Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite.
*******************************
The first thing I did this morning was ping the public affairs types to see what will fall from their tree regarding the wave of negative reporting about the Marine's new very light assault vehicle, the Growler. From simple snark, to rather more substantive whackage...
I'm sure Major General Catto is having a fun week. Probably about as much fun as the guys and gals in charge of Army Emergency Relief, a charity I've been donating to for decades.
**********************************
If nothing else, Great Britain's experiments in multi-culturalism can be instructive for fighting the assimiliationist fight here in the United States. From the Daily Telegraph:
Heh. As Andrew Stuttaford wonders, over at The Corner,
Heh. But, the same argument used in the opening paragraph of the Telegraph piece can be used to whack faith-based schools, and not just the Muslim ones.
Very hard to craft a one-size-fits-all solution to that question, which is what the courts and politicians will want.
But wait, there's more! Brit Jihadi running-dogs do their bit from the home front...
And, as Mark Steyn notes... up in Canada:
We live in interesting times. Now we know why it's a chinese curse, not a blessing. -the Armorer
*************************************
Points to ponder.
Note that Congresscritters have a reaction time measured in nanoseconds when they're faced with an issue which could embarass *them*, a l'affaire Burris, but when it's an issue which affects your safety and mine -- ehhhhhh, not so fast... -- Bill
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Email from a buddy reference the "Growler."
Heh. Indeed. -the Armorer
*************************************
*******************************
The first thing I did this morning was ping the public affairs types to see what will fall from their tree regarding the wave of negative reporting about the Marine's new very light assault vehicle, the Growler. From simple snark, to rather more substantive whackage...
The Marine Corps will pay $127,250 each for 400-500 upgraded Growlers it is buying as part of a $300 million contract with General Dynamics under a teaming agreement with American Growler.
Under that contract, the Marine Corps intends to use the Growlers in pairs, one to tow a French-made 120mm rifled mortar and the other to pull an ammunition trailer made by Mercedes-Benz. Growler's design parameters were factored to fit one specific aircraft, the corps' controversial V-22 Osprey, a fixed-wing, tilt-rotor aircraft that can hover like a helicopter, but also fly at the higher speeds of conventional planes.
Known as the Expeditionary Fire Support System, or EFSS, the truck-trailer-mortar combination is an integral part of the war-fighting concept of ``ship-to-objective maneuver.' The Ospreys, each with a Growler and the mortar or the ammo trailer inside, would launch from ships, bypassing coastal defenses to land deep in enemy territory, unload and attack enemy targets.
While Maj. Gen. Catto has steadfastly defended EFSS in general and the Growler contract in particular, he can't be happy with the White House decision to blacklist the EFSS program after the Office of Management and Budget singled it out as an example of ``programs that are not performing,' according to ExpectMore.gov, a web site unveiled by OMB on 6 Feb.
I'm sure Major General Catto is having a fun week. Probably about as much fun as the guys and gals in charge of Army Emergency Relief, a charity I've been donating to for decades.
The AER guys didn't do a great job of defending themselves - or, if they did, AP did a great job of not mentioning it - so I'm poking around at that, too. Because I've given them a fair piece of change over the years. As has my father. Only heard one side of the story - but as someone who dabbles in the charitable organization pond, you can lose your reputation in an instant, and take years to regain it. -the ArmorerFORT BLISS, Texas – As soldiers stream home from Iraq and Afghanistan, the biggest charity inside the U.S. military has been stockpiling tens of millions of dollars meant to help put returning fighters back on their feet, an Associated Press investigation shows.
Between 2003 and 2007 — as many military families dealt with long war deployments and increased numbers of home foreclosures — Army Emergency Relief grew into a $345 million behemoth. During those years, the charity packed away $117 million into its own reserves while spending just $64 million on direct aid, according to an AP analysis of its tax records.
**********************************
If nothing else, Great Britain's experiments in multi-culturalism can be instructive for fighting the assimiliationist fight here in the United States. From the Daily Telegraph:
“Some Muslim schools teach social cohesion, others regard it as a deadly sin. Some schools impart the skills necessary for a fulfilling life alongside non-Muslim friends and co-workers, others try to recreate a Pakistani or Bangladeshi lifestyle and to make it exclusive.
Heh. As Andrew Stuttaford wonders, over at The Corner,
Looking at it from a US perspective it also raises awkward questions for those of us who favor school choice: do we really want taxpayer-funded Madrassas?
Heh. But, the same argument used in the opening paragraph of the Telegraph piece can be used to whack faith-based schools, and not just the Muslim ones.
Music, chess and cricket are just three things banned in some Muslim schools in the UK. Others are drama, dance, sport, Shakespeare, and, in some cases, any aspect of Western culture whatever. According to the management committee of London's Madani Secondary Girls' School, this is because "our children are exposed to a culture that is in opposition with almost everything Islam stands for". The response to this sense of danger is often to forbid outright any kind of relationship with non-Muslims: "Allah has warned us in the Koran, do not befriend the kuffaar. The Jews and Christians will never be content with you until you follow their way," says Riyadhul Haq, a teacher in Kidderminster.
Very hard to craft a one-size-fits-all solution to that question, which is what the courts and politicians will want.
But wait, there's more! Brit Jihadi running-dogs do their bit from the home front...
And, as Mark Steyn notes... up in Canada:
As the International Free Press Society notes, Said Namouh is on trial up north for aiding and abetting terrorism. The Crown charges that Mr Namouh distributed jihadist snuff videos, offered advice on bomb-making, volunteered his expertise for a planned truck bombing, and threatened governnments (including Canada's) with troops in Afghanistan. Defense counsel René Duvall doesn't deny any of this, but says his client's enthusiasm for violent jihad is protected on grounds of freedom of religion and (mirthless chuckle from your humble typist) Canadians' cherished right to freedom of expression. As Maître Duvall put it outside the court, "Where do you draw the line?"
We live in interesting times. Now we know why it's a chinese curse, not a blessing. -the Armorer
*************************************
Points to ponder.
Steve Chealander is a Vietnam vet and former military advisor to President Reagan, and a former American Airlines pilot and manager. He was appointed as a Member of the NTSB by then-President George W. Bush, and, when his term as a Member expired on December 31, 2007, President Bush nominated him to a full five-year term. His nomination for that full term has been stalled in the Senate since January 3, 2008, and Chealander is now leaving the NTSB effective February 28.Steven Chealander, the National Transportation Board member who has been heading the investigation into the Feb. 12 Colgan Air crash near Buffalo, is quitting to join Airbus Americas.
Airbus said Chealander will be the company's vice president of technical training, based in Miami.
Note that Congresscritters have a reaction time measured in nanoseconds when they're faced with an issue which could embarass *them*, a l'affaire Burris, but when it's an issue which affects your safety and mine -- ehhhhhh, not so fast... -- Bill
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Email from a buddy reference the "Growler."
John,
I was reading your BLOG about the Growler.
Bad name. The term "Growler" is already used to describe a specific form of Class I download which occurs in the field after a night of refried beans, chile and beer.
JW
Heh. Indeed. -the Armorer
*************************************
*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires. Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute. Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is. The UAVs we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now. Of course, now I have to call them UAS's, because someone got a Legion of Merit for the name change.Anyway, I call the post H&I Fires because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to that particular topic. Another term of art that might be appropriate is Free Fire Zone.
This would sound Monty Python-esquely absurd, if it weren't so deadly serious and real.
And how much ammo does that howitzer come with? Are the Marines going to use the Osprey to air-drop them more?
Also, what are the rest of the Marines with that unit doing, walking?
Dunno. Sounds kinda screwy to me.
If the rules state that only a ascertain percentage of principal can be dispensed in any one given year to preserve the fund, then no foul. But if people start treating the fund as a political forum, then its time to put in a fix. Some funds, Ford being the most prominent, have been taken over by such liberal managers that one has to be just to the left of Karl Marx to get funded.
Whoever thought *that* was a good idea is long overdue for a pee-in-the-bottle test. And I'm serious -- there's no way that combination can qualify as a shoot-and-scoot asset, considering the amount of time it takes to unload, configure, and then reload aboard the V-22, without even counting firing time. If the Marines try to use that in actual combat, the result will be dead Marines and junked V-22s and Growlers.
Vertical envelopment is quit different from air assault. The former is a maneuver to place war-fighters at a new access of attack, the latter is to place the war-fighters directly in the fight.
I ask because "accounting" numbers given for military costs can often include many things and much much more than just the thing in the photo.
Interesting... and if one replaces "Jews and Christians" with "Muslims", we get the proper Muslim mindset according to the Koran. Oh, but there's more: "Allah has warned us in the Koran, do not befriend the kuffaar." Jews and Christians proselytize via befriending people, but Muslims are to do so through other means, apparently. Hmm...
In other news, what the heck is wrong with these people?!
I do know what the intent is of such a vehicle and why something like it is needful.
The USMC has completed the testing of the doctrine and practice of Distributed Operations (DO). That will be the strategy of placing smaller units over a wider area of concern that can operate independently and/or with mutual support.
For such an operational doctrine to be valid, there is a need for an intermediate ranged high angle of attack, indirect weapon system greater in range and impact than the 81mm mortar but lighter and with less logistics footprint than standard artillery.
The 120mm mortar fits that bill well enough until something better can be researched and developed. The problem with the 120mm mortar is that it is too heavy to be man-packed. Truck mounting and/or truck born logistics is also problematic due to the types of terrain in which the doctrine is most likely to be implemented.
I have no clue if the Growler is worthy as a choice. But I do know that something is needed and it is needed now, not next decade as would be the case if it is put off until the next QDR.
Absolutely correct, Grumpy. And it's absolutely what will *not* happen in the scenario as described.
Let's assume the hostile coastal defenses are either all asleep or too surprised to shoot at a flotilla of V-22s inbound. Then let's assume there are no roving MANPAD teams. Then let's assume there are no hostile fighters or helicopter gunships in the area. Then, let's assume every potential LZ in the enemy's home turf hasn't been surveyed and recorded as a potential artillery FFE target. Assuming all that, you don't need to go in the first place, because the bad guys must have already surrendered.
Now, let's backtrack. Figure you need a minimum of four mortars to do the job. As the mission planner, you'll need one V-22 per Growler with mortar, and another to haul the Growler with ammo trailer and another for the four mortar crews. And you'll need to find an LZ with paved roads leading to the proposed firing position (no cross-country capability for Growler, remember?). The LZ will have to be flat and relatively hard, because otherwise the Growler will roll over as it exits the V-22's rear, and it will have to be large enough to allow the V-22 to make a shallow approach to a landing -- if it descends vertically at a speed in excess of 300 feet per minute, it'll enter a vortex-ring state and crash. Unlike a helicopter in a vortex-ring state, a V-22 *will* roll uncontrollably and catastrophically -- meaning, it will crash inverted and explode.
Okay, you've found your LZ, but it's only big enough for two V-22s to land at a time. However, because you need nine V-22s just to carry the four Growler + mortar and four Growler + ammo trailer + twenty crew folks, you either have to stagger the V-22 arrival times (thus eliminating the advantage of surprise) or have everyone orbit until the first two are offloaded and out of the LZ (thus nullifying the advantage of speed -- DLS -- a fully-loaded Chinook flies just as fast as a fully-loaded V-22). Now, you get everybody on the ground, and the fastest they can get off the LZ is ten minutes *after* the last V-22 has departed, because it takes that long to reassemble the mortar and prep the Growler for movement.
You then realize you could have done the same thing using only four Chinooks rather than nine V-22s and it would have been done in about a tenth of the time. Not only can a Hook *descend* faster, its rear end is wide enough to get the Growlers + mortars in and out without field-stripping them -- and the Hook is big enough to carry the crews along with the cargo.
/ rant + airmobility lesson
Over here, the Hummer is the vehicle of choice for mounting the mortar, but it'll work just as well in the ol' M114 (of which there are several on-FOB).
And yes Casey, I thought they already had taken the name "Growler" for the EF-18. Which is even stranger because the Corps flies Hornets, which means they might one day ask for some EWAR capability, and then confusion would ensue...
Oh and one more thing. Aside from the general disgust I have for Muslim isolationism (just as I have for any cultural or religious isolationism), why would they ban chess from the schools when chess comes from a Persian game?
whatever happened to that? it looked fast, stable, and probably a hell of a lot better at towing this mortar system than this golf cart.
wasn't there a vehicle designed specifically to use in the Osprey? I remember seeng a 4-seat dune buggy of sorts.... -- allen
Rrrrrrrrrrright you are, both of ya! The Growler started out as that very same dune buggy, then all the additional bells and whistles were added -- like, using it as anything other than rapid transportation in a desert environment -- in order to justify buying a bunch of dune buggies...
1) Lindy organized a BRT about AER Tuesday afternoon. Should be interesting.
2) I heard Chealander's appointment has been hung up in red tape for 2 years, so he probably just got tired of waiting around.
All those assumptions you list, other than the flight peculiarities of the Osprey, apply equally to any time any rotor wing craft is used for any operation at any time anywhere for any reason in any combat zone. On the flight aspects, not a clue from me. I'm no zoomy. But the Osprey has been getting some use in various applications. Maybe you've heard some grief on the bird? Pilots do talk to each other on things that may not ever make the news.
But on all the tactical issues, you sound like you believe that the USMC has never done that sort of thing before? Us grunt types too stupid to consider the duh level basics of such things?
Vertical envelopment has been a standard part of the USMC operational set since the USMC got the choppers to pull it off.
But, it still happens and happens successfully. Happens with direct offloads right in the scumbags faces... happens with offloading from a standoff range... happens.
Now, another thing you just might want to consider.
Iraq is not the whole war, nor is it the last battlespace. Marines and Army have been working in Afghanistan, for example. Wildy differing terrain issues in that place. Marines have also worked in the Horn of Africa AO. Again, not only differing terrain, but far away from the super large cluster gaggle of over done massive logistical support that such highly developed confrontation spots as Iraq have on hand. There, Marine units are very much arse out if, when, intermediate ranged indirect fire support is necessary. Having a weapon system that is longer ranged than the 81 and more available than the 155 is gonna be nice, from a grunt perspective.
Also, there are many places a lighter vehicle expressly designed for difficult terrain will be able to access, that a HUMV or a truck, or whatever else is available can do.
on another note...
Has anyone done a "consider the source" on the numbers coming out? I haven't yet in this issue, but I do recall many times in the past when screeching and wailing about this that or the other piece of gear in the pipeline was generated by idiots, nimrods, morons, dumb***es and retards.
Just wondering on the pedigree for this latest bit of media.
Again, I have no clue if this new Growler is a lemon or not. But I do know what it is that is trying to be accomplished with it. There are needs for light haul carriers that can go places HMMVs cant.
Some of the complaints I've read so far target the fact that the Growler isn't armored. Unfortunately, there is a real need for a light haul utility vehicle that is light enough to traverse the kinds of terrain that armored vehicles, such as the uparmored HMMV just can't manage. Where HMMVs can go, such as built up urban areas, the HMMV will be available for the duty. But in heavily forested, jungle, rough broken ground, and the like, a lighter vehicle is required and at this time, there's just nothing much to use for such.
Another issue in the mix is the cost overruns. That has become so standard a problem that I doubt its possible to produce anything in the system as it currently stands without substantial cost increases as it goes through the pipe.
Yet another issue brought up is that the Growler can not safely transport ammo via its trailer rig due to rollover problems. Not having seen the tests, I don't know whether that's true or sour grapes from a loser in the competition.
And, finally, the accusation that it was all an inside deal. That comes from the fact that a USMC Col.(ret) runs the company or is employed by the company that won the competition and that the Col. was a friend of General Catto, who managed the program development for the USMC.
The USMC is a small organization. I doubt there's many who reach the rank of Col. that aren't on a first name basis with everyone else of that rank and a good portion of those ranked above within the Corps.
Not every fight in the year(s) directly ahead will be heavy urbanized. Not every fight will be conducted with the massive logistics support available as it is in Iraq. Not every fight is going to be conducted with 100+ thousand troops on hand for support. And with the USMC in particular, not every fight will be within support range of standard artillery emplacements. The Corps needs something to cover the gaps.
Added to what was mentioned in the previous comment, there's also a fair high probability of flare ups in such places as the Philippine Islands, Somalia will have to be revisited eventually (and not all of Somalia is urban Mogadishu). Other countries in the Africa AO are having problems that will eventually need to be addressed by overt force on our part too.
I'm not picking a fight to back the Growler as the choice but I am very much unimpressed with news that comes from Senator Levin as the instigator.
does anyone know which congressman has the Growler factory in his district?
the flyer 21
http://www.adi-aero.com/flyer/index.htm
the chenoworth strike vehicle
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/100-mph-battle.html
(sure it's from singapore. but we could make it under license...)
spider light strike vehicle
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/spider_light_strike/
Second biggest problem is that all those cool tiedown points at the wheel wells will invite troops to pile on lots of gear, strap it down, and throw the c.g. even higher.
I can see the warning placard already: "Do not operate this vehicle on other than level, paved surfaces. Do not attempt to turn this vehicle at speeds in excess of 10 mph."
...then why not get some proper dune buggies like the SEALs used to have, stuff them into C-130s, get there faster, LAPES drop them one after the other, and have the entire insertion finished in a matter of minutes?
Why LAPES them when you can drive them out of a CH-47D and not have to worry about destroying the buggies if they take a bad bump or break a tiedown during the rollout? Plus LAPES still leaves you with the problem of getting the *crew* on the ground -- even a Marine will have second thoughts about the wisdom of being yanked out the rear door of a C-130 travelling at 80 knots 10 feet off the ground...
Because you get there twice as fast and you don't have any aircraft sitting still on the ground.
Plus LAPES still leaves you with the problem of getting the *crew* on the ground
You don't need it for them, just give them regular parachutes, they know how to get out the back of moving C-130s.
If your LZ isn't at least a half mile long, there isn't a C-130 crew in existence that'll think twice about turning it down, and unless you drop the crews from at least 400 feet AGL, most of them will need to be medevaced out after they hit. Which still leaves you with a requirement for helicopters.
Geez, you starched-wing types will go through all *kinds* of gyrations trying to justify breaking stuff just to prove that you can sometimes do the same things helicopters do normally.
Here's one for your C-130 guys to plan -- the LZ's under double-canopy and they'll have to fly out backwards...
*Done* that!
If your LZ isn't at least a half mile long, there isn't a C-130 crew in existence that'll think twice about turning it down, and unless you drop the crews from at least 400 feet AGL, most of them will need to be medevaced out after they hit. Which still leaves you with a requirement for helicopters.
We're clearly talking about different situations...I thought the whole point was to insert them into some kinda valley or some other LZ that you have to descend to...wasn't that your whole complaint with the Ospreys, that they can't go DOWN fast enough? The idea is that the first set of aircraft dive and then climb, and they LAPES the equipment at the bottom of their arc, while the next set of aircraft just fly straight and level from the top of one mountain or skyscraper or whatever the hell it is, to the next one, and in between them, the jarheads jump out the back, and tada, 400+ feet AGL.
Geez, you starched-wing types will go through all *kinds* of gyrations trying to justify breaking stuff just to prove that you can sometimes do the same things helicopters do normally.
Here's one for your C-130 guys to plan -- the LZ's under double-canopy and they'll have to fly out backwards...
Step 1: First C-130 drops a BLU-82.
Step 2: LZ is not under double-canopy.
Step 3: Land, take your time offloading whatever you want, drink a cup of coffee, polish the airplane.
Step 4: Turn the airplane around and fly out backwards.
[snark]Jeez, you spinny-wing types will go through all *kinds* of gyrations trying to justify airshow tricks in a combat zone just to prove that it's okay that you can't ever do the same things airplanes do normally.[/snark]
(Ahaha I'm kidding, you know we love all of you whirligig types...)
When you're in the air, you have to descend to get into *any* LZ, even one that's in the middle of the Bonneville Salt Flats.
Step 1: First C-130 drops a BLU-82.
Okaaaayyyyy...
Step 2: LZ is not under double-canopy.
Okaaaayyyyy...
Step 3: Land, take your time offloading whatever you want, drink a cup of coffee, polish the airplane.
Nup. Land and spend the next ten hours hauling the Herky out of the crater. It'll be a *shallow* crater, but it'll be steeper than a C-130 can drive up...
Your serve.
Not if your cruising altitude is 10 feet AGL! *evil grin*
Nup. Land and spend the next ten hours hauling the Herky out of the crater. It'll be a *shallow* crater, but it'll be steeper than a C-130 can drive up...
Your serve.
Steeper than a C-130 can taxi up, but steeper than a C-130 can go up at full power? I doubt it...but if not, then instead of hitting the brakes and stopping at the bottom of the crater when you land, you let it roll to the rim of the crater and park it there. Then, when it's time to leave, you simply go full power down the side of the crater, up the other side, and into the air like a Harrier off a ski-jump.
2. Here there be problems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udk2jOJfoIw
Cheers
The USMC has only 1 battalion of tanks per division of infantry. The USMC also has one regiment of artillery per division.
Much, if not most, of what the USMC deploys as will be in MAU sized force structure. A MAU is one battalion of infantry with assets attached as deemed appropriate for that particular mission.
Artillery is often attached to MAUs but artillery has a much heavier logistics support footprint than is desirable in many cases. There has been a true need for lighter, more flexible and more easily sustainable intermediate ranged indirect fire support for decades for USMC expeditionary units.
The adoption of the 120mm mortar is a new one on me. I'm not even sure where it will go in the OOB. My guess would be as a regiment asset that can be assigned to battalions as needed. But, for all I know, they're either gonna add em to the battalion weapons company or maybe even add them at division as part of the artillery regiment.
BillT:
Just out of curiosity, where do you get the "no cross country capability for the growler"? Also, about the tiedown hooks/overload thing. That could very well end up as the case in units led by morons. I've seen dumber arsed things happen. But, I've also been in units where the folk had a clue and such a thing wouldn't be allowed to take place even on a dare.
Roll over issues would also be something that would be addressed in training and through experience. It's generally useful to remember that not everyone in the infantry is an idiot.
true, but it is also even more useful to plan things so as to account for those of them that are.
This from a tanker.
[sits back to wait for CAPT H to fling a Gunner-related poo]
2. Here there be problems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udk2jOJfoIw
Cheers
Nice videos! The one at the end with the poor guy who parachutes straight into the side of the truck..classic!
Of course, if you intend that as an argument against the use of aerial delivery methods...I have to disagree, no matter what you plan to do, somebody can post a Youtube video of somebody screwing it up. I can post videos of people rolling over or crashing their ATVs/dune buggies/tanks/whatever or having all sorts of embarrassing or horrendous accidents with their helicopters (or airplanes). No matter how you choose to fight your battle, it's always possible for somebody to do it wrong...and for somebody to catch it on video and post it on Youtube.
[Grimmy]The USMC has only 1 battalion of tanks per division of infantry. The USMC also has one regiment of artillery per division.
Much, if not most, of what the USMC deploys as will be in MAU sized force structure. A MAU is one battalion of infantry with assets attached as deemed appropriate for that particular mission.
Artillery is often attached to MAUs but artillery has a much heavier logistics support footprint than is desirable in many cases. There has been a true need for lighter, more flexible and more easily sustainable intermediate ranged indirect fire support for decades for USMC expeditionary units.
Sure, I understand that the Corps doesn't have the ability to just show up anywhere they want with as many tanks as they want, my question was more about the off-roading limitations of our Abrams MBTs...I've never actually driven a tank myself [yet], so I'm rather curious about what their driving characteristics are like.
[Grimmy]Just out of curiosity, where do you get the "no cross country capability for the growler"? [...] Roll over issues would also be something that would be addressed in training and through experience.
I know that wasn't directed to me, but...if it's only four feet wide, it's as tall as it is long, and it's already demonstrated that it can't drive over 15-inch obstacles...I sure as hell wouldn't want to take it off road.
And the idea of training the troops not to roll it is nice...but in a combat situation, something as tippy as a Growler is either going to get rolled over anyway as they try to maneuver fast enough to not get killed, or they're going to get killed due to their failure to maneuver.
Went right over your head ... sorry.
"... not everyone in the infantry is an idiot ..." = transfers to the Gunnery Queens?
Cheers
Um, Josh, remember this?
[sits back to wait for CAPT H to fling a Gunner-related poo]
You have just been hit by Canuckistani-tanker-poo.
As for you, Heinrichs - Kings! Kings, dammit! The INFANTry are the queens!