Thread: More Mike sparks

Well from a pure KE standpoint the HATM is about 25% more effective than the latest M-829A3 APFSDSDU 120mm gun round.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"2. Improved missiles for the ATGM. I think the other thread the HTAM pretty much covers this. Looks like 07 is the earliest that this will be fielded."

The DoD is also developing an RF guidance TOW that does away with the wire guidance as an interim program until the HATM is ready(if they actually maintian funding for it).

I've also seen talk of a a Fire anf Forget TOW using an IR guidance package like the one on the Javelin. even if we never get the HATM, I think the wire guided TOW is a goner. Guess we'll need a new name then, maybe THOR(Tube-launched Heavy Optically-guided Radio controlled) missle.
More ikely it'll stay TOW simply because of laziness.

The fire and forget TOW got cancelled in the last year.

Right now the HATM and the RF guidance TOW are the only two programs i know of.

Shek, how do you like the ITAS improved TOW sight? Is it significantly better than the older models?

I was kinda partial to the EFOGMS. The ability to fire beyond LOS with a TOW was interesting. I think it would have made a good addition to airborne battalion TOEs.

For Shek: What's yout take on the idea some advocate of making MGS or ATGM vehicles organic to the SBCT's RSTA Squadron? I think the ability to fight for information to a limited extent would be good, but not sure how the requirement for more vehicles would wrok out. Also, how effective is it firing a Javelin out of a hatch on a moving or stationary vehicle? I've heard stories of this being done, but it doesn't strike me as the best way to engage armor.

EFOGM has always held a lot of promise since it was first designed in the mid 80s.

For some reason, the army has never considered it seriously.

Go figure...

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The fire and forget TOW got cancelled in the last year.

Right now the HATM and the RF guidance TOW are the only two programs i know of.

Shek, how do you like the ITAS improved TOW sight? Is it significantly better than the older models?

I never got to use the old TOW thermals. My buddy was a TOW (tired of walking) PL in his BN and he said that it was an incredible improvement. While I can't compare, I would second his statement that the thermals were incredible. Not quite as good as the LRAS3, but it was definitely up there. On the Stryker, it is known as the MITAS (modified ITAS). My MGS (19K) guys were great with the sight and knew how to send up short, concise reports. They even caught an Iraqi farmer doing some bad stuff with his donkey, twice!! The only improvement I would make is to add an IR laser to the system so that if the MGS guys observed something, they could laze the target so that folks under NVG could get oriented pronto! We would sometimes have issues trying to get them to "walk" us onto what they were observing.

Originally Posted by Wraith601

I was kinda partial to the EFOGMS. The ability to fire beyond LOS with a TOW was interesting. I think it would have made a good addition to airborne battalion TOEs.

For Shek: What's yout take on the idea some advocate of making MGS or ATGM vehicles organic to the SBCT's RSTA Squadron? I think the ability to fight for information to a limited extent would be good, but not sure how the requirement for more vehicles would wrok out. Also, how effective is it firing a Javelin out of a hatch on a moving or stationary vehicle? I've heard stories of this being done, but it doesn't strike me as the best way to engage armor.

Firing the Javelin from an air sentry hatch was an effective NTC TTP. However, the backblast from an Atwess cartridge vs. a real Javelin are two different things. With a clear top and the other hatches closed, I think it would be feasible as long as the backblast wasn't oriented towards the RWS, but since we didn't face a true armor threat in Iraq, I never really checked it out in depth. We may have been pulling a fast one on the Armor O/Cs at NTC. All of my company's Javelin engagements were from dismounted patrols clearing out the passes and pushing forward on the other side.

As far as MGS and ATGM in the RSTA, I don't have a good frame of reference to make a very astute observation. With the role as the BDE CDR's eyes and ears, the direct fire capabilities of those two vehicles would probably tend to draw them into engagements where their vehicle hides would be compromised. However, I'm sure that there are plenty of scenarios where such a combo would be a good thing. I'm thinking you could use the BDE AT Company's platoons and attach them (ATGMs) to the RSTA for the mission. This would probably be very appropriate for a screening mission. I can't remember if Wraith was a cannon cocker or a cav guy - I'm sure he's got some good insight on this subject.

Originally Posted by shek

They even caught an Iraqi farmer doing some bad stuff with his donkey, twice!!

Captain,

I don't know if I have a need-to-know on this. However, I certainly do not have a want-to-know. This is Protected B info if there ever was one.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Captain,

I don't know if I have a need-to-know on this. However, I certainly do not have a want-to-know. This is Protected B info if there ever was one.

Sir,
They even tried to tape it. Unfortunately (or really, fortunately), they couldn't figure out how to focus the camera in the sight.

Originally Posted by shek

Firing the Javelin from an air sentry hatch was an effective NTC TTP. However, the backblast from an Atwess cartridge vs. a real Javelin are two different things. With a clear top and the other hatches closed, I think it would be feasible as long as the backblast wasn't oriented towards the RWS, but since we didn't face a true armor threat in Iraq, I never really checked it out in depth. We may have been pulling a fast one on the Armor O/Cs at NTC. All of my company's Javelin engagements were from dismounted patrols clearing out the passes and pushing forward on the other side.

As far as MGS and ATGM in the RSTA, I don't have a good frame of reference to make a very astute observation. With the role as the BDE CDR's eyes and ears, the direct fire capabilities of those two vehicles would probably tend to draw them into engagements where their vehicle hides would be compromised. However, I'm sure that there are plenty of scenarios where such a combo would be a good thing. I'm thinking you could use the BDE AT Company's platoons and attach them (ATGMs) to the RSTA for the mission. This would probably be very appropriate for a screening mission. I can't remember if Wraith was a cannon cocker or a cav guy - I'm sure he's got some good insight on this subject.

I recently read an account of 1/5th Marines where they tried something similar. They had just crossed into Iraq when they spotted a T-55 lurking near a sand dune, they attempted to engage with a Javelin from a parked Humvee but the weapon failed. An attached Abrams got the T-55 if I recall. It's in Lt. Carey Cash's book A Table in the Presence. A good read, though Lt. Cash's position as a chaplain is likely why I spotted a few minor errors in the book, and I'm not even in the military (at least not yet).

As fare as RSTA goes, I'd think the ability for some heavy direct fire action would be good, we just don't want to go overboard and attach too much firepower to the recon troops. Also since the Stryker RV lacks a RWS what type of weapons do they mount? Standard pintle mounted MGs or do they have Mk. 19s and M2s?

Originally Posted by shek

Firing the Javelin from an air sentry hatch was an effective NTC TTP. However, the backblast from an Atwess cartridge vs. a real Javelin are two different things. With a clear top and the other hatches closed, I think it would be feasible as long as the backblast wasn't oriented towards the RWS, but since we didn't face a true armor threat in Iraq, I never really checked it out in depth. We may have been pulling a fast one on the Armor O/Cs at NTC. All of my company's Javelin engagements were from dismounted patrols clearing out the passes and pushing forward on the other side.

As far as MGS and ATGM in the RSTA, I don't have a good frame of reference to make a very astute observation. With the role as the BDE CDR's eyes and ears, the direct fire capabilities of those two vehicles would probably tend to draw them into engagements where their vehicle hides would be compromised. However, I'm sure that there are plenty of scenarios where such a combo would be a good thing. I'm thinking you could use the BDE AT Company's platoons and attach them (ATGMs) to the RSTA for the mission. This would probably be very appropriate for a screening mission. I can't remember if Wraith was a cannon cocker or a cav guy - I'm sure he's got some good insight on this subject.

I recently read an account of 1/5th Marines where they tried something similar. They had just crossed into Iraq when they spotted a T-55 lurking near a sand dune, they attempted to engage with a Javelin from a parked Humvee but the weapon failed. An attached Abrams got the T-55 if I recall. It's in Lt. Carey Cash's book A Table in the Presence. A good read, though Lt. Cash's position as a chaplain is likely why I spotted a few minor errors in the book, and I'm not even in the military (at least not yet).

As far as RSTA goes, I'd think the ability for some heavy direct fire action would be good, we just don't want to go overboard and attach too much firepower to the recon troops. Also since the Stryker RV lacks a RWS what type of weapons do they mount? Standard pintle mounted MGs or do they have Mk. 19s and M2s?

Old but you would be suprised what one can find on the net...

http://vikingphoenix.com/public/rong...and_sparks.htm

Subj: SPECIAL
Date: 98-09-10 21:10:04 EDT
From: admin@hackworth.com
SPECIAL

I share George Carlson's -- great name for a Marine -- views and think he is dead on target concerning former Marine and now Army Sgt. Sparks and his constant bashing of the Corps.

Hack
*****************************
A PROPOSAL AND SOME COMMENTS

This letter is written to all those whose e-mail addresses have come into my hands in the past several days over the Mike Sparks (alias: "Airborne Mike") website and letters. Like most of you I have been angered by a number of things -- both in content and in presentation. In the process of
exploring and studying (the first commandment, "know your enemy") several
facts have become clear and a number of other conclusions as well.

Sparks is no dummy -- angry and vindictive, yes, but smart. The site looks quite official in many respects. 1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne)
sounds like an official organization. The mail address is a post office box
at Fort Bragg. As you find that there is one person behind much of the
writing, it also becomes quite clear that he is VERY guarded about personal
information. Most of the time he uses words that imply but do not commit
him to what he wants the reader to believe -- "currently serving
professional" for example, does that mean he is on active duty now? Does
that say he is on active duty now? Certainly to all of us at first read,
yes, but it can be argued (I know, by a good lawyer <--- oxymoron?) that it
is just how he sees himself as critic and commentator. He uses similar
mincing of words when it comes to 1st TSG(A) and its relationship to the
military as well.

Anyway, in light of all I have read and observed -- including the
exchanges several of you have had with him -- and growing to appreciate
that in spite of his lack of tact that he has a lot of good tactical ideas
-- I challenged myself to ask what could I or anyone do to (dare I say)
lead this man to a more appropriate approach without destroying his
creativity. I'm sure a lot of you are saying, "you're wasting your time."
And, admittedly, I probably am. But confrontation in anger and emotion
certainly hasn't changed Sparks, so this isn't any more wasted than that. I
would also call your attention to a section of Sparks' last post on
"thefew.com" -- the part of the young lieutenant and the confrontation with
the "HQMC official" -- I am convinced that it is autobiographical. It goes
a long way toward explaining (NOT excusing or condoning) Sparks' behavior.

Below is an open letter that I would propose to post on the various Marine
BB's that we all (and Sparks) obviously frequent. I would appreciate any
input or comments you have -- except that you think I am wasting my time --
I already figure that is the majority opinion.
*********************************************
An open letter to Mike Sparks

You are not likely to get anyone to even read you much less follow you if
you kick them in the gut and your first words to them are a collection of
name-calling ending in "stupid idiot." Contrast your own writing on what
you suggest as the changes needed in Army Basic Training. Your
contradictions don't end there. You criticize Army Times for refusing to
capitalize "Soldier" while maintaining an amazing ability to use only lower
case "m" and "c" for Marine Corps and Marines. You label Marines as
arrogant for claiming themselves best at everything and then turn around
and explain why the only force for anything now and in the future is
Airborne - and why your "study group" has not only all the questions, but
all the answers as well.

I take absolute affront to your analysis that I (your premise is applied
to all Marines) worship the Marine Corps instead of God. How presumptive
that you know the faith of my heart and soul. While I am it, my God finds
each of us where we are - and so there are many paths to Him (and,
admittedly, many more that go elsewhere) - the path you found is not the
only, or the right one, or the best one for all - though it may well be for
you. The profession of arms is not reserved for Christians. Literally
millions of people of conviction have fought and fought well with a variety
of belief structures, not just yours or mine.

You act like you are the only person of intelligence to ever confront the
fact that bureaucracies are resistant to change. Many in all branches of
the service (and the civilian sector of both government and industry as
well) have stuck their necks out for what they believed in - and some have
faired well, some not so well - but most have not sunk into the morass of
hatred. Your method, far more than your message, turns people off.

It has been said (and correctly so) that few prophets are recognized in
their own time by their own "people." There is a flaw in your logic,
however, if you pursue being obnoxious and getting rejected and figure that
somehow makes you a prophet.

Leadership is the art of persuading people, not bashing them into
submission. Leadership is not intimidation, even if painted scarlet and
gold OR punctuated with "Airborne!" It isn't soliciting discussion but only
listening to what agrees with you. Every complaint you voice about the
behavior of Marines (and of parts of the Army and other services) you turn
around and do yourself. You are a perfect parallel to the statement, "The
Puritans did not come to the new world for religious freedom, they came to
practice their own brand of intolerance and persecution."

You have a lot of good ideas and a lot more that are worthy of discussion.
Unfortunately, due in no small part to your approach, many potential
supporters and collaborators are turned into enemies. Can you perhaps see
any relationship between the failure to bomb people into supporting the
US/Saigon in Vietnam and your approach?

If you insist on being a martyr, keep on the course you are on. You will
be rejected, bitter, and ultimately proven right in many things, but long
after it will make any difference to you at all. The other option is to
face the possibility that maybe, just maybe, other ideas than yours may
prove right in the long run too. It means seeking to "sell" -- to persuade
rather than pronounce. It means winning others to listening instead of
demanding agreement. It means listening to others (even when your gut or
heart disagrees totally) rather than rejecting them at the start and trying
to shout (or just shoot) them down.

And, by the way, everything I have said here also applies to anyone (my
fellow Marines included) who has reacted to you purely out of emotion and
anger. Marines gain nothing by attacking a critic blindly and emotionally -
and neither do you, Mike.

PS If you chose to ignore what I have said then at least be man enough to
put a disclaimer in your sites indicating that they are unofficial and do
not speak for the DoD, US Army, or any component thereof.

George Carlson
LtCol, USMC(Ret.)
Gcarlson@goaa.org or fhmk36a@prodigy.com

For the rest of you. If you still want to do otherwise to get the site(s)
modified or removed:

People to Contact: The best and quickest option: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1000/alert.html
- To file complaint that site violates Geocities policies on site content (i.e. must not be degrading of others)

Army Contacts: (probably not terribly helpful without at least a rank or SSN or unit) csaweb@hqda.army.mil - GEN Dennis J. Reimer, C/S of the Army spearman@bragg.army.mil - LTC Rick Spearman, PAO at Ft. Bragg smaweb@pentagon-hqda5.army.mil - SMA Robert E. Hall

Semper Fideles, Marines,
George Carlson
LtCol, USMC(Ret.)

Originally Posted by Wraith601

I recently read an account of 1/5th Marines where they tried something similar. They had just crossed into Iraq when they spotted a T-55 lurking near a sand dune, they attempted to engage with a Javelin from a parked Humvee but the weapon failed. An attached Abrams got the T-55 if I recall. It's in Lt. Carey Cash's book A Table in the Presence. A good read, though Lt. Cash's position as a chaplain is likely why I spotted a few minor errors in the book, and I'm not even in the military (at least not yet).

As far as RSTA goes, I'd think the ability for some heavy direct fire action would be good, we just don't want to go overboard and attach too much firepower to the recon troops. Also since the Stryker RV lacks a RWS what type of weapons do they mount? Standard pintle mounted MGs or do they have Mk. 19s and M2s?

The RV variant has either a M2 or MK19 that is tied into the power cupola that has the LRAS3 (same thing as the FSV, except it has the G/VLLD and eventually the LLDR). Troung posted a pic in another thread of a RV - it's the top one with a LRAS3 and the MG with a chicken shield.


Stryker Report

I have another somewhat unrelated question. I know the SBCT has 1 AT Compnay and 1 Engineer Company both with 9 Strykers. I'm told common practice is to chop one each to all 9 infantry companies for exercises and I'd presume combat as well. If you do that don't you wind up with a platoon leader commanding one vehicle attached to another company? Does this disrupt the normal chain of command of the company?

Also, do you feel the SBCT needs more ATGM or ESV variants? Maybe 2 or 3 companies instead of the 1 each currently fielded.