jlf1961
Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
|
Actually, DA, there was 2 companies of US army personel in lebanon during attached to the multinational force, both assigned near the Lebanese and Israeli Border, and for a VERY short time after the marine barracks incident, in Beirut itself.
One unit was a field medical company, the other, the one that I was assigned to was tasked to maintain security around the refugee camps in southern Lebanon until either a combat force of Marines were put in place, or another force was assigned, as well as other duties as ordered by the powers that be.
FYI, the seal units placed in Lebanon were done so at the command of the USJC special operations command, which also had full control of the US Army rangers. What was assigned was a Spec Ops task force that had orders to suppliment peace keeping operations AND if possible recover any warsaw pact hardware that happened to find its way into our hands.
There was also a Marine Force Recon unit assigned with the task of attempting to locate any american citizens currently held as hostages in Lebanon at the time.
Not to mention an USAF detachment at the Beirut Airport.
The last unit assigned to the operation from the United States was a Navy medical detachment that worked in the refugee camps in and around Beirut.
All units were withdrawn shortly after the Marine barracks was blown and some of them were reassigned to the force that hit Grenada.
Furthermore, during this period, three companies of US Army personnel were assigned to the UN peace keeping forces in the Sinai.
The UN security council was also discussing the possibility of expanding the peace keeping force to cover the Golan Heights, as well as the Syrian/Lebanon border area.
A second proposal was for the UN forces deployed to be used to deal with Hamas and PLO camps in the area in the hopes of eliminating them as a terrorist threat.
Now, while the Marines and other units got most of the attention, since they became the targets of Hamas and other Palastinian terrorist organizations, the US Army was there, in a limited capacity, and not in nearly the same numbers as the other forces deployed.
Most news accounts of the Somalia operation neglect to mention that there were army and airforce personnel there as well.
I can even point out that during the problems in the Belgian congo that forced the UN to deploy French Legionaires to provide protection for European and American civilians, there were two companies of marines, the Legionaires were airdropped by USAF C130 aircraft and there was a company of army paratroopers dropped on the main airport to secure the area for all personel to get the hell out.
However, in that operation, the Legionaires got the headlines.
During the 1980's if you will remember, Reagan was fond of using the military to set foreign policy. How many Marine Recon units were assigned to Columbia to deal with drug cartels? How many navy seals were assigned? For that matter, how many marines and army personnel were in Pakastan training Afghan rebels?
And let us not forget the famous words of the Joint Chiefs, 'There are no US combat forces in Laos or Cambodia." which was already proven a lie when it was said.
To quote the JCS, "Units assigned to Peace Keeping forces will be on an as available contingency, as preferred units become available, the other units will be withdrawn and returned to previous assignments."
The multinational force assigned to Lebanon was no where near the needed strength, and after it became targets, the UN pulled them all out. It was that very reason that the terrorist organizations came to believe that the western governments would not risk troops in the middle east dealing with middle eastern politics. It was that fact that Hussain was counting on before the first gulf war.
If you remember, for the longest time after the Barracks incident, the only Special Ops force willing to go up against the terrorists were the Israeli commandos. Everyone else kept a very low profile. We got a bloody nose and backed down.
The same thing happened in Somalia.
In the army I was issued the M1A, which by the way looks EXACTLY like the M14 with one very big exception, the M1A does not have the capacity to fire full auto.
The M1A was a springfield modification of the M1 Gerand rifle which allowed the use of the detachable box magazine, as well as an improved bolt assembly. The M14 was the next model, still based on the M1 Gerand rifle, again with the detachable box magazine and the addition of the full auto capability.
Also steming from that program are some of the rifles presently in use in Iraq, including an M1A with composite stock, newer optical systems which includes night vision capability. There are also units assigned that have the M14 with composite stocks and a sniper configuration. This weapons deployment is considered to be a back up for the SAW belt fed weapon systems.
Other weapon systems tested from 1965 through the 1990's for sniper use has been the Aug Styr as favored by the British, a modified version of the old BAR, Three remington models, one winchster bolt action and two HK weapons.
The primary advantage of the M1A in a sniper configuration is its stability, the fact that the chambered round is the same standard 7.56 round used by NATO forces. Since being issued as a sniper weapon the M1A system has been modified in some various ways, including the allowance for the weapon to fire subsonic noise suppressed rounds, the addition of a suppressor, as well as a larger magazine.
The bolt action rifles you mention were transferred to the Secret Service and have sense been replaced with the JAR.
The only difference between the commercially available M1A is the fact that none of the US military issue weapons have been sold as surplus, however the surplus M1 Gerands in the Springfeild inventory are available for modification.
I would not presume to argue the types or capabilities of any combat aircraft with you for any reason. Primarily since the only thing I know about military aircraft is that some you jump out of, some you call for help, and others are so damn high you cant tell which side they are on.
I mean I have been told that the SR71, Tomcat and B1 lancer all share the same engines. I find that a bit difficult to believe since it is quite obvious that the engines on the SR71 are freaking huge.
I have also been told the sidewinder can be used in air to air and air to ground applications, which seems a bit hard to take since the sidewinder is a heatseeker.
But I am probably wrong on both counts and would actually like to find out if I am wrong.
And unless I am mistaken, wasnt the F22 supposed to replace all fighter aircraft in the US inventory, or was that a different fighter?
By the way, if you would like to purchase the civilian version of the M1A send me a cmail, I will give you the web address. I recommend the SOCOM model, it is a hell of a lot lighter than the walnut stock.
**Oh, DA, I would suggest that you research the I7, I15, and the I400, you might just find your last statement plausable. And check into the Doolittle raid as well, and the fact that Jeep carriers were used to ferry USAAF fighters to islands and bases captured by advancing allied forces.
< Message edited by jlf1961 -- 6/27/2008 12:23:24 AM >
_____________________________
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?
You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.
Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI
|
RE: The 2nd Amendment - 
Profile
(The airforce has too many people devoted to classifying toilet paper, to remember that their plane that leaks like a sieve needs special fuel LOL) 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread