H/T to Michelle Malkin.
Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee uncovered TNR’s unnamed expert at BAE Systems on the Bradley IFV to get the true scoop on their agility for running down dogs in the streets of Iraq.
Bob, I received your earlier email and wanted to talk to some others about the specific questions you asked. To answer your last question first, yes, I did talk to a young researcher with TNR who only asked general questions about “whether a Bradley could drive through a wall” and “if it was possible for a dog to get caught in the tracks” and general questions about vehicle specifications…
…I can’t pretend to know what may or may not have happened in Iraq but the impression the writer leaves is that a “driver” can go on joy rides with a 35 ton vehicle at will. The vehicle has a crew and a commander of the vehicle who is in charge. In order for the scenario described to have taken place, there would have to have been collaboration by the entire crew.
The driver’s vision, even if sitting in an open hatch is severely restricted along the sides. He sits forward on the left side of the vehicle. His vision is significantly impaired along the right side of the vehicle which makes the account to “suddenly swerve to the right” and actually catch an animal suspect. If you were to attempt the same feat in your car, it would be very difficult and you have the benefit of side mirrors.
Anyone familiar with tracked vehicles knows that turning sharply requires the road wheels on the side of the turn to either stop or reverse as the road wheels on the opposite side accelerates. What may not be obvious is that the track once on the ground, doesn’t move. The road wheels roll across it but the track itself is stationary until it is pushed forward by the road wheels.
The width of the track makes it highly unlikely that running over a dog would leave two intact parts. One half of the dog would have to be completely crushed.
It also seems suspicious that a driver could go on repeated joy rides or purposefully run into things. Less a risk to the track though that is certainly possible but there is sensitive equipment on the top of the vehicle, antennas, sights, TOW missile launcher, commander and if it was a newer vehicle, the commander’s independent viewer, not to mention the main gun. Strange things are known to happen in a combat environment but I can’t imagine that the vehicle commander or the unit commander would tolerate repeated misuse of the vehicle, especially any action that could damage its ability to engage. more…
Just so you understand what Doug Coffey with BAE is referencing, here are images to look at too:
I am still trying to figure out why TNR would not reveal Doug Coffey as a source before. It makes no sense to conceal his identity, that is, until you hear the ambiguous questions they asked, so they could twist it to fit what they needed for a spin on their “fact-checking”. As Ann Althouse says, “TNR’s silence is deathly.”
Matt Sanchez interviews a squad leader in the field, personally, to find out the likelihood of someone being able to maneuver a HUMVEE or Bradley IFV into dogs, with video of the interview, no less. Unlike Scottie Beauchamp, this gentleman actually has credibility with what he is saying, because he drives these things in Iraq. Imagine Matt’s nerve, getting someone who knows what they are talking about and documenting his “fact-checking”! The nerve!
And, just so you have a frame of reference on the HUMVEE…
Are you taking notes, TNR? Oh! Sorry. I forgot that you are on vacation.
I wish they were back to get pointers on how to rigorously fact-check information on the
news stuff they print.
The Associated Press finally weighs in on the Scott Beauchamp saga, a day late and a dollar short.
A magazine gets a hot story straight from a soldier in Iraq and publishes his writing, complete with gory details, under a pseudonym. The stories are chilling: An Iraqi boy befriends American troops and later has his tongue cut out by insurgents. Soldiers mock a disfigured woman sitting near them in a dining hall. As a diversion, soldiers run over dogs with armored personnel carriers. Compelling stuff, and, according to the Army, not true. more…
Strangely enough, it is now starting to generate a buzz outside of the blogosphere with the AP article. But, it seems sort of hypocritical for the AP to be casting stones on TNR, considering their own history.