ROSSIKE:
[size=15pt]CNN Refuses To interview Poorly Equipped US Troops[/size]
...
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1139
...

Do people even read the linked articles before coming to a conclusion? Here's one of the linked articles. Are these the same type of basic necessities being complained about by the Nigerian Army?

Take a look at the problems American soldiers are complaining about –
1. Not having less lethal alternatives when dealing with a situation so as to reduce collateral damage.
2. Communication systems that ONLY provide bandwidth rates in the tens of kilobits per second ONCE they leave their vehicles as opposed to megabits per second.
3. Inability to send and receive streaming video at adequate ranges and with sufficient reliability.
4. Massive loads of batteries that soldiers need to carry to power their devices, etc

5/10/2013
Study: U.S. Soldiers Not Adequately Equipped for War
By Sandra I. Erwin


It costs the United States $1.2 million to send one soldier to fight in Afghanistan for one year. American troops, despite that large investment, are not being equipped or trained to overmatch their enemies, says a new report by the National Research Council.

The Army champions its soldiers as the most important weapons in its arsenal, but yet continues to shortchange them in how they are equipped and trained for war, says the report, titled, “Making the Soldier Decisive on Future Battlefields.” The 255-page study, released May 10, began three years ago at the request of the assistant secretary of the Army.

A group of retired officers and researchers who participated in the study concluded that the Army's procurement methods and policies have not caught up to the realities of combat.

Testimony from hundreds of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who were interviewed for the study reveals that the current “suite of equipment and support does not afford the same high degree of overmatch capability exhibited by large weapons platforms,” says the report.

Soldier weapons and gear are designed to be technologically advanced, but often do not take the “human dimension” into account. As a result, equipment designs do not “adequately include the complexities of individual soldier tasks and human interactions within teams.”

Army leaders have touted small units as the center of gravity in current and future battlefields. That requires a different way of thinking about weapons and gear that soldiers will need when they operate as a small unit, the study says. While the Army provides soldiers with advanced rifles and other small arms, it does not offer them other “less-than-lethal alternatives” that might be useful in low-intensity conflicts or situations when they need to control civilians without injuring or killing them.

The Pentagon’s acquisition policies are harshly criticized in the report for being counterproductive. The Defense Department’s procurement apparatus is geared to buy big-ticket weaponry, and soldier gear does not receive the attention it deserves, the study says. “The goal of achieving overmatch capabilities cannot be accomplished until small-unit and soldier requirements are accorded the same high levels of attention as major materiel systems requirements.” It is unlikely that “solutions to achieve overmatch capabilities can be successfully implemented within the Army’s current acquisition framework.”

Army officials have recognized these shortcomings, and have kicked off a modernization plan that focuses on the needs of the squad. But it could take years for these efforts to materialize.

The NRC report also stresses the value of training. “Focused training is essential to improving the performance of soldiers and tactical small units to levels that can assure overmatch,” the study says. “With the tactical small unit as the centerpiece of future Army operations, small- unit leader training will be more important than ever.” It recommends the Army invest in more individual and collective training events, including live, virtual, and constructive simulations and electronic games.

Another major point in the study is the need to integrate soldiers and small units into the Army’s information networks. “The Army has already recognized the important role of the network in achieving expanded capabilities in combat,” the report says. “Yet, dismounted soldiers and tactical small units today have limited organic capability, such as radios, to take advantage of networking in all mission environments.”

When a small unit leaves a forward operating base or disembarks from a vehicle, it has very limited access to technology for command decision tasks such as communicating, developing situational understanding, and understanding the human terrain, the report says. “A squad leader's communications system provides bandwidth rates in the tens of kilobits per second — a far cry from the multiple megabyte rates available within a FOB.” Sand tables and paper maps are used for mission rehearsal and execution. Sensing during a mission is primarily dependent on the eyes and ears of members of the unit. “These shortcomings prevent small units and soldiers from achieving optimal performance in making and executing personal and team decisions.”

Soldiers should have “timely, relevant information on the location of friendly assets, the identification and location of enemy forces and equipment, the identification and location of noncombatants, and the ability to document and communicate this information to each other and higher echelons. … Information must be timely to ensure that units are not surprised in tactical situations.”

A small unit lacks the capability to send and receive secure data, voice, and streaming video at adequate ranges and with sufficient reliability, the study says. The Army is attempting to address these needs with the Nett Warrior program, and with experiments using smartphones. The Nett Warrior, however, is limited by low bandwidth, and the smartphone effort is dependent on commercial networks, the report says. “High-bandwidth communications networks are needed that can operate in austere locations, in complex terrain, in all weather, and under day and night conditions.”

Information exchange — especially for digital images and streaming video — is currently “very poor” at the small unit level, the report says. “Bandwidth rate is one issue. Another is that operation tempo does not give units time to download, evaluate, and make judgments on available information. … Soldiers would benefit from advances in dynamic information networks that enhance information exchange.”

The NRC panel also raises the issue of combat load, which has been a subject of much debate in the military over the past decade as troops’ rucksacks grew heavier and more cumbersome. “Excessive soldier loads degrade not only maneuverability of both individual soldiers and units but also their resilience, survivability and effectiveness,” the report says. “With such heavy burdens, traversing rough terrain and making rapid changes in direction, speed, and orientation greatly increase soldiers’ susceptibility to injuries." One possible solution, the panel suggests, could be to offload gear to robotic carriers.

Massive loads of batteries that soldiers need to power their devices contribute to the problem. “There is no doctrinal philosophy for the small unit to recharge the battery; there is no organizational equipment to support recharging; there is no hint of the training required; there is no parallel materiel development of a recharger or fuel reformer to exploit new rechargeable battery or fuel-cell technologies,” the study says. “Advances in portable power will contribute to the decisiveness of small units by giving future soldiers high confidence that their equipment ensemble will have sufficient energy to carry out the mission. Achieving this goal will help to reduce fatigue, eliminate the anxiety associated with resupply.”

Many of the topics covered in the NRC study echo critics, such as retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales, who have blasted the Pentagon for not paying enough attention to the needs of small infantry units.

Scales, a military historian and analyst, has pointed out that ground forces are “not dominant” in combat partly because of inadequate equipment and training. Compared to the overwhelming superiority that the United States has in naval and air warfare, when it comes to ground combat, the American military “hasn’t come as far as it should,” says Scales. “It doesn’t dominate in the tactical fight.”

Scales blames these deficiencies on a Beltway culture that is fixated on expensive weapon systems, on “picking a fight with China” and on hypothetical wars in space and cyberspace. Washington policy makers dodge meaningful discussions about the tactical aspects of war on the ground because close-contact combat is “dirty, horrific and bloody,” says Scales. “People just don’t want to talk about that.”

ROSSIKE:
Mr Essay writer, so WHY has CNN not interviewed US soldiers over their POOR EQUIPMENT which led to the death of countless US soldiers? You saying CNN considers Nigerian soldiers' lives more valuable than American lives! Go on, answer the question and stop writing essay.

I bet you feel ashamed now after calling me a dumb liar when in fact you are the one who is. I have showed you proof of western media out pour of accolades over our success on Ebola which you said was nonexistent.

How do you feel now??

Now you quote the same post of mine you quoted earlier to ask another useless question.

Smh.

Wonder why I should even respond any further to you.

HugeCock:
Op those ur links are very old. Most of them date back to The Bush Era

Bush era o, Clinton era o, or Obama era, in which era has cnn EVER secretly interviewed US troops over their grievances and aired to the world? Tell us.

#ReportNigeriaCorrectlty and #BringBokoHaramToJustice

omenka:
I bet you feel ashamed now after calling me a dumb liar when in fact you are the one who is. I have showed you proof of western media out pour of accolades over our success on Ebola which you said was nonexistent.

How do you feel now??

Now you quote the same post of mine you quoted earlier to ask another useless question.

Smh.

Wonder why I should even respond any further to you.

What proof of accolades, Mr "oh they praised me in one single bulletin so all their subsequent 10000 lies and smears against me must be true''. You need to get your head out of their ars.e.

omenka:
I bet you feel ashamed now after calling me a dumb liar when in fact you are the one who is. I have showed you proof of western media out pour of accolades over our success on Ebola which you said was nonexistent.

How do you feel now??

Now you quote the same post of mine you quoted earlier to ask another useless question.

Smh.

Wonder why I should even respond any further to you.

u get time dey answer that dullard pretending to be smart!

dondee will always show his ignorance no mater the color of suite and tie u wore him!

Contrary to the OP’s assertion, the military actually has surplus equipment that are given out to police departments across the country for free. There’s even debates today over the militarization of the police force. Here are photos from the recent incident that happened in Ferguson that shows all the free stuff the local police department got from the military.

…the government giving away thousands of Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, weapons and more pedestrian items such as cars and clothing, even smaller police departments in cities and towns with low crime rates are acquiring items...

…The 12-person police department in High Springs received an MRAP in the last year. …

…Jefferson County Sheriff John P. Burns said his department acquired a Humvee a couple of years ago and then an MRAP six months ago. Burns said it ensures his police officers can be protected in a hostage situation or when executing warrants….

…The Dakota County Sheriff's Office received the state's first MRAP last August…said the redistributed equipment is a "good use of tax dollars." "If we were to go out and purchase the vehicle, it would be well over $800,000," he said….

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/15/local-law-enforcement-agencies-surplus-military-equipment/10286485/

… Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo…didn’t hide her outrage at how the Defense Department’s military surplus program is administered...“What in the world are we doing buying things that we’re not using…McCaskill criticized the Defense Department program, in particular, for giving mine-resistant trucks, also known as MRAPS, to police departments.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/post-ferguson-senators-question-government-program-provide-military-weapons-police/

nwaanambra1:


u get time dey answer that dullard pretending to be smart!

dondee will always show his ignorance no mater the color of suite and tie u wore him!

Spoken like a true, bumbling semi-illiterate.

Wallie:
Contrary to the OP’s assertion.../

Actually it was "assertions" made by US soldiers who were directly quoted in the links posted. Showing these silly pictures does not obviate their claims, and is of no comfort to their bereaved families.

ROSSIKE:
[s]Spoken like a true, bumbling semi-illiterate.[/s]

go get a job old man. licking GEJs bushy anvs will no longer be profitable come FeBuhari 14!

nwaanambra1:


go get a job old man. licking GEJs bushy anvs will no longer be profitable come FeBuhari 14!

Sure..drag us all down to your level by electing an uneducated octogenerian..bet that would make a bumbling dunce like you feel better.

donnypool:


stop living in denial. if a certain party is using terrorism as part of their campaign, that should tell you that boko haram issue is not being fought by everybody, and that include people in the military as well.

sometimes we hear news about army killing 100 boko haram, some people are always not happy about it. they groan and moan in bitterness, they ask question of "how are we sure they are not innocent citizen?" blah blah blah. If every Nigerian want terrorism be stopped, we don't need a new president to stop it.

P.S remember the news about the man that volunteer his daughter to be used as a suicide bomber? what does that tell you?

If it's your family that's is been killed and your children slaughtered, I doubt if you will be giving these excuses for failure to tackle the BH cancer for 6 years. No one cares about the oppositions, the government is always to be responsible and bears all the burden of the security of her citizens and there can never be an excuse for that. As at today things are getting worse in these affected area. So many sad stories.

Just imagine a government who once claimed that the Chibok girls were never kidnapped.

ROSSIKE:
[s]Sure..drag us all down to your level by electing an uneducated octogenerian..bet that would make a dunce like you feel better.[/s]

if you an octogenarian doesn't want to retire to your village - what right have you to demand for another octogenarian's retirement?

Fact is - better an illiterate octo with good leadership qualities than a young dumbo flashing a PHD he cant defend, with leadership qualities that is not even good enough for animals in the zoo!

meanwhile old man, go get a job before Arthritis sets in

ROSSIKE:
Actually it was "assertions" made by US soldiers who were directly quoted in the links posted. Showing these silly pictures does not obviate their claims, and is of no comfort to their bereaved families.

Agreed. But has it ever occurred to you that this might just be the cries of soldiers thinking of fighting a casualty free war? Since you're the expert, how about you summarize what their EXACT complaints were and what was deemed inadequate? Are things as black or white as you portray them to be?


Here's what they were complaining about...

Soldiers headed for Iraq are still buying their own body armor — and in many cases, their families are buying it for them — despite assurances from the military that the gear will be in hand before they're in harm's way....

"What we hear from soldiers is that they are told that they are going to get body armor just before they leave or just after they get there. But they don't want to take a chance,"...A bill being considered in Congress would reimburse families who bought body armor before the Army asked for increased production to bridge the gap between soldiers who had armor and those that did not...

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-26-body-armor_x.htm

Here's a counter to their complaints...

Body armor is always a compromise: mobility and comfort (and thus speed and stamina) are inevitably sacrificed to some degree when greater protection is achieved. This is a point of contention in the U.S. armed forces, with some favoring less armor in order to maintain mobility and others wanting as much protection as is practical. Troops who primarily ride in vehicles generally want the highest practical level of protection from IED's and ambushes, while dismounted infantry often make the case that impaired mobility can prove just as fatal as inadequate armor.

The debate is especially valid in the Iraq war, when comparing lightly equipped insurgents with U.S. troops routinely burdened with upwards of 100 lbs. of weapons, ammunition, armor, food, water, and other assorted equipment. Many troops have complained that under such conditions, they are simply unable to pursue their guerrilla opponents. Side armor has been sent to Iraq in increasing amounts, but many troops do not want to wear it because it adds 10 lb to the 16 lb vest and they say the added weight could decrease mobility and get them killed in certain combat scenarios

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interceptor_body_armor

And here's the result of the newly issued body armor

Infantry: Troops Reject New Body Armor as Dangerous

March 28, 2006: The new, heavier, body armor arriving in Iraq is creating a potential public relations problem. Many of the troops don't want to wear the new stuff. Why? Because the heavier new armor could get them killed. The new protective vests includes side armor.

Side armor, which adds about ten pounds to the 16 pound weight of the Interceptor Protective Vest, has been available since 2003 (when 250 sets were sent to Iraq.) About a thousand sets were delivered in 2004, and more last year. Side armor is obviously not new, but its availability has not been widespread. While the side armor provided useful protection, the added weight (for a trooper already carrying over fifty pounds), and material, restricts movement. The new armor is most popular with those guarding convoys. These troops spend most of their time sitting down, and the side armor provides additional protection from roadside bombs, which throw out a lot of fragments, at troops sitting facing forward. The bombs are often accompanied by an ambush force armed with machine-guns and assault rifles. Sometimes, the troops have to get out of their vehicles and battle the ambushers. This is often intense and disorganized combat, with fire coming from all directions. Again, the side armor can be very useful. But the troops won't be running around so long that the additional weight and movement restriction will become a major problem. For the same reason, combat troops that are spending most of their time in their vehicles, don't mind the disadvantages of the side armor.

But infantry that are out running around most of the time, going up stairs, through windows and battling the enemy in an urban environment, nimbleness is more important. Some of these guys have been known to leave the back plate, or even the front plate, out, just to save a few pounds. Not being able to scramble through a window in time can get you killed, as can many battlefield maneuvers that put a premium on speed and maneuverability. American commandoes, including Special Forces, often go into action without the body armor, because the consider mobility more important.

These different attitudes towards how much armor to wear are similar to those found in police forces. That's why the police have both lightweight armor (worn by most cops, most of the time) and heavier rigs for SWAT teams or anyone out on a raid, and even heavier getup for bomb disposal personnel.


The senior commanders are under a lot of pressure to "protect the troops." Many people back home have invested a lot of themselves in efforts to get better armor for the troops. Hearing that the troops value lightness and speed, over armor and more weight, will upset some politicians and pundits. But if the opinions of the troops counts for anything, weight matters, often more than anything else.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20060328.aspx

ROSSIKE:
You have no brain. Were the "one or two Americans" not referring to the generality of the troops? Were US lives not lost as a result of their poor equipment? Did thousands of Americans not die in those campaigns? Why did CNN not highlight the problem? Is that not blatant hypocrisy and double standards? Better stick in the kitchen where you belong.

Excuse me? Do l look like your wife or your daughter? I'm still insisting that your supposed CNN double standard should not be an issue where millions of lives including both our lives are on the line. Except something is psychologically wrong with you or maybe you are feeding fat from this government.

asala1:


If it's your family that's is been killed and your children slaughtered, I doubt if you will be giving these excuses for failure to tackle the BH cancer for 6 years. No one cares about the oppositions, the government is always to be responsible and bears all the burden of the security of her citizens and there can never be an excuse for that. As at today things are getting worse in these affected area. So many sad stories.

Just imagine a government who once claimed that the Chibok girls were never kidnapped.

JUST imagine the entire Nigeria coming together as one to fight this terrorist?

the issue i see here is that, one party really want the killings to continue so they can be voted in as a savior to stop the terrorist group, so they are doing nothing to help the present administration. now Is that what you call one Nigeria? Look at other countries where terrorism is striving, you will notice that the country is divided into groups. one group is in support while another group is not in support eg sunni vs shia in iraq.

Ebola is as deadly as terrorism but it was controlled to the surprise of even the united state. I remember during that period, there was no APC or PDP, it was all one Nigeria. Politics came into the story way after Nigeria has been declared Ebola free. So my friend Boko Haram will continue to kill until we remove politics from it.

Wallie:


Agreed. But has it ever occurred to you that this might just be the cries of soldiers thinking of fighting a casualty free war? Since you're the expert, how about you summarize what their EXACT complaints were and what was deemed inadequate? Are things as black or white as you portray them to be?


Here's what they were complaining about...



http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-26-body-armor_x.htm

Here's a counter to their complaints...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interceptor_body_armor

And here's the result of the newly issued body armor



http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20060328.aspx

Hello Wallie,

Please I just sent you a PM.

Kindly reply

Thanks.