Re: [OT] Question from the news

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:36:09 -0500 "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@magma.ca>
writes:
<snip>
>
>2. I keep seeing these sideways V symbols on 
>various armoured vehicles. Some seem to point 
>back, others forward. Any armour crew out 
>there who can suggest what their purpose is? 
>

I thought these were used last war to help identify "our guys" from
"their guys"...
<snip>

>4. I have heard that the Iraqis are using pickups 
>with TOW mounts. Ignoring the question of how 
>they got there, does this remind anyone else of 
>the DS2 size 1 vehicle with GMS/H which we 
>always tend to lament about? Panzer Nissan 
>anyone? (and effective, by all accounts)
>

They borrowed them from Chad?

There is nothing new under the sun...

>Thanks for the information.
>
>Tomb
>PS - Is anyone else annoyed that they keep 
>differentiating servicemen and women on 
>combat operations killed in aircrashes etc. 
>"accidental" casualties as differentiated from 
>"combat" casualties? That really burns my butt. 
>The distinction will be largely lost upon the 
>families I suspect. 
>
Very true but...

I prefer to have them differentiated for the reason that it 

1) reminds me that  there are losses with no combat occurring - back a
tank over yourself directing it to a parking spot...  Automobile
accidents (a favorite American casualty...) and people are casualties
from disease (STD and the more discuss able kind) are still casualties

2) reminds me that flight operations are not necessarily more dangerous
as more unforgiving of error

3) is an indicator (by comparing losses) of level of combat (more combat
a higher % of losses are combat losses - 18 year old soldiers drive
pretty much the same in combat and out of combat...

Gracias,
Glenn

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com