Well, even though traitor Rumsfeld couldn’t get away with screwing our troops out of hazard pay and stealing support from their families, at least he has managed to incompetently fail to equip them with the rifle that is a fundamental piece of US equipment.
Except that your article does not even mention Rumsfeld. Why not blame the Generals in charge? Do you think they don’t have the authority to issue rifles w/o written permission from Rumsfeld. Also, you need to look up the definition of treason. Weasling out with the “bordering” qualifier is a great little debating tactic.
The article does mention that these are troops in an armor battalion. They normally don’t need rifles. More than the current allocation of rifles would just be one more thing to carry in a limited space.
The worst you can accuse the army of here is bureaucratic inefficiency in not supplying these troops with proper equipment for the role that they are currently playing. But there’s no hint in the article that the shortage of rifles is due to penny-pinching or cost cutting.
While I have absolutely zero love for Rummy, a few things:
-
Deciding on the Table of Organization & Equipment for an armored battalion isn’t directly within Rumsfeld’s purview. The article states that each tank crew of 4 is issued with 2 assault rifles and 4 pistols.
-
Troops in the field deciding to equip themselves with what they consider to be necessary equipment outside of their TO&E is common practice in wartime.
-
The fact that they are issuing themselves AK’s rather than ‘borrowing’ or bartering for extra M-16s or M-4s from US sources isn’t unheard of. The AK was preferred by some in Vietnam, despite the danger of having the sound be mistaken for enemy fire due to it’s ease of maintenance and ability to stand up to harsh conditions and still be in firing order. The AK-47 and AKM also fire a 7.62mm round as opposed to the 5.56mm used in US rifles and the 5.45mm used in the AK-74. Some prefer its greater stopping power. These are also noted in the article.
So while as I said I have a lot of gripes with Rumsfeld, I don’t think this stands up as one of them.
I saw similar comments on this when the US was fighting Phillipino Tribesmen last century… and the 1911 Pistol was welcome for its knockdown power.
Interesting article… does show why the AK 47 is so widely available and used. I myself would have avoided carrying a rifle of the “enemy” that might get me some friendly fire my way. Also if they are “spraying” like they said… and saying it kills better I would be scared. Sounded pretty reckless.
I must agree thou that Rummy has little to do with it, besides putting tank men in that situation in the first place of course, of not planning a proper post-invasion plan, nor sending more troops or giving any troops specific training… but even then tankers wouldnt get more rifles probably.
Got no idea what definition of ‘treason’ the OP is working with . . . I feel it’s going to have to be creative.
" Incompetence bordering on treason."
And failing to properly equip our troops, when the US military has so much (of our tax money) is pretty darn close.
I live in a part of the US where every family has a son or daughter in the service, or a close friend does. This produces no good feelings.
I think it is much worse to assign an armored unit to do police work, but Rumsfeld refuses to send in enough enough of the forces trained and equipped for the that job, so it falls to who ever is handy.
Currently, mechanized units are assigned to occupation duties, not pure ‘tank’ units, as some of you are alluding to. (Not that the modern US Army uses pure tank formations anymore.)
The difference between, say, the 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) and the 1st Armored Division are minimal. I think the 1st AD has one extra tank-heavy battalion, if that.
Anyhow, a Stryker brigade (3/2ID) will be over there within a few months, with the eventual plan being to replace most of the tracked units over there with medium brigades.
Speaking of tracked units, thanks for the answer over in GQ: How far can I go before changing the tracks on my Tank ?
Given the limitations of these vehicles, a move to something lighter does seem to be in order for what’s becoming a long term occupation.
I don’t see the “treason” argument myself. At worst it’s a bit of poor planning.
Down at battalion level, by the books it still does:TO&E ARMOR BATTALION, CONSERVATIVE HEAVY DIVISION. An armored battalion has 3 tanks companies (down from 4 in prior establishment) and no organic mechanized infantry. In practice, mechanized infantry and armored battalions swap a company so that they each have 2 and 1 in a battalion task force, but at battalion level armor and mechanized infantry are still ‘pure’ in their paper establishment.