Com-Central.net

This is a slight peek into the void of Mike Sparks.....

STRANGER THAN FICTION !!!

Enjoy....Happy New Year & GEAUX TIGERS!!!

Don

Don't feel bad, Don...I'm given to understand that somewhere between his Kennedy assassination theory and alien invasion "tactical studies groups" sites, he found time to wail on me personally for the past trangression of objecting to his appropriating my photographs for a purpose of which I did not approve (without permission) and likewise sending me obscene emails and reneging on his agreement to remove them by doing me the honor of mentioning me on his website somewhere with this statement:

"Before becoming a self-absorbed nostalgia-monger, Kibbey was a crewman on the problem-prone, eventually vindicated then sadly and wrongly retired M551 Sheridan light tank whose demise his weak ego depended on for self-importance."

Consider yourself in good company...being criticised by Mike Sparks is like finding yourself on Manson's "enemies list", with the exception that, while equally looney, Manson was actually dangerous and to be taken seriously.

If you don't throw up in your mouth by wading through it, you'll find that Roy Lingle gets words put in his mouth on the Combatreform website too with regard to the Gav!n petition.

Sparky doesn't know the difference between experience and nostalgia, or maybe he does and that's why he finds it necessary to attack it, since he doesn't have any, unlike say, people like you, Roy and myself.

Hi Don! Hi Folks!

Thanks for the info. It's nice to know what Mikey is up to from time to time.

In the second video clip I noticed an outstanding discrepancy with the time line for the M50, and M113/M551 history.

"The Army opted instead ....(missing a word or two)...better protected M113 Gavins/M551 Sheridans made of aluminum alloy armor.....


What??????????? If I understood that bit correctly, Mike is saying the Army dropped the Ontos and picked up the M113/M551.

What happiened to the M56 SPAT?

I maybe wrong on this, but wasn't the M50 and the M56 the result of the same program and the Army ended up picking the M56 while the USMC picked up the M50 when the Army dropped it?

As for the M113 being better protected than the M50, I think I remember reading some where that the alumiunum armor of the M113 was equal to 1/4 inch steel armor. Isn't the M50 made out of 1/4 inch steel armor?

If I am correct, that would make Mikey wrong on another point.

The M50 had a gasoline engine. OK... didn't just about every tracked vehicle at the time the M50 was developed have a gasoline engine? The first M113s that when to Vietnam were mo-gassers.

I like his claim that the Marines discarded the Ontos. I guess he never heard of the TOW ATGM (which could kill just about any AFV out to 3,000 + meters, vis the 106mm RR's max range of 1,200 meters) going into service as the time the M50 and the M56 were being retired.

M i k e S p a r k s is something else.
Sgt, Scouts Out!

The joys of the internet; giving even the lunatic fringe a voice. Sparks is a looney toon.

Wow!

So how many members of this DG have been "Sparkified" now, it's almost like a badge of honor.

Although I don't have the experience on M113's like some of our other esteemed members, I did have the pleasure/pain of having one in Korea my last time there ('99-2000), and she was an A3 to boot. Also had A2's and ITV's in the platoon while in Germany '84-'86 and spend time riding/ maintaining, and sometimes driving them (all part of that cross training thing we did in the Cavalry with our Scouts). In my opinion it's time for the M113 to fade into history just like the venerable Jeep. I'm pretty sure the only reason we still have them today is because of the end of the Cold War. If it had continued they'd have all been replaced with M2 Bradley based vehicles. Let's face it, an aluminum box with tracks is all she is. Adding more crap and gizmo's just makes her heavier and harder to maintain. I am glad I did not have to use one in Iraq, M1114 Humvee was much, much easier to maintain, and to be quite honest, much easier to use. Armor is a moot point after small arms. They want to get you bad enough, they'll make an IED that will.

Joe D

- Roy_A_Lingle

Hi Don! Hi Folks!

Thanks for the info. It's nice to know what Mikey is up to from time to time.

In the second video clip I noticed an outstanding discrepancy with the time line for the M50, and M113/M551 history.

"The Army opted instead ....(missing a word or two)...better protected M113 Gavins/M551 Sheridans made of aluminum alloy armor.....


What??????????? If I understood that bit correctly, Mike is saying the Army dropped the Ontos and picked up the M113/M551.

What happiened to the M56 SPAT?

I maybe wrong on this, but wasn't the M50 and the M56 the result of the same program and the Army ended up picking the M56 while the USMC picked up the M50 when the Army dropped it?

Sgt, Scouts Out!

The T 55, T 56 & T165 (prototype Ontos) originally had the suspension of the M56. It was not dependable in testing so convensional roadwheels replaced the inflatable 'tire' roadwheels and a convensional 3 piece sprocket replaced the M56 style rubberized one piece sprocket.

Heres a blurb SPARKIE used IRT the M56:

"While Army 82nd Airborne Paratroopers were using their M56 Scorpion light self-propelled 90mm guns to blast the Viet Cong and NVA with less firing signature and no back-blast,...."

If I'm not mistaken, the M56 was pulled from Vietnam due to severe crew exposure and being obsolete in 67-68. 173rd ARBN had D Co 16th Armor who fielded the M56. They received a yet undetermined number of Ontos from the Marines in 69-70. Used them (Marine Ontos ) for a short time.

I have very little info on this and I'm still trying to hunt this down though.

signed
"Ingrate, Marine, F--KTARD" (!!??)
Don

- Dontos

This is a slight peek into the void of Mike Sparks.....

STRANGER THAN FICTION !!!

Enjoy....Happy New Year & GEAUX TIGERS!!!

Don

Void? Much worse than that. He has gone into an opposite universe with his observation about war being a creative act.............

Don, since he takes you to task for using pics from Hunnicutt without permission, you might want to ask when he obtained permission from Dick Hunnicutt for the use of the entire page 77 from "Bradley" seen here:

www.combatreform.com/u...in1954.jpg

...while he does give credit, I'd bet a mountain of Dunkin' Donuts that he didn't have prior permission. He certainly never did originally give me credit for use of my copyrighted photos or obtain permission for use of those either.

Expect a "We who are in the Army" speech.

- Doug_Kibbey

Don, since he takes you to task for using pics from Hunnicutt without permission, you might want to ask when he obtained permission from Dick Hunnicutt for the use of the entire page 77 from "Bradley" seen here:

www.combatreform.com/u...in1954.jpg

...while he does give credit, I'd bet a mountain of Dunkin' Donuts that he didn't have prior permission. He certainly never did originally give me credit for use of my copyrighted photos or obtain permission for use of those either.

Expect a "We who are in the Army" speech.

Just to set the record straight...

I have never used scanned copies of any of Hunnicutts published works, as posted material. I have reference copies of applicable material as I have collected from many other published sources. I do however credit all reference books, magazines, newspapers, reports, technical & field manuals, film, or whatever the material format may be in.

Although it has taken me many years to rediscover what I have amassed to this day, it is really a testimate to the kindness of countless individuals who I have been in contact with, which have kept steering me in the right direction.

I've tried to use source material from various library collections, which I give full credit. Even 'public domain' material is credited. This is only appropriate, and provides a public record of where my information is extracted.

I have begun to 'build' a signficant 'Ontos Information Collection' so the material is available in a semi-organized form.

Sparkie has actually shed some light on a few items which (counter to his claims & interpretations) are worthy of inclusion.

I guess I really do need to get the subject matter in print. Who knows,....we'll see.

Don

- Dontos

- Doug_Kibbey

Don, since he takes you to task for using pics from Hunnicutt without permission, you might want to ask when he obtained permission from Dick Hunnicutt for the use of the entire page 77 from "Bradley" seen here:

www.combatreform.com/u...in1954.jpg

...while he does give credit, I'd bet a mountain of Dunkin' Donuts that he didn't have prior permission. He certainly never did originally give me credit for use of my copyrighted photos or obtain permission for use of those either.

Expect a "We who are in the Army" speech.

Just to set the record straight...

I have never used scanned copies of any of Hunnicutts published works, as posted material. I have reference copies of applicable material as I have collected from many other published sources. I do however credit all reference books, magazines, newspapers, reports, technical & field manuals, film, or whatever the material format may be in.
Don

Well, there you go...I should have known better than to trust anything the clown says.

Thanks for setting that straight!

Hi Joe! Hi Folks!

- Joe_D

Wow!
So how many members of this DG have been "Sparkified" now, it's almost like a badge of honor.
Joe D

Me for one. I saw his petition and send in a response to it.

I said something like it would be nice if something was named after General G, but not the M113 sense it is on it's way out of service. I should have made a copy of what all I did say so I could remember it all. Anyway by the time Mikey was done with my responce, about 2/3 to 3/4 quarters of it had been deleted and all that was left was about four disjoined sentences that don't go together that made it sound like I supported his point of view.

I figured that was a test of his integrity and he failed it.

- Joe_D

In my opinion it's time for the M113 to fade into history just like the venerable Jeep.

Sorry Joe, but I have to disagree with you here. While it may not be the best vehicle for a number of missions, the old box does have some life left in it. I feel it can be still be put to good use until the manned FCS vehicles start reaching the field. At that point it will be time for all of them to following the old Jeeps.

- Joe_D

I'm pretty sure the only reason we still have them today is because of the end of the Cold War. If it had continued they'd have all been replaced with M2 Bradley based vehicles.

The M113 remained in service with the Division 86 reorg because there wasn't enough funding available to develope replacements for all the different jobs it was being used for during the last years of the cold war.

Even after the fall of the wall and collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the M113 was needed even more due to the fact that it was already in service and there was a major shortage of funds for things like the Bradley Medievac carrier and the M4 Command Post/Aid station carriers. Three designs that did make it off the drawing board but died due to a lack of funds. There is still the mortar carrier and an Engineer Squad vehicle which never saw a Bradley replacement developed.

The box is still needed and can be helpful if used for the right missions like mortar carrier, aid station, command post, FDC ops, Engineer Squad Carrier and OpFor ViMods. One other thing I think they would be good at is issue enough of them to the 82nd Airborne Division in a stand alone unit (like USMC Amtrack units) so an infantry battalion can be transported if there is a need. Like during Desert Shield when a brigade was set up in front of the Iraq Army. The M113 is not the answer to all missions as Mikey thinks it is. But it can be helpfull if used for the right ones.

The M113 may turn into the Army's version of the Air Forces' B-52. An aircraft that is approching the combinded ages of the five crewmen who fly in them.
Sgt, Scouts Out!

Dontos; Doug; Roy; Joe; Fellows;

Shatter-Gap. Sherman Comb. Green Tunisian Tigers. Panthers in Vietnam.

That flying saucer Sgt Maynard and I pulled out of the Kaiserslautern woods back in '62 with our M-74.... Hold on,...there's a man in black at the door..

And still, the unkillable G-Word. Goodness, it's good to be back! This Mr. Sparks begins to annoy me, and we have never met.

Stand down, Doug; as far as I know, I am the only authentic self-absorbed nostalgia-monger, safely quartered in West Germany, and ETS'd long before lots of you lads were out having real experiences, busting brush and shedding surf boards.

Now I'm rather missing Loren, back on the old Board.

Say, has anyone seen Loren and Mr. Sparks together? Hmmmm.

Gotta jet -- my vintage Austin K2 Nightingale needs waxing.

Russ