To: Oldpuppymax
Damn the old farts for refusing to keep up with technology!
2 posted on
02/06/2015 8:49:36 AM PST by
MeganC
(You can ignore reality, but reality won't ignore you.)
To: Oldpuppymax
The tragedy of this episode is that the technologies contained in the Dragon Fire are really inevitable: greater automation, faster response, smaller logistic and human footprint. It has to happen.
I used to joke that if we had the Dragon Fire in Vietnam, theyd be voting Republican today. Even though the Old Guard successfully suppressed the Dragon Fire and kept their older systems, they only delayed the future for a little while. All of these advances worked and worked well and the development will take place again when some younger soldiers and Marines take charge and apply their technologic skills to fire support.
Semper Fi!
4 posted on
02/06/2015 9:00:17 AM PST by
Perseverando
(In Washington it's common knowledge that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible to be POTUS.)
To: Oldpuppymax
I really hate the terms, “Warfighter” and “Warfighting”.
They have such a commie politically correct sound to them. It like someone was afraid to use the term soldier or military.
8 posted on
02/06/2015 9:09:31 AM PST by
BuffaloJack
(When did the 2nd amendment suddenly require a license or permit for a gun?)
To: Oldpuppymax
I wonder how many more lives could have been saved in the past and in future battles with this weapon.
10 posted on
02/06/2015 9:19:00 AM PST by
skyman
To: Oldpuppymax
People who suppressed this should be tried for treason and hung.
11 posted on
02/06/2015 9:19:15 AM PST by
MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
(Freedom is the freedom to discipline yourself so others don't have to do it for you.)
To: Oldpuppymax
This one only takes a 5 man crew.
12 posted on
02/06/2015 9:26:19 AM PST by
Sawdring
To: Oldpuppymax
The biggest plus is that the Dragon Fire can be set up, and then operated remotely. Against a first-rate foe, every mortar and artillery unit can expect to be targeted by counter-battery fire within seconds of firing the first round.
Better would be to incorporate it into an unmanned vehicle, so it can shoot and scoot, and not put human artillery personnel at risk of counter-battery fire.
13 posted on
02/06/2015 9:33:42 AM PST by
PapaBear3625
(You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
To: Oldpuppymax
The Greatest Gun Never Seen
16 posted on
02/06/2015 9:53:59 AM PST by
uglybiker
(nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-BATMAN!)
To: Oldpuppymax
“Needless to say, there was resistance. The old-timers in the artillery community attacked the concept from every direction and their biggest fear was the reduction of manpower. Fewer artillerymen mean smaller battalions. Smaller battalions mean fewer officers needed to lead them and so on. Promotion gets tough when there are fewer colonels spots.”
Had the same experience in the 1970s while working on an air defense development system. The air defense guys kept telling us that their analysis showed the crew would be over worked but could never provide their analysis. Finally, they admitted they had no analysis but wanted to add unnecessary crew in order to avoid losing slots in the air defense battalions. Finally added the slots since they would not support the system if they lost slots.
To: Oldpuppymax
21 posted on
02/06/2015 10:28:28 AM PST by
Chainmail
(A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
To: Oldpuppymax
26 posted on
02/06/2015 10:47:58 AM PST by
Carriage Hill
( Some days you're the windshield, and some days you're just the darned bug.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson