So Eric,
My brother in law sent me his take on this and I am cutting and pasting his
answer here: Notice that he states under certain circumstances and this refers
to contractors. Civilians are a different matter.
> Civilians can be less expensive than soldiers under certain
> circumstances. T
;s "Drift". It has a lot of
> good info on how we have outsourced our military.
>
> Eric
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Sorge [mailto:sor...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 7:09 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: This is long but wor
I know what was involved there. That is going to be studied for years to come.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Bruce Sorge wrote:
>
> No need my friend. I welcome any comments. Not to shut anyone down, but
> hopefully to clarify things.
>
> On Feb 28, 2013, at 7:11 PM, "Larry C. Lyons" wrote:
ot of
good info on how we have outsourced our military.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Sorge [mailto:sor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 7:09 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: This is long but worth the read
I thought so as well, but that's not entirely true
I thought so as well, but that's not entirely true. Let me see if I can
remember what Mike (my brother-in-law) told me.
Contractors do not require much training since one of the requirements for
their job is to have experience in it. Also, contractors are not paid benefits
from the Army, the c
ity
Subject: Re: This is long but worth the read
The budget is large because in small part of the tremendous amount of waste
that goes on in the military. I'll not get into specific details but there
are hundreds of thousands of dollars of waste, especially down range.
Individually we do out best
, February 28, 2013 4:52 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: This is long but worth the read
Some good stuff, Bruce.
Question for you, though. The Military portion of the US budget is
significantly out of proportion to other countries. Some of that is because
we've chosen to be a bigger mil
No need my friend. I welcome any comments. Not to shut anyone down, but
hopefully to clarify things.
On Feb 28, 2013, at 7:11 PM, "Larry C. Lyons" wrote:
>
> You were in 73 Easting. I think i ought to shut up.
>
> larry
>
~~
Wich is why the Army did away with it for the most part. There are still some
in service, but they are usually reserved for training purposes only. In a
mechanized infantry company, it's the first sergeants vehicle.
The LAV is about the same armor wise as a Bradley. I have been in them when the
You were in 73 Easting. I think i ought to shut up.
larry
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Bruce Sorge wrote:
>
> The budget is large because in small part of the tremendous amount of waste
> that goes on in the military. I'll not get into specific details but there
> are hundreds of thousand
yes and a jacketed or ap 7.62 MM round could punch right through the
sides and front of the M-113. I'd prefer something a bit more modern,
like the LAV-III. When I was serving in Europe we just saw the M113 as
a deathtrap.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Bruce Sorge wrote:
>
> The budget is lar
The budget is large because in small part of the tremendous amount of waste
that goes on in the military. I'll not get into specific details but there are
hundreds of thousands of dollars of waste, especially down range. Individually
we do out best to curb some of this waste, but a lot of it is
Some good stuff, Bruce.
Question for you, though. The Military portion of the US budget is
significantly out of proportion to other countries. Some of that is because
we've chosen to be a bigger military policeman for the world. Other parts
of it seem to be just historical inertia and lobbying fr
13 matches
Mail list logo
