:26 -0500, Vince > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> do you need another block of instruction on logistics?
> >>>> I got irelevant bull**** claims
> >>>>
> >>>> Logistics has been a subject of military study since Marius. I've
> >>>> studied French German and US systems evolved since the 1860s.
> >>> I call BS.
> >>>
> >>> If you had studied military logistics you would have noticed when me
> >>> and red began making fun of you.
> >>>
> >> I noticed and ignored you making a fool of yourself
> >
> > BS
> >
> > If you had noticed you would have not repeated the same comment we
> > were laughing at you about.
> >
> > You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
> > you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
> > understand.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> In fact every one of your posts did nothing but drive home the point
> >>> that you do not have the first clue about logistics.
> >>>
> >> more personal abuse from the persons with no facts
> >
> > We gave you lots of facts in the discussion. You were just to dumb to
> > learn anything.
> >
>
> more abuse without cites or facts or even quotes
>
> I served on PhD examining committees on Military logistics with Mancur
> Olsen, Author of "The economics of the Wartime shortage"
>
> your abuse simply confirms your ignorance
>
> Vince

as your posts do yours......

redc1c4,
those that can, do. you can't, so you "serve on a committee". %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[redc1c4]

Ponce wrote:
>
> La N wrote:
> > "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
> > message ...
> > >
> >> You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
> >> you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
> >> understand.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Well, Vince, if nothing else, you can bust Colin on very bad grammar ... :)
> >
> > - nilita
> >
> >
>
> he does not know the difference between supply and logistics so the case
> is closed
>
> Vince

IOW: "i'm wrong so i need a way to save face...."

redc1c4,
you're an immodest man, with much to be modest about. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[redc1c4]

Peter Skelton wrote:
>
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:42:51 GMT, "La N"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Vince" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> La N wrote:
> >>> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
> >>> message ...
> >>> >
> >>>> You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
> >>>> you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
> >>>> understand.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Well, Vince, if nothing else, you can bust Colin on very bad grammar ...
> >>> :)
> >>>
> >>> - nilita
> >>
> >> he does not know the difference between supply and logistics so the case
> >> is closed
> >>
> >
> >Well, it has been an "interesting" debate between 2 people, each of whom has
> >never been known to admit when they have been wrong ...%)
> >
> That is not a fair accusation when aimed at Vince.
>
> Peter Skelton

cite?

redc1c4,
who's seen Ponce be wrong many times, but who's never seen him admit it.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[Vince]

Colin Campbell wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:16:35 -0500, Vince > wrote:
>
>> Colin Campbell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:28:54 -0800, redc1c4
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> i've yet to see you defend your claim that all ammunition resupply in Iraq
>>>> is transported via air assets. care to cite the message ID where you did that?
>>>> i certainly provided several definitive cites showing otherwise.
>>> The most amusing thing was that the claimed to know how ammunition is
>>> moved - but did not even catch on to the term 'Class V.'
>> OFCS
>>
>> You are simply adding to the demonstration of ignorance
>>
>> "Class V" is a question of supply not logistics
>
> ROTFL!
>
> Thank you for demonstrating that you have no clue.
>
> Do you really think that 'classes of supply' and the logistics of
> moving them are separate issues?
>

"logistics of moving them" simply indicates your total ignorance

Logistics is logistics whether you are looking at a roman army or a
Prussian one .

Transport systems are a tiny fraction of the job.


> Here is a clue for you (now you can say you have one):
>
> The term 'priority of supply' is part of the logistics annex in an
> Operations Order. Each supply category is given a priority and the
> highest priorities are the focus of the logistics effort.

supply, not logistics
Logistics decides what supplies you can or should have


> Here is another clue for you (now you can claim to have _two_ clues!):
>
> Each class of supply has different movement priorities. For example:
> toilet paper (a Class II item) would not be moved by air because it
> tends to be a very low priority item.
>
> Class III and V are high cube and mass items that are typically moved
> on the ground. However - air movement is always planned for as a
> contingency because of its criticality in fighting a battle.
>
>
> Besides - you have still not explained why we should take your
> uninformed opinion as to the effectiveness of the aircraft over that
> of the people who actually fly it and maintain it.

For the same reason we ignore horse cavalrymen battleship admirals and
air force lunatics who thought B-17s could defend themselves


I teach the evaluation of expertise and the problem of conflict of
interest. Ipse Dixit just doesn't cut it



Vince

[Vince]

Colin Campbell wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 07:27:59 -0500, Vince > wrote:
>
>
>> I served on PhD examining committees on Military logistics with Mancur
>> Olsen, Author of "The economics of the Wartime shortage"
>
> So?
>
> Your posts indicate that you have no understanding of how logistics
> are handled in the _real world_.
>
> If you had a clue you would not be providing so much entertainment for
> myself and red - who have had to do this for real.
>

I'm sure you can amuse yourself with very simply toys

Vince

[Vince]

Colin Campbell wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:14:20 -0500, Vince > wrote:
>
>
>> I have often been wrong.
>>
>> I trusted George Bush that he would not pervert the intelligence
>> community to take this nation to war.
>>
>> I was wrong
>
> So you were wrong about Clinton on this same issue also?
>

No Clinton was wrong the same way

She trusted Bush, to her dying shame

It may cost her the election


Vince

[Vince]

redc1c4 wrote:
> Ponce wrote:
>> La N wrote:
>>> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
>>> message ...
>>> >
>>>> You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
>>>> you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
>>>> understand.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, Vince, if nothing else, you can bust Colin on very bad grammar ... :)
>>>
>>> - nilita
>>>
>>>
>> he does not know the difference between supply and logistics so the case
>> is closed
>>
>> Vince
>
> IOW: "i'm wrong so i need a way to save face...."
>
> redc1c4,
> you're an immodest man, with much to be modest about. %-)

keep demonstrating your ignorance

Vince

[La N]

"Vince" > wrote in message
. ..
> Colin Campbell wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:16:35 -0500, Vince > wrote:
>>
>>> Colin Campbell wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:28:54 -0800, redc1c4
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> i've yet to see you defend your claim that all ammunition resupply in
>>>>> Iraq
>>>>> is transported via air assets. care to cite the message ID where you
>>>>> did that?
>>>>> i certainly provided several definitive cites showing otherwise.
>>>> The most amusing thing was that the claimed to know how ammunition is
>>>> moved - but did not even catch on to the term 'Class V.'
>>> OFCS
>>>
>>> You are simply adding to the demonstration of ignorance
>>>
>>> "Class V" is a question of supply not logistics
>>
>> ROTFL!
>>
>> Thank you for demonstrating that you have no clue. Do you really think
>> that 'classes of supply' and the logistics of
>> moving them are separate issues?
>>
>
> "logistics of moving them" simply indicates your total ignorance
>
> Logistics is logistics whether you are looking at a roman army or a
> Prussian one .
>
> Transport systems are a tiny fraction of the job.
>
>
>> Here is a clue for you (now you can say you have one):
>>
>> The term 'priority of supply' is part of the logistics annex in an
>> Operations Order. Each supply category is given a priority and the
>> highest priorities are the focus of the logistics effort.
>
> supply, not logistics
> Logistics decides what supplies you can or should have
>
>
>> Here is another clue for you (now you can claim to have _two_ clues!):
>>
>> Each class of supply has different movement priorities. For example:
>> toilet paper (a Class II item) would not be moved by air because it
>> tends to be a very low priority item.
>>
>> Class III and V are high cube and mass items that are typically moved
>> on the ground. However - air movement is always planned for as a
>> contingency because of its criticality in fighting a battle. Besides -
>> you have still not explained why we should take your
>> uninformed opinion as to the effectiveness of the aircraft over that
>> of the people who actually fly it and maintain it.
>
> For the same reason we ignore horse cavalrymen battleship admirals and
> air force lunatics who thought B-17s could defend themselves
>
>
> I teach the evaluation of expertise and the problem of conflict of
> interest. Ipse Dixit just doesn't cut it
>

Okay, since now I am interested in military logistics, I decided to look it
up
myself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistics

"In military logistics, logistics officers manage how and when to move
resources to the places they are needed. In military science, maintaining
one's supply lines while disrupting those of the enemy is a crucial-some
would say the most crucial-element of military strategy, since an armed
force without resources and transportation is defenseless.

"The defeat of the British in the American War of Independence, and the
defeat of Erwin Rommel in World War II, have been largely attributed to
logistical failure. The historical leaders Hannibal Barca, Alexander the
Great and the Duke of Wellington are considered to have been logistical
geniuses."

And from: http://www.army-technology.com/glossary/logistics.html

"Logistics
Logistics are the area of military operations dealing with the procurement,
distribution, maintenance, and replacement of materiel and personnel."

[La N]

"La N" > wrote in message
news:slsrj.19263$C61.5339@edtnps89...
> >>
>
> Okay, since now I am interested in military logistics, I decided to look
> it
> up
> myself:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistics
>
> "In military logistics, logistics officers manage how and when to move
> resources to the places they are needed. In military science, maintaining
> one's supply lines while disrupting those of the enemy is a crucial-some
> would say the most crucial-element of military strategy, since an armed
> force without resources and transportation is defenseless.
>
> "The defeat of the British in the American War of Independence, and the
> defeat of Erwin Rommel in World War II, have been largely attributed to
> logistical failure. The historical leaders Hannibal Barca, Alexander the
> Great and the Duke of Wellington are considered to have been logistical
> geniuses."
>
> And from: http://www.army-technology.com/glossary/logistics.html
>
> "Logistics
> Logistics are the area of military operations dealing with the
> procurement,
> distribution, maintenance, and replacement of materiel and personnel."
>


I sent this before finishing.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/supclass.htm

Class V - Ammunition; Subclasses A - Air Delivery; W - Ground.

- nilita

[Vince]

La N wrote:
> "Vince" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Colin Campbell wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:16:35 -0500, Vince > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Colin Campbell wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:28:54 -0800, redc1c4
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> i've yet to see you defend your claim that all ammunition resupply in
>>>>>> Iraq
>>>>>> is transported via air assets. care to cite the message ID where you
>>>>>> did that?
>>>>>> i certainly provided several definitive cites showing otherwise.
>>>>> The most amusing thing was that the claimed to know how ammunition is
>>>>> moved - but did not even catch on to the term 'Class V.'
>>>> OFCS
>>>>
>>>> You are simply adding to the demonstration of ignorance
>>>>
>>>> "Class V" is a question of supply not logistics
>>> ROTFL!
>>>
>>> Thank you for demonstrating that you have no clue. Do you really think
>>> that 'classes of supply' and the logistics of
>>> moving them are separate issues?
>>>
>> "logistics of moving them" simply indicates your total ignorance
>>
>> Logistics is logistics whether you are looking at a roman army or a
>> Prussian one .
>>
>> Transport systems are a tiny fraction of the job.
>>
>>
>>> Here is a clue for you (now you can say you have one):
>>>
>>> The term 'priority of supply' is part of the logistics annex in an
>>> Operations Order. Each supply category is given a priority and the
>>> highest priorities are the focus of the logistics effort.
>> supply, not logistics
>> Logistics decides what supplies you can or should have
>>
>>
>>> Here is another clue for you (now you can claim to have _two_ clues!):
>>>
>>> Each class of supply has different movement priorities. For example:
>>> toilet paper (a Class II item) would not be moved by air because it
>>> tends to be a very low priority item.
>>>
>>> Class III and V are high cube and mass items that are typically moved
>>> on the ground. However - air movement is always planned for as a
>>> contingency because of its criticality in fighting a battle. Besides -
>>> you have still not explained why we should take your
>>> uninformed opinion as to the effectiveness of the aircraft over that
>>> of the people who actually fly it and maintain it.
>> For the same reason we ignore horse cavalrymen battleship admirals and
>> air force lunatics who thought B-17s could defend themselves
>>
>>
>> I teach the evaluation of expertise and the problem of conflict of
>> interest. Ipse Dixit just doesn't cut it
>>
>
> Okay, since now I am interested in military logistics, I decided to look it
> up
> myself:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistics
>
> "In military logistics, logistics officers manage how and when to move
> resources to the places they are needed. In military science, maintaining
> one's supply lines while disrupting those of the enemy is a crucial-some
> would say the most crucial-element of military strategy, since an armed
> force without resources and transportation is defenseless.
>
> "The defeat of the British in the American War of Independence, and the
> defeat of Erwin Rommel in World War II, have been largely attributed to
> logistical failure. The historical leaders Hannibal Barca, Alexander the
> Great and the Duke of Wellington are considered to have been logistical
> geniuses."
>
> And from: http://www.army-technology.com/glossary/logistics.html
>
> "Logistics
> Logistics are the area of military operations dealing with the procurement,
> distribution, maintenance, and replacement of materiel and personnel."
>

right

Buying the V-22 is a logistics decision
What you fill it with on a given run is a supply decision


Vince

[redc1c4]

Ponce wrote:
>
> redc1c4 wrote:
> > Ponce wrote:
> >> La N wrote:
> >>> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
> >>> message ...
> >>> >
> >>>> You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
> >>>> you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
> >>>> understand.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Well, Vince, if nothing else, you can bust Colin on very bad grammar ... :)
> >>>
> >>> - nilita
> >>>
> >>>
> >> he does not know the difference between supply and logistics so the case
> >> is closed
> >>
> >> Vince
> >
> > IOW: "i'm wrong so i need a way to save face...."
> >
> > redc1c4,
> > you're an immodest man, with much to be modest about. %-)
>
> keep demonstrating your ignorance
>
> Vince

even if i were to try, i lack the natural talent you are so eager to display
on a regular basis, such as in this thread.

lacking your obvious talent, i shall have to restrict showing my ass to 2H6
and the cats, with the occasional late summer night skinny dip thrown in....

redc1c4,
amateurs talk about logistics, but professionals have actually dealt with them.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[redc1c4]

Ponce wrote:
>
> La N wrote:
> > "Vince" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >> Colin Campbell wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:16:35 -0500, Vince > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Colin Campbell wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:28:54 -0800, redc1c4
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> i've yet to see you defend your claim that all ammunition resupply in
> >>>>>> Iraq
> >>>>>> is transported via air assets. care to cite the message ID where you
> >>>>>> did that?
> >>>>>> i certainly provided several definitive cites showing otherwise.
> >>>>> The most amusing thing was that the claimed to know how ammunition is
> >>>>> moved - but did not even catch on to the term 'Class V.'
> >>>> OFCS
> >>>>
> >>>> You are simply adding to the demonstration of ignorance
> >>>>
> >>>> "Class V" is a question of supply not logistics
> >>> ROTFL!
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for demonstrating that you have no clue. Do you really think
> >>> that 'classes of supply' and the logistics of
> >>> moving them are separate issues?
> >>>
> >> "logistics of moving them" simply indicates your total ignorance
> >>
> >> Logistics is logistics whether you are looking at a roman army or a
> >> Prussian one .
> >>
> >> Transport systems are a tiny fraction of the job.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Here is a clue for you (now you can say you have one):
> >>>
> >>> The term 'priority of supply' is part of the logistics annex in an
> >>> Operations Order. Each supply category is given a priority and the
> >>> highest priorities are the focus of the logistics effort.
> >> supply, not logistics
> >> Logistics decides what supplies you can or should have
> >>
> >>
> >>> Here is another clue for you (now you can claim to have _two_ clues!):
> >>>
> >>> Each class of supply has different movement priorities. For example:
> >>> toilet paper (a Class II item) would not be moved by air because it
> >>> tends to be a very low priority item.
> >>>
> >>> Class III and V are high cube and mass items that are typically moved
> >>> on the ground. However - air movement is always planned for as a
> >>> contingency because of its criticality in fighting a battle. Besides -
> >>> you have still not explained why we should take your
> >>> uninformed opinion as to the effectiveness of the aircraft over that
> >>> of the people who actually fly it and maintain it.
> >> For the same reason we ignore horse cavalrymen battleship admirals and
> >> air force lunatics who thought B-17s could defend themselves
> >>
> >>
> >> I teach the evaluation of expertise and the problem of conflict of
> >> interest. Ipse Dixit just doesn't cut it
> >>
> >
> > Okay, since now I am interested in military logistics, I decided to look it
> > up
> > myself:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistics
> >
> > "In military logistics, logistics officers manage how and when to move
> > resources to the places they are needed. In military science, maintaining
> > one's supply lines while disrupting those of the enemy is a crucial-some
> > would say the most crucial-element of military strategy, since an armed
> > force without resources and transportation is defenseless.
> >
> > "The defeat of the British in the American War of Independence, and the
> > defeat of Erwin Rommel in World War II, have been largely attributed to
> > logistical failure. The historical leaders Hannibal Barca, Alexander the
> > Great and the Duke of Wellington are considered to have been logistical
> > geniuses."
> >
> > And from: http://www.army-technology.com/glossary/logistics.html
> >
> > "Logistics
> > Logistics are the area of military operations dealing with the procurement,
> > distribution, maintenance, and replacement of materiel and personnel."
> >
>
> right
>
> Buying the V-22 is a logistics decision
> What you fill it with on a given run is a supply decision
>
> Vince

no.

what goes on the plane, versus what goes via the nonexistent convoys, is
part & parcel of logistics.

your denial of an essential truth doesn't make it any less so.

redc1c4,
who's been on more LOGPAC convoys than you've ever read about.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[Vince]

redc1c4 wrote:
> Ponce wrote:
>> redc1c4 wrote:
>>> Ponce wrote:
>>>> La N wrote:
>>>>> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
>>>>> message ...
>>>>> >
>>>>>> You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
>>>>>> you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
>>>>>> understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, Vince, if nothing else, you can bust Colin on very bad grammar ... :)
>>>>>
>>>>> - nilita
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> he does not know the difference between supply and logistics so the case
>>>> is closed
>>>>
>>>> Vince
>>> IOW: "i'm wrong so i need a way to save face...."
>>>
>>> redc1c4,
>>> you're an immodest man, with much to be modest about. %-)
>> keep demonstrating your ignorance
>>
>> Vince
>
> even if i were to try, i lack the natural talent you are so eager to display
> on a regular basis, such as in this thread.
>
> lacking your obvious talent, i shall have to restrict showing my ass to 2H6
> and the cats, with the occasional late summer night skinny dip thrown in....
>
> redc1c4,
> amateurs talk about logistics, but professionals have actually dealt with them.


your only demonstrated talent is changing headers

wow did you learn that in junior high?

or grade school?

Vince

[Vince]

redc1c4 wrote:
> Ponce wrote:
>> La N wrote:
>>> "Vince" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> Colin Campbell wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:16:35 -0500, Vince > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Colin Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:28:54 -0800, redc1c4
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i've yet to see you defend your claim that all ammunition resupply in
>>>>>>>> Iraq
>>>>>>>> is transported via air assets. care to cite the message ID where you
>>>>>>>> did that?
>>>>>>>> i certainly provided several definitive cites showing otherwise.
>>>>>>> The most amusing thing was that the claimed to know how ammunition is
>>>>>>> moved - but did not even catch on to the term 'Class V.'
>>>>>> OFCS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are simply adding to the demonstration of ignorance
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Class V" is a question of supply not logistics
>>>>> ROTFL!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for demonstrating that you have no clue. Do you really think
>>>>> that 'classes of supply' and the logistics of
>>>>> moving them are separate issues?
>>>>>
>>>> "logistics of moving them" simply indicates your total ignorance
>>>>
>>>> Logistics is logistics whether you are looking at a roman army or a
>>>> Prussian one .
>>>>
>>>> Transport systems are a tiny fraction of the job.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Here is a clue for you (now you can say you have one):
>>>>>
>>>>> The term 'priority of supply' is part of the logistics annex in an
>>>>> Operations Order. Each supply category is given a priority and the
>>>>> highest priorities are the focus of the logistics effort.
>>>> supply, not logistics
>>>> Logistics decides what supplies you can or should have
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Here is another clue for you (now you can claim to have _two_ clues!):
>>>>>
>>>>> Each class of supply has different movement priorities. For example:
>>>>> toilet paper (a Class II item) would not be moved by air because it
>>>>> tends to be a very low priority item.
>>>>>
>>>>> Class III and V are high cube and mass items that are typically moved
>>>>> on the ground. However - air movement is always planned for as a
>>>>> contingency because of its criticality in fighting a battle. Besides -
>>>>> you have still not explained why we should take your
>>>>> uninformed opinion as to the effectiveness of the aircraft over that
>>>>> of the people who actually fly it and maintain it.
>>>> For the same reason we ignore horse cavalrymen battleship admirals and
>>>> air force lunatics who thought B-17s could defend themselves
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I teach the evaluation of expertise and the problem of conflict of
>>>> interest. Ipse Dixit just doesn't cut it
>>>>
>>> Okay, since now I am interested in military logistics, I decided to look it
>>> up
>>> myself:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistics
>>>
>>> "In military logistics, logistics officers manage how and when to move
>>> resources to the places they are needed. In military science, maintaining
>>> one's supply lines while disrupting those of the enemy is a crucial-some
>>> would say the most crucial-element of military strategy, since an armed
>>> force without resources and transportation is defenseless.
>>>
>>> "The defeat of the British in the American War of Independence, and the
>>> defeat of Erwin Rommel in World War II, have been largely attributed to
>>> logistical failure. The historical leaders Hannibal Barca, Alexander the
>>> Great and the Duke of Wellington are considered to have been logistical
>>> geniuses."
>>>
>>> And from: http://www.army-technology.com/glossary/logistics.html
>>>
>>> "Logistics
>>> Logistics are the area of military operations dealing with the procurement,
>>> distribution, maintenance, and replacement of materiel and personnel."
>>>
>> right
>>
>> Buying the V-22 is a logistics decision
>> What you fill it with on a given run is a supply decision
>>
>> Vince
>
> no.
>
> what goes on the plane, versus what goes via the nonexistent convoys, is
> part & parcel of logistics.
>
> your denial of an essential truth doesn't make it any less so.
>
> redc1c4,
> who's been on more LOGPAC convoys than you've ever read about.

sorry

your experience handling cargo simply does not count

that is supply, not logistics, no matter what you want to call it

Stevedores handle supply

Vince

[redc1c4]

Ponce wrote:
>
> redc1c4 wrote:
> > Ponce wrote:
> >> La N wrote:
> >>> "Vince" > wrote in message
> >>> . ..
> >>>> Colin Campbell wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:16:35 -0500, Vince > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Colin Campbell wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:28:54 -0800, redc1c4
> >>>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> i've yet to see you defend your claim that all ammunition resupply in
> >>>>>>>> Iraq
> >>>>>>>> is transported via air assets. care to cite the message ID where you
> >>>>>>>> did that?
> >>>>>>>> i certainly provided several definitive cites showing otherwise.
> >>>>>>> The most amusing thing was that the claimed to know how ammunition is
> >>>>>>> moved - but did not even catch on to the term 'Class V.'
> >>>>>> OFCS
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You are simply adding to the demonstration of ignorance
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Class V" is a question of supply not logistics
> >>>>> ROTFL!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you for demonstrating that you have no clue. Do you really think
> >>>>> that 'classes of supply' and the logistics of
> >>>>> moving them are separate issues?
> >>>>>
> >>>> "logistics of moving them" simply indicates your total ignorance
> >>>>
> >>>> Logistics is logistics whether you are looking at a roman army or a
> >>>> Prussian one .
> >>>>
> >>>> Transport systems are a tiny fraction of the job.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Here is a clue for you (now you can say you have one):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The term 'priority of supply' is part of the logistics annex in an
> >>>>> Operations Order. Each supply category is given a priority and the
> >>>>> highest priorities are the focus of the logistics effort.
> >>>> supply, not logistics
> >>>> Logistics decides what supplies you can or should have
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Here is another clue for you (now you can claim to have _two_ clues!):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Each class of supply has different movement priorities. For example:
> >>>>> toilet paper (a Class II item) would not be moved by air because it
> >>>>> tends to be a very low priority item.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Class III and V are high cube and mass items that are typically moved
> >>>>> on the ground. However - air movement is always planned for as a
> >>>>> contingency because of its criticality in fighting a battle. Besides -
> >>>>> you have still not explained why we should take your
> >>>>> uninformed opinion as to the effectiveness of the aircraft over that
> >>>>> of the people who actually fly it and maintain it.
> >>>> For the same reason we ignore horse cavalrymen battleship admirals and
> >>>> air force lunatics who thought B-17s could defend themselves
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I teach the evaluation of expertise and the problem of conflict of
> >>>> interest. Ipse Dixit just doesn't cut it
> >>>>
> >>> Okay, since now I am interested in military logistics, I decided to look it
> >>> up
> >>> myself:
> >>>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistics
> >>>
> >>> "In military logistics, logistics officers manage how and when to move
> >>> resources to the places they are needed. In military science, maintaining
> >>> one's supply lines while disrupting those of the enemy is a crucial-some
> >>> would say the most crucial-element of military strategy, since an armed
> >>> force without resources and transportation is defenseless.
> >>>
> >>> "The defeat of the British in the American War of Independence, and the
> >>> defeat of Erwin Rommel in World War II, have been largely attributed to
> >>> logistical failure. The historical leaders Hannibal Barca, Alexander the
> >>> Great and the Duke of Wellington are considered to have been logistical
> >>> geniuses."
> >>>
> >>> And from: http://www.army-technology.com/glossary/logistics.html
> >>>
> >>> "Logistics
> >>> Logistics are the area of military operations dealing with the procurement,
> >>> distribution, maintenance, and replacement of materiel and personnel."
> >>>
> >> right
> >>
> >> Buying the V-22 is a logistics decision
> >> What you fill it with on a given run is a supply decision
> >>
> >> Vince
> >
> > no.
> >
> > what goes on the plane, versus what goes via the nonexistent convoys, is
> > part & parcel of logistics.
> >
> > your denial of an essential truth doesn't make it any less so.
> >
> > redc1c4,
> > who's been on more LOGPAC convoys than you've ever read about.
>
> sorry
>
> your experience handling cargo simply does not count
>
> that is supply, not logistics, no matter what you want to call it
>
> Stevedores handle supply
>
> Vince

and let the military calls it "Logistics".....

for instance:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAB/is_5_112/ai_109667385

and
https://www.nm.ngb.army.mil/DCSLOG/Logistical%20Wizard/Log%20Help%20HTML/1sg/resupply/index.htm

what's really amusing to me (besides your willful obtuseness) is that the
scenario in the first article clearly has an E-8 in charge, but i, as an E-4,
routinely lead these activities for my troop.

redc1c4,
you were saying? %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

[Paul J. Adam]

In message <slsrj.19263$C61.5339@edtnps89>, La N
> writes

>Okay, since now I am interested in military logistics, I decided to look it
>up
>myself:

Two cracking books on the subject, if you're interested: "Supplying War"
by Martin van Creveld, and "Lifeblood of War" by Julian Thompson.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[La N]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message <slsrj.19263$C61.5339@edtnps89>, La N
> > writes
>
>>Okay, since now I am interested in military logistics, I decided to look
>>it
>>up
>>myself:
>
> Two cracking books on the subject, if you're interested: "Supplying War"
> by Martin van Creveld, and "Lifeblood of War" by Julian Thompson.
>

Heheheh. What would my friends think if they spotted me reading those books
on my free time ... :)

- nilita

[Vince]

redc1c4 wrote:
>>> redc1c4,
>>> who's been on more LOGPAC convoys than you've ever read about.
>> sorry
>>
>> your experience handling cargo simply does not count
>>
>> that is supply, not logistics, no matter what you want to call it
>>
>> Stevedores handle supply
>>
>> Vince
>
> and let the military calls it "Logistics".....
>
> for instance:
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAB/is_5_112/ai_109667385
>
> and
> https://www.nm.ngb.army.mil/DCSLOG/Logistical%20Wizard/Log%20Help%20HTML/1sg/resupply/index.htm
>
> what's really amusing to me (besides your willful obtuseness) is that the
> scenario in the first article clearly has an E-8 in charge, but i, as an E-4,
> routinely lead these activities for my troop.


Im sorry you can cal a tail a leg but it doesn't make it so
An E-4 does supply, not logistics even in the US military


"Part of the Defense Logistics Agency, Logistics Operations (J-3)
includes Acquisition, Technical, and Supply (J-33), Business Management
and Integration (J-35), Distribution and Reutilization Policy (J-37),
Defense Standardization Program Office (J-307), and Internal Review
Office (J-308). Logistics Operations is responsible for the worldwide
logistics support throughout the Department of Defense.

The primary focus of J-3 is to support the warfighter in time of
war and peace. J-3 supports the procurement, management, storage and,
and distribution of 5.2 million items for U. S. military customers,
other federal agencies, and allied forces. To accomplish this mission,
DLA utilizes the support of Supply Centers, a Distribution Center, and
Service Centers.

http://www.supply.dla.mil/


Logistics turns money and other resources into fighting power
Supply delivers stuff to the battlefield
Its Been that way since the Greeks


"The word of logistics originates from the ancient Greek logos (?????),
which means “ratio, word, calculation, reason, speech, oration”.

Logistics is an idea considered to have transformed from the military's
need to supply themselves with arms and ammunition and ration as they
moved from their base to a forward position. In ancient Greek, Roman and
Byzantine empires, there were military officers with the title
‘Logistikas’ who were responsible for financial and supply distribution
matters.

The Oxford English dictionary defines logistics as: “The branch of
military science having to do with procuring, maintaining and
transporting material, personnel and facilities.”Another dictionary
definition is: "The time related positioning of resources." As such,
logistics is commonly seen as a branch of engineering which creates
"people systems" rather than "machine systems"...."


Vince

[Peter Skelton]

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:20:27 -0800, redc1c4
> wrote:

>Peter Skelton wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:42:51 GMT, "La N"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Vince" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >> La N wrote:
>> >>> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
>> >>> message ...
>> >>> >
>> >>>> You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
>> >>>> you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
>> >>>> understand.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Well, Vince, if nothing else, you can bust Colin on very bad grammar ...
>> >>> :)
>> >>>
>> >>> - nilita
>> >>
>> >> he does not know the difference between supply and logistics so the case
>> >> is closed
>> >>
>> >
>> >Well, it has been an "interesting" debate between 2 people, each of whom has
>> >never been known to admit when they have been wrong ...%)
>> >
>> That is not a fair accusation when aimed at Vince.
>>
>> Peter Skelton
>
>cite?
>
>redc1c4,
>who's seen Ponce be wrong many times, but who's never seen him admit it.

I've never seen you admit it either, and I've sure as hell seen
you wrong. (The whole V-22 thing has two wrong sides screaming
yes and no about something clearly unproven.)

What Vince does, like most posters, is abandons a point where he
is clearly incorrect. Pragmatically speaking, it's a good
approach.

The requested reference is in the material I posted, if you have
the wit and expereince to find it.


Peter Skelton

[Peter Skelton]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:22:32 GMT, "La N"
> wrote:

>
>"Vince" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Colin Campbell wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:16:35 -0500, Vince > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Colin Campbell wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:28:54 -0800, redc1c4
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> i've yet to see you defend your claim that all ammunition resupply in
>>>>>> Iraq
>>>>>> is transported via air assets. care to cite the message ID where you
>>>>>> did that?
>>>>>> i certainly provided several definitive cites showing otherwise.
>>>>> The most amusing thing was that the claimed to know how ammunition is
>>>>> moved - but did not even catch on to the term 'Class V.'
>>>> OFCS
>>>>
>>>> You are simply adding to the demonstration of ignorance
>>>>
>>>> "Class V" is a question of supply not logistics
>>>
>>> ROTFL!
>>>
>>> Thank you for demonstrating that you have no clue. Do you really think
>>> that 'classes of supply' and the logistics of
>>> moving them are separate issues?
>>>
>>
>> "logistics of moving them" simply indicates your total ignorance
>>
>> Logistics is logistics whether you are looking at a roman army or a
>> Prussian one .
>>
>> Transport systems are a tiny fraction of the job.
>>
>>
>>> Here is a clue for you (now you can say you have one):
>>>
>>> The term 'priority of supply' is part of the logistics annex in an
>>> Operations Order. Each supply category is given a priority and the
>>> highest priorities are the focus of the logistics effort.
>>
>> supply, not logistics
>> Logistics decides what supplies you can or should have
>>
>>
>>> Here is another clue for you (now you can claim to have _two_ clues!):
>>>
>>> Each class of supply has different movement priorities. For example:
>>> toilet paper (a Class II item) would not be moved by air because it
>>> tends to be a very low priority item.
>>>
>>> Class III and V are high cube and mass items that are typically moved
>>> on the ground. However - air movement is always planned for as a
>>> contingency because of its criticality in fighting a battle. Besides -
>>> you have still not explained why we should take your
>>> uninformed opinion as to the effectiveness of the aircraft over that
>>> of the people who actually fly it and maintain it.
>>
>> For the same reason we ignore horse cavalrymen battleship admirals and
>> air force lunatics who thought B-17s could defend themselves
>>
>>
>> I teach the evaluation of expertise and the problem of conflict of
>> interest. Ipse Dixit just doesn't cut it
>>
>
>Okay, since now I am interested in military logistics, I decided to look it
>up
>myself:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistics
>
>"In military logistics, logistics officers manage how and when to move
>resources to the places they are needed. In military science, maintaining
>one's supply lines while disrupting those of the enemy is a crucial-some
>would say the most crucial-element of military strategy, since an armed
>force without resources and transportation is defenseless.
>
>"The defeat of the British in the American War of Independence, and the
>defeat of Erwin Rommel in World War II, have been largely attributed to
>logistical failure. The historical leaders Hannibal Barca, Alexander the
>Great and the Duke of Wellington are considered to have been logistical
>geniuses."
>
>And from: http://www.army-technology.com/glossary/logistics.html
>
>"Logistics
>Logistics are the area of military operations dealing with the procurement,
>distribution, maintenance, and replacement of materiel and personnel."
>
So supply is a subset of logistics.

(This differes from civilian terminology where supply is usually
provision, at a defined place and time, of inputs to your
logistics system. Your customers look on you as supply.)

Peter Skelton

[Peter Skelton]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:37:23 GMT, "La N"
> wrote:

>
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> In message <slsrj.19263$C61.5339@edtnps89>, La N
>> > writes
>>
>>>Okay, since now I am interested in military logistics, I decided to look
>>>it
>>>up
>>>myself:
>>
>> Two cracking books on the subject, if you're interested: "Supplying War"
>> by Martin van Creveld, and "Lifeblood of War" by Julian Thompson.
>>
>
>Heheheh. What would my friends think if they spotted me reading those books
>on my free time ... :)
>
That the library's logistics system had supplied the wrong
material?


Peter Skelton

[La N]

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:20:27 -0800, redc1c4
> > wrote:
>
>>Peter Skelton wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:42:51 GMT, "La N"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"Vince" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>> >> La N wrote:
>>> >>> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote
>>> >>> in
>>> >>> message ...
>>> >>> >
>>> >>>> You said something dumb - then myself and red started making fun of
>>> >>>> you by - using standardized logistics terminology that you did not
>>> >>>> understand.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Well, Vince, if nothing else, you can bust Colin on very bad grammar
>>> >>> ...
>>> >>> :)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> - nilita
>>> >>
>>> >> he does not know the difference between supply and logistics so the
>>> >> case
>>> >> is closed
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Well, it has been an "interesting" debate between 2 people, each of
>>> >whom has
>>> >never been known to admit when they have been wrong ...%)
>>> >
>>> That is not a fair accusation when aimed at Vince.
>>>
>>> Peter Skelton
>>
>>cite?
>>
>>redc1c4,
>>who's seen Ponce be wrong many times, but who's never seen him admit it.
>
> I've never seen you admit it either, and I've sure as hell seen
> you wrong.

Ayup. Not admitting that one is wrong seems to be a defended Usenet
"disease".

> (The whole V-22 thing has two wrong sides screaming
> yes and no about something clearly unproven.)
>
> What Vince does, like most posters, is abandons a point where he
> is clearly incorrect. Pragmatically speaking, it's a good
> approach.

It is one approach. And, now, can you tell me where Vince has been
"incorrect"? :)

I'm being facetious. I do believe that most posters believe themselves to
be *right* all of the time; and, if they "abaondon a point" knowing they're
wrong, it's barely noticeable.

Anyway, this supply/logistics debate seems to be about semantics. People
can mean what they want it to mean. The "proper" [military] definition and
distinct interpretation is helpful.

- nilita

[La N]

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:37:23 GMT, "La N"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>>> In message <slsrj.19263$C61.5339@edtnps89>, La N
>>> > writes
>>>
>>>>Okay, since now I am interested in military logistics, I decided to look
>>>>it
>>>>up
>>>>myself:
>>>
>>> Two cracking books on the subject, if you're interested: "Supplying War"
>>> by Martin van Creveld, and "Lifeblood of War" by Julian Thompson.
>>>
>>
>>Heheheh. What would my friends think if they spotted me reading those
>>books
>>on my free time ... :)
>>
> That the library's logistics system had supplied the wrong
> material?
>

It's bad enough that I had to return a book, unread, due to lack of time and
not wanting to pay the library fine. It's a book I would rather read than
one on military logistics ... :).

And, btw, I'm wondering if anybody here has read the book in question.
It's: _Too Far from Home: A Story of Life and Death in Space_
by Chris Jones (Author)

Here is an editorial review from amazon.com:

"Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
When the space shuttle Columbia broke up during its re-entry into Earth's
atmosphere in February 2003, two American astronauts were still aboard the
International Space Station, along with a Russian flight engineer. With
further NASA flights suspended for months, perhaps years, questions began to
emerge not only about how to bring the three men back, but how to provide
them with enough supplies while they remained in space. Jones first wrote
about the Expedition 6 team in an award-winning article for Esquire (where
he is a contributing editor), and his story combines gripping narrative and
strongly defined characters. Though extensive accounts of the Americans'
backgrounds seems at first to put the brakes on, it's a necessary
counterweight to parallel passages about the little-understood Russian space
program-essential information because the three eventually took "an
accelerated, lung-crushing dive" in a Soyuz capsule. In addition to that
adventure, Jones's reporting is filled with details of life aboard the space
station, from the amazing beauty of a space walk to the more mundane problem
of "taking a crap" in zero gravity. That sort of frank talk enhances
readers' identification with the astronauts, making their drama all the more
engrossing. (Mar. 6) "

- nilita

[Colin Campbell[_3_]]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:37:46 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message <slsrj.19263$C61.5339@edtnps89>, La N
> writes
>
>>Okay, since now I am interested in military logistics, I decided to look it
>>up
>>myself:
>
>Two cracking books on the subject, if you're interested: "Supplying War"
>by Martin van Creveld, and "Lifeblood of War" by Julian Thompson.

IMO the best book for learning about 'real world' military logistics
is the chapter on the subject in the book: 'How To Make War' by James
Dunnigan.



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

[La N]

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote in
message ...
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:37:46 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
>
>>In message <slsrj.19263$C61.5339@edtnps89>, La N
> writes
>>
>>>Okay, since now I am interested in military logistics, I decided to look
>>>it
>>>up
>>>myself:
>>
>>Two cracking books on the subject, if you're interested: "Supplying War"
>>by Martin van Creveld, and "Lifeblood of War" by Julian Thompson.
>
> IMO the best book for learning about 'real world' military logistics
> is the chapter on the subject in the book: 'How To Make War' by James
> Dunnigan.
>
>

Okay, that I've heard of.

- nilita

[Vince]

La N wrote:
> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote
> in message ...
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:37:46 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> In message <slsrj.19263$C61.5339@edtnps89>, La N
>>> > writes
>>>
>>>> Okay, since now I am interested in military logistics, I
>>>> decided to look it up myself:
>>> Two cracking books on the subject, if you're interested:
>>> "Supplying War" by Martin van Creveld, and "Lifeblood of War" by
>>> Julian Thompson.
>> IMO the best book for learning about 'real world' military
>> logistics is the chapter on the subject in the book: 'How To Make
>> War' by James Dunnigan.
>>
>>
>
> Okay, that I've heard of.
>
> - nilita
>
>

the naval classic for the front end of fleet logistics is
Beans Bullets and Black oil

http://ftp.metalab.unc.edu/hyperwar/USN/BBBO/BBBO-2.html

The back end is
shipbuilding and similar procurement

Vince

[La N]

"Vince" > wrote in message
. ..
> La N wrote:
>> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote
>> in message ...
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:37:46 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <slsrj.19263$C61.5339@edtnps89>, La N
>>>> > writes
>>>>
>>>>> Okay, since now I am interested in military logistics, I
>>>>> decided to look it up myself:
>>>> Two cracking books on the subject, if you're interested:
>>>> "Supplying War" by Martin van Creveld, and "Lifeblood of War" by
>>>> Julian Thompson.
>>> IMO the best book for learning about 'real world' military
>>> logistics is the chapter on the subject in the book: 'How To Make
>>> War' by James Dunnigan.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Okay, that I've heard of.
>>
>> - nilita
>>
>>
>
> the naval classic for the front end of fleet logistics is
> Beans Bullets and Black oil
>
> http://ftp.metalab.unc.edu/hyperwar/USN/BBBO/BBBO-2.html
>
> The back end is
> shipbuilding and similar procurement
>
> Vince

Okay, another idea. You know, I really *do* look these things up when you
guys pique my interest. But, I'm also overbooking myself with *other*
projects and stuff to read ...%)

And, btw, I just went to amazon.com to look at these books.

Interestingly, customers that bought Colin's suggested "How To Make War"
also bought such selections as: "Dictionary of Modern War" by Edward
Luttwak, "How To Stop a War" by Dunnigan, "War: Ends and Means" by Angelo
Codevilla.

"Beans Bullets and Black Oil" seems to be out of print or out of stock.

- nilita

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 10, 3:11 pm, "La N" > wrote:
> "Vince" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
>
>
> > La N wrote:
> >> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote
> >> in messagenews:ihkuq3hm3ipao88pp106pt4ql0rdeijj54@4ax .com...
> >>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:37:46 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> >>> > wrote:
>
> >>>> In message <slsrj.19263$C61.5339@edtnps89>, La N
> >>>> > writes
>
> >>>>> Okay, since now I am interested in military logistics, I
> >>>>> decided to look it up myself:
> >>>> Two cracking books on the subject, if you're interested:
> >>>> "Supplying War" by Martin van Creveld, and "Lifeblood of War" by
> >>>> Julian Thompson.
> >>> IMO the best book for learning about 'real world' military
> >>> logistics is the chapter on the subject in the book: 'How To Make
> >>> War' by James Dunnigan.
>
> >> Okay, that I've heard of.
>
> >> - nilita
>
> > the naval classic for the front end of fleet logistics is
> > Beans Bullets and Black oil
>
> >http://ftp.metalab.unc.edu/hyperwar/USN/BBBO/BBBO-2.html
>
> > The back end is
> > shipbuilding and similar procurement
>
> > Vince
>
> Okay, another idea. You know, I really *do* look these things up when you
> guys pique my interest. But, I'm also overbooking myself with *other*
> projects and stuff to read ...%)
>
> And, btw, I just went to amazon.com to look at these books.
>
> Interestingly, customers that bought Colin's suggested "How To Make War"
> also bought such selections as: "Dictionary of Modern War" by Edward
> Luttwak, "How To Stop a War" by Dunnigan, "War: Ends and Means" by Angelo
> Codevilla.
>
> "Beans Bullets and Black Oil" seems to be out of print or out of stock.
>
> - nilita

Depends on whether you want to spend $68 (low) or $450 (high) from
Alibris.

[Vince]

La N wrote:
> "Vince" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> La N wrote:
>>> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote
>>> in message ...
>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:37:46 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <slsrj.19263$C61.5339@edtnps89>, La N
>>>>> > writes
>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, since now I am interested in military logistics, I
>>>>>> decided to look it up myself:
>>>>> Two cracking books on the subject, if you're interested:
>>>>> "Supplying War" by Martin van Creveld, and "Lifeblood of War" by
>>>>> Julian Thompson.
>>>> IMO the best book for learning about 'real world' military
>>>> logistics is the chapter on the subject in the book: 'How To Make
>>>> War' by James Dunnigan.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Okay, that I've heard of.
>>>
>>> - nilita
>>>
>>>
>> the naval classic for the front end of fleet logistics is
>> Beans Bullets and Black oil
>>
>> http://ftp.metalab.unc.edu/hyperwar/USN/BBBO/BBBO-2.html
>>
>> The back end is
>> shipbuilding and similar procurement
>>
>> Vince
>
> Okay, another idea. You know, I really *do* look these things up when you
> guys pique my interest. But, I'm also overbooking myself with *other*
> projects and stuff to read ...%)
>
> And, btw, I just went to amazon.com to look at these books.
>
> Interestingly, customers that bought Colin's suggested "How To Make War"
> also bought such selections as: "Dictionary of Modern War" by Edward
> Luttwak, "How To Stop a War" by Dunnigan, "War: Ends and Means" by Angelo
> Codevilla.
>
> "Beans Bullets and Black Oil" seems to be out of print or out of stock.
>
> - nilita
>
>
>
the cite has the book its on the web

Vince

[La N]

"Vince" > wrote in message
. ..
> La N wrote:
>> "Vince" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> La N wrote:
>>>> "Colin Campbell" (remove underscore)> wrote
>>>> in message ...
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:37:46 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <slsrj.19263$C61.5339@edtnps89>, La N
>>>>>> > writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Okay, since now I am interested in military logistics, I
>>>>>>> decided to look it up myself:
>>>>>> Two cracking books on the subject, if you're interested:
>>>>>> "Supplying War" by Martin van Creveld, and "Lifeblood of War" by
>>>>>> Julian Thompson.
>>>>> IMO the best book for learning about 'real world' military
>>>>> logistics is the chapter on the subject in the book: 'How To Make
>>>>> War' by James Dunnigan.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Okay, that I've heard of.
>>>>
>>>> - nilita
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the naval classic for the front end of fleet logistics is
>>> Beans Bullets and Black oil
>>>
>>> http://ftp.metalab.unc.edu/hyperwar/USN/BBBO/BBBO-2.html
>>>
>>> The back end is
>>> shipbuilding and similar procurement
>>>
>>> Vince
>>
>> Okay, another idea. You know, I really *do* look these things up when
>> you guys pique my interest. But, I'm also overbooking myself with
>> *other* projects and stuff to read ...%)
>>
>> And, btw, I just went to amazon.com to look at these books.
>>
>> Interestingly, customers that bought Colin's suggested "How To Make War"
>> also bought such selections as: "Dictionary of Modern War" by Edward
>> Luttwak, "How To Stop a War" by Dunnigan, "War: Ends and Means" by Angelo
>> Codevilla.
>>
>> "Beans Bullets and Black Oil" seems to be out of print or out of stock.
>>
>> - nilita
>>
>>
>>
> the cite has the book its on the web
>

Yeah, after I posted the above, I looked at the cite. It has various
chapters available to read. Bookmarked.

- nilita

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Colin Campbell
> writes
>>Two cracking books on the subject, if you're interested: "Supplying War"
>>by Martin van Creveld, and "Lifeblood of War" by Julian Thompson.
>
>IMO the best book for learning about 'real world' military logistics
>is the chapter on the subject in the book: 'How To Make War' by James
>Dunnigan.

It's okay as an introduction, but it's a summary with some rules of
thumb: good as a start, but I've had it quoted at me as if it were
Gospel.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com