Matt Sanchez interviews a soldier about driving HUMVEEs and Bradleys into dogs. Watch the video:
Bob Owens talked to Doug Coffey, the Head of Communications, Land & Armaments, for BAE Systems, the Bradley IFV’s manufacturer that TNR wouldn’t name. You won’t read this in the MSM..and certainly not in TNR:
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.
Ace wonders why TNR wouldn’t identify Coffey:
How the Bradley can “lurch” to the side and yet maintain enough forward speed to catch a dog in its tracks isn’t really clear.
But what’s more damning is this: There was absolutely no reason I can see for TNR not to have offered the name of its expert here.
Coffery seems to have no reservations about Confederate Yankee using his name; are we to believe he for some reason wouldn’t permit TNR to use his name but allows a blogger to do so?
So why was this expert’s name withheld from the public? He’s not serving in Iraq. He’s not forbidden by military codes to make unauthorized statements while in the field. He has no superior officers to chew him out.
What reason, then? When a claiming corroboration on a dubious and widely challenged story, why not offer up all the names possible so that skeptics can contact one’s experts themselves and talk to them?
I think the reason is pretty obvious. TNR asked very vague questions they were reasonably confident they’d get an affirmative response to, and thus could characterize those responses as “confirmation.”
Also must-read: Delving into TNR’s anonymous sources and the elusive Corporal Quotey McQuoterton.