More Photos of the Day

[M1A1TC]

Oops, you are right. I always forget what side combat patches go on

[akd]

LISTENING CLOSELY — U.S. Army Spc. Matthew Gilbert, from Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, listens to the radio during a joint patrol with soldiers from 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division in Hurriyah, Iraq, Jan. 29, 2007. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Tierney P. Nowland

Easter Egg in this one...

A Soldier (left) from the Future Combat Systems, Evaluation Brigade Combat Team, views his screen for unforeseen obstacles during an exercise and live demonstration Feb. 1 at Oro Grande Range, Fort Bliss, Texas.

Just in case you missed it:

http://www.army.mil/-images/2007/02/02/2288/army.mil-2007-02-02-091958.jpg

Nice pic of an Army sniper team (1st Cav.):

U.S. Army snipers from the 1st Cavalry Division, 12th Infantry Regiment and an Army combat cameraman wait for their ride back to Forward Operating Base Warhorse, Iraq, Jan. 28, 2007, following a mission in Buhriz, Iraq. (U.S. Air Force photo)

Photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Kitt Amaritnant

February 02, 2007

Spc. Eduardo Cruz-Roman, from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, provides security from a Stryker vehicle during a broadcast message to inform residents about an upcoming cordon and search operations in Baghdad, Jan. 24.

[ February 02, 2007, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: akd ]

[flamingknives]

What's the camo pattern on the FCS guys?

On the same train of thought, why have the funky camo and then have the guns a uniform black? The sniper team seem to have a better idea.

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Xbox 360 controllers to control the robits? Madness!

[hellfish]

The camo pattern is Crye Multicam. It was one of the contenders that lost out to the ACU. IMHO it's much more effective, its a true all-purpose camo (unlike the grey ACUs) but it is more expensive than the ACU, which is why it eventually lost. Most of the FCS propaganda so far has shown Multicam wearing troops instead of ACUs.

I really hope the Army goes with multicam. Everything I've heard and read says its a superior camo pattern and a superior uniform (i.e. doesn't rip or tear as easily as the ACU).

[civdiv]

Funny thing about the combat patch came out last week. Seems a lot of Army soldiers have been wearing Marine combat patches instead of those from their own Army division. This was for when their baptism to combat came when their units were attached to Marine units. A bunch of Army units petitioned the Marine Corps to give them permission to wear USMC combat patches, which the USMC did. Dept of the Army got pissed and issued a regulation last week that forbids this practice. The Army is so pissed that soldiers would rather wear Marine combat patches that the regulation actually states that the USMC regulation giving soldiers the right to wear Marine combat patches 'is not worth the paper it is written on'!

Basically it means that the Marine Corps can't give the soldiers the right to wear the patches because Army regulations say they can't. I'll see if I can find a copy of the message.

[ February 03, 2007, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: civdiv ]

[civdiv]

Nice pic of an Army sniper team (1st Cav.):

Way to point your rifle at your buddy's head, or to sit with your rifle pointed at your face. No wonder like over a 100 soldiers have been shot by their buddies in negligent discharges. I hear the SAW has been especially dangerous.

[gibsonm]

Civdiv,

I must say I’m a bit stunned too.

The first picture has a bloke “on patrol” listening to the radio, but that’s all he is doing, it appears from the rifle butt visible in the bottom left hand corner of the picture that his weapon is pointed at the ground / his boot. Is it current US doctrine that you can’t answer the rdio and cover an arc at the same time?

The second picture with the Nintendo / Xbox controller just looks bizarre (but it may well be where things are going).

The third picture of men waiting to be picked up has no one providing local security and the issue of where muzzles are pointed.

The last one has a guy “providing security” with his eyes looking somewhere other than where the muzzle is pointing and indeed the muzzle of his weapon up against the side of the vehicle so if it does go off who knows where the round will go (quite possibly deflecting back inside).

I’m not a ground pounder by trade but it does seem a bit casual / lax.

[flamingknives]

I have heard that many new military systems, such as remote weapons systems, now fit ports for console controllers since most new recruits are already trained on these.

[DASman]

The one point sling that Gilbert is using is pretty nice, that is why it looks like the rifle is pointing at his boot. Three point slings can make the gun point darn near anywhere. Believe me, in a stack, you want the gun pointing straight down when not pointing at a target. That is what the one point elastic sling is designed to do.

Note that the three point sling in the FCS group points the rifle outward when at rest, and that the other guys are not even using the three point slings correctly.

E

[Andreas]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

I have heard that many new military systems, such as remote weapons systems, now fit ports for console controllers since most new recruits are already trained on these.

Of course they are. You must be too young to remember the scoop.

All the best

AndreaS

[akd]

Land Warrior dies just as a Stryker Brigade prepares to deploy to Iraq with the system.

Land Warrior funds cut

By Matthew Cox - Staff writer

Posted : Tuesday Feb 6, 2007 22:57:19 EST

After more than 10 years of testing, the Army is pulling the plug on Land Warrior, a high-tech, digital ensemble designed to be worn by soldiers to help them see through the fog of war.

Army budget officials announced the service’s intention to cut funding to the program Monday as part of the Army’s fiscal 2008 budget request.

Since its inception in 1996, the Army has invested about $500 million in Land Warrior, a wearable system that includes a miniaturized radio for voice communications and text messages; a helmet-mounted display with a miniature computer screen for viewing digital maps, reading text messages and target identification; a Global Positioning System for precise navigation; and weapons optics for engaging the enemy day and night. All of Land Warrior’s components are wired to a small computer processor through a series of cables. When used together, Army officials say, these systems will give soldiers an unmatchable edge in battle.

Despite these capabilities, Army budget officials say the system has taken too long to perfect.

“We have pretty much removed most of the funding for the Land Warrior program,” said Lt. Gen. David Melcher, deputy chief of staff for Army G-8, said during a Pentagon briefing. “Land Warrior, along the way, really had some problems,” such as the weight of the system, which is currently 17 pounds.

The announcement comes as soldiers of the Army’s 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team are preparing to deploy to Iraq with Land Warrior this spring.

The 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, recently completed a successful test of the ensemble of digital communications and navigation equipment at Fort Lewis, Wash.

Army budget officials said the Army will continue to support 4-9’s deployment with Land Warrior since the unit has devoted most of its predeployment training to becoming proficient with Land Warrior, Melcher said.

The system has made a significant leap in reliability since the program’s third contract award in 2003 to General Dynamics for about $250 million, Army officials maintain.

Army officials had hoped to go into low-rate production in March and begin operational tests in January 2008. In the short term, the Army was planning to field Land Warrior to all seven Stryker brigades — a $399 million effort, program officials said. The Army had set aside $170 million to equip three Stryker brigades.

Despite these plans, the service is “taking a look at other alternatives to try and bring that capability in but without really all the superstructure that the Land Warrior program has,” Melcher said Monday, without going into more detail. “We think we have some other alternatives that, economically, are more feasible.”

The Army has also cut more than $3 billion from Future Combat Systems as part of the $130 billion fiscal 2008 budget request. The cut leaves about $3 billion for FCS development next year. The changes to FCS include cutting the Class I and Class IV unmanned aerial vehicles and one variation of an FCS UAV.

[hellfish]

No loss. Except the $500 million we wasted on it.

[Battlefront.com]

Oh crap... so now even the scaled down version of Land Warrior is dead. Gotta love the Military Industrial Complex... without them we could never have such wonderful products that cost so much and don't even work. Grr...

As for the Multicam shots... Fytinghellfish did a nice explanation of what it is and its history with the US military. It's a real shame it wasn't chosen over ACUPAT, but hey... that's the way things go. Unfortunately, it would appear the main problem came from Cyre wanting to hold rights to the design. I hadn't heard that the production cost was projected to be higher, but I can believe it. The printing process is extremely intensive.

I've got a Multicam jacket and I must say it looks as good in person as it does in pictures. Note also that this is apparently the second version. The initial version was much darker in color, apparently being lightened up to make it better in arid conditions.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

gibsonm,

I’m not a ground pounder by trade but it does seem a bit casual / lax.

I bet if you took pictures of tankers you'd find them sitting on turrets, rooting around in external storage bins, and the like while "on patrol", "providing overwatch", "waiting to return to base", etc. It's not like the photographers are taking pictures of guys who are actively engaged in combat

Steve

[civdiv]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

gibsonm,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I’m not a ground pounder by trade but it does seem a bit casual / lax.

I bet if you took pictures of tankers you'd find them sitting on turrets, rooting around in external storage bins, and the like while "on patrol", "providing overwatch", "waiting to return to base", etc. It's not like the photographers are taking pictures of guys who are actively engaged in combat

Steve </font>

[tc237]

It may seem, at first glance, that the guys might be lax or not providing 360, but I'm sure and trust that everybody is doing the right thing. Sometimes the camera doesn't tell the whole story.

Re Combat Patches: my old brigade CDR wouldn't authorize my BN to wear the patch of a unit we were cross attached to for our entire tour in Iraq(14 months). So it's not just a Marine/Army thing. (IIRC no prior Marines can wear cbt patches when they re-up with the Army)

pic way back on page 5, SFC Sotil, I served with him at Knox.

I bet if you took pictures of tankers you'd find them sitting on turrets, rooting around in external storage bins, and the like while "on patrol", "providing overwatch", "waiting to return to base",

you don'tknow how right you are

[Battlefront.com]

pic way back on page 5, SFC Sotil, I served with him at Knox.

It's a small world, and an even smaller Army

Re Combat Patches: my old brigade CDR wouldn't authorize my BN to wear the patch of a unit we were cross attached to for our entire tour in Iraq(14 months). So it's not just a Marine/Army thing. (IIRC no prior Marines can wear cbt patches when they re-up with the Army)

That seems silly, but then again who am I to judge? I will say that some of you are wrong about the regs and wearing of Marine patches. AR 670-1 specifically allows the wearing of 1st Marine Division. From the regs, Section 28-17 sub 14:

Operation Iraqi Freedom: from 19 March 2003 to a date to be determined, for soldiers assigned to units

participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Soldiers must have been deployed in the CENTCOM area of operations, or

participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom while deployed in Turkey, Israel, and Aegis cruisers. Soldiers who served with

the 1st Marine Division from 19 March 2003 to 21 April 2003 during combat operations in support of Operation Iraqi

Freedom are authorized to wear the 1st Marine Division shoulder sleeve insignia as their SSI-FWTS. Soldiers who

were deployed in the area of operations on training exercises or in support of operations other than Iraqi Freedom are

not authorized the SSI-FWTS, unless those exercises or operations became combat or support missions to Operation

Iraqi Freedom.

Note that this reg exception covers from the initial invasion until at least Feb 3, 2005 (the date of the regs I'm reading). So unless a hard date was put down and Army personnnel in quesiton served after that date, whomever is saying they can't wear the 1st Marines Division insignia is violating regulations, not the soldier. Well, provided the soldier served in the opening phase of OIF with 1st Marines. Otherwise, for something like Fallujah 2, it looks like there is no authorization. I'm guessing that's where the issue is cropping up.

you don'tknow how right you are

I've seen enough pics from combat areas to know most of you guys are just a bunch of goof-offs in uniform. If it weren't for the military most of you would probably be hanging out in front of 7-11s, whistling at girls from construction sites, or applying for yet another job to be a bouncer at a strip joint. Yeah, I've got you guys figured out pretty well

Steve

[ February 09, 2007, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If it weren't for the military most of you would probably be hanging out in front of 7-11s, whistling at girls from construction sites, or applying for yet another job to be a bouncer at a strip joint. Yeah, I've got you guys figured out pretty well

Steve [/QB]

Isn't that where you found MadMatt?

[Battlefront.com]

Exactly my point

Steve

[Madmatt]

Hey now, I never actually worked AT a strip club... at least not yet.

I just worked security for and "dated" a lot of strippers...

Madmatt

[tc237]

I've seen enough pics from combat areas to know most of you guys are just a bunch of goof-offs in uniform. If it weren't for the military most of you would probably be hanging out in front of 7-11s, whistling at girls from construction sites, or applying for yet another job to be a bouncer at a strip joint. Yeah, I've got you guys figured out pretty well

You must not have ever seen US Army tankers in Germany, alot more rowdy then what your describing

[Battlefront.com]

Heh... one of my favorite pics is a M-60 that is about 1/3rd inside some poor family shop in Germany. It was during a winter exercise and the tank hit ice at just the wrong time. The picture showed a lot of US personnel standing around wondering what to do about it. They were also probably dreading the 3 months worth of paperwork they knew they would have to get started on

Steve

[John Kettler]

Found this on Fragment and believe it will be of interest to the devs and grogs alike. Video is of a buttoned M1A1 using its coax on the move in Samarra.

Something moving back and forth in the image confused me until I realized it was cartridge brass rolling back and forth on the turret roof.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ce3f89c5cd&p=1

This one will ere long no doubt get prominent coverage in AQ recruiting videos. Rather doubt the valid reason for firing will even matter.

http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1169254344/US_Marines_Blow_a_Tower_to_Hell

Regards,

John Kettler

[ February 10, 2007, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[akd]

U.S. Army Spc. Kevin Kane, from Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, pulls security on top of a roof during a surveillance of neighborhoods in Baghdad, Iraq, Feb. 6, 2007. (U.S. Army Photo by Sgt. Tierney Nowland)

U.S. Army Staff Sgt. George Castro, from Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, pulls security inside of a courtyard with Iraqi army soldiers during a patrol in Baghdad, Iraq, Feb. 6, 2007. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. T ierney Nowland)

U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Daniel Ogawa, from Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, looks inside of a gate during a patrol in Baghdad, Iraq, Feb. 6, 2007. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Tierney Nowland)

U.S. Army Spc. Carlos Grande and an interpreter, both from Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, and an Iraqi army soldier search a house in Baghdad, Iraq, during a patrol Feb. 6, 2007. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Tier ney Nowland)

U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Daniel Ogawa opens a lollipop for a boy while taking a break from surveilling neighborhoods in Baghdad, Iraq, Feb. 6, 2007. Ogawa is from Black Hawk Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd In fantry Division. DoD photo by Sgt. Tierney Nowland, U.S. Army

U.S. Army Spcs. Karreem Khan and Juan Alcantara, both from Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, interact with Iraqi children during a patrol in Baghdad, Iraq, Feb. 6, 2007. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Tierney Nowland)

not Stryker Brigade, but cool pic:

U.S. Army Spc. Jonathan Castillo searches for weapons and improvised explosive device materials during a cordon and house-to-house search in Sadiyah, Iraq, Feb. 8, 2007. Castillo is with 1st Cavalry Division. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Stacy L. Pearsall)