us army enlistment goals met

[manu1959]

for the 7th month in a row....

 

[Annie]

for the 7th month in a row....

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/01/10/ap2442040.html

Army Meets December Recruiting Goal
By LOLITA C. BALDOR , 01.10.2006, 07:15 PM


The Army exceeded its monthly recruiting goal in December but must still pick up the pace to meet its target of 80,000 for the budget year ending Sept. 30.

December was the seventh consecutive month that the Army met its goal.

Army officials have said they expect this to be an extremely difficult year for recruiting, in part because of the Iraq war. Last year, the service fell 6,600 troops short of its goal of 80,000.

So far, in the first three months of this budget year, the Army has recruited just 11,500 soldiers and will need to do better in coming months to meet the target for the year.

Part of the problem with the first quarter is that the December goal is just a fraction of the other monthly targets. It only required the Army to recruit 700 soldiers last month, compared to the November target of 5,600.

According to Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, the December goal is low because no recruits are sent to basic training during that month. So only soldiers who have previously served in the Army - and don't have to go to boot camp - are recruited in December. A year ago, the goal for December was just 400.

The Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps also exceeded their monthly recruiting goals - which were all two to three times the Army's number. All four military services also met or exceeded their reenlistment goals for the month.

According to the Pentagon, the Army recruited 741 soldiers in December, 6 percent more than its goal. The Navy recruited 2,022, just 1 percent more than its goal; the Air Force recruited 2,209, also 1 percent more than its goal; and the Marine Corps recruited 1,717, 6 percent more than its goal.

Four of the military reserves met or exceeded their recruitment goals. The Navy Reserve and the Air National Guard have been routinely falling short of their targets in recent months.

 

[manu1959]

thanks for the link


i saw it on the news.....are we suposed to say that ? wouldn't wnt to get banned :duh3:

 

[padisha emperor]

I saw in the news that the US troops have not a good particularly for the kevlar coat. Studies from Pentagon shows that 80 % of the killed US soldiers in Iraq could have been saved if the kevlar was best. But the family have to pay if they want a best kevlar coat.
As Mrs Clinton said, I think that 250 dollars more by soldier is not a lot if it can save their lives.

 

[dmp]

The thing about recruiting goals...they are 'goals'. They can be adusted as seen fit by those who make a LOT more money than most of us. Enlistments falling? Lower your goals. Now, you'll MEET your goals.

 

[KarlMarx]

I saw in the news that the US troops have not a good particularly for the kevlar coat. Studies from Pentagon shows that 80 % of the killed US soldiers in Iraq could have been saved if the kevlar was best. But the family have to pay if they want a best kevlar coat.
As Mrs Clinton said, I think that 250 dollars more by soldier is not a lot if it can save their lives.

That's rich, considering that it was the Clintons who slashed defense spending by almost 1/2 during the 1990s.

Don't be fooled, Hillary Clinton is very anti-military, she is just acting pro-military for the time being. She is getting ready to run for President in 2008, so she has to appeal to as many people as possible.

Well, the good news for me is that she won't be my Senator for very long, but the bad news is that she may eventually be my next President

 

[padisha emperor]

It's not because Hilary say s such things that she becomes pro-war. She just said that soldiers need better kevlar and supplies, equipment. The soldiers themselves said it to Rummie when he went to Iraq.


But that was not the main content of my post, I quote Hilary just to end the post.

I find that it's a shame for the US army. 80 % could have been saved. It's enormous.

 

[CSM]

It's not because Hilary say s such things that she becomes pro-war. She just said that soldiers need better kevlar and supplies, equipment. The soldiers themselves said it to Rummie when he went to Iraq.


But that was not the main content of my post, I quote Hilary just to end the post.

I find that it's a shame for the US army. 80 % could have been saved. It's enormous.

It is also bullshit.

Those Kevlar vests dont do much against IEDs. I have no idea what makes people think there is anything science and technology can do to make small unit conflict casualty free. It is just not possible. There would be no US casualties at all if we had nuked the place. Seems to me that such and action would have been most effective in preventing US casualties and still removed Saddam from power.

Also, people have to remember that the budget for the military is set by Congress. Both parties have a say in how much money is spent on what for our troops. If anyone is to blame it is the slimey politicians in both the House and the Senate who are more interested in their pork barrel projects than the latest and greatest equipment for the military folks who have to actually do the fighting.

 

[padisha emperor]

What is IED ?

The kevlar are too small, the impacts on the bodies are often on the sides ogf the chest and in the shoulders, where the kevlar doesn't protect the soldier. (in comparaison, the french army's kevlar is bigger, and protect alos the neck. The US army should have the same one, for the wellfare of its soldiers.

 

[manu1959]

What is IED ?

The kevlar are too small, the impacts on the bodies are often on the sides ogf the chest and in the shoulders, where the kevlar doesn't protect the soldier. (in comparaison, the french army's kevlar is bigger, and protect alos the neck. The US army should have the same one, for the wellfare of its soldiers.

the french army has not fired a shot since kevlar has been invented

for all you know the french vests are made of silk

 

[CSM]

What is IED ?

The kevlar are too small, the impacts on the bodies are often on the sides ogf the chest and in the shoulders, where the kevlar doesn't protect the soldier. (in comparaison, the french army's kevlar is bigger, and protect alos the neck. The US army should have the same one, for the wellfare of its soldiers.

A comparison between French and US protective gear is not appropriate. US soldiers actually have to fight in their gear. The French soldiers just need pockets for white cloth.

 

[padisha emperor]

Well, stop this jokes, it was just to show how absurde it is for the first army in the world to have so bad protection for its soldiers.

(French fought in Lebanon, Somalia, Yougoslavia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and several other places since the Kevlar's invention, dear...)

After, if it doesn't shock you, or disturb you, it's your matter. But I would be upset and disturbed if my army had bad protection for its troops. That's just it.

US Army body armor

Us soldier with body armor

french soldier, you can look the body armor, protecting the neck too.

here too (Pristina, Kosovo)

The 2nd and 4th pics show the difference.

It's not at all to say our army has a best quality, only to show to you how sad I find the fact that the Us soldiers go to the fight without the equipment they should have, so please don't see here any "french arrogance" (I took the french exemple because I know it)

 

[CSM]

PE, You are such a dolt at times...the first picture you show is NOT...I repeat...NOT a US soldier in body armor. It is a US soldier, I will give you that, but as you know full well, that is not even the current uniform of a US soldier in Iraq. I was joking about the French soldier not having to fight (we have had this discussion before). It remains to be seen if French body armor is any more effective against the types of fires the US soldier is undergoing daily ,,, I suspect it is not simply because there are not many types of body armor that can withstand IEDs (improvised explosive devices). Your comment of the US Army and its soldiers is pure arrogance (disregarding the fact that you are French) and an os so obvious sneer at the US.

 

[CSM]

Further about body armor:

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1140929&tw=wn_wire_story

Please read the article and note that the way the article is written, it would have you believe that they only studied 93 fatalities and that of those fatalities, 74 were attributed to circumvention of the body armor. This would make it appear as if 80% of the fatalities are attributed to poor body armor.
It is only when you read further on that one learns that in reality there were more than 400 fatalities studied and the number 93 is really the number of torso fatalities (less than 25% of the original 400+) and that of those fatalities 74 are attributed to hits in areas where the body armor is either not present or at its weakest.

I dont know what kind of math they teach you French folks, but us hicks here in the US pretty much understand that 74 is NOT 80% of 400.

Given PE's reliance on our own disengenuous liberal-biased news media plus his typical European arrogance, I am not surprised at his comments.

 

[CSM]

One more thing. The picture of the US soldier PE posted comes from here:

http://www.arrc.nato.int/pictures/kfor/kfor.htm

Please note that the site specifically states the picture was taken between Feb and Oct 1999. The body armor shown is NOT the body armor worn today.

 

[archangel]

tanker back in the day...even all that body armor was no guarantee! M60A1 52tons of armor that could be pierced...body armor or any armor is just a little help, but will never guarantee complete protection...minus staying out of combat zones...mind ya! :teeth:

 

[padisha emperor]

The two last pics of the french soldiers are also about Kosovo, so 1999, the french body armor can have evolve too. anyway (sorry for the first wrong pic) )

It was NOT arrogance or anything near that...I feel just concerned by the welfare and the security of the men fighting (when they're not my ennemies ), so I was quite sad when I saw these numbers of possible avoided casualties, that's all.

 

[taff]

The body armour we normaly wore in the Brit army was just 2 eight inch square kevlar plates that slotted into your jacket covering your heart front and rear.We did have full kevlar suits available when we went into really bad areas but these were shared as we didnt have enough for one each.
Mind you after a week you would rather go on patrol without one as it usualy just chaffes your neck and makes you sweat like a pig.

 

[Annie]

The body armour we normaly wore in the Brit army was just 2 eight inch square kevlar plates that slotted into your jacket covering your heart front and rear.We did have full kevlar suits available when we went into really bad areas but these were shared as we didnt have enough for one each.
Mind you after a week you would rather go on patrol without one as it usualy just chaffes your neck and makes you sweat like a pig.

Hey! Good to see you. What you said about heat and discomfort is readily apparent by the comments and posts on the milblogs.

 

[taff]

Hey! Good to see you. What you said about heat and discomfort is readily apparent by the comments and posts on the milblogs.

Hi K.Good to see the board is still going strong.Also good to see Padisha still here causing chaos.