The most deranged military rant I've seen.

[PeZook]

His claim that military professionals call the M113 the "Gavin" is also hilarious. I mean, why would the military call an APC which was never intended to be air-droppable after an obscure para officer?

[Sarevok]

His claim that military professionals call the M113 the "Gavin" is also hilarious. I mean, why would the military call an APC which was never intended to be air-droppable after an obscure para officer?

I don't think General Gavin would be obscure in military circles. Just googling the man's name turns up a wealth of information.

[Sidewinder]

A battery of ASMs would sink them and that's it.

Not if they were properly screened by AAW ships, but in the end that's irrelevant, because with a main gun range of only 24 miles they would have to close to well within the range of almost any modern medium to large caliber artillery near the target area, which while unable to sink her outright, would certainly be able to "mission kill" a BB, also given the Iowa's horrendous accuracy, it is unlikely she could return any effective counter-battery fire against reasonably hardened emplacements (such as SP guns or HART bunkers).

Sparks probably thinks we can scale up the Zumwalt class' Advanced Gun System, i.e., develop a GPS guided (and rocket assisted?) 16-inch shell, or a sabot to fire the Long-Range Land Attack Projectile from a 16-inch gun.

4) In the spring or summer of 1967 when USS New Jersey (BB-62) was being activated for Vietnam, Indian Head Naval Ordnance Station proposed taking 23,000 non-nuclear 280 mm (11") shells left over from the Army's "atomic cannon" program and converting them via a sabot and obturator to be used in 16" (40.6 cm) guns. This was apparently a part of or in conjunction with the "Gunfighter" program for developing Long Range Bombardment Ammunition (LRBA) projectiles. Test shots were fired in 1968 and 1969 at Yuma and at Barbados, with the latter location using two 16"/45 (40.6) cm guns welded end-to-end and achieving ranges out to 83,850 yards (76,670 m) with a 745 lbs. (338 kg) shell fired at a muzzle velocity of 4,550 fps (1,387 mps). The program was apparently halted when New Jersey was decommissioned in 1969. An image of the disassembled saboted round is on the additional pictures page.

(Of course, the size difference might make the "fire a saboted 155 mm shell from a 16-inch gun" idea a white elephant.)

[Zixinus]

My god, I never realized how far out he was

Ahem:

http://home.comcast.net/~genericdad/m113gavin.html <- a brief review of sparky, including such wonders as:

* Me: If you want a vehicle that carries fewer men you either need to re-design the infantry squad, platoon and company with a new TOE and new doctrine and supply them with more vehicles, or you need to carry the squad in more than one vehicle, again with a new TOE and doctrine. You have not done that.

Sparky: FUCK USMC 13-MAN SQUAD STUPIDITY. IT WAS IMPLIED IN USING AMPHIGAVINS THAT USMC WOULD HAVE TO GET HEADS OUT OF ASSES AND REDUCE SQUAD SIZE.

USMC NEEDS TO REFORM ITSELF OR BE ABOLISHED.

* Me: Your assessment of the Battle of An Nasiriyah, in which you claims dozens of Marines were killed when their AAV7’s were hit by RPG fire also seems to be both utterly dishonest, mis-leading and also one-dimensional.

Sparky: VERBAGE. DO YOU WRITE FOR FOX NEWS?

Me: But how many troops have been saved by the protection of their AAV7’s and the fact that they carry such a large and effective dismounted fighting element? That’s a bit harder to quantify and certainly does not make as sensational a headline but in the end is I think, far more important.

Sparky: SAYS WHO?

YOU ARE TRYING TO EXCUSE AWAY INCOMPETENCE BY GREATER INCOMPETENCE (RIDING IN WHEELED TRUCKS OR WALKING).

YOU ARE DISHONESTLY TRYING TO EXCUSE AWAY BETTER OPTIONS BY COMPARING WEAK OPTIONS WITH EVEN WEAKER OPTIONS.

YOU MUST WORK IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MINISTRY OF LIES.

Me: The CH-53E can sling load 16,330kg which would allow it to carry a loaded M-113 even with appliqué armor kit installed. It can not carry the MTVL however which is the only M-113 family vehicle large enough to accommodate a full marine infantry squad.

Sparky: SAYS WHO?

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THE EMPTY WEIGHT OF THE 6-ROADWHEEL MTVL GAVIN IS?

DO YOU KNOW WHAT A 6-ROADWHEEL MTVL GAVIN WOULD WEIGH WITH BAND TRACKS AND HYBRID-ELECTRIC DRIVE?

NO, YOU LIKELY DON'T BECAUSE IF YOU DID YOU WOULDN'T BE MAKING BS STATEMENTS.

FYI FU*K YOU AND YOUR FU*KING MORONIC 13-MAN INFANTRY SQUAD.

IF YOU AND YOUR OTHER EGOMANIACS WANT TO DIE IN 13-MAN CLUSTERFUCKS ON FOOT PLEASE DO IT ON YOUR OWN DIME AND NOT THE TAXPAYERS.

And may I present you Sparky's modus oppendi: http://www.geocities.com/roswell.geo/

I'm sorry, but there is only one reality that we all live in. I wish that we could all "eat, drink and be merry" without any regard to future judgment, but that is not the reality we live in. We live in a backdrop where good and evil are fighting for the destiny of the human race; we can no longer continue as if we are here alone and what we do has no importance; our world has shrunk and we are all inter-connected in real time. The age of "grace" where we could learn and come to God easily is evaporating. Soon only hard, clear-cut choices will be available. Either you "buy into" the world system where food and comforts will be given if you worship the dominating evil or you stand by God and suffer the consequences of persecution by the people around us whod rather have the immediate comfort. We have to "face-the-music" and reality. If you have better ideas to account for and ward off these threatening forces/beings, please come forward, if not give Judeo-Christianity a chance. If you're in our government and about to surrender, consider the final option...if physical weapons have no effect, why not the Sword of the Spirit..the Word of God...what have we got to lose? Even if you are not a Christian you will get a response..that ought to tell you something....If the Bible is just "superstition" why the fear? They are afraid of the Book. We must become people of the Book. The showdown is coming. As that day approaches, we must get ready.

AIRBORNE!!!!

The man couldn't be more wacked if he was stoned.

[Ohma]

Why does he occasionally censor the word fuck anyway? I mean he's already typing in ALL CAPS111, in addition to having each sentence on a separate line, and consistently lacking grammar. What does he think that replacing the c in fuck with an asterisk makes his tantrums look less retarded or something?

Also why exactly does he have such a hard on for M-113s anyway?

[Rogue 9]

He's not even consistent about censoring it. I have no idea why he'd do it some of the time. Unless, of course, it was the guy who reposted the conversation who did the censoring.

[Jaevric]

"Good and evil are fighting for the destiny of the human race."

"The Sword of Spirit...The Word of God..."

"My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle" comes strongly to mind.

What a nutjob -- do people actually agree with this idiot?

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go persecute some Christians so I can obtain more worldly comforts.

[Coyote]

Ahh, the M-113 will keep us safe from the Antichrist.



Iron Chariots, I guess.

I've worked on, fought from, and lived in M-113s for off-and-on 20 years now. I like them, in a way, they're good little vehicles... but whereas I kinda have a soft spot in my heart for them, ol' Sparky has a soft spot in his head instead.

[Jim Raynor]

His claim that military professionals call the M113 the "Gavin" is also hilarious. I mean, why would the military call an APC which was never intended to be air-droppable after an obscure para officer?

From reading that site that debunks him, it's

1. Ignorance about the M113 not being air-droppable.
2. A deliberate scheme to promote his pet military theories (M113s and airborne maneuver rule) and make the M113 sound cooler than it really does. He intentionally picked General Gavin because he was an airborne officer, and hopes to get the M113 redesignated as the "M113 Gavin Airborne Infantry Fighting Vehicle."

Never mind that the M113 DOESN'T rate as an IFV, because it's only got a single machine gun and armor protection up to 7.62 mm (AK-47 rounds). From what I understand the army's doctrine is that M113s aren't even supposed to enter heavy combat; they're just for transporting soldiers who dismount when the fighting starts.

While the M113 does its job, it's old and as pure and bare-bones an APC as you can get. Battleship-wank I can somewhat understand; big guns and heavy armor make battleships cooler and manlier than aircraft carriers (even though carriers are far more effective in real, modern combat). But to wank to the M113? Might as well wank to the UH-1 Huey or jeeps.

[Sidewinder]

Ahh, the M-113 will keep us safe from the Antichrist.
<snip>
Iron Chariots, I guess.

I'm sorry if this is nitpicking, but the M113 is made of aluminum alloys, not iron or steel.

As for giving the M113 an official name, I found many options on its Wikipedia article.

The M113 has never received an official name, but has received a variety of nicknames over the years. The [Viet Cong] called it the "Green Dragon"; the Swiss referred to it as the "Elefantenrollschuh" or elephants' roller-skate; the Germans called it the "Schweinewürfel" or pig cube.[7][8] U.S. troops tended to refer to the M113 simply as a "track". Some sources have referred to the M113 as the "Gavin" in an allusion to Gen. Gavin, but U.S. forces have never used the name.[7] The Israeli official name for the M113 is "Bardelas" (Cheetah) but the troops call it "Zelda" (another nickname is "Zippo" after the brand of lighters, as the M113 tends to combust when hit by anti-tank weapons). The Australian Army refers to its M113A1s as "Buckets", and the modified M113A1 fitted with 76mm turrets as "Beasts". In the Norwegian army it is commonly referred to as the "Vietnam Dumpster". Spanish army called TOA (transporte oruga acorazado) as official name.

Personally, I favor "Green Dragon" or, if we need a laugh, "Elephant's Roller Skate" or "Can o' Spam" (a modification of "Pig Cube").

[PeZook]

The Swiss win that contest

[Jim Raynor]

Some sources have referred to the M113 as the "Gavin" in an allusion to Gen. Gavin, but U.S. forces have never used the name.

Another example of Wikipedia's stupid "NPOV" Golden Mean rules. That "Some sources" there is basically Mike Sparks and the people he's fooled. The word "source" carries a connotation of knowledge and authority which Sparks does not have. I could literally start a blog or website using some free service and be as much of a "source" as Mike Sparks (and I would probably design my site a lot better than his).

It's already been pointed out on the M113 article's discussion page that no one in any kind of real position calls it the Gavin, and that any reference to the Gavin nickname should be removed. But then a Wiki-moron responded "Which part of this is incorrect?" Granted, in the next section he says that a lot more of Mike Sparks's bullshit had already been removed from the article, but because it was "POV," not wrong. Apparently the experienced editors running that article have found their happy middle ground.

I presume some of the names listed there are the actual nicknames used in other world militaries. What's wrong is that the current wording of the article gives the impression that "Gavin" is on the same footing as them (i.e., used by actual people) which it is not.

Go and remove Gavin from the article if you want. I would do it myself, but I've found Wikipedians to be very stubborn and closed to any real debate.

[Rogue 9]

I'm all over it.

[PeZook]

UGH.

It's basically like writing "Some sources say Planet Earth is hollow and inhabitated by a race of reptillians bent on world domination. Also, Hitler lives there." in an article about Earth.

By this standard, "Some sources" claim all sorts of whacked out shit.

[Sidewinder]

Going through Sparks' "Combat Reform" website, I found more evidence that the guy just doesn't understand the 21st century battlefield, despite his service in the US Army. Behold Fighter in a Box, in which the Army buys a lot of short-range aircraft with folding wings so they can be driven around on a semi-trailer, and using Zero-Length Launch to takeoff in the absence of a runway. Or the AeroTANK.

Option A: Meet the AeroTANK: Killer Bees that kill without getting themselves killed

<snip image>

First off, praise be to legendary inventor Walter Christie who in the 1930s already figured out tracks are superior to wheels and that a basic bullet armor protection tank could be made to fly by exploiting its powered ground motion and engine power to a rear prop could generate enough lift over biplane wings to fly. Details:

<snip image>
www.geocities.com/air_mech_strike/aircraftphotos.htm

In addition to the typical U.S. military narcissism and lack of imagination to prevail in wars, the latter not being a handicap of the Axis German civilian inventors, Christie didn't have all the helping technologies we have today. First, we have the world's greatest tracked AFV (TAFV) of all time, ever the M113 Gavin that as-is protects against 7.62mm x 51mm AP bullets and HE blast near misses while offering outstanding closed terrain cross-country and amphibious mobility at a weight cost of only 10.5 tons thanks to aluminum alloy armor. This TAFV can be shrunk to be a "Mini-Gavin" to be about 7 tons empty powered by a gas turbine engine and electric drive for 60 mph speeds and stealth movement capability for 600 miles on just 100 gallons of JP-8.

If you are going to go for the "maximalist" approach for 3D maneuver over and through closed terrain, then damn it, do it like the 70-ton Abrams heavy tank does for open terrain, 2D maneuver. Obviously, we should be already "air-meching" Gavins in C-130s and larger USAF fixed-wing aircraft and Mini-Gavins from inside Army CH-47 helicopters to get decisive, 3D maneuver to get fleeting sub-national foes like Bin Laden hiding in closed terrains and to nab nation-state despots running away from our regime change 2D maneuver pushes. However, notice we ain't doing air-mech. One reason is the narcissism of the light infantry to not admit they need armor protection and mobility more than what they can provide with their own legs and the fact they have been bad-mouthing the heavy unit Soldiers as "mech pussies" for decades and they don't want to be seen in tracks and have to eat some humble pie even if it will kick the enemy's ass, win the war America expects us to win and bring them home alive to sleep with all the women who idolize them instead of the lights going out as a flag-draped coffin and death statistic excused away by the living as not as bad as Vietnam, Korea or WW2. The next reason we ain't doing air-mech is because we need the egomaniac aviators to give us a lift in their overly complex maximalist aircraft so they are full of their self-generated excuses. As a testament to Christie's genius, he foresaw this aviator can't-do-this crap just as it began but found out the hard way that the light infantry narcissists want tanks to FOLLOW THEM at their pace and not the other way around. The Russians actually prepared their entire army to invade Germany with Christie-style offensive track-wheel tanks to include actually test-flying a glider-towed version of his flying tank.

<snip image x 3>
www.damninteresting.com/?p=374

Posted by Greg Bjerg on February 10th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Sergei Anokin must have been one of the bravest men in the Soviet Army of World War 2. He is the only pilot to ever fly, or drive, the Antonov KT-40 Flying Tank.

The KT-40 was a Soviet T-60 light tank fitted with cheap wood and fabric wings. It was designed to glide into fields behind enemy lines. The KT kryl'ya tanka, (Tank Wings) was designed by the Antonov Bureau in 1940 and amazingly one working prototype was completed.

The twin boomed biplane wings were attached to the tank turning it into an armored glider. Heavy bombers would tow the tank to its destination and then release it as a nasty surprise for German troops. Supposedly elevating the gun for elevator control and rotating the turret for roll control maneuvered the KT-40. It had a crew of two, a tank commander and a driver/pilot.

In its only flight, the weight and drag of the tank caused it's TB-3 tow plane's engines to overheat very badly and the glider had to be released earlier than planned. Anokin flew the tank over a small, rough field and started the engine. He then engaged the drive mechanism and sped up the tracks before making a smooth landing. He detached the flying surfaces and drove back to base where he gave the KT-40 an enthusiastic review.

But despite the technical success of the test, the flying tank was not to go into production. The Soviets lacked a plane up to the task of towing the heavy KT-40.

Having the Mini-Gavin FLY ITSELF as its own AeroTANK would bypass the aviators who don't want to fly and the light or heavy ground narcissists who don't want to effectively 3D maneuver fight. Today's aerospace engineers can easily figure out the required wing lift needed to take-off a 7-ton Mini-Gavin and sustain it in flight by a lightweight transmission from its turbine engine to a rear propeller unit just as Christie envisioned it, perhaps not needing biplane wings to simplify things further. Fly-by-wire computer flight controls would be used to drive the hybrid-electric drive Mini-Gavin anyway, so having the software needed to control the wing's flaps, ailerons, prop unit and the tail unit's stabilizers, rudders would be easy and not cost any weight as a mechanical control linkage handicapped Christie in the 1930s. The AeroTANK would indeed really be a "flying tank" with armor protection for the crew and infantry inside from most enemy weapons effects. Most importantly, the AeroTANK Soldiers can execute 3D air-mech operational/tactical maneuvers ON THEIR OWN AS NEEDED WITHOUT BUREAUCRACY or "MOTHER MAY I?" of up to 200 miles.

Upon landing, the AeroTANK sheds its wings and tail unit which would have to be recovered for re-use not unlike cargo parachutes after a heavy drop, though they could be discarded/burned if in a pressing nation-state war situation. Now the say sayers might weigh in on the ground functional side of the AeroTANK whining that the Mini-Gavin is not armored enough yadda yadda. The first reality is, DO YOU WANT TO MOVE WITH ANY ARMOR PROTECTION IN CLOSED TERRAIN OR NOT? Increase weight to over 20 tons medium and you are increasingly unable to move through closed terrain and can't swim anymore short of oversizing the hull (USMC amtrack mentality) making yourself a huge target easy to hit in a vicious cycle of size needing more and more armoring than the engine/suspension can't handle. Next, once on the ground, dirt can be filled into pockets that attach to the outsides of the Mini-Gavin making it RPG, ATGM and landmine proof against most threats--certainly good enough protection for a situation where ANY armored cross-country mobility beats not having ANY which is how the easily ambushed light infantry wheeled truck road/trail and foot sloggers are getting creamed now in Iraq/Afghanistan.

AeroTANK
<snip image>

Option B: GyroTANK

Another option would be using the autogyro format to fly the Mini-Gavin. Benefits would be the rotors could detach & fold so the Mini-Gavin can be reconfigured and carry its rotors and tail unit with it sort of like the duplex drive (DD) props used to swim tanks with floatation screens in WW2.

GyroTANK
<snip image>

Might as well wank to the UH-1 Huey or jeeps.

Too late.

American Aircraft "Penetrator"
1991

Bell UH-1 "Hueys" were stripped down to engine and transmission mounts, controls modified to tandem arrangement and re-covered with armored composite structure, containing troop-carrier compartment, two aft facing gunner turrets on either side of the engine and two forward facing turrets. The aircraft, named the "Penetrator", was also outfitted with stub wings which unloaded the main rotor in high speed flight, increasing airspeed. This aircraft was to satisfy South Korean government need for gunship and a troop carrier, addressing the "northern threat" of Mi-24 "Hinds". In 1990 Mr. Gorbachev declared truth with the rest of the World and American Aircraft fell into insolvency.

www.kulikovair.com (Sidewinder note: the "kulikovair" website no longer exists.)

Caught in a "Catch 22" of mammoth proportions, military forces worldwide are faced with new wars and old helicopters. The technology they rely on is 20 to 30 years out of date, with designs that offer inadequate performance, no resistance to small arms fire and un-integrated weapons packages. Third-World military forces are particularly ill-equipped to fight today's conflicts, including world wide terrorism, hostage crisis, border conflicts and low-intensity warfare, because they, too, rely on outdated technology: Vietnam vintage helicopters that share obsolescence, redundancy, poor aerodynamic performance, ballistics vulnerability and no weapons.

American Aircraft Corporation (AAC) offers it's newly remanufactured, reconfigured helicopters to meet today's air/land battle threats, by incorporating the emerging technologies of the last two decades into its design. One of AAC's newest helicopters is the "Penetrator" - the only shock assault-lift all-composite gunship with a troop-lift capability for a squad of six soldiers plus a crew of four in the western world. It uses the Huey's very successful rotor system and powertrain as a base, but gives it a new high-performance, aerodynamic shape through innovative design. The basic model is an all-composite compounded helicopter with a gross take-off weight of 4280kg. The aircraft's aerodynamic fuselage minimizes profile drag and its wings and elevator unload the rotors during forward flight.

To reduce the Penetrator’s drag, all the machine guns, cannons and some rocket launchers are carried internally. The Penetrator’s weapons pods, rather than the blunt-end types currently in use, are aerodynamic free forms. The "Penetrator" commands more "cooperative" firepower by allowing 360 degrees perimeter capability and greater speed, range, agility and endurance. Its sleek multi-faceted shape also creates a lesser target, with a less observable signature in radar, infrared, acoustic and visual ranges.

With these advantages, the "Penetrator" ensures greater survivability for its crew and troop contingent in combat.

Currently, contemporary helicopters have only side door hung, forward-firing weapons and forward-facing "eyeballs". In the 75 years of air combat history, more than 80% of the vanquished never saw the victor because the defeated pilot was shot from the rear. The "Penetrator" offers the feature of a two-seat in tandem cockpit with the pilot positioned in the first seat for unobstructed vision and the forward-firing weapons operator is in the second seat, with the third and fourth weapons operators in seats aft of the main cabin to control rear-facing weapons. This firepower allows the "Penetrator" to perform as an excellent shock assault troop lift gunship with air-to-air, air-to-ground and ground-to-ground capability.

The "Penetrator", as a bristling troop lift gunship, has 360 degrees of perimeter firepower for the assault at the Landing Zone, as well as for air-to-air threats. Destruction of a "Penetrator" by sneak attack is literally impossible as long as the weapons operators are in position. It's composite construction of Kevlar reinforced by Nomex and the angular shape of its design afford the "Penetrator" ballistic resistance to small arms fire and low observability.

The addition of the Penetrator's troop-lift capability of a six man squad of soldiers, heavy ordnance of "massive firepower" capabilities puts the "Penetrator" in a class second to none. It is truly a massive firepower shock assault-lift gunship designed and built to suit today's Mission Objective and with the ability to win.

www.kulikovair.com

American Aircraft International of San Diego, California has developed the "Penetrator" two-seat gunship helicopter. This is based on an extensively modified Bell UH-1B "Iroquois" with a tandem two-seat cockpit, new fuselage shell incorporating flat armoured panels and a passenger cabin with two bulged observation windows. The Penetrator is fitted with stub wings, a skid undercarriage (or optional retractable tricycle gear), a lower fuselage rear-facing gun turret and two forward-firing cannon. The prototype (N3080W ex U.S.Army 63-8508) is powered by a 1300shp Avco Lycoming T52-L-13 turboshaft.

R.Simpson "Airlife's Helicopter and Rotorcraft", 1998

When I saw this, I thought, "Wouldn't this make the Huey too heavy, reducing its performance to near-uselessness?"

[CaptainChewbacca]

He keeps using the word 'narcissist', and I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

[Edward Yee]

Going through Sparks' "Combat Reform" website, I found more evidence that the guy just doesn't understand the 21st century battlefield, despite his service in the US Army.

This reminds me of one complaint on the Abu Muqawama blog about GEN Ricardo Sanchez's memoir, that fuhgeddabout Abu Ghraib or the POTUS/SECDEF's leadership issues, he just didn't get it.

[Coiler]

snip

Woah, he actually advocated for flying tanks?

He's even crazier than I thought if he thinks that flying tanks would actually be useful.

[KlavoHunter]

Flying tanks most certainly ARE useful.

I suggest you go and apologize to the A-10 right now

[Questor]

Flying tanks most certainly ARE useful.

I suggest you go and apologize to the A-10 right now

You don't want to make the warthog angry... ever!

[Sea Skimmer]

Flying tanks most certainly ARE useful.

I suggest you go and apologize to the A-10 right now

Screw that, it belongs to the glory and money hogging USAF. The Army force objective vertical triple envelopment multi dimensional maneuver force shall instead be support by its own organic Chinook aerial artillery battalions.

Twice the firepower of the AC-130

[Sidewinder]

He's even crazier than I thought if he thinks that flying tanks would actually be useful.

I had an idea for a flying tank, to be used in a sci-fi story. When a friend asked, "Why would anyone want a flying tank?" I answered, "For the same reason you'd get a regular tank: you have a mobile weapon system that's protected by armor. Believe me, if it was technically and financially feasible to build a flying tank, the Army would buy them."

Note the problem with feasibility. The technology we have now is incapable of building a tank that's both light enough to fly without the aid of a large cargo plane and equipped with armor and armaments strong enough to make it survivable. I looked up the Russian KT (a.k.a. the A-40) with the intention of using it in a story; the T-60 (the tank to which the wings were attached) is armed with a 20 mm cannon and a 7.62 mm machine gun, and its armor is 7 to 20 mm thick, making it a deathtrap if it ever comes across anything armed with a .50 cal/12.7 mm gun or better. An airborne unit would actually be worse off with an airmobile tank than without one; in the latter situation, they're better able to hide from stronger enemy units ("He who lives to run away, lives to fight another day") or, if they have RPGs and other heavy weapons, to lay an ambush.

[PeZook]

I don't get it ; Is he claiming the US Army shits on mechanized units and pampers its light infantry? Heh...yeah, because if one formation bad-mouths another, it's evidence of an institutional bias towards that formation. No matter that everyone shit-talks about everyone else

[K. A. Pital]

It's basically like writing "Some sources say Planet Earth is hollow and inhabitated by a race of reptillians bent on world domination. Also, Hitler lives there." in an article about Earth.

Yeah, I love that shit. Everytime a whackaloon claims something, "repositories" of "knowledge" like Wikipedia or just the Internets (TM) themselves gather phrases like:
"Evidence shows that life evolved over billions of year. However, some sources say..."

[Sidewinder]

I don't get it ; Is he claiming the US Army shits on mechanized units and pampers its light infantry?

From what I understand of Sparks' ranting, he's saying the US Army procures equipment solely to fill the arms manufacturers' pockets with money while giving the hidebound generals something to masturbate to, e.g., uselessy big and heavy armored vehicles (M1 MBTs and M2 IFVs) and attack helicopters (AH-64). He also says the airborne infantry generals are idiots for not giving soldiers tracked and armored vehicles, i.e., light tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. The light tank issue is somewhat valid (the US cancelled production of the M8 Armored Gun System, a tank that can be airdropped), but the IFV issue, as others have pointed out, is not feasible with today's technology.