|
|
|
Ei Temporis Vita Semper Resumo Sese
Group: Moderators
Last Login: Today @ 9:10 AM
Posts: 8,520,
Visits: 7,649
|
|
Sh0t is correct in his assessment... The Army needs to maintain both heavy and light capabilitys to confront any possible scenario. The world changes constantly... weaponry and tactics evolve. Consider the proliferation of lightweight IR guided fire & forget SAMS... had the Iraqi army instituted a air defense program similar to what we use (Avenger/lineback doctrine) the effect on the USAF during the recent fighting would have been the same as what happened to the IAF during the Yom Kippur war. Thankfully, our enemies relied on the same tactical organization as the Egyptian used during the aforementioned conflict. Thing is, no one knows what sort of trouble is going to brew up in the decades to come. We could easily be trading shots with French AMX-40s in Western Europe as we could be slogging through Central American rain forests looking for narco-terrorists... history is funny like that.
"The degenerative and loony should never be denigrated but, rather, thanked. In their absence, the rest of you would be obliged to fill congressional seats... positions naturally unsavory to the sane and honorable." Thorax
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
 
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sh0t
Making the Army more like the Marine Corps will hurt us overall.
The army is the main WARFIGHTING branch of service. It's supposed to have heavy divisions and armor, if it doesn't who will?
What I see happening here is tunnel vision. The terrorist threat is the main media focus now, so everybody is thinking of how to fight terrorism because everybody wants a piece. But we must remember there are LOTS of real armies out there with armor and mechanized units that can easily pose a threat somewhere at any time. Look at north Korea.
That's why the army has Air Cav, Rangers, Airbourne and SF. Units that can deploy quickly to deal with the short of war crises. Or more aptly, there is a MEU nearby who trains specifically to deal with short of war instances.
I think the Air Force is the main culprit in funds spending. I know they make for exellent recruitment ads, but we don't really NEED 150million dollar a piece f-22s. we NEED more c-5s and other heavy lifters so we can move all those heavy ass tanks. But the tanks need to be there. Find me an aircraft that can hold ground and I might agree the air force is spending money the wisest.
Good points Sh0t![thumbUp]
I would like to know how the USAF plans to 'win' the guerilla wars going on now in Afghanistan and Iraq with F-22's and B-2's. Afterall, retired AF Gen. McPeak stated that the USAF 'wins' wars now.
|
|
|
|
|
Trooper
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 2/1/2008 9:39 AM
Posts: 956,
Visits: 31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by khyros
Sh0t is correct in his assessment... The Army needs to maintain both heavy and light capabilitys to confront any possible scenario. The world changes constantly... weaponry and tactics evolve. Consider the proliferation of lightweight IR guided fire & forget SAMS... had the Iraqi army instituted a air defense program similar to what we use (Avenger/lineback doctrine) the effect on the USAF during the recent fighting would have been the same as what happened to the IAF during the Yom Kippur war. Thankfully, our enemies relied on the same tactical organization as the Egyptian used during the aforementioned conflict. Thing is, no one knows what sort of trouble is going to brew up in the decades to come. We could easily be trading shots with French AMX-40s in Western Europe as we could be slogging through Central American rain forests looking for narco-terrorists... history is funny like that.
I agree completely. You need both heavy and light forces and probably something inbetween. The idea of a more deployable armor force isn't a bad idea. It is the vehicle that is a bad idea. You need so many heavy tanks to deal with heavy tanks, you need a deployable airdrop force to get there quickly and then you need a force that can provide firepower and be quicker than 3 months by boat to get there. I hope that is what the army is headed towards. It does make sense. I just can't see getting rid of heavy armor, it wouldn't make any sense. Besides if you do what will the legs do?
[bncy][bncy][bncy][bncy][bncy]
Ranger2
|
|
|
|
|
Intergallactic leprechaun hunter
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: 12/24/2008 7:17 PM
Posts: 1,760,
Visits: 1,078
|
|
As stated by our troops in Iraq on the news, "When the M-1's roll in, the enemy rolls out...".
 When life sucks....make it swallow! "Modify the wedge! First squad! Bound!....."
|
|
|
|