[xlib]

I'm not a vet, just an Air Force brat (both my parents were military) and an amateur historian. Vets, help me out: has there ever been a time when the military was not plagued by shortages of one kind or another?

[fso301]

has there ever been a time when the military was not plagued by shortages of one kind or another?

No.

[GunnyB]

I'm not a vet, just an Air Force brat (both my parents were military) and an amateur historian. Vets, help me out: has there ever been a time when the military was not plagued by shortages of one kind or another?

As any reputable vet will tell you, the military NEVER has everything they want. Most of the time they have everything they NEED though. Look, the thing that bothers me most about all this nay-saying is that virtually NONE of the reporters have had any experience in the military. To them, leading their protected lives not having dinner one or two nights is nearly criminal - to a Marine, it's just motivation to get the mission accomplished faster.

If these sanctimonious folks were really supporting the troops they would lay off criticizing the Commander in Chief - whom these troops love.

[tiki]

I just replied to someone else about the lack of equipment of our men in the Pacific in WWII. Honest to God, for training on the big guns at Ft. Bliss they pretended to load the gun, set it off, and threw big rocks and yelled "boom". When sent to the Phillippines they had never fired the large guns that they were to man and didn't get to until the first battle. Everything they had was from WWI.

My father-in-law in the Navy was in the water for hours after his ship sank and their life jackets were worthless, rat eaten rags.

One of the reasons that we were so low on weapons is that we had promised England half of our weapons production because they were worse off than we were.