From: Adam Flinton 

Dave wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:56:39 -0600, John Cuccia 
> wrote in message :
>
> | Exactly.  My point wasn't the well-documented lack of armor (or
> | planning, or personnel), but the fact that our Secretary of Defense is
> | a punk with the manners of a schoolyard bully who doesn't give a shit
> | about the troops he sends into combat.  The larger issue is that the
> | president saw fit to keep him on for a second term, which speaks very
> | poorly indeed for Mr. Bush.
>
> I was offended by his comment about how we "go to war with the army we
> have, not the army we wish we had".  I'm glad he wasn't the Secretary
> of Defense during WWII.  At least then we had the good sense to tool
> up before going to war, instead of just rushing into it with what we
> had.
>
> Rumcake is an asshole, pure and simple.
>

It has to be said that the tooling up etc was partly due to the orders
placed by the UK which had been at war for a good 2 years by then. Lots of
"new technology" & failed technology which had been tried
(e.g. the M3'es sponson mounted main weapon was not repeated with the M4
Sherman).

The Mustang is another good example and the initial B-17'es (delivered to
the RAF) were cr*p & were therefore adjusted to rectify their faults
prior to the PH attack.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5