*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
Guys (and gals),
Tradition is a hard habit to break as evidenced by this list. This list
(myself included) is infinitely UNQUALIFIED to pass judgement on the new
concept. Simply knowing someone that served or having served in the past
doesn't provide the base of knowledge to dismiss the new Medium Weight
Brigade concept out of hand. Our collective experiences are just too
limited.
Now I respect the opinion of the LT in the 82d, but believe he simply lacks
experience to speak as a final authority on the subject too. This is
especially true when one considers he is a light fighter, not a heavy armor
nor even Mechanized Infantryman. Believe the 23 year vet speaks much more
articulately on the subject.
As for myself, I've been doing the Active Army combat arms (Field Artillery)
routine for almost 18 years now and sure don't consider myself an expert on
this subject at all. I tend to agree with a lighter more mobile force, but
not with the total removal of tracked vehicles. The wheeled armor we
anticipate will be able to defeat any MBT the enemy has as it will have the
same arament currently in use. Current employment tactics and doctrine will
change how we use it. Sure, it won't likely win in a slug match with heavy
tanks. Of course, the Sherman tank didn't win straight on matches with
Tigers either.
I don't think we will ever see a total elimination of heavy armor forces.
However, they are of limited use in a global threat environment. If a C-5B
can carry two, it will require 7 lifts to just move a company of M1A2s or 29
to move a Battalion. And that is not considering any of the other vehicles
in the unit. Clearly, they are of limited value in a rapid reaction
scenario. That rapid reaction scenario is also the most likely everywhere
we currently have permanent bases, except Korea.
As for force protection, I haven't heard anyone saying much lately about the
M2 Bradleys and their lack of MBT defeating armor. The proposed wheeled
armor would be at least equal or better than current levels of protection in
a Bradley. A Brad provides protection from small caliber stuff only. Will
a Bradley go head to head with an enemy MBT? No way. They use their
superior range to stand off and defeat the tank with their TOW missiles from
3-4K meters. This will be the same employment techniques used by the
wheeled armor. Of course, this will be closely tied in with all other
Combined Arms systems, artillery specifically. Arty's ability to defeat
medium and heavy armor is increasing each day.
While the simple fact that one is general officer does not make him (or her)
qualified to make decisions in a vacuum, it sure does provide a much more
varied background on the direction the WHOLE army should be taking. Rest
assured, GEN Shinseki didn't simply wake up one morning and decide, "I want
to get rid of all tracked vehicles because they suck." This arguement has
been going on for some time now.
In the end, it is a LOGISTICAL issue folks. Recall the old saying "GET
THERE FIRST WITH THE MOST." With our current structure, that will be darn
hard to do. Since we don't start the fight, the bad guys will already be
whereever we are going. To get the right mix in theater in a hurry will
require a much more MOVEABLE force. 63 ton tanks aren't the answer in
todays global environment.
BTW, here is the URL to picture of the proposed new armor.
http://www.sirinet.net/~jimrice/newarmor.jpg
Jim Rice
Major, Field Artillery
Instructor, Combat Arms Branch
Ft Sam Houston, Texas
(210) 221-8362
DSN 471-8362
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 22:30:22 PST
