Disabled in the Military
|
|
Grupos de notícias: uk.people.disability, us.military.army, alt.folklore.military, sci.military.naval
De: Brian <br...@connect.comdek.net.au>
Data: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 08:07:27 GMT
Local: Seg 1 jan 2001 06:07
Assunto: Re: Disabled in the Military
When I encountered him, he was a Staff-Sergeant in one of the sabre
squadrons. > > > You already tried ad hom dickhead. I do believe so. I've been utilising USENet longer than you've more > > If you think thats ad hom, then you need your head read. Go look in a > The fact that you are not accomplished at it does not detract from the than probably even known about the existence of computer. I first posted to a newsgroup in late 1987. You? > > > So now we have to design a longer lifed "running leg" that can be They work well enough. Lots of people's normal legs don't work well > quickly > > > fitted to allow bail outs. > > No, we have to simply utilise a "normal use" leg, which a person can run > The problem is that they don't work well cross country. cross country. Ever seen the number of ankle/leg injuries they suffer after a normal military exercise? > > > You do know that most AFV crew spend a considerable amount of time Tank crews _in_an_emergency_ act as infantry. If such an emergency > outside > > > the AFV don't you? or are we going to chain these crews inside as well? > > Yep, but they are not involved in being infantrymen, fool. The speed at > Tank crews are required to do many of the same things as infantry, without arises, they are not going to be utilised in the attack, they'll more than likely be mounting a last ditch defence. In such a situation, then being able to run around is more than likely not going to be of much benefit. > You have noticed that nobody with any military experience here supports you? Each to their own. Do I look worried? I've often taken positions which do not gain much support, at the time but are usually demonstrated to have been on the correct path. > > > > Nope, just a set of legs which are a compromise at all jobs. No, I am suggesting providing adequate legs to combat troops. You seem > > > So you will have a set of legs that are sub par in all areas? > > But which enable them to perform many tasks. Do you really think > They are well evolved to handle the tasks required, wheras you suggest to think only flesh and blood qualify. That is very prejudiced of you. > > > > IYO. IMO it is an interesting hypothesis which should bear What part are you having problems understanding? Do I have to > > > > investigation. > > > OK how do you plan to maintain these tanks? > > Been over this already. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? > Yes, I can't comprehend this "a robot will do it" nonsense, nor can I re-explain it slowly for you? > > > Exactly what proportion of the population are "above the knee" dual I have, several times. Smaller armoured volume equates to either an MBT > > > amputees?, what proportion of that group are fit to join the army? and > what > > > proportion of that group want to join the army? > > No idea and honestly, I don't care. I merely floating an hypothesis > Then show the advantage, you have yet to do that. which is as well armoured for less weight or better armoured for the same weight. Smaller armoured volume means a more compact vehicle, therefore a smaller target. A lighter MBT, means that it has more mobility over and around the battlefield without needing to resort to inordinarily heavy bridging trains. A lighter MBT means a more agile one, with greater watts per tonne ratio for the same given engine power. Getting the picture, yet? > > > "Meet Bob, he is driver for our X hundred tanks" Yep, if they have skills they can transfer. You also have those that > > > Once you have designed a weapon purely to fit this disability how much > > And you point out that if they leave, they'll do _what_ exactly? They > You have noticed that people get out of the armed forces pretty regularly? don't and stay on, literally for life. > There is little to keep them in unless the army pays big bonuses and that If they have easily transferrable skills... > adds to the overall cost of the weapon system. Ignorant fool, the determinant of mobility is weight. Increasing the armoured volume, means you have to cover a greater surface area with armour - the main weight determinant. Increased weight, means you have to increase engine power to cope. This in turns to increased weight, yet again as you have to add more fuel to cope with the great demands of the powerplant. The result is an ever-increasing spiral which is very hard to curtail. One way to reverse it is to decrease the armoured volume, hence the amount of armour required to protect the internal components of the vehicle. At the moment, the proposals are to put autoloaders in, which will partly address the problem but by utilising legless crew, you can carry the process further. > > Alternative solutions to a driver's location have always found to have All though, which have at looking at efforts to reduce the armoured > > compromises that the tankies aren't willing to countenance, such as in > > the case of putting him behind or to one side of the turret, relying > > upon some form of teleoptical system (limited field of views) while the > > in the MBT-70 project, it was attempted to put the driver in the turret, > > in a contra-rotating basket. That was a disaster because of the drivers > > constantly suffering vertigo, because of the constantly moving basket > > and the lack of the visual cues (such as the mudguards) which a driver > > apparently utilises in order to orient himself and the vehicle. > None of which has anything to do with reclining the driver. volume of MBT designs, yes? > > You see, most other solutions have been tried, at one time or another. IYO. I am still exploring its possibilities. > > My proposal is simply another alternative, albeit it is one which hasn't > > IMO been explored fully yet. > Your proposal is simply an insane proposal that has nothing to reccommend > > > The French are hardly known for their mastery at armoured combat, given No. The answer is that you seem to think that because of one major > that > > > those who are known historically for being good at armoured combat are > > > ignoring such ideas in droves I think we can safely write it off as an > > > abberation. > > You're letting your prejudices get in the way again, you realise? > Stock answer 1? "I don't have a real answer to that so I will call it a reverse, this means the French are genetically unable to learn a tactical doctrine. > Feel free to show the French mastery at armoured armoured warfare and why we Never claimed that. Merely pointed out that the French have shown they > should consider their ideas on wartime AFV maint (given such mastery) to be > more valid than those of the US, Brits, Germans or Israelis? can utilise and improve on the same theories as those other nationalities, despite what your prejudice might believe. ... É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||
|
Grupos de notícias: uk.people.disability, us.military.army, alt.folklore.military, sci.military.naval
De: "billh" <williamhud...@sprintmail.com>
Data: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 11:28:30 GMT
Local: Seg 1 jan 2001 09:28
Assunto: Re: Disabled in the Military
"Brian" > No, I am suggesting providing adequate legs to combat troops. You seem Not prejudiced but rational. Name one army that allows a legless man in > to think only flesh and blood qualify. That is very prejudiced of you. their tank corps. É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||
|
Grupos de notícias: uk.people.disability, us.military.army, alt.folklore.military, sci.military.naval
De: Brian <br...@connect.comdek.net.au>
Data: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 15:50:45 GMT
Local: Seg 1 jan 2001 13:50
Assunto: Re: Disabled in the Military
billh wrote: Name one which expressly forbids it. I presume you'll tell me the US > "Brian" > > No, I am suggesting providing adequate legs to combat troops. You seem > Not prejudiced but rational. Name one army that allows a legless man in Army says you need two good eyes in order to command a tank? Ooops, there goes Moishie Dayan! You need two good hands? Oops, there goes Vladimir Peniakov! They're two examples of excellent commanders of an extremely high calibre who you'd discard because they don't fit your prejudices of what constitutes a "soldier". É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||
|
Grupos de notícias: uk.people.disability, us.military.army, alt.folklore.military, sci.military.naval
De: "billh" <williamhud...@sprintmail.com>
Data: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 18:50:01 GMT
Local: Seg 1 jan 2001 16:50
Assunto: Re: Disabled in the Military
"Brian" > > > No, I am suggesting providing adequate legs to combat troops. You U.S. seem > > > to think only flesh and blood qualify. That is very prejudiced of you. > > Not prejudiced but rational. Name one army that allows a legless man in > Name one which expressly forbids it. É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||
|
Grupos de notícias: uk.people.disability, us.military.army, alt.folklore.military, sci.military.naval
De: "L'acrobat" <husk...@dingoblue.net.au>
Data: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 22:49:05 +1100
Local: Seg 1 jan 2001 09:49
Assunto: Re: Disabled in the Military
"Brian" <br...@connect.comdek.net.au> wrote in message I see, he was the Sqn Quartermaster Sgt! - hardly the same as being a combat > > Did he manage an AFV? and was he in the Sqns or one of their support staff - > > you see I suspect that you are not telling the entire truth, SASR will > > frequently keep its injured on, but not in the Sqns. > When I encountered him, he was a Staff-Sergeant in one of the sabre soldier is it? > > The fact that you are not accomplished at it does not detract from the Wow, that length of time on usenet and you still don't seem to have a > > attempt - you do know what ad hom means don't you? > I do believe so. I've been utilising USENet longer than you've more clue - am I meant to be impressed now? > > > No, we have to simply utilise a "normal use" leg, which a person can No they don't. run > > > with. > > The problem is that they don't work well cross country. > They work well enough. > > Tank crews are required to do many of the same things as infantry, > Tank crews _in_an_emergency_ act as infantry. If such an emergency the field? > > You have noticed that nobody with any military experience here supports > Each to their own. Do I look worried? I've often taken positions which > > They are well evolved to handle the tasks required, wheras you suggest Back to standard line 1. > > providing sub par "legs" to combat troops. > No, I am suggesting providing adequate legs to combat troops. You seem Running "prosthetic legs" routinely fail on flat ground, they are not > > > > OK how do you plan to maintain these tanks? The sheer, monumental stupidity of it. > > > Been over this already. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? > > Yes, I can't comprehend this "a robot will do it" nonsense, nor can I > What part are you having problems understanding? > Do I have to Yes, as it stands I can't believe anyone is that stupid as to actually > re-explain it slowly for you? propose such colossal horseshit, please re-explain it. > > > No idea and honestly, I don't care. I merely floating an hypothesis And here is one of your many your fundamental mistakes, most tank shooting > > > about how it _might_ be possible to utilise disabled people to the > > > advantage of the military, thats all. > > Then show the advantage, you have yet to do that. > I have, several times. Smaller armoured volume equates to either an MBT is done from the hull down position, the actual height of the tank is not that important, just the ability of the gun to depress. And given the accuracy of tank main guns you are not going to get a useful >A lighter MBT, means that it has more The US is not looking for a faster tank, they discredited the faster = > mobility over and around the battlefield without needing to resort to > inordinarily heavy bridging trains. A lighter MBT means a more agile > one, with greater watts per tonne ratio for the same given engine > power. Getting the picture, yet? markedly harder to hit idea some time ago in relation to tanks, as it stands you are proposing doubling the logistic requirements (we'll ignore the rest of the stupidity for the moment) so as to be able to use lighter bridging equipment? Do you see the logical inconsistency here? > > You have noticed that people get out of the armed forces pretty > Yep, if they have skills they can transfer. You also have those that who are fit enough to join the army, are prepared to join the army and then become lifers... of course you may want to explain how you will keep these people in when there is no hope of promotion for the majority of them. > > There is little to keep them in unless the army pays big bonuses and > If they have easily transferrable skills... population is fit, dual amputee (or prepared to have it done) and wants to join the army again? > > Stupid, stupid, boy, the combat concern is height - and it does not > Ignorant fool, the determinant of mobility is weight. sigh - are you really that stupid. > Increasing the They currently have all the power they want in AFVs (in fact they govern the > armoured volume, means you have to cover a greater surface area with > armour - the main weight determinant. Increased weight, means you have > to increase engine power to cope. engines down, bonehead). >This in turns to increased weight, Drivel based on stupid assumptions, you neglect the extra logistic burden of > yet again as you have to add more fuel to cope with the great demands of > the powerplant. The result is an ever-increasing spiral which is very > hard to curtail. One way to reverse it is to decrease the armoured > volume, hence the amount of armour required to protect the internal > components of the vehicle. At the moment, the proposals are to put > autoloaders in, which will partly address the problem but by utilising > legless crew, you can carry the process further. your additional maint train who must keep up with your tanks. So rather than do anything to fix the logistic problems you make them MUCH If the US Army wants to double it's logistic burden all it has to do is > > Feel free to show the French mastery at armoured armoured warfare and > Never claimed that. Merely pointed out that the French have shown they expected to believe that a nation that has never done well in armoured combat has come up with a plan that is a revolutionary advance in spite of the fact that none of the nations that have demonstrated considerable expertise in the field support that plan. > > Chad, hardly a major armoured conflict and in the Gulf the French In neither case did they face credible opposition or heavy combat. armoured > > didn't actually do very much. > In both case, the same theories of maneauvre warfare that are utilised É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||
|
Grupos de notícias: uk.people.disability, us.military.army, alt.folklore.military, sci.military.naval
De: Brian <br...@connect.comdek.net.au>
Data: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 15:51:33 GMT
Local: Seg 1 jan 2001 13:51
Assunto: Re: Disabled in the Military
L'acrobat wrote: Errrr, everybody in a Sabre Squadron deploys... > "Brian" <br...@connect.comdek.net.au> wrote in message > > > Did he manage an AFV? and was he in the Sqns or one of their support > > When I encountered him, he was a Staff-Sergeant in one of the sabre > I see, he was the Sqn Quartermaster Sgt! - hardly the same as being a combat > > > The fact that you are not accomplished at it does not detract from the No, just stop assuming that you're able to teach your grandfather how to > > > attempt - you do know what ad hom means don't you? > > I do believe so. I've been utilising USENet longer than you've more > Wow, that length of time on usenet and you still don't seem to have a suck eggs, twonk. > > > > No, we have to simply utilise a "normal use" leg, which a person can Funny, sure could have fooled me. I must have been dreaming while I > run > > > > with. > > > The problem is that they don't work well cross country. > > They work well enough. > No they don't. watched them working those open cut mines. > > > Tank crews are required to do many of the same things as infantry, *YAWN*, yes, I did at one stage, act as Squadron cook, however that was > without > > > legs they simply can't. > > Tank crews _in_an_emergency_ act as infantry. If such an emergency > Were you a cook or something? do you have any idea what combat arms do in only for one week. I did many different jobs in the Army, ranging from Rifleman through to Operater, Plant and a few others in between. You? > > > You have noticed that nobody with any military experience here supports You asked a question, you got an answer. So you don't appreciate the > you? > > Each to their own. Do I look worried? I've often taken positions which > Self indulgent bullshit. answer. Tough. > > > They are well evolved to handle the tasks required, wheras you suggest Again, according to you. I'd suggest otherwise. What century do you > > > providing sub par "legs" to combat troops. > > No, I am suggesting providing adequate legs to combat troops. You seem > Back to standard line 1. > Running "prosthetic legs" routinely fail on flat ground, they are not live in, by the way? > > > > > OK how do you plan to maintain these tanks? Then, it is obvious that you are unable to grasp the concepts being > > > > Been over this already. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? > > > Yes, I can't comprehend this "a robot will do it" nonsense, nor can I > > What part are you having problems understanding? > The sheer, monumental stupidity of it. discussed and it is obvious that nothing further can be discussed between us. Bye, bye. É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||
|
Grupos de notícias: uk.people.disability, us.military.army, alt.folklore.military, sci.military.naval
De: "L'acrobat" <husk...@dingoblue.net.au>
Data: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 10:04:18 +1100
Local: Seg 1 jan 2001 21:04
Assunto: Re: Disabled in the Military
"Brian" <br...@connect.comdek.net.au> wrote in message Q stores are the logistic component.. > > > When I encountered him, he was a Staff-Sergeant in one of the sabre > > > squadrons. > > I see, he was the Sqn Quartermaster Sgt! - hardly the same as being a > Errrr, everybody in a Sabre Squadron deploys... > > Wow, that length of time on usenet and you still don't seem to have a > No, just stop assuming that you're able to teach your grandfather how to > > > They work well enough. If you could please get it through your pointy little head, a mine (open cut > > No they don't. > Funny, sure could have fooled me. I must have been dreaming while I or deep shaft) is not anywhere near as demanding as a combat environment, were your miners required to run with a comrade on their back, whilst carrying 2 rifles? was anyone shooting at them? > > Were you a cook or something? do you have any idea what combat arms do > *YAWN*, yes, I did at one stage, act as Squadron cook, however that was Clearly you are either a liar or a troll - you either know from personal > > > No, I am suggesting providing adequate legs to combat troops. You standard line 2 (imply rather than state prejudice) - I live in a century seem > > > to think only flesh and blood qualify. That is very prejudiced of you. > > Back to standard line 1. > > Running "prosthetic legs" routinely fail on flat ground, they are not > Again, according to you. I'd suggest otherwise. What century do you where the disability of the disabled is acknowledged rather than the cloud cuckoo land where we pretend that the disability doesn't exist. > > > > to do the job that real world tankers do now in a system that works Giving up then, but surely such a good idea can be explained, can't it? > > well. > > > What part are you having problems understanding? > > The sheer, monumental stupidity of it. > Then, it is obvious that you are unable to grasp the concepts being É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||
|
Grupos de notícias: uk.people.disability, us.military.army, alt.folklore.military, sci.military.naval
De: Matt Clonfero <Matt@[127.0.0.1]>
Data: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 20:22:26 +0000
Local: Seg 1 jan 2001 18:22
Assunto: Re: Disabled in the Military
In article <3A503B51.455AE...@connect.comdek.net.au>, Brian
Wrong. The main determinant of mobility is ground pressure. The contributing factors are length to breadth ratio (important for track- steered vehicles) and overall size (for bridging and for train transport). Aetherem Vincere É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||
|
Grupos de notícias: uk.people.disability, us.military.army, alt.folklore.military, sci.military.naval
De: Brian <br...@connect.comdek.net.au>
Data: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 10:06:27 GMT
Local: Ter 2 jan 2001 08:06
Assunto: Re: Disabled in the Military
Matt Clonfero wrote: Which of course all contrbute to the sort of bridging train you require, > In article <3A503B51.455AE...@connect.comdek.net.au>, Brian > >Ignorant fool, the determinant of mobility is weight. > Wrong. The main determinant of mobility is ground pressure. The now don't they? You're talking about vehicle mobility. I'm talking about tactical and É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||
|
Grupos de notícias: uk.people.disability, us.military.army, alt.folklore.military, sci.military.naval
De: Matt Clonfero <Matt@[127.0.0.1]>
Data: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 11:19:33 +0000
Local: Ter 2 jan 2001 09:19
Assunto: Re: Disabled in the Military
In article <3A5195FB.4A042...@connect.comdek.net.au>, Brian
<br...@connect.comdek.net.au> wrote: Bridging, in this instance, refers to the load carrying capacity and >> In article <3A503B51.455AE...@connect.comdek.net.au>, Brian >> <br...@connect.comdek.net.au> wrote: >> >Ignorant fool, the determinant of mobility is weight. >> Wrong. The main determinant of mobility is ground pressure. The >Which of course all contrbute to the sort of bridging train you require, dimensional constraints of existing bridges in the area of operations. It's fairly fundamental that you buy suitable bridging equipment for your own tanks. >You're talking about vehicle mobility. I'm talking about tactical and You don't seem to have the slightest idea about what defines mobility. >strategic mobility. Two very different things. For a start, you have ignored one category: Tactical mobility. Tactical mobility is governed by ground pressure, and determines over Operational mobility is governed by road speed and fording ability. Strategic mobility is governed by how easy it is to move the vehicle by Aetherem Vincere É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||