Thread: Weird E-Mail from Mike Sparks

I'm glad I've naver joined any of his "reform" groups. Hie debate skills leave much to be desired.

Who exactly is Mike Sparks?

He runs a series of websites advocating replacing the entire Army with M-113 "Gavin" APCs and a host of other wildly outrageous ideas.

Don't ask.

Originally Posted by leibstandarte10

Who exactly is Mike Sparks?

He is a rabid fan of the M113 APC and boisterous critic of the Stryker and the Marine Corps. He has some intelligent things to say at times, but any semblance of that is quickly overwhelmed by his childish responses to facts that aren't in his favor and his inability to be a master debater. You can check out his website at www.geocities.com/paratroop2000 and decide for yourself what you want to think about him. BTW, be prepared to scroll and scroll and scroll and scroll on his webpages. He hasn't mastered the use of hyperlinks in his web page design.

And a 5lb gunshield on every M-4A1/M-249...

Oh yeah and the IDF are lairs for claiming they lost uparmored "Gavins" in combat...

Hmmph. Sounds like an interesting, if slightly strange, guy.

Wierd fellow, but some of his stuff makes sense.

http://www.geocities.com/transformationunderfire/

Originally Posted by giggs88

Wierd fellow, but some of his stuff makes sense.

http://www.geocities.com/transformationunderfire/

I hope that you don't think that everything on the page makes sense. First, I will not disagree that lack of armor for our first two years in Iraq resulted in casualties that could have been avoided. However, he has no further knowledge beyond what is released by DoD, which is not enough in many cases to determine the proximate cause of death. For example, a release that states the soldier was in a HMMWV that was hit by an IED means the soldier could have been in the hatch of an armored HMMWV, where you can be exposed, could have been in an up-armored or add-on armor HMMWV with the window open, or could have been in an unprotected HMMWV. There is no way to determine that data unless you have inside accounts, which he doesn't. He makes the same mistake on the SBCT casualties, lumping them all as Stryker deaths. For example, he spins the death of soldiers related to an unauthorized waterborne operation in a boat into if the BDE had M113s, they would have swum across the Tigris River. No way - I don't know the exact specs on the M113s swimming capabilities, but with the strong current of the river due to the large amounts of winter rains, there's no way a M113 would have made the swim. Besides, the real question is whether the M8 AGS would have made the swim since that would have been the vehicle assigned. That's information you can't get from press release. Just one example of the rectal extraction analysis contained on the page. I could go on and on, but this is typical of his writings. A few very good points surrounded by poor analysis and the M113 is king.

Sounds like an extremely weird person with many traditional ddemocrat-style debate skills.
I wonder if he takes any medicine.

EDIT: Man, this guy is REALLY weird.
Gun shields? Crazy. Then people's hands would be broken when getting hit.

I like 2 of his ideas:

1. Bring back the old 106mm recoiless rifle for direct fire support in MOUT. You could mount it on a M-113, Stryker or Humvee and it gives more punch than a grenade launcher or ATGM but doesn't require you to brgin up a tank or MGS.

2. Add a few M-113s to our airborne BUAs. I don't like the idea of competely mechanizing the 82nd Airborne but about 20-24 M-113s for each battalion would suffice. 14 to mechanize the A company, 4-6 to carry ATGMs and and other weapons for the D company, and maybe 4 to allow you to mechanize the mortat platoon in certain situations.

20-24 M-113s for each Bn would just about totally mechanize the 82d for all practical purposes.

PS: A mortar plt has six tracks...or, at least it did when i was in.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

20-24 M-113s for each Bn would just about totally mechanize the 82d for all practical purposes.

PS: A mortar plt has six tracks...or, at least it did when i was in.

I was thinking just mechanize one company and one heavy weapons platoon and out that force on point for advances, then mount the remainder of the battalion in M1114s and 5 tons with applique and use them as a follow up force. We'd need to beef up our logistics to support this force but that would allow us to use the SBCTs for mid-intensity and peacekeeping ops which they seem much better suited for than "normal" combat. Or we could still use the SBCT and use this force with a SBCT to pull off the "hammer and anvil" attack.

As far as mortars the current light infantry TOE has 4 81mm mortars, I was assuming 1 track per mortar and maybe one more to carry ammo and the platoon CO.

The main difference in my idea is that the troops would still train and be equipped for conventional airborne fighting, the M-113s are only for certain situations.

Originally Posted by Wraith601

I was thinking just mechanize one company and one heavy weapons platoon and out that force on point for advances, then mount the remainder of the battalion in M1114s and 5 tons with applique and use them as a follow up force. We'd need to beef up our logistics to support this force but that would allow us to use the SBCTs for mid-intensity and peacekeeping ops which they seem much better suited for than "normal" combat. Or we could still use the SBCT and use this force with a SBCT to pull off the "hammer and anvil" attack.

As far as mortars the current light infantry TOE has 4 81mm mortars, I was assuming 1 track per mortar and maybe one more to carry ammo and the platoon CO.

The main difference in my idea is that the troops would still train and be equipped for conventional airborne fighting, the M-113s are only for certain situations.

1. Mortar Platoons are all 4 tubes now.

2. What would a M113 with 7.62mm protection add beyond a M1114 with 7.62mm protection other than some better mobility for the Delta Company

3. This would add lots of mechanics and fuelers. Also, you would need to add people to drive the vehicles or accept smaller squads that are less capable, not to mention training time that needs to be spent to maintain proficiency on the vehicles. For a situation like Iraq or Afghanistan where you can prep for the deployment and go beyond your 100% fill to form vehicle crews without hollowing out your infantry squads, I can definitely see the merits. However, I don't think it's very practical to try and maintain this capability on top of all the other things you need to train on.