*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
Maj. Rice wrote << ...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..... >>
This is one of the best responses I've read and I really enjoyed reading Maj.
Rice's comments as always. I would agree with him for the most part, except
that I believe however limited our collective experiences may be, they do
tend to fit together like the pieces of a puzzle. There is a fair amount of
wisdom mixed with the BS here! lol
Save for expressing disappointment at tracked armor being phased out of US
inventory, I've not offered an opinion before on this subject. But, I think
I will jump in now. I've hesitated saying anything mostly because my
experience was somewhat limited like the rest here...a humble reserve officer
in the infantry and that was years ago. But in that humble perspective, I
would have to say that if we divest ourselves of tracked tanks too soon
.....we will regret it and it will be an expensive regret, both in terms of
financial and human costs.
The modern MBT is a key piece of psychological warfare, just like battleships
of old. They were often a tool of diplomacy and in that respect they are
still relevant. One has only to see the imposing site of a long line of
heavy tanks moving in unison across a battlefield, firing cannons and laying
down fire from automatic weapons. Or hear the clanging, grinding of metal
tracks coming up the street... it is absolutely unnerving or moral boosting
and reassuring, depending which way your weapon is facing.
History has proven the value of the psychological weapon time and again. The
sound of many hundreds of steel bicycle rims on rock and pavement once set an
army to run thinking tanks were coming and thus giving up their positions.
If we know the only force needed in the future is a rapid deployment force,
then the tread heads will and should prevail. But, if we send those rapid
deployment vehicles up against an enemy who is on their own home ground, dug
in with MBT's...well, I don't have to be a military strategist to know we
will suffer heavy casualties at best. Rubber tires can only support so much
armor protection and I just can't see how they will ever be a match against
properly deployed, dug in modern MBTs.
No doubt it will take a decade or more to implement the new light armor plan
and that should give us ample time to see how the potential adversaries out
there in the real world will react to this shift. My belief is they will
continue to build tanks, if only to control their own people who fear tanks
as at Tiennamen Square or the Freedom Park in Budapest, Hungary decades
earlier.
At the very least the end result of this new stratagey will be a combination
of rapid deployment armor and infantry, backed up later in the field by the
slower MBT's. The MBT's will likely be reduced to size somewhat smaller than
the mission would safely require or prudence would dictate, as is the
tradition of the U.S. Army. Case in point, Somalia. "Why would we need
armor in Somalia? This is a peace keeping mission!" When the mistake was
realized the armor came a little late for some Rangers and air crew members.
Thank you Mr. Chaney ....and he was an expert? That's what happens when you
mix poltics and the military mission.
My vote, if I was ever asked, would be to ad the light armor rapid deployment
units for sure, but retain and improve our MBT's in reasonable numbers as
long as op forces keep and improve their MBT's and then pray we don't ever
need to use them.
My 4.5 cents worth, which is worth about 2 cents after taxes.
Jack Lee
Ferret Mk 2/3
SUMB - troop transport
(trying to buy a phased out Abrams)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 22:30:22 PST