Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I haven't read the piece, and don't know the point in dispute, but: First, the story could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.
|
I linked to the piece, which means it's there for the reading. It could be wrong. But is noteworthy that the U.S. Army officer quoted in the story provided a different explanation.
OTOH, making up new facts (e.g., there was "looting") with no apparent basis in what's been reported would, again, be par for the course for defenders of this war. As you said, "It wouldn't be the first time."
Quote:
|
Second -- .50 caliber bullets are used to fight and destroy armored fighting vehicles. They are also with some frequency the ordnance fired from machine-guns mounted on helicopters as well fixed-wing aircraft (not so much anymore).
|
Concur, but I would bet that the armor on a Bradley is sufficient to resist said ammunition.
Quote:
|
Third, they might have been referring to a 20 mm round -- which I guess qualifies as a "bullet" -- and are certainly used against armor.
|
Plausibly. Although if we are trying to win hearts and minds, then returning fire in an urban environment with a 20 mm cannon seems like a particularly poor strategy.
Quote:
|
If you're fighting with people who are shooting at you, you have to shoot back to win.
|
Paradoxically, strategic success may depend on not doing things that might lead to tactical success. If you look at the annals of successful counter-insurgency campaigns, you will find that few of them involved air strikes on urban areas.
