|
|
|
Hard Charger
 
Group: Registered User
Last Login: Yesterday @ 7:46 PM
Posts: 2,369,
Visits: 2,501
|
|
June 2003
Survivability Not Just About Heavy Armor, Says Cebrowski
by Roxana Tiron
The Pentagon’s transformation chief, retired Vice Adm. Arthur Cebrowski, endorsed the U.S. Army’s Future Combat System for its emphasis on information-based warfare and speed. The FCS, he said, will help prove that heavy armor is no longer the dominant factor in a ground war.
Recent battles in Iraq, Cebrowski said, proved that speed and integrated information networks were key to defeating the enemy.
“I look at these marvelous Navy and Air Force munitions and what they do to armor. I look at what one of our own tank rounds does to everyone else’s armor in the world,” he said at a breakfast with defense reporters. “I go, well, you know the notion that steel protects you, just doesn’t seem to be there, because it doesn’t protect in the absolute. Nothing protects in the absolute. What you, therefore, want is a mix of things.
“Do I want to take all tanks out of the force? No. Do I want to take tanks as we know them out of the force? Probably yes,” he noted. “If I can have a 35-ton tank [...], a lighter tank with the same protection and lethality, I’d much rather have the lighter one, because I can move it faster. ... That is one of the reasons why I like the Army’s transformation program in the FCS.”
Armor is not the only answer to the survivability problem, he added. “Just as in some cases, it is really nice to have armor, in a lot of cases it doesn’t help you. It didn’t help 17 dead sailors on board the [USS] Cole, for example. That is a steel ship. And so you don’t see Navy talking about adding more steel to its destroyers. Instead it reaches for other things to create the protective environment.”
The argument posed by Cerbrowski that "steel doesnt protect" is one sided. Because of our weapons superiority steel doesnt prtect our enemies, but it still protects us ! If the USAF and USN are able to control the air and operate jointly with the Army then our heavy armor will be dominant on the battelfield. As Iraqi Freedom demonstrated.
|
|
|
|
|
Strac Trooper
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 8/7/2008 5:22 PM
Posts: 1,006,
Visits: 995
|
|
ummm I believe that the USS Cole, a destroyer has an aluminum hull in order to make it lighter...besides...destroyers have always been called tin cans...you put that charge up against the 13.5 in side of STS armored steel of an Iowa class and you MAY brun the paint...and as for the 35 ton tank that is maeuverable...I think that the crazy tanker in kellys heroes said it best when he bought the tiger off the germans and left his mobile fast sherman in the vil...
my two cents
 
Fighters are our salvation, But BOMBERS alone provide us with the means of VICTORY! - Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Strac Trooper
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 9/14/2006 9:05 AM
Posts: 1,159,
Visits: 50
|
|
The First thing I'll discuss are the basic laws of physics.....
My primary motivation for being a self-described "OPFOR" (Old Paratrooper Fan Of Rummy) is that he will regain the high-ground from these Tofflerian assholes. Tanks are like Naval vessals? If you read carefully, you can sense the fear in Cebrowski's quotes.
Welcome to another Red Devil rehersal, only this time it's for real
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 10/2/2005 10:13 PM
Posts: 5,502,
Visits: 70
|
|
Warriors don't use 'therefore' in many sentences, therefore, he may be a 'map and staff' type who is comfortable with reporters.
Regarding the part about
“If I can have a 35-ton tank [...], a lighter tank with the same protection and lethality, I’d much rather have the lighter one, because I can move it faster. ... That is one of the reasons why I like the Army’s transformation program in the FCS.”
DUH. The question is if they ARE equal.
Go with God, but make Him walk the point.
If you load a mudfoot down with a lot of gadgets he has to watch somebody a lot more simply equipped - say with a stone axe - will sneak up and bash his head in while he is trying to read a Vernier. - Robert Heinlein
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rickdog
Warriors don't use 'therefore' in many sentences, therefore, he may be a 'map and staff' type who is comfortable with reporters.
Regarding the part about
“If I can have a 35-ton tank [...], a lighter tank with the same protection and lethality, I’d much rather have the lighter one, because I can move it faster. ... That is one of the reasons why I like the Army’s transformation program in the FCS.”
DUH. The question is if they ARE equal.
Exactly Rick!! That's a no-brainer. Who wouldn't choose a 35 ton tank over a 70 ton tank IF it had the same protection. The problem is that the 35 ton tank doesn't have the same protection and it WON'T until unobtainium is discovered.[ ]
|
|
|
|
|
Ei Temporis Vita Semper Resumo Sese
Group: Moderators
Last Login: Today @ 4:21 AM
Posts: 8,490,
Visits: 7,608
|
|
Gee... it's nice to know that a retired squid who has vast experience in mechanized land warfare approves of the SCBT. Uh... waitaminute... doesn't this strike anyone as slightly odd? Guess they couldn't find a retired Army general (outside of Shinseki) who would say the same thing LOL!
"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
|
|
|
|
|
Anti-social
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:30 PM
Posts: 1,890,
Visits: 13,029
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomahawk6
...The FCS, he said, will help prove that heavy armor is no longer the dominant factor in a ground war.
Recent battles in Iraq, Cebrowski said, proved that speed and integrated information networks were key to defeating the enemy.
Excuse me??? I was just a lowly E5 but it seems to me that the Iraq war proved that heavy armor IS STILL the dominant factor in ground combat. It wasn't 'integrated information networks' that helped the 3rd ID hold its advanced positions in Baghdad when being attacked by swarms of para-militaries with RPG's. It was the fact that their armor could withstand multiple AT weapons hits and still keep fighting. But what do I know...
Some things never change...
Unfortunetly though, I believe this is exactly what Rummy wants to hear...
[E5][abnwing][EIB]
1/508th Abn Inf, 82nd Abn Div 81-83 1/4th Inf (Mech), 3rd Inf Div (USAEUR) 83-84 SGT\EIB\Recondo "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM | | | |