Fiddle's Green

[dragoon500ly]

Halfway down the trail to hell
In a shady meadow green,
Are the souls of all dead troopers camped
Near a good old-time canteen
And this eternal resting place
Is known as Fiddler's Green!

Marching past, straight through to hell,
The infantry are seen, '
Accompanied by the Engineers,
Artillery and Marine,
For none but the shades of Cavalrymen
Dismount at Flddlers' Green!

Though some go curving down the trail
To seek a warmer scene,
No trooper ever gets to Hell
Ere he's emptied his canteen,
And so rides back to drink agaln
With friends at Fiddlers' Green!

And so when man and horse go down
Beneath a saber keen,
Or in a roaring charge or fierce melee
You stop a bullet clean,
And the hostiles come to get your scalp,
Just empty your canteen,
And put your pistol to your head
And go to Fiddlers' Green!


This thread is based on an idea from Panther Al. Both of us being members of the proud brotherhood of the armored cavalry, here is a thread where the Dragoons of the 2ACR and the Riflemen of the 3ACR can snipe at each other as well as the members of the other regiments of Uncle Sam's Finest....The U.S. Cavalry!!!

[Panther Al]

And even those that served in other countries cav units are welcome here.

And yep, the second drops it again: Fiddle's green?!?


;)

[dragoon500ly]

Sorry, thought I was a member of the Black Horse!

Actually, my 3-year old decided to bounce a ball off the keyboard...

So I can blame the third!!!!

[Panther Al]

So anyway, what's your take on the this whole Stryker thing? I've read that the third is going to get reissued with the things in 2012. Not so sure that's a very good idea in my opinion.

[dragoon500ly]

Reequipping the 3rd....well that will be the last of the ACRs. And I don't feel that it is a very good idea. Its the continual loss of our heavy firepower in favor of Strykers. They are not even trying to keep alive the ideal of a balanced force...

How about that Stryker, now there is no need for heavy armor because the Stryker can do everything....

But ya know...I somehow think that when a Stryker goes up against a T-72....the T-72 will win.

[dragoon500ly]

So just what is a ACR?

The armored cavalry regiment is a corps level asset that has several missions.

First up is the reconnaissance-in-force mission, its light enough to move fast and heavy enought to punch through just about anything in its way.

Second is the screening mission, the ACR can cover the corps front or one of its flanks. The size of an ACR and its equipment mix can also be used in a deception mission, impersonating a mech brigade for example.

During my time in service, there were two TO&Es used. The older TO&E used a ten vehicle platoon (the largest platoon in the Army) made up a scout section equipped with 4 M-113 APCs carrying a Dragon mount, a tank section with 4 M-1IPs and a command section consisting of a M-113 and a M-106 4.2-inch mortar carrier. The mortar carrier was often detached to the troop headquarters, giving the troop 3 mortar carriers. Three cav platoons and a HQ platoon make up a armored cavalry troop.

A armored cavalry squadron is made up of a headquarters troop, three cavalry troops, a tank company (14 M-1IPs) and a howitzer battery (8 SP 155mm). The regiment itself has three armored cavalry squadrons, a air cavalry squadron, a headquarters troop and attached Stinger platoon, target acquisition platoon (OH-58D) a engineer company and a military intelligence company. As you can see, a powerful combined arms organization capable of performing a variety of missions.

The ACRs do not use the standard phonetic alphabet names, but use a more evocative series:

First Squadron
Apache Troop
Bull Troop
Charlie Troop
Delta Company
How Battery
Second Squadron
Eagle Troop
Fox Troop
Ghost Troop
Hawk Company
How Battery
Third Squadron
Iron Troop
Killer Troop
Lightning Troop
Mad Dog Company
How Battery
Fourth Squadron
Nomad Troop (8 OH-58C and 4 AH-1F)
Oscar Troop (ditto)
Palehorse Troop (ditto)
Quickstrike Troop (4 OH-58C and 8 AH-1F)
Redcatcher Troop (ditto)
Sierra Company (12 UH-60A)

[dragoon500ly]

The 1991 Persian Gulf War/Desert Storm is perhaps the best example of how ACRs are used.

Both the 2nd and the 3rd ACRs took part.

2nd ACR was part of the VII Corps drive. It performed the corps-level screening mission. The Dragoons led the assault into Iraqi and proceeded to tear apart the Iraqi forces. To enhance the 2nd ACRs drive, the 210th Field Artillery Brigade (consisting of 2 bns of SP155mm, a attack helicopter squadron and a MLRS battery) was attached.

3rd ACR was attached to the 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized) and was used as a fourth maneuver brigade during the drive of the XVIII Airborne Corps.

[Panther Al]

These days its:

B=Bandit
G=Grim
H=Heavy
I=Ironhorse
Regiment is Remington and the supply guys are know as the Muleskinners.

At least in the 3d ACR.

[Panther Al]

Reequipping the 3rd....well that will be the last of the ACRs. And I don't feel that it is a very good idea. Its the continual loss of our heavy firepower in favor of Strykers. They are not even trying to keep alive the ideal of a balanced force...

How about that Stryker, now there is no need for heavy armor because the Stryker can do everything....

But ya know...I somehow think that when a Stryker goes up against a T-72....the T-72 will win.

I have nothing against the concept of one chassis providing the base for a number of specialised vehicles, its an even better idea for the ACR's as they need to run on as small as possible logistical tail. My problem with it is that they made far far to complex for what was needed. The original base vehicle, the piranha is great: mechanically and electrically simple that can be maintained with great ease: they stryker on the other hand... Hell the Centaro armoured cars we loaned from italy are easier to maintain.

[Abbott Shaull]

Unless you using M1 or Challenger or similar AFV for scouting mission, I think the T-72 will stand a good chance of winning. That is as long as it not a lone T-72 or all the commanders are day dreaming at the same time...

[dragoon500ly]

I have nothing against the concept of one chassis providing the base for a number of specialised vehicles, its an even better idea for the ACR's as they need to run on as small as possible logistical tail. My problem with it is that they made far far to complex for what was needed. The original base vehicle, the piranha is great: mechanically and electrically simple that can be maintained with great ease: they stryker on the other hand... Hell the Centaro armoured cars we loaned from italy are easier to maintain.

And that's the problem with the Stryker, all the nifty gadgets packed into...everything from that remote-controlled weapon station to the electronics. The more "techie" things are, the greater the likely hood that gremlins while strike whenever you need it the most.

Its like when the pluggers first came into service...the first thing was to no longer teach basic map reading/compass work...so when the pluggers crashed.......the old sarges had to pull out thier compasses and the paper maps and start teaching the old skills, yet again.

[dragoon500ly]

Unless you using M1 or Challenger or similar AFV for scouting mission, I think the T-72 will stand a good chance of winning. That is as long as it not a lone T-72 or all the commanders are day dreaming at the same time...

Thats why, after Desert Storm, the divisional recon squadrons started adding tank sections to the ground troops...

[dragoon500ly]

In the mid to late 80s, the armd cav platoon replaced two M113 Dragon tracks with two M-901 Improved Tow Vehicles...not exactly the best choice for the recon mission!

Towards the end of the eighties, with the first deployment of the M3 Devers CFV, the ACRs started a major reorganization of the platoons.

First tested in the 1986 REFORGER, the structure was 1st & 2nd Platoons, using a command M113, 3 M-901s and 3 M113 Dragons apeice (splitting the Third Herds scout section) and giving up their tank sections to 3rd Platoon...12 M-1s!

[pmulcahy11b]

Towards the end of the eighties, with the first deployment of the M3 Devers CFV, the ACRs started a major reorganization of the platoons.

I might point out that the initial plans were dropped and they never called the M3 the Devers.

[Panther Al]

True, but that (at least according to the cav) was because the infantry branch got all pissy that someone might get something special, after all, the infantry is the only bunch that gets promotion points for proving they know how to do their job... ;)

But in all seriousness, yes, the M3 was called the Bradley, but to a lot of cavalry men its still the Devers- at least to the old timers- the new crop over the past 10 years hasn't heard about its old name..

[dragoon500ly]

True, but that (at least according to the cav) was because the infantry branch got all pissy that someone might get something special, after all, the infantry is the only bunch that gets promotion points for proving they know how to do their job... ;)

But in all seriousness, yes, the M3 was called the Bradley, but to a lot of cavalry men its still the Devers- at least to the old timers- the new crop over the past 10 years hasn't heard about its old name..

It was Devers when I left the service...so shoot me (wait, that's been done:p)!!!

Besides...infantry officers tended to tear up and throw hissy fits when cav was attached to their units...it was that cocky, know-it-all atitude that comes with the knowledge that in a real fight, with armored cavalry...infantry was just another name for "track lubricant"!!! ;)

[pmulcahy11b]

Besides...infantry officers tended to tear up and throw hissy fits when cav was attached to their units...it was that cocky, know-it-all atitude that comes with the knowledge that in a real fight, with armored cavalry...infantry was just another name for "track lubricant"!!! ;)

Hey, I resent that remark, and I'm Dragon-qualified...:p

[dragoon500ly]

Hey, I resent that remark, and I'm Dragon-qualified...:p

LOL...I never present my backside to a Dragon!

Besides, haven't you ever wondered why infantry are called "crunchies" by tankers?

[Abbott Shaull]

LOL...I never present my backside to a Dragon!

Besides, haven't you ever wondered why infantry are called "crunchies" by tankers?

Yeah, well I would be afraid of friendly fire too!

No I wouldn't want be an Infantryman assigned to anything closely resembling an Armor unit for said reasons. They have very limited field of vision, the again so do Dragoon gunner who are only looking through their sights. So yeah I can understand them not wanted to expose their back side to some rocket troop looking through an only noticing that they tanks are 'leaving' the engagement area...lol

[Abbott Shaull]

In the mid to late 80s, the armd cav platoon replaced two M113 Dragon tracks with two M-901 Improved Tow Vehicles...not exactly the best choice for the recon mission!

Towards the end of the eighties, with the first deployment of the M3 Devers CFV, the ACRs started a major reorganization of the platoons.

First tested in the 1986 REFORGER, the structure was 1st & 2nd Platoons, using a command M113, 3 M-901s and 3 M113 Dragons apeice (splitting the Third Herds scout section) and giving up their tank sections to 3rd Platoon...12 M-1s!
3rd platoon would have 12 M1s....WOW the platoon would have as much firepower minus the HQ section of a regular Armor Company...lol

[Panther Al]

Hey, I resent that remark, and I'm Dragon-qualified...:p

Hrm.... The Dragon. You mean that missile that had a minimum range closer to its max than not, the one that had a "slight" problem with CATO issues, that would sometime fly right into the ground, and the one that when the russians copied it, significantly improved on it to the point that the pip was a copy of the russian redesign? :)

Now if you said TOW on the otherhand....

[Abbott Shaull]

Paul no matter what we may say. I have the feeling we will be wrong because we could jump out of perfectly flying Air Farce plane with one...lol

[pmulcahy11b]

Paul no matter what we may say. I have the feeling we will be wrong because we could jump out of perfectly flying Air Farce plane with one...lol

How many times do I have to say that I don't know those planes are perfectly good because they're Air Force planes?!

[pmulcahy11b]

Hrm.... The Dragon. You mean that missile that had a minimum range closer to its max than not, the one that had a "slight" problem with CATO issues, that would sometime fly right into the ground, and the one that when the russians copied it, significantly improved on it to the point that the pip was a copy of the russian redesign? :)

Now if you said TOW on the otherhand....

The point being that I could pop your fancy Cav vehicle in the patoot...:rolleyes: And the minimum range is only 60 meters. And grounding your missile is a rookie mistake.

And yes, I did botch my only combat shot with a Dragon, hitting the BMP-1 near one of the front roadwheels...

[Abbott Shaull]

How many times do I have to say that I don't know those planes are perfectly good because they're Air Force planes?!

Yeah I know what you mean there is no such thing as perfect Air Force plane. They were piloted by the best pilots put through the best training known in the f'Free' world... So damn right I wanted to be qualified to deplane in hurry...lol

[Panther Al]

How many times do I have to say that I don't know those planes are perfectly good because they're Air Force planes?!

Now that is a very good point: at least with the sh!thook you know if its leaking its fine, when it stops it must be out of fluids.

(And by the way, don't ask the crew to see the leeks before you get on, they don't find it very funny. :))

[Abbott Shaull]

I don't understand why not...lol Just keep an eye where the crew chief is looking at...lol

[bobcat]

and again i am reminded how much of an oxymoron i am.:D
the dismounted rider(AKA light cavalry)

gimmie a radio, my M4 and a division of hostle armor(or as us light guys call them targets)

[Dog 6]

lol @ the crunchies :D

[dragoon500ly]

3rd platoon would have 12 M1s....WOW the platoon would have as much firepower minus the HQ section of a regular Armor Company...lol

Tell me about it! To the best of my knowledge, it was only pulled on that one REFORGER with mixed results (gee wonder why). That's why the next move in the troop was to go to four line platoons, two with 6 M3 each and two with 4 M1A1s apiece. This is the configuration that went into Desert Storm.

[dragoon500ly]

Paul no matter what we may say. I have the feeling we will be wrong because we could jump out of perfectly flying Air Farce plane with one...lol

Just remember! The Air Force is the only service that rountinely scores 100% on every gunnery exercise....afterall, what ever they drop will hit the ground! :D

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

Um isn't it Fiddlers Green?

[Panther Al]

Yeah, but what do you expect from those 2nd ACR guys, they have always been a little slow... ;)

[bobcat]

Yeah, but what do you expect from those 2nd ACR guys, they have always been a little slow... ;)

hey just because the all criminal regiments never really worried bout that readin and writin stuff. don't mean they were dumb.(most of them did get away with their mischief after all;))

[dragoon500ly]

Yeah, but what do you expect from those 2nd ACR guys, they have always been a little slow... ;)

Might be a tad slow, but we always did outgun, outfight, and outdrink the rest of the regiments :rolleyes:

[Abbott Shaull]

Tell me about it! To the best of my knowledge, it was only pulled on that one REFORGER with mixed results (gee wonder why). That's why the next move in the troop was to go to four line platoons, two with 6 M3 each and two with 4 M1A1s apiece. This is the configuration that went into Desert Storm.

That is how I figure they were arranged, and ironic close to what Troops was suppose to have...

[bobcat]

honestly 2ACR vs 3ACR i still say the 89 regiment would tear both apart.(though we did steal mainly from 2 and 3 for the initial cadre then grabbed the craziest infantry guys and FO's in the army to round it out. (at least none of my guys ever got caught:D)

[dragoon500ly]

honestly 2ACR vs 3ACR i still say the 89 regiment would tear both apart.(though we did steal mainly from 2 and 3 for the initial cadre then grabbed the craziest infantry guys and FO's in the army to round it out. (at least none of my guys ever got caught:D)

Nope, the old Deuce would win, hands down!!!! Even Patton claimed that that his finest cavalry outfit was the 2nd!

[bobcat]

Nope, the old Deuce would win, hands down!!!! Even Patton claimed that that his finest cavalry outfit was the 2nd!

thats cause my regiment only stood up 6 years ago. if Patton were to see the kind of cadre we stole from ya'll and how they trained the younger troops up he'd have been impressed. of course it does take a special kind of crazy to do half of what my unit has done in its short history.

[Abbott Shaull]

thats cause my regiment only stood up 6 years ago. if Patton were to see the kind of cadre we stole from ya'll and how they trained the younger troops up he'd have been impressed. of course it does take a special kind of crazy to do half of what my unit has done in its short history.

Yes with the major reorganization of the Light Infantry/Airborne/Air Assault and the Mech/Armor Brigade to the new Units of Action and later the Modular Brigades. It seems that the new units that have been created out of it really have done well with the limited time they were stood up and expect to be operational in. Considering some units in WWII had years to train before they had to see action...

[Panther Al]

As mentioned earlier, its not the concept of the stryker brigade that I think is a bit silly. It's light, which means in a conventional conflict it has issues. This isn't a bad thing: provided all it is is a few units in a RDF role. When it's the bulk of the army on the other hand, its a different story. Assuming that in a few years that we even have any heavy forces left, it means our army will erode like snow under a fire hose. It is sad that the Iraqi army has more tanks - including well over a hundred brand new M1A1SA's - than it looks like we will in three years at this rate.

But let's look at the concept of a RDF. At heart it is an air transportable unit, high in firepower, meant to be something along the lines of an ablative speedbump, with more staying power than the 82nd airborne. So, it needs armour, it needs firepower, but it needs to be light. Now, off hand the Stryker is all that, and even better -and it is truelly a good thing- all the Strykers have immense parts commonality. They also have to have as light of a logistical tail as possible, as well as the unit on the whole has to have everything it needs, arty, air, intel, engineering, air defense, and MPs.

Sounds a lot like the current organisation of a heavy cavalry regiment, save that while it could be transported by air with some effort, there was plans for this, and that the logistical tail because of the threethousand and one (OK, some exaggeration there) different vehicle types. This, if the Stryker brigade was built on the ACR format would fix that.

But the stryker has flaws, and serious ones in my opinion. For some reason politics got involved and coupled with various pet projects caused it to become immensely complex, with about every bell and whistle they could tuck in. And all that has a weight that could have been used for armour, and reduce the maintenance level (I think in T2K terms it would be at least a 12 if not 16). Not to mention wheels. In a force designed as an offensive, rapid, strike force, this isn't a bad thing. For an RDF designed to hold the line, or to engaged in sustained combat operations it is.

So, what is the right answer?

Stay tuned...

[Panther Al]

Part two:

So, what's the Stryker- and its Brigade- good for? Well, to be fair, it would be a great National Guard formation. Its cheap - relatively. Its light so the guard units can train freely on civilian streets without ripping them out. And should the crap it the fan, they can be rapidly sent overseas easily, or stood up, if time is available for retraining, on other equipment while maintaining a basic knowledge of armoured fighting.

But if not the Stryker, then what do we use for light (ok, lightish) units, especially in a RDF role?

What a RDF needs has been already mentioned, as well as why the Stryker isn't it, though it comes close.

For starters, it needs tracks - they might lose out on road speed, but that's not important enough to cut down its combat durability in exchange by going wheeled. It needs to have vehicles that share as many components between -all- its armoured vehicles as possible, likewise for its un armoured wheeled support vehicles. And it needs to have all the components it needs to operate on its own so it can operate without needing to have another unit helping out. A lone wolf regiment you might say. Replace the CFV's with IFV's and the ACR is perfect formation wise. Just needs a vehicle.

So, an armoured, tracked platform with a max weight of around 30 metric tons. It needs a variant for every use, from heavy gun platform, IFV, TOC, SPM, SPAAG, SPG, and so on and so forth.

Nothing out there meets that, but the CV90 does come very close - all but the SPG is in, or has been in, production- and so did the FCS program the army was forced to drop.

Given that we are stuck with the Stryker, and we seem dead set to trash every heavy combat unit we have - after all, no one out there has hordes of tanks and wants to start a war with anyone right? *cough North Korea - Iran - and I'm sure you all can name more...*

So we absolutely need an RDF that can fight - and survive for a while- that the Stryker and its brigade can't.

We won't, or can't, afford to develop a whole new platform, nor do we really have time. There is a turnkey, in production, with development costs already paid for, in the CV90. Maybe the US Army needs to get over its "Not Invented Here" problem and take a serious look at what's going on. We are, as the saying goes, training and equipping for the last war, or at least the one we are in, and already finding out that wheels are not it - as other nations have found out in afghanistan and have started to ship over tracked vehicles, and heavier and heavier at that.

So- what do you all think of all my blithering?

[dragoon500ly]

Part two:

So, what's the Stryker- and its Brigade- good for? Well, to be fair, it would be a great National Guard formation. Its cheap - relatively. Its light so the guard units can train freely on civilian streets without ripping them out. And should the crap it the fan, they can be rapidly sent overseas easily, or stood up, if time is available for retraining, on other equipment while maintaining a basic knowledge of armoured fighting.

But if not the Stryker, then what do we use for light (ok, lightish) units, especially in a RDF role?

What a RDF needs has been already mentioned, as well as why the Stryker isn't it, though it comes close.

For starters, it needs tracks - they might lose out on road speed, but that's not important enough to cut down its combat durability in exchange by going wheeled. It needs to have vehicles that share as many components between -all- its armoured vehicles as possible, likewise for its un armoured wheeled support vehicles. And it needs to have all the components it needs to operate on its own so it can operate without needing to have another unit helping out. A lone wolf regiment you might say. Replace the CFV's with IFV's and the ACR is perfect formation wise. Just needs a vehicle.

So, an armoured, tracked platform with a max weight of around 30 metric tons. It needs a variant for every use, from heavy gun platform, IFV, TOC, SPM, SPAAG, SPG, and so on and so forth.

Nothing out there meets that, but the CV90 does come very close - all but the SPG is in, or has been in, production- and so did the FCS program the army was forced to drop.

Given that we are stuck with the Stryker, and we seem dead set to trash every heavy combat unit we have - after all, no one out there has hordes of tanks and wants to start a war with anyone right? *cough North Korea - Iran - and I'm sure you all can name more...*

So we absolutely need an RDF that can fight - and survive for a while- that the Stryker and its brigade can't.

We won't, or can't, afford to develop a whole new platform, nor do we really have time. There is a turnkey, in production, with development costs already paid for, in the CV90. Maybe the US Army needs to get over its "Not Invented Here" problem and take a serious look at what's going on. We are, as the saying goes, training and equipping for the last war, or at least the one we are in, and already finding out that wheels are not it - as other nations have found out in afghanistan and have started to ship over tracked vehicles, and heavier and heavier at that.

So- what do you all think of all my blithering?


Well for a 3ACR man...not bad! ;)

I think we both agree that Stryker was a waste of time. I personally feel that if we had to go with wheeled, a modified LAV-25 would have been a better choice. Reequiping the NG infantry battalions to a medium config would have made a lot more sense then deactivating heavy divisions.

Soooo whats the best answer?

I feel that the new division concept lacks the capability that the older divisions had for sustained combat. The platoons are smaller, the companies are fewer. There is a lot of talk about the force multiplier of the new electronic systems...but these are new systems that haven't had the time to be fully developed and tested. A lot of the new combat systems have shown serious problems in Afghanistan and Iraq, and yet major changes are being made based on what these systems are supposed to be capable of. I sometimes wonder just how great these new toys will perform in a nuclear environment.

[Panther Al]

Well for a 3ACR man...not bad! ;)

I think we both agree that Stryker was a waste of time. I personally feel that if we had to go with wheeled, a modified LAV-25 would have been a better choice. Reequiping the NG infantry battalions to a medium config would have made a lot more sense then deactivating heavy divisions.

Soooo whats the best answer?

I feel that the new division concept lacks the capability that the older divisions had for sustained combat. The platoons are smaller, the companies are fewer. There is a lot of talk about the force multiplier of the new electronic systems...but these are new systems that haven't had the time to be fully developed and tested. A lot of the new combat systems have shown serious problems in Afghanistan and Iraq, and yet major changes are being made based on what these systems are supposed to be capable of. I sometimes wonder just how great these new toys will perform in a nuclear environment.

Thanks- I think... ;)

Its fairly obvious I think that over the years, from a maintenance viewpoint, that the army of today finds itself in the position the German army of 1944 found itself in: their supply chain was still intact yet they had never ending problems because they focused on have the most cutting edge, untested, most mechanically complex, and worse, the most varied stable of armoured vehicles they could have. Sounds like us and we all know how well it worked out for them: the moment the supply chain had issues they had a near impossible time fielding any large amounts of armour on regular basis.

And the sad thing is, the Stryker is based off of the LAV-25. Sure, heavily modified, but they are both MOWAG Piranhas built up in Canada eh? And here is the kicker: the Canadians was going to go heavy on the Stryker, until they got to Afghanistan and noted that it wasn't going to fly, so what are they doing? Moving heavy tracked vehicles and looking very hard at a new IFV- the CV90.

What's it say for the pentagons pet project when not even a year passed before they found out its no good protection wise, and they invalidated the prime reason they picked it (C130 transportable) by adding more and more armour on the thing?

[Panther Al]

On the subject of a nuclear battlefield: the answer is not well at all. One of those little things that has gone un-noticed is that the EMP protection standards are not as stringent as they used to be. Since the military in the 90's started trying to save a buck in procurement (not that I mind really) one of the first things they got onto was a commercial components kick, and it just got worse over the last decade. A lot of the electronics is based off of stuff bought off the shelf, and while that was supposed to save money, it hasn't and and more to the point, commercial stuff isn't shielded at all. When they was installing FBCB2 in our tank I asked about that, the contractors said, "oh sure, some, but we figure it isn't needed anymore so we just let the vehicle provide most of the shielding nowdays."

[Abbott Shaull]

What's it say for the pentagons pet project when not even a year passed before they found out its no good protection wise, and they invalidated the prime reason they picked it (C130 transportable) by adding more and more armour on the thing?

Gee doesn't surprise me, these are the same people who thought up-armoring HMMWVs would be good stop-gap measure.

[Abbott Shaull]

On the subject of a nuclear battlefield: the answer is not well at all. One of those little things that has gone un-noticed is that the EMP protection standards are not as stringent as they used to be. Since the military in the 90's started trying to save a buck in procurement (not that I mind really) one of the first things they got onto was a commercial components kick, and it just got worse over the last decade. A lot of the electronics is based off of stuff bought off the shelf, and while that was supposed to save money, it hasn't and and more to the point, commercial stuff isn't shielded at all. When they was installing FBCB2 in our tank I asked about that, the contractors said, "oh sure, some, but we figure it isn't needed anymore so we just let the vehicle provide most of the shielding nowdays."


Wow... Just remember our tax dollars paying for the lowest bid contractor hard at work...

[bobcat]

am i the only rider here that considers the stryker a worthy mount. granted its not tracked. well it can get places a track can't. so its got lighter armor and when has that ever stopped us? so what that its light REAL CAVALRY IS LIGHT! give me one good reason why the stryker is less worthy a mount than a brad. i say light and mobile beats heavy and stuck to roads in any cavalry fight. not to mention tracks CANNOT run silent the stryker can. granted i've had to walk into every fight i've been in. but being able to move in before the bad guys know im there is what cavalry does. its not about tanks its about mobility. and the ability to fight on your terms not the other guys. GSP would disown the 2ACR if he heard half of this.

[dragoon500ly]

Thanks- I think... ;)

Its fairly obvious I think that over the years, from a maintenance viewpoint, that the army of today finds itself in the position the German army of 1944 found itself in: their supply chain was still intact yet they had never ending problems because they focused on have the most cutting edge, untested, most mechanically complex, and worse, the most varied stable of armoured vehicles they could have. Sounds like us and we all know how well it worked out for them: the moment the supply chain had issues they had a near impossible time fielding any large amounts of armour on regular basis.

The late 80s had the drive to only support a handful of key systems, this is what led to the retirement of the M-110 203mm SP how, the decision to kill the M-8 MGS, the AH-66, etc....

Glad to see that they have made the decision to go with the multiple approaches to solve the same problem! :rolleyes:

And the sad thing is, the Stryker is based off of the LAV-25. Sure, heavily modified, but they are both MOWAG Piranhas built up in Canada eh? And here is the kicker: the Canadians was going to go heavy on the Stryker, until they got to Afghanistan and noted that it wasn't going to fly, so what are they doing? Moving heavy tracked vehicles and looking very hard at a new IFV- the CV90.

Don't get me wrong, I do feel there is a place for a medium organization, even a medium wheeled organization. But the army went too far, way too far.

What's it say for the pentagons pet project when not even a year passed before they found out its no good protection wise, and they invalidated the prime reason they picked it (C130 transportable) by adding more and more armour on the thing?

And that means that, once again, the Pentagon has dropped the ball. One would think that our gold and silver plated leadership would realize that their friking games are costing lives!

[dragoon500ly]

am i the only rider here that considers the stryker a worthy mount. granted its not tracked. well it can get places a track can't. so its got lighter armor and when has that ever stopped us? so what that its light REAL CAVALRY IS LIGHT! give me one good reason why the stryker is less worthy a mount than a brad. i say light and mobile beats heavy and stuck to roads in any cavalry fight. not to mention tracks CANNOT run silent the stryker can. granted i've had to walk into every fight i've been in. but being able to move in before the bad guys know im there is what cavalry does. its not about tanks its about mobility. and the ability to fight on your terms not the other guys. GSP would disown the 2ACR if he heard half of this.

Okay...lets try it this way...nobody has argued that heavy armor is the way to go for the recon role. Rather the arguement has been about replacing heavy armor with Stryker. But consider this, the US has offered the Stryker to Canada, turned down; it was offered to the UK, turned down; its been looked over by the Germans, turned down....hmmmm thats 0 for 3. Could this be a trend? Is it possible that three separate militaries perhaps see something wrong with the design?

Now, I don't know about what the modern Army is teaching, but I was always able to sneak in a M-1. That's a 65-ton tank, going cross-country, on the roads and getting within 150 meters of dismounted infantry before they picked up on me...and it wasn't a one time only. The Canadians called the M-1 "Whispering Death" because you couldn't hear that turbine until it was too late. The Bradleys that were issued to the 2ACR were almost as good. Sneaking with a vehicle is easy, as long as you have an experienced crew. It may surprise you to learn that I happen to belive that a light vehicle for the cavalry role is needed...but is the Stryker that vehicle? I do not feel that it is...my opinion, my viewpoint and presented on this forum for logical, reasonable discussion.

I have had the chance to take a Stryker down range, it didn't impress me. The 105mm version, I am afraid to fire over the side due to the tendency of the vehicle to roll...maybe it's me, but if you put a big frikin gun on a souped up armored car and it rolls over when you fire...there is something seriously wrong with the design!

Watching the Strykers at Fort Irwin was also an exercise in entertainment. The brigade I was observing had the flaming vehicle for a year, and the sheer number of Strykers that were broken down due to them trying a high speed run over the washboard was amazing...one company left 9 Strykers with broken axles...and 1 stuck in between a pair of outcroppings that were just that that much too tight.

And then there are the electronics....what kind of brain-dead idiot decided to save money by using off-the-shelf CIVILIAN electronics? Perhaps the same one that decided the 105mm cannon was suitable for mounting on the Stryker?

Now you are probably wondering how a old tanker such as myself could possible have access to Strykers and be able to see what a "wonderful" vehicle this thang is? Well I work as an auditor for the DoD, so I get the chance to travel and examine these wonderful programs...

And finally, there is this...my brother has finished his third tour in Iraq with Stryker...I have seven cousins and two nephews serving with the Army and Marines. My next door neighbor is active-duty NG in Afghanistan...so I tend to hear quite about about the shortcomings of a certain vehicle. The Stryker is either loved or hated...and the really funny thing is that when the troops have to take the Stryker into heavy combat, the more the opinion is against the vehicle.

And finally, I frankly have never cared what other people's opinion of me and my opinions, after all I proudly served to defend the very right to do so and you are certainly entitled to your opinion...but for you to pop a comment such as how GSP would have disowned the 2ACR for hearing half of this...I can only say that if you are so petty as to blame an outstanding regiment for the opinions of a few former members.....well, thats a pretty poor frikin stand to make.

Happy New Year, Bobcat, and if you have another tour in Iraq/Afghanistan, please come home safe.

[Abbott Shaull]

I would of thought a combination of 2 LAV-25 type vehicle and 2 Stryker type vehicle for a platoon. Giving the Platoon at least two rifle squads and supporting teams that would be needed. Also giving the platoon added firepower.

The lack of LAV-25 not being C-130 air transportable help in the decision not to buy them in the 1980's.

One look at back of the military of the late 1980's before they started to cuts after the fall of the Berlin Wall. One of the plans was to give 6th, 7th, 25th Light, and 10th Mountain Division a Medium force Brigade based what came out of the 9th Motorized Division, but the plug was pulled on the 9th so these Divisions were left various attempt to motorizing the designated Brigade with HMMWVs and other vehicles.

With the set up in the 1980's and if the 9th had been funded and allowed to find the correct systems for medium force Brigade, assuming that the 9th would still have round-out brigade. This would of left two Brigades with the 9th Motorized Division and one Brigade in the 4 Light Divisions. For a total 6 Medium brigades.

On the other hand having a Medium force for certain Reserve and National Guard would of made sense too.

Yes off the shelf electronic... Makes my head hurt to think about it... Again use the cheapest parts and you get what you pay for...

[Panther Al]

Heh. Well...

About sneaking about in vehicles, speaking from personal experience in the 3d, says something quite the opposite: the M1A2 is a great recce vehicle compared to the Brad, quieter by a long shot, lower profile, and much better optics. When we rolled north from Kuwait it was the Abrams sniffing and the Brads in overwatch with the TOWs. No problems there and when we pulled the trick on sister units before Iraq it always worked out quite well against other 1st line units. And that was using us as we was intended to: force on force recce at a divisional/corp level which is a lot different than an infantry brigade's scout platoon doing double duty as a in house ersatz "special op" detachment. That's not cavalry.

As to light/medium/heavy, in my mind light is a mix of light trucks supported by armoured cars in the vein of the LAV/Stryker. Medium in the vein I mentioned with common family of 30 tonnes or so to maintain a balance of armour and portability. Heavy is what the 3d is now. You know, the regiment GSP was the regimental Colonel of.

And since when was tracks confined to roads?!? The role of Cavalry is yes, sneak about, but the primary reason for its existence is to find the other guy's main force or forward screen, and when screens find each other little things like cannon fire tend to spoil any chance of being unheard. But once bumped up the Cav has to fix them in place: make the other guy slow his roll and shake out to engage the hasty defence that the Cav is forming, if our guys are on the ball, the real heavy units will arrive and do a battle handoff with us to take over the fight while we get back to finding other units.

[Abbott Shaull]

Heh. Well...

About sneaking about in vehicles, speaking from personal experience in the 3d, says something quite the opposite: the M1A2 is a great recce vehicle compared to the Brad, quieter by a long shot, lower profile, and much better optics. When we rolled north from Kuwait it was the Abrams sniffing and the Brads in overwatch with the TOWs. No problems there and when we pulled the trick on sister units before Iraq it always worked out quite well against other 1st line units. And that was using us as we was intended to: force on force recce at a divisional/corp level which is a lot different than an infantry brigade's scout platoon doing double duty as a in house ersatz "special op" detachment. That's not cavalry.


Yeah that is one of the thing I never understood when people talk about M1 being noisy. They can be very quiet with the correct training.

As for them being used for recon, well I think that is part of the reason why the 1st Cavalry, 1st Armor, 1st Mech, 3rd Mech, and 4th Mech all had slightly different Divisional Cavalry Squadron at their troop level. One had M1 in the Cavalry Squadron while another was using HMMWVs, while another had M3 still listed, and the other two had mixture of the the three!

As for the Armored Cavalry Regiments one wouldn't get no argument with that they should be retained in their original format. It is a shame that the 2nd Cavalry was converted to a light unit under the guise to provide the XVIII Airborne Corps with a Corps asset. Then to convert it into Stryker Brigade was insult in my opinion. While leaving the XVIII Airborne Corps without a Corps level asset. I always thought the Corps asset should of been freshly raised units instead of going through the re-flag shell game. I can understand keeping certain HQ alive for heritage sake, but then again there seemed to be enough room with one ACR left in Germany, one in the states assigned to the III Corps and the final one left in the Middle East as part of the force that was left after Operation Desert Storm to protect Kuwait.

Damn shame they re-flagged the 177th Armored Brigade to the 11th Armor Cavalry Regiment too. I hope the Pentagon isn't looking at changing the 3rd ACR. If anything the last decade should of taught the US Military is that, any serious shooting war will likely move too quickly for any one side to build the military they had needed to begin with. With modern aircraft and subs, we don't have the luxury of fighting them at arms length distance either...

[Adm.Lee]

Pardon the intrusion, but I'm surprised to hear this about the Strykers. Is it the machine itself, or the organization, or the deployment that is the problem? I'm hearing some of each.

As for the vehicle, I am surprised to hear that it is having mechanical trouble, as I had heard high praise for the testing procedures (back when I had friends on active duty). Also, since it was based on an existing (and presumable de-bugged) chassis, that seems extraordinary that it would be failing as described.

I also have difficulty with the newer brigade of 2 line battalions, but that's a different issue right now. Fighting guerrillas needs lots of well-trained troops, not lots of HQs without the capability to cover ground.

As for the medium-weight, wheeled-mobile, air-portable unit, well, that sounds like cavalry to me, at least in terms of mobility. Not for shock action on a "high-intensity" battlefield, but in my mind, Armor took over for Heavy Cavalry some time ago. Would it be less of an issue if the "Stryker brigade labelled a cavalry regiment" had a different, heavier, TO&E, rather than being "just another" motorized infantry brigade? Something to give anti-mech. capability to the airborne/light guys?

[Panther Al]

Um, all of the above?

In my view here is how it breaks down:

The Stryker: taken by itself, its not a horrible vehicle. Its based on a good one, and it addresses one of the biggest faults that I see in the way the army builds units as wide a selection of a hodge podge of vehicles, with the stryker family, you get away from that. The Stryker was supposed to be much cheaper and much more airportable than an IFV. In this, its failed. By the time we finished making "small tweaks" to an already established and proven design it grew costwise to the point where it wasn't all that cheaper than a brad. The original stryker meet the goal of being air transportable - provided the tank was all but empty - but as soon as it was fielded they found that it didn't meet operational standards, so the weight started adding up, and still is. The already approved gen 2 stryker is set to weigh, combat loaded, 25 to 30 tons. Hence, you can't load it on a herc unless you spend a day stripping it of equipment, move it, and spend a day putting it all back in. If we have to use a C17, we might as well use a vehicle that takes advantage of it. Worse however is that all those tweaks made it perhaps the most complex vehicle in army history, which doesn't make it the most reliable machine around.

The Stryker Brigade: A better way to equip, and to form, reserve units I have never seen. Its honestly a decent org for some regular units even with the stryker. Moreover, you are right, its not a bad idea from a cavalry viewpoint. If it wasn't for its fragility. Given say, a common 30 ton tracked chassis supporting all the variants instead of an originally spec 11 tons, I wouldn't bat a eye. But we seem to have decided to re-equip the majority of the army with the things. And as is being discovered in Afghanistan, wheeled vehicles are not doing the job: a job the Stryker was supposed to excel at.

In the whole, a failure, organisational, about even with the Stryker getting high marks for concept and total failure in practice. We could have, and should have, done better.

[dragoon500ly]

Pardon the intrusion, but I'm surprised to hear this about the Strykers. Is it the machine itself, or the organization, or the deployment that is the problem? I'm hearing some of each.

Based on what I've seen of the vehicle so far, I would have to say its the usual new vehicle working the kinks out more than anything else, that is for the BASIC Stryker! The Stryker variants are their own special headache.

As for the vehicle, I am surprised to hear that it is having mechanical trouble, as I had heard high praise for the testing procedures (back when I had friends on active duty). Also, since it was based on an existing (and presumable de-bugged) chassis, that seems extraordinary that it would be failing as described.

Compared to previous programs, pioneered by the M-1 program, the testing for Stryker was moving about as expected until the decision to starting throwing Stryker Brigade Combat Teams into Iraq, there was a lot of teething problems. I do understand the desire to replace the up-armored HMMWV, and Stryker seemed to do well in low-to-moderate intensity engagements, its when the heavy stuff came out that Stryker started showing problems. Based on what I am reading and hearing, there is the possibility of the Strykers being thrown into areas that should have been hit with heavy brigades, complete with arty and air support. I thing I have noticed in talking to GIs, is that the viewpoint towards Stryker depends on if the soldier was taking heavy fire. One story that I heard from several different eyewitnesses was one Stryker taking 14.5mm machinegun fire that penetrated the side and had at least several rounds that penetrated both sides....and the vehicle is supposed to be proof against such fire. I've also been assured by at least two officers that this never happened. Hmmmmm

I also have difficulty with the newer brigade of 2 line battalions, but that's a different issue right now. Fighting guerrillas needs lots of well-trained troops, not lots of HQs without the capability to cover ground.

No arguement from me...

As for the medium-weight, wheeled-mobile, air-portable unit, well, that sounds like cavalry to me, at least in terms of mobility. Not for shock action on a "high-intensity" battlefield, but in my mind, Armor took over for Heavy Cavalry some time ago. Would it be less of an issue if the "Stryker brigade labelled a cavalry regiment" had a different, heavier, TO&E, rather than being "just another" motorized infantry brigade? Something to give anti-mech. capability to the airborne/light guys?

The medium/heavy arguement has been going since 1945. The US didn't have much luck with armored cars and never really wanted them. When Vietnam kicked off, there was a need for medium weight armor once again, instead of going with armored cars, the decision was to modify the M-113 into something called the Armored Cavalry Combat Vehicle. This the M-113 with the circular shield for the .50 and the gun shield on either side for a M-60 for those who have never seen a ACCV. The problem is that the M-113 wasn't very good for that role. Mobility was decent, but the firepower/armor mix was weak.

As the 70s/80s rolled on, the US Army started to see just how good armored cars could be by watching the French, Germans and Brits. Now personally, I think the French had some very good ideas with the AMX-10RC and the Lynx. Even the German Luchs and the British Scimitar/Scorpion/Spartan series caught a lot of attention. In an environment such as Europe, with an extensive hard and soft-surfaced road network, wheeled vehicles actually have an advantage over tracked vehicles. At one point there was a lot of discussion about purchasing Scimitar/Spartans and equipping at least the divisional cavalry squadrons with them...needless to say, not-invented-here struck and that idea crashed and burned.

The issue with the army deploying Stryker is that the force mix is moving from light/heavy to medium. Not a bad idea from a budget standpoint...right? The problem with how it is being implentmented, we are destroying our heavy capability in favor of medium with little regard as to who we may be fighting in a decade. I, for one, would hate to see a Stryker Brigade taking on a Iranian armored division...I know that there is a lot of claims that the IVIS system makes up for the difference...call me hard-headed and old fashioned...but crossing barrels with a T-72 is a hell of a lot cheaper when you are using a M-1.

[Adm.Lee]

At one point there was a lot of discussion about purchasing Scimitar/Spartans and equipping at least the divisional cavalry squadrons with them...needless to say, not-invented-here struck and that idea crashed and burned.

From what I've read, I like Scorpion, etc., but aren't those tracked, and thus not armored cars?

The issue with the army deploying Stryker is that the force mix is moving from light/heavy to medium. Not a bad idea from a budget standpoint...right? The problem with how it is being implemented, we are destroying our heavy capability in favor of medium with little regard as to who we may be fighting in a decade.

So, point me to a source: how many "medium" brigades are we talking about, and how many heavy and light? The pre-2002, 10-division Army used to have 6 heavy divisions and 4 separate heavy brigades/regiments, right? That makes 22 heavy brigade-equivalents, leaving out divisional cavalry squadrons, 21 after we subtract the light brigade from the 2nd ID. And there were 4 light divisions* (10th with only 2 brigades?), a short airborne "task force" and a motorized cavalry regiment, so 13 light and 1 medium, let's say. Yes, I know the new brigades are 2+ battalions, vice 3, but let's leave that out for the moment.

BTW, I'm fully in agreement that heavy stuff is needed, and that medium forces, as we are talking, probably won't cut it on a mechanized battlefield. I'm just looking for numbers.

[Panther Al]

Don't misunderstand: I too think there is a place for the wheeled armoured combat vehicle, any where there is a large, well developed road net wheels do hold enough of a mobility advantage to make up for the lessor armour/firepower balance. We should have taken more time to take a good hard look at the stryker. The armoured cars that do have a good track record, such as the ones mentioned benefited from working on a solid road net, but in addition are larger vehicles. A 25 ton Stryker, with the increase in armour and potentially greater firepower just may be what it takes to change the public view of the vehicle. Good news is that plans are already in action to bring us the Stryker III is in the works, and the II (both are what I call them) is being field tested now, the II is really a better mine protected version of the Stryker but otherwise the same as the I.

[Abbott Shaull]

I think what has left several ex-troopers with concern is that for the most part, the reduction of the Combat Brigade from three down to two Battalion. Granted we have reduced the Heavy Brigades by one overall when you take the one Brigade of the 2nd Infantry that was converted. Yet the overall effected even if you take these troops and the Mechanized Battalion from the 2-2nd Infantry and use the Mechanized and Armor Battalions/Companies and discarded Artillery Batteries that have been meshed together into 1st Armor, 1st Mech, 1st Cavalry, 3rd Mech, and the 4th Mech to 4 Brigades. Some of these have one Heavy Task Force (either labeled Mech or Armor) and the other battalion is something of mix light/medium task force. With the wording the way the military had worded how the Cavalry Squadrons for these Brigades were stood up, would lead you believe that they extra troop of the 3rd Battalion of these Brigades were just simply re-tasked as Cavalry Squadron end of story. In many cases these Brigades used the former Engineer Brigade HQs or Field Artillery Brigade HQ to start the new Brigade while stripping Paul to cloth Mary...

Now lets look at the Airborne/Air Assault/Light Divisions before. They included the 10th Mountain of 2 Brigades at Fort Drum and 172nd in Alaska. The 25th Light of 2 or 3 Brigades depending on who you talk too. Then their was the 82nd and 101st of 3 Brigades. So with these troops there were 10 or 11 Light Brigades with 3 Infantry Battalions each. Then we had the 173rd Airborne Brigade which was being activated out of the Airborne Task Force in Italy. Itself was still incomplete Brigade but still sent to Northern Iraq to help keep Turkey out of the action. In these new brigade the former Artillery Brigade HQ were re-tasked and again stripping other units to make other units. One unique thing to point out here the of the two Brigade raised for the 10th Mountain Division, they were basically formed from 2nd ACR and the Artillery Brigade HQ after the 2nd ACR based in Fort Polk was deactivated and reactivated at Fort Lewis in one of the Stryker Brigades there that was getting ready to deploy overseas. Thus is where many of the former 2nd Cavalry members who spread through-out the army in attempt to help prop up new 33 Cavalry Squadrons.

So we had up to 11 and 2/3 Infantry Brigades before 2003. After wards total of 5 Brigades were raised, in order to raise these new brigade the 173rd was converted to new Brigade outlook with some reorganization of the Brigade with some addition to bring it up to speed. Of the other Brigades, the 8 that made up the Brigade of the 10th Mountain based at Fort Drum and the 82nd and 101st Division Brigades suffer the same fate that the Mechanized and Armor Brigades had in Heavy Divisions. On paper one would assumed the 3rd Infantry was simply re-tasked as Cavalry Squadron and their Artillery Battalions were reduced a battery. This leave us 13 of the 14 Light Brigades, one more was organized while they blending units for the Stryker units...

While 2 new Light Infantry Brigades, 1 Air Assault, and 1 Airborne Brigades under the new organization were raised to bring the 10th, 82nd, and 101st up to 4 Brigades. Amazing since many Light Division still have their Division Cavalry Squadron intact. While the Armor/Mechanized/Cavalry Division lost them.

The 25th Infantry wasn't mention for a reason nor was the 172nd Infantry Brigade. While we are here we talk about 3rd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division and the 2nd Armor Cavalry Regiment (or whatever it was going by in 2003). The 3-2nd Infantry had been sent to Fort Lewis to convert from Mechanized Brigade to Stryker Brigade. After it arrived it Armor Battalion was re-flagged as Infantry Battalion. This new brigade had 3 Stryker Battalions, 1 Cavalry Squadron, 1 Artillery Battalion, and 1 Support Battalion. The main difference since the reorganization with troop was it got Special Troop Battalion. Shortly before the 2003 it was decided that the 172nd, two Brigades of the 25th Light, and even the 2nd ACR would all be converted to this organization. So we took 3 Light Infantry Brigades, 1 Mechanized Brigade, 1 ACR, and 1 Air Assault/Mechanized Brigade and turn them into 7 Stryker Brigades. 3 for the 2nd Infantry, 3 for the 25th Infantry (dropping Light), and 1 Cavalry Regiment. Also somewhere in this mass confusion another Airborne Brigade was raised. The 3 Stryker Brigades of the 2nd based in Fort Lewis. Then 1 Stryker and 1 Airborne in Alaska and 2 Stryker in Hawaii for the 25th. While the 2nd Cavalry Regiment was destined for Germany.

IIRC they went so far to debating if the 6th Stryker Brigade would be new Brigade or to outfit a National Guard Brigade, namely one of the 28th Infantry Division PA-NG. After some time to think about the 2-2nd Infantry was transferred back to the US instead of to Korea after a tour to Iraq. It was to be temporary re-flag as a Brigade of the 4th Division before it was sent to Fort Lewis and re-flagged as part of the 2nd Division.

So before 2003 we had 12 Light Brigades, 1 Medium Brigade (Cavalry Regiment), 1 ACR, and 12 Mechanized/Armor Brigades. Now we have 1 ACR, 21 Heavy Brigades (5 Division with 4 Brigades and the 1-2nd Infantry), 14 Light Brigades, and 7 Stryker Brigades. All in 10 Divisions, 2 independent Brigades, and 1 ACR. Or that is the way current call for once everyone gets sorted out...

[Panther Al]

Last I looked the army is up to 48 brigades, which is significantly more than there was in 2002, yet our manpower strength, while increased, hasn't increased that much. Which lends me to believe that these new brigades are, on the whole, weaker.

And to be fair, a good bit of the screaming has an element of sour grapes to it. A lot of divisions- as well as the two ACR's, have a lot of traditions, and while the powers that be say the traditions of these units will be intact, its not looking that way to the average joe because, for the most part the divisions will take the field with whatever brigades that happen to be available regardless of what division they officially belong to. Its worse with the ACR's. No unit in my view is more bound to its history and traditions as a cavalry regiment, and changeover to Strykers means to the mind of the troopers that they no longer are a unique, special unit, they have become just another infantry unit no different than the rest. This might not be true, I don't know if the two regiments maintained a cavalry organisation or switched to and infantry one, but the perception is there none the less.

[Abbott Shaull]

And to be fair, a good bit of the screaming has an element of sour grapes to it. A lot of divisions- as well as the two ACR's, have a lot of traditions, and while the powers that be say the traditions of these units will be intact, its not looking that way to the average joe because, for the most part the divisions will take the field with whatever brigades that happen to be available regardless of what division they officially belong to.

I think this is the part that make troops complain the loudest. It was always intended that a Division trains together to fight together. Yet, even before Operation Desert Storm it has been completely the opposite, with the exception of the 82nd and 101st during that war. Every other Division was made up mix brigades from units that were hand pick for the Armor and Mechanized Divisions.

After the initial invasion, and then the immediate occupation force after that, a Division HQ would be sent over and they would have if lucky one or two of their own brigades under their command, while other Brigades even the Aviation would be form elsewhere. Even the Brigade and Battalions and Companies would be far mix than what they had trained to go over with. Then throw in the new attitude that regardless if the Division was 82nd or 101st it should be expected to support and operate Heavy Brigades within it command and the Armor and Mechanized Divisions were expected to learn how to operate with light units, and with unit that were use to being in M1s and M2 riding around the area in HMMWVs.

You are quite correct the Army on paper has increased the number of Brigades from 30-33 neighborhood to something of 48 was the goal, I think it like 51 or 52 when all added up... Of course it is difficult to really get a tally since some Brigades are still supposedly in transit. While other sites states some Division are here, but other parts are there. Including two Infantry Brigades that what left of the 1st Armor and Mechanized Divisions from their withdraw from Germany.

In the number of combat troops there has been only slight increase of men/women. In reality if one looks at the number of Companies/Batteries/Troops and Battalions/Squadrons the numbers haven't really moved up as much as one would expect of force that was increase by 16 or so Brigades. This seems to be a major concern too.

It is combination that Divisions have lost their sense of accomplishment. Even Brigades and Battalions loose sense since now the battle streamers and worse yet the unit citation become a nightmare. The book keeping as platoons are splinter and composite companies are sent on missions that they were never quite trained for. Armor and Mechanized units using HMMWVs, Artillery units conducting infantry foot patrols. The hard fact in this war is that everyone in the combat zone is expected to act as 11B unless you were medic, even then you better know your stuff just in case.

Even during WWII when each Division had been drown down from 4 Infantry Regiment to 3 Regiment they usually took to the field with addition resource that would gradually equal to a 4th Regiment. Even the Armor Division that originally had two Combat Command had a third one added by the end of the war and wasn't unusually to find Infantry Regiment assigned to them. Even in Vietnam the 23rd Infantry Division was collection of Separate Brigades that were grouped together under a common HQ in theater.

Then you add to the fact that units were told they would go over for only 12-15 months depending on when they were to go over spending up to 18 months there because of this emergency or another. Supposedly staying at home station for 18 months for training which rarely happen. I guess there are reason for the sour grape complaints...

Not that the troop have much room to complain because they did signed up, but after people keep telling you one thing and making promises that they know they can't keep. Well I would expect anyone to cry foul.

One of the things was the pride that units use to have and the amount of time NCOs and Officers would go to instill what the unit had done over the years. Lot of that was thrown out of window when the 3rd Mechanized Division was carved up and later units kept going through rotation after rotation. I think at last count most of the regular Army was working on 5th over and some Guard units were working on their 3rd rotation over in the Middle East. All the while many of the troops knowing they can press their luck only so many times.

Or the fact that their are plenty of 20-24 year old E-5s and E-6s milling around, take this into consideration that many O-1 out of West Point are only 22-24. Back in 1989 there was talk amongst the senior NCOs in my company because E-6 who had less then 8 years had just made E-6. many of these people had been 10-12 years before they made it to E-6.

So it in general there are lot of things that people are grumbling about. It always will be there and lot of it due to lost of traditions. Which to keep is just silly...but it does happen.

[dragoon500ly]

I think this is the part that make troops complain the loudest. It was always intended that a Division trains together to fight together. Yet, even before Operation Desert Storm it has been completely the opposite, with the exception of the 82nd and 101st during that war. Every other Division was made up mix brigades from units that were hand pick for the Armor and Mechanized Divisions.

Its always been this way, at least since WWII, units were stripped to provide cadre for a new formed division. Korea was no better, except that units were stripped stateside to provide replacements for the Far East. In Vietnam, the one year and your out policy destroyed a division's cohesion faster than enemy action did. In Persian Gulf I, what a lot of people forget is that after the fall of the old Soviet Union, Bush I started drawing down troops to save money, a lot of brigades were deactivated and this is one of the reasons that you found 3MID units in the 1AD to name one example.

You hear a lot of talk about "training together and fighting together" but when a moment of crisis happens, it's throw whatever is available into the pot and hope for the best. Face it, the US Military as a whole has never been adequate to protect the intrests of the USA. There was a plan once to move divisions down to the Mexican border to help stem the flow of drugs and illegals crossing the border, had a good chance of working too, until Congress discovered that to seal the border completely would require the commitment of 130 divisions....and please remember, that at the height of WWII, the US only fielded 90 divisions.

After the initial invasion, and then the immediate occupation force after that, a Division HQ would be sent over and they would have if lucky one or two of their own brigades under their command, while other Brigades even the Aviation would be form elsewhere. Even the Brigade and Battalions and Companies would be far mix than what they had trained to go over with. Then throw in the new attitude that regardless if the Division was 82nd or 101st it should be expected to support and operate Heavy Brigades within it command and the Armor and Mechanized Divisions were expected to learn how to operate with light units, and with unit that were use to being in M1s and M2 riding around the area in HMMWVs.

The thinking behind this is that any division commander can command any mix of units...completely disregards that heavy and light units have different capabilities, different tactics and different logistical needs. But HAY! What do I know, I'm just a glorified bean counter nowdays...

You are quite correct the Army on paper has increased the number of Brigades from 30-33 neighborhood to something of 48 was the goal, I think it like 51 or 52 when all added up... Of course it is difficult to really get a tally since some Brigades are still supposedly in transit. While other sites states some Division are here, but other parts are there. Including two Infantry Brigades that what left of the 1st Armor and Mechanized Divisions from their withdraw from Germany.

In the number of combat troops there has been only slight increase of men/women. In reality if one looks at the number of Companies/Batteries/Troops and Battalions/Squadrons the numbers haven't really moved up as much as one would expect of force that was increase by 16 or so Brigades. This seems to be a major concern too.

I agree....if you cut 40 riflemen from your company, it just means that the remaining 80 rifleman have to work harder. And if your unit suffers losses, well then the 60 remaining riflemen have to work even harder. Its a nasty sprial that never ends. There was a lot of flak over the Marines keeping the 13-man rifle squad, vs the 7-man Army rifle squad...hmmmm, more firepower, better able to take losses and remain effective, better command and control...Marines were right.

It is combination that Divisions have lost their sense of accomplishment. Even Brigades and Battalions loose sense since now the battle streamers and worse yet the unit citation become a nightmare. The book keeping as platoons are splinter and composite companies are sent on missions that they were never quite trained for. Armor and Mechanized units using HMMWVs, Artillery units conducting infantry foot patrols. The hard fact in this war is that everyone in the combat zone is expected to act as 11B unless you were medic, even then you better know your stuff just in case.

If even half of what I'm hearing from return soldiers is true, the Army is suffering major problems with morale and discipline. Fragmenting units has been proven to be unworkable through the last three major wars (or is that a war, a police action and whateverthehell Vietnam was supposed to be?). But here we are, in the longest whateverthehell Iraq/Afghanistan are supposed to be, fragmenting units because some think-tank on the Beltway is convienced that it can work.

Even during WWII when each Division had been drown down from 4 Infantry Regiment to 3 Regiment they usually took to the field with addition resource that would gradually equal to a 4th Regiment. Even the Armor Division that originally had two Combat Command had a third one added by the end of the war and wasn't unusually to find Infantry Regiment assigned to them. Even in Vietnam the 23rd Infantry Division was collection of Separate Brigades that were grouped together under a common HQ in theater.

Then you add to the fact that units were told they would go over for only 12-15 months depending on when they were to go over spending up to 18 months there because of this emergency or another. Supposedly staying at home station for 18 months for training which rarely happen. I guess there are reason for the sour grape complaints...

Not that the troop have much room to complain because they did signed up, but after people keep telling you one thing and making promises that they know they can't keep. Well I would expect anyone to cry foul.

Please, as a favor, don't get me started on that diaster known as Tricare!

One of the things was the pride that units use to have and the amount of time NCOs and Officers would go to instill what the unit had done over the years. Lot of that was thrown out of window when the 3rd Mechanized Division was carved up and later units kept going through rotation after rotation. I think at last count most of the regular Army was working on 5th over and some Guard units were working on their 3rd rotation over in the Middle East. All the while many of the troops knowing they can press their luck only so many times.

Or the fact that their are plenty of 20-24 year old E-5s and E-6s milling around, take this into consideration that many O-1 out of West Point are only 22-24. Back in 1989 there was talk amongst the senior NCOs in my company because E-6 who had less then 8 years had just made E-6. many of these people had been 10-12 years before they made it to E-6.

So it in general there are lot of things that people are grumbling about. It always will be there and lot of it due to lost of traditions. Which to keep is just silly...but it does happen.

There are good reasons behind the traditions. Its corny, its silly, its outdated, but it helps the soldier belong to something greater than himself.

[pmulcahy11b]

Dragoon, you're not closing your quotes (it should look like [/QUOTE]) at the end of the quote. That slash is important.

[dragoon500ly]

Dragoon, you're not closing your quotes (it should look like ) at the end of the quote. That slash is important.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I'm multitasking today, feeding my daughter and having my mind shut down from too much Dora the Explorer!

[rcaf_777]

Pampers melt in a Maytag dryer
Crayons go up one drawer higher
Rewind Barney for the fifteenth time
Breakfast, six naps at nine
There's bubble gum in the baby's hair
Sweet potatoes in my lazy chair
Been crazy all day long and it's only Monday
Mr. Mom

[pmulcahy11b]

) at the end of the quote. That slash is important.


I didn't mean that the ")" was part of the quote code; I was simply closing my own parentheses for grammar.

[dragoon500ly]

Pampers melt in a Maytag dryer
Crayons go up one drawer higher
Rewind Barney for the fifteenth time
Breakfast, six naps at nine
There's bubble gum in the baby's hair
Sweet potatoes in my lazy chair
Been crazy all day long and it's only Monday
Mr. Mom

LOL

Nothing like a three-year old to show you what is really important in the world!

[headquarters]

there are a couple more dragoons in here as well - FmDecorba and yours truly both donned the black beret of the armoured cav in our day.(Royal Norwegian Armoured Cavalry , eskadrons 4 and 6 respectivly)

Was in just before the switch from M113 and Nm135 to Cv-90.

Tried my hand at Sisu XA 180 and 185s .

Have to say- if I had to equip a fighting force the CV 90 would be my choice.

While I do like the though as nail simplicity of the m113 series, the CV 90 also have a rugged design with not to many frills but still carry good thermal suite,stabilized ordinance (Bushmaster 30 mm autocannon) and firing computer that means it is going to pack a punch.

Sitting in our m113 and seeing the cv 90s flash by us was like sitting in a rowing boat being overtaken by something out of the opening credits of Miami vice.

[Abbott Shaull]

) at the end of the quote. That slash is important.

Sorry, I'm multitasking today, feeding my daughter and having my mind shut down from too much Dora the Explorer![/QUOTE]

Dora you are getting off light...LOL

Try 1 and half of Barney 18 hours a day...

[Abbott Shaull]

Its always been this way, at least since WWII, units were stripped to provide cadre for a new formed division. Korea was no better, except that units were stripped stateside to provide replacements for the Far East. In Vietnam, the one year and your out policy destroyed a division's cohesion faster than enemy action did. In Persian Gulf I, what a lot of people forget is that after the fall of the old Soviet Union, Bush I started drawing down troops to save money, a lot of brigades were deactivated and this is one of the reasons that you found 3MID units in the 1AD to name one example.

You hear a lot of talk about "training together and fighting together" but when a moment of crisis happens, it's throw whatever is available into the pot and hope for the best. Face it, the US Military as a whole has never been adequate to protect the intrests of the USA. There was a plan once to move divisions down to the Mexican border to help stem the flow of drugs and illegals crossing the border, had a good chance of working too, until Congress discovered that to seal the border completely would require the commitment of 130 divisions....and please remember, that at the height of WWII, the US only fielded 90 divisions.



The thinking behind this is that any division commander can command any mix of units...completely disregards that heavy and light units have different capabilities, different tactics and different logistical needs. But HAY! What do I know, I'm just a glorified bean counter nowdays...



I agree....if you cut 40 riflemen from your company, it just means that the remaining 80 rifleman have to work harder. And if your unit suffers losses, well then the 60 remaining riflemen have to work even harder. Its a nasty sprial that never ends. There was a lot of flak over the Marines keeping the 13-man rifle squad, vs the 7-man Army rifle squad...hmmmm, more firepower, better able to take losses and remain effective, better command and control...Marines were right.



If even half of what I'm hearing from return soldiers is true, the Army is suffering major problems with morale and discipline. Fragmenting units has been proven to be unworkable through the last three major wars (or is that a war, a police action and whateverthehell Vietnam was supposed to be?). But here we are, in the longest whateverthehell Iraq/Afghanistan are supposed to be, fragmenting units because some think-tank on the Beltway is convienced that it can work.



Please, as a favor, don't get me started on that diaster known as Tricare!



There are good reasons behind the traditions. Its corny, its silly, its outdated, but it helps the soldier belong to something greater than himself.

Yes the Original Bush started to draw down the Army at a time when the Cold War was 'Officially' over. Also at this times many more units were left understrength. Don't get me started on that...lol

Yeah well the wet dream was to field something like close to 150 Division or more, with several more Armor Division, but there was lend-lease and combat loses seemed to deem those dreams ineffective... So yeah the closing of the border of that border will never happen...

You forgetting the minor invasion of Gernada (sp) and Panama where at each the 2/3 of the 82nd Division made it. Of course the two Brigade Commands were mixed with 2 of the regularly schedule Battalions and the Brigade that HQ that sat home sent two of three battalions to the first action. Lessons were learned and during Panama none of that foolishness was entertained.

I agree the Marines have it right. Not that they have got it entirely correct. There were plenty of Marine Platoons operated with 2 Marine Rifle Squad instead of the 3 Squads so to keep full squads instead of reducing the Squads. Since 9-11 things have improved some in filling out the staffing.

[dragoon500ly]

You forgetting the minor invasion of Gernada (sp) and Panama where at each the 2/3 of the 82nd Division made it. Of course the two Brigade Commands were mixed with 2 of the regularly schedule Battalions and the Brigade that HQ that sat home sent two of three battalions to the first action. Lessons were learned and during Panama none of that foolishness was entertained.

Please! I'm still trying to forget Grenada!!!! There is nothing like trying to plan a military operation from a tourist guide book map of the island!

"And I want 3rd platoon to hook through Henry's Bar & Grill and then advance on the Hilton, watch out for that miniature golf course on your left, S2 thinks that the Cubans have set up around the windmill!"

[Abbott Shaull]

Please! I'm still trying to forget Grenada!!!! There is nothing like trying to plan a military operation from a tourist guide book map of the island!

"And I want 3rd platoon to hook through Henry's Bar & Grill and then advance on the Hilton, watch out for that miniature golf course on your left, S2 thinks that the Cubans have set up around the windmill!"

Yeah I know, it was entirely a cluster from what I heard of the troops and NCOs who had the misfortune of being on that operation. Again it was one of those operation where it was better left to Marine Expeditionary Unit or the logical argument could of seen a MEB being used.

Sending 2/3 of the the 82nd with a unhealthy mix of Special Forces, Rangers and SEAL was a grand recipe of more deaths and wounded than their needed to be... Oh well.

Panama was just as bad. Everyone wanted piece of the action. As a result again more people lost their lives than if they kept the entire thing KISS. Especially since literally we had forces in place. It was the movement of troops Bragg that finally gave up that the operation was underway since they were looking at the same flight information as we were...*shrug*...

[dragoon500ly]

Yeah I know, it was entirely a cluster from what I heard of the troops and NCOs who had the misfortune of being on that operation. Again it was one of those operation where it was better left to Marine Expeditionary Unit or the logical argument could of seen a MEB being used.

Sending 2/3 of the the 82nd with a unhealthy mix of Special Forces, Rangers and SEAL was a grand recipe of more deaths and wounded than their needed to be... Oh well.

Panama was just as bad. Everyone wanted piece of the action. As a result again more people lost their lives than if they kept the entire thing KISS. Especially since literally we had forces in place. It was the movement of troops Bragg that finally gave up that the operation was underway since they were looking at the same flight information as we were...*shrug*...

Sometimes this Joint Service stuff is a real pain in the a**!! The only good to come out was the creation of the Joint Special Operations Command...an act which has reduced numerous general and flag officers into foaming fits!!! IMAGINE, giving Rangers, SEALs and Green Berets equal fooring with the traditional branches!!!!

ROFLMA!

[Abbott Shaull]

Sometimes this Joint Service stuff is a real pain in the a**!! The only good to come out was the creation of the Joint Special Operations Command...an act which has reduced numerous general and flag officers into foaming fits!!! IMAGINE, giving Rangers, SEALs and Green Berets equal fooring with the traditional branches!!!!

ROFLMA!

Yeah well the sad thing is that most of the members who were the one who could best explain their capabilities rarely rose high enough with-in their separate commands. Granted there were people in all of the branches Special Operation Commands before they joined by the Joint Special Operations Command that would sneak under the radar to become Brigadier General, Major General, or Rear Admiral. Yet, these promotions were rare and far to find. Also there were senior officers who look upon Special Operation troops as if they are provide nothing to of value to their forces.

Granted by this time I know in the Army Special Operation Command top job was Lt General. Outside of the the individual Services Special Operation Commands there were few jobs outside of these Commands for people to get promotions. In general if they did make it to Flag rank they were placed back in staff positions or in other none relate Special Operations type Commands. For most of the time they would make back to their respective Special Operation Commands or staff position for planning at the Pentagon or the various other Joint Commands.

On serious note it more like elevation of Marine Corps Commandant to a Full voting member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. When the Marine Corps is suppose to be branch of the Navy.

[dragoon500ly]

Yeah well the sad thing is that most of the members who were the one who could best explain their capabilities rarely rose high enough with-in their separate commands. Granted there were people in all of the branches Special Operation Commands before they joined by the Joint Special Operations Command that would sneak under the radar to become Brigadier General, Major General, or Rear Admiral. Yet, these promotions were rare and far to find. Also there were senior officers who look upon Special Operation troops as if they are provide nothing to of value to their forces.

Granted by this time I know in the Army Special Operation Command top job was Lt General. Outside of the the individual Services Special Operation Commands there were few jobs outside of these Commands for people to get promotions. In general if they did make it to Flag rank they were placed back in staff positions or in other none relate Special Operations type Commands. For most of the time they would make back to their respective Special Operation Commands or staff position for planning at the Pentagon or the various other Joint Commands.

On serious note it more like elevation of Marine Corps Commandant to a Full voting member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. When the Marine Corps is suppose to be branch of the Navy.

Ah the Green Machine! The day it ever makes sense is the day I will fall over from sheer heart failure!

[dragoon500ly]

Mulling over things, in between coffee breaks, I got to thinking about the light tank. Now in the US Army, we like our tanks to be big and heavy and equipped with large caliber guns and all kinds of electronic doo-dads. But I keep coming back to the light tank. It offers all kinds of advantages when you sit down and think about it. To be sure, it doesn't have heavy armor, but it can be more strategically portable than a M-1. Prior to the intro of the 120mm smoothbore, the US was developing a series of improved 105mm shells that were as capable as the 120mm, and in at least two cases, bloody well out performed the 120mm!

Now a bit of background...the first "official" light tank other than the WWI French FT would be the M-3 Stuart, now before anyone bursts a bubble, the M-2 series of combat cars were never considered to be light tanks, simply because they were the only tanks that we had in the pre-World War II era. The Stuart is the best example of a light tank, well armored for its weight, a lovely horsepower to weight ratio and for its period, adequate armament. Too bad that it was thrown into combat against vehicles that were a generation ahead of its design. Its 37mm main armament quickly proved to be lacking in fire power.

The M-3 Stuart was replaced with the M-5 Stuart; this improvement used a newly designed hull to delete some of the numerous shot traps of the M-3s design, but kept pretty much the same turret and armament. The designers of the M-5 ignored reports coming back from the front about how inadequate the 37mm cannon had become. This was the developmental end of the Stuart.

Next out of factory was the first true advance, the M-24 Chaffee light tank. For its weight, it was adequately armored, horsepower-to-weight ratio was not as high as it could have been, but the main gun was now the 75mm cannon (it was the same cannon mounted in the B-25J medium bomber). The problem with the armament was that by the introduction of the M-24 (1945), the 75mm had pretty much lived out its developmental lifespan. The Korean War proved to be the undoing of the M-24, although I believe that this was due more to the tank being thrown up against the T-34/85 tank than any design flaw. Norway upgunned its M-24s with a 90mm and by all reports are still quite happy with the design.

The next and last US light tank was the M-41 Walker Bulldog. Lightly armored for its weight, it had excellent horsepower-to-weight and was armed with the 76mm cannon. The Bulldog didn't last long in US service as the decision was being made to go with the Main Battle Tank concept. The Bulldog served in several armies, but its moment of fame came in the Vietnam War where it equipped several companies of the ARVN. It proved to be a reliable, nimble design and several PT-76s and T-54/55s of the PAVN were destroyed prior to the fall of South Vietnam.

A few years ago, a design for a light tank was pushed. Called the M-8 Buford Mobile Gun System, it was an intresting concept. It was air-portable. Its armor could be beefed up by adding additional armor panels to met three basic threat levels. It had an excellent horsepower-to-weight ratio and was equipped with the 105mm rifled cannon. The initial tests of the M-8 showed it to be a capable design, but alas! It fell prey to the next round of budget cutbacks. Something about a Congressman needing a bridge in Alaska.

GDW also pushed something they called the LAV-75, didn't exist, even as a design concept, but its armament was in development. The 75mm gun was coupled to an autoloader that allowed the weapon to fire 10 rounds in the time it took you to read this sentence. Impressive, no? The drawback to the 75mm gun was the same one that doomed the older 75mm in WWII, armor penetration was for shit. What good did it do to hit a T-62 ten times if none of the rounds penetrated? That was pretty much the end of the 75mm gun concept.

A light tank in the US Army...nowdays we have a Stryker with a 105mm gun that the service is trying to fix (recoil is such a b***h!). A light tank battalion could be attached to the airborne/air assault/light infantry divisions and give them some badly needed firepower. The divisional cavalry squadrons could also use a light tank design. Just some random musings!

[Adm.Lee]

Please! I'm still trying to forget Grenada!!!! There is nothing like trying to plan a military operation from a tourist guide book map of the island!

It was a little better than that. One of the staffies somewhere had actually visited, and written his Staff College paper on how to invade it. I agree, though, the execution was sub-par.

[Adm.Lee]

GDW also pushed something they called the LAV-75, didn't exist, even as a design concept, but its armament was in development. The 75mm gun was coupled to an autoloader that allowed the weapon to fire 10 rounds in the time it took you to read this sentence. Impressive, no? The drawback to the 75mm gun was the same one that doomed the older 75mm in WWII, armor penetration was for shit. What good did it do to hit a T-62 ten times if none of the rounds penetrated? That was pretty much the end of the 75mm gun concept.

Are you sure it's the same 75mm? I figured it was the same 75mm statted from the Scorpion and/or AMX. The Sherman's 75mm was a low-velocity thing, designed by an artillery-experienced ordnance team. According to "Steel coffins", they wanted a barrel that could last 2,000 shots before wearing out, but experience showed that tanks didn't last that long.

[Panther Al]

A couple of things, back in the day Armour Magazine had a bit about the M41's true claim to fame: the ARVN army wound up with a company actually pulling off an true air assault. From what I recall, a coup was being run in Siagon, and per policy the US did nothing. But the word was slow in reaching Cahm Ram Bay, where a ARVN company did get word and asked the Air Force for lift for an "purely administrative" move. They said yes, and the moment the tanks arrived they started lighting up those that was backing the coup located on the airbase before rolling into the city.

The second is one (and yes, I do sound like a broken record at times ;) ) is back way earlier I mentioned the CV90 series as a potential replacement for all the armoured vehicles in a cav regiment, one of the options is either a 105 or a 120 nato gun armed light tank version. Not a bad thing in my view. :)

[James Langham]

Mulling over things, in between coffee breaks, I got to thinking about the light tank. Now in the US Army, we like our tanks to be big and heavy and equipped with large caliber guns and all kinds of electronic doo-dads. But I keep coming back to the light tank. It offers all kinds of advantages when you sit down and think about it. To be sure, it doesn't have heavy armor, but it can be more strategically portable than a M-1. Prior to the intro of the 120mm smoothbore, the US was developing a series of improved 105mm shells that were as capable as the 120mm, and in at least two cases, bloody well out performed the 120mm!

Now a bit of background...the first "official" light tank other than the WWI French FT would be the M-3 Stuart, now before anyone bursts a bubble, the M-2 series of combat cars were never considered to be light tanks, simply because they were the only tanks that we had in the pre-World War II era. The Stuart is the best example of a light tank, well armored for its weight, a lovely horsepower to weight ratio and for its period, adequate armament. Too bad that it was thrown into combat against vehicles that were a generation ahead of its design. Its 37mm main armament quickly proved to be lacking in fire power.

The M-3 Stuart was replaced with the M-5 Stuart; this improvement used a newly designed hull to delete some of the numerous shot traps of the M-3s design, but kept pretty much the same turret and armament. The designers of the M-5 ignored reports coming back from the front about how inadequate the 37mm cannon had become. This was the developmental end of the Stuart.

Next out of factory was the first true advance, the M-24 Chaffee light tank. For its weight, it was adequately armored, horsepower-to-weight ratio was not as high as it could have been, but the main gun was now the 75mm cannon (it was the same cannon mounted in the B-25J medium bomber). The problem with the armament was that by the introduction of the M-24 (1945), the 75mm had pretty much lived out its developmental lifespan. The Korean War proved to be the undoing of the M-24, although I believe that this was due more to the tank being thrown up against the T-34/85 tank than any design flaw. Norway upgunned its M-24s with a 90mm and by all reports are still quite happy with the design.

The next and last US light tank was the M-41 Walker Bulldog. Lightly armored for its weight, it had excellent horsepower-to-weight and was armed with the 76mm cannon. The Bulldog didn't last long in US service as the decision was being made to go with the Main Battle Tank concept. The Bulldog served in several armies, but its moment of fame came in the Vietnam War where it equipped several companies of the ARVN. It proved to be a reliable, nimble design and several PT-76s and T-54/55s of the PAVN were destroyed prior to the fall of South Vietnam.

A few years ago, a design for a light tank was pushed. Called the M-8 Buford Mobile Gun System, it was an intresting concept. It was air-portable. Its armor could be beefed up by adding additional armor panels to met three basic threat levels. It had an excellent horsepower-to-weight ratio and was equipped with the 105mm rifled cannon. The initial tests of the M-8 showed it to be a capable design, but alas! It fell prey to the next round of budget cutbacks. Something about a Congressman needing a bridge in Alaska.

GDW also pushed something they called the LAV-75, didn't exist, even as a design concept, but its armament was in development. The 75mm gun was coupled to an autoloader that allowed the weapon to fire 10 rounds in the time it took you to read this sentence. Impressive, no? The drawback to the 75mm gun was the same one that doomed the older 75mm in WWII, armor penetration was for shit. What good did it do to hit a T-62 ten times if none of the rounds penetrated? That was pretty much the end of the 75mm gun concept.

A light tank in the US Army...nowdays we have a Stryker with a 105mm gun that the service is trying to fix (recoil is such a b***h!). A light tank battalion could be attached to the airborne/air assault/light infantry divisions and give them some badly needed firepower. The divisional cavalry squadrons could also use a light tank design. Just some random musings!

The LAV75 did actually exist - it was known as the Ares Light Tank.

I am actually working on this and I've put my draft thoughts on. Sorry it's not as polished as usual.

[dragoon500ly]

Are you sure it's the same 75mm? I figured it was the same 75mm statted from the Scorpion and/or AMX. The Sherman's 75mm was a low-velocity thing, designed by an artillery-experienced ordnance team. According to "Steel coffins", they wanted a barrel that could last 2,000 shots before wearing out, but experience showed that tanks didn't last that long.

It wasn't the same 75 as the mounted on the sherman, just shared the same caliber. It officially was a 75mm, 65-caliber. A shorter version was marketed for a time by AIRES Corps as the AIRES 75...the great selling point was the auto loader. The Scorpion mounted a short-barrelled 76mm, but the Brits used HESH, HE, Smoke and Canister and ignored the AP round. The AMX-13 75mm gun was a near copy of the 75mm used on the Panther.

The Sherman short-barrelled 75mm was designed to meet then current Armored Corps doctrine which held that tanks were not to be used to destroy other tanks, that was the sole preserve of the tank destroyer corps. So when the Sherman went into combat from El Alemain forward, it found itself serously outgunned by the Mark IV, Panther, Tiger, King Tiger combo. It was only when the Sherman was upgunned to the 76mm that it had any chance of taking on the Germans...and even then, it was seriously outgunned.

[dragoon500ly]

The LAV75 did actually exist - it was known as the Ares Light Tank.

I am actually working on this and I've put my draft thoughts on. Sorry it's not as polished as usual.

Information I've got states that the Ares was developed as a show case for their 75mm gun system. The vehicle itself was never turned over to the military for testing and that total production only came to 3-4 vehicles. Their gun was actually turned over to Aberdeen Proving Grounds for testing where it impressed everybody with its high rate of fire, until it was tested on tank hulls and failed to penetrate the old M-47 hull that was used. And the final saw was that the gun failed to penetrate the armor...and that was the end of that discussion.

Ever since then, the discussion has been using a gun of no less than 90mm. Not that the budget people will discuss a light tank.

[Dog 6]

the LAV- 75 was the US Army's " High Survivability Test Vehicle Light " it was armed with the Ares corps hyper velocity automatic cannon XM274. it had a 12.5 mile range, armor penetration is listed as 350mm at 2000m with APFSDS. It can fire a three round burst. Excessive heat transfer and barrel erosion was a major drawback.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes a good Light Tank would be a good start to give the 10th Mountain, 82nd Airborne, and 101st Airborne Divisions some extra fire power. It wouldn't be bad to see some to go to the Airborne Brigade with the 25th Infantry and the 173rd Airborne Brigade.

These could also be used in the Stryker Brigades too. To help add some effective fire power so that they don't have to rely on 105 mounted Stryker and hope if they fire over the side that they don't roll over...

[dragoon500ly]

the LAV- 75 was the US Army's " High Survivability Test Vehicle Light " it was armed with the Ares corps hyper velocity automatic cannon XM274. it had a 12.5 mile range, armor penetration is listed as 350mm at 2000m with APFSDS. It can fire a three round burst. Excessive heat transfer and barrel erosion was a major drawback.

Now the Armor Journal articles I'm looking over state that the APFSDS rounds failed to penetrate the armor on the target vehicle, citing "the shattering of the penetrator on impact as well as the complete failure of other test rounds to penetrate more than 2cm. Failure of the auto-loader in sustained fire, excessive heat damage to the components as well as several breech explosions, again due to the heat. The Ares gun never achieved its designers expectations.

As for the High Survivability Test Vehicle Light, there were 18 designs submitted for that, none of which entered US service. You have to remember that defense contractors come up with multiple designs and try to sell to the military, it is possible to see the same mock-up turret design on multiple hulls, it really depends on what can be cheaply modified by the contractor.

Just one example is a Bradley that was modified to mount a 30m high, boom in place of the troop compartment, you simply opened the over head hatch, raised the boom and activated its sensor package. The "eyeball" mounted CCTV, thermal sights, laser rangefinder and a laser designator. The theory is that the Brad would set up in back in the woods, out of sight, raise the eyeball to scan for targets and designate for Hellfire and Copperhead then retract the boom and move back before the Soviets could figure out were it was. Five were actually built and displayed at various arms shows and around several military bases. There are plenty of pics of the vehicle and at least one book that identifed it as Bradley variant that was entering service. It never entered service, and in point of fact, was never purchased or requested by the US Army. The "LAV-75" falls into this category of vehicle. It was a design concept that failed the early testing process.

[dragoon500ly]

Yes a good Light Tank would be a good start to give the 10th Mountain, 82nd Airborne, and 101st Airborne Divisions some extra fire power. It wouldn't be bad to see some to go to the Airborne Brigade with the 25th Infantry and the 173rd Airborne Brigade.

These could also be used in the Stryker Brigades too. To help add some effective fire power so that they don't have to rely on 105 mounted Stryker and hope if they fire over the side that they don't roll over...

Just flipping through a copy of Jane's Armored Fighting Vehicles shows serveral decent designs:

The Austrain SK-105 Kurassier design; combat weight weight of 17,700kg, armed with the 105mm cannon and with a road speed of 70km/hr and a range of 500km

The Swedish Ikv-91; combat weight of 16,300kg, armed with a 90mm cannon; a road spd of 65km/hr and a range of 500km

The UK Scorpion/Scimitar/Sabre; combat weight of 8,073kg, armed with a 76mm cannon (30mm autocannon); a road spd of 80km/hr and a range of 644km

The Cadillac Gage Stingray; combat weight of 21,205kg, armed with the 105mm cannon; road spd of 67km/hr with a range of 483km

The Swedish CV-90; combat weight of 22,800kg, armed with a a 105mm or 120mm cannon, road spd of 70km/hr, range of 500km

The Cadillac Gage ASV-150; combat weight 13,408kg, armed with a 90mm cannon, road spd of 100km/hr, range of 708km

These are just a few that I pulled out. There are other designs like the South African Ratel and Rooikat designs that I like...but its enough to give you an idea.

[Panther Al]

The South African Rookiat is a good example of how its done. Has a relatively low profile, wide tyres, a wide wheelbase, fast and long ranged. Armour is a little better than the Stryker, but most importantly, they did an outstanding job of keeping bloat away. Has a 76mm because its all they need, nor does it have tons of electronics, and has a 360 degree firing arc- even with the 105 version. Its honestly my favourite armoured scout car out there.

[Adm.Lee]

How many of these A/C designs were tested in the pre-Stryker run-up? I recall being told that there were a lot (2 dozen?) of foreign & domestic vehicles collected, and each turned over to a team of NCOs to run through their paces.

[dragoon500ly]

How many of these A/C designs were tested in the pre-Stryker run-up? I recall being told that there were a lot (2 dozen?) of foreign & domestic vehicles collected, and each turned over to a team of NCOs to run through their paces.

There were a lot of US designs and 5-7 foreign designs. But from almost the beginning of the tests, all you heard about was how great the Stryker was.

In these tests, there is a very high if-its-not invented-here-its-no-good.

[Abbott Shaull]

There were a lot of US designs and 5-7 foreign designs. But from almost the beginning of the tests, all you heard about was how great the Stryker was.

In these tests, there is a very high if-its-not invented-here-its-no-good.

Sounds like when they tested and later fielded the M16. Then the M4 trials. Seems their minds were already made up...

[helbent4]

There were a lot of US designs and 5-7 foreign designs. But from almost the beginning of the tests, all you heard about was how great the Stryker was.

In these tests, there is a very high if-its-not invented-here-its-no-good.

Lee,

As you no doubt know, the Stryker is based on the Canadian-built LAV III, developed from a licenced version of the Swiss Piranha. So it's a little open as to what "here" means!

Tony

[Abbott Shaull]

Lee,

As you no doubt know, the Stryker is based on the Canadian-built LAV III, developed from a licenced version of the Swiss Piranha. So it's a little open as to what "here" means!

Tony

Yeah, but there is some more back story. The US Military had kept an eye on the LAV/Piranha line since the early 1980s. When it was tested for both US Army and Marine Corps use as the LAV-25. The only reason the Army didn't buy it then was because the M2/M3s were in their final phase of development and about to deploy. The LAV-25 was adopted by the Marine Corps though.

It was more of logistical decision that the Army didn't want to focus on two vehicle that in many minds did the same thing as they replaced the M113 and that line of variants. Yes, granted the LAV-25 was suppose to go to help create Medium Force that could move quickly while the M2/M3s were going to Heavy Force units.

The Medium Force was put on hold for another decade or so...

[James Langham]

Yeah, but there is some more back story. The US Military had kept an eye on the LAV/Piranha line since the early 1980s. When it was tested for both US Army and Marine Corps use as the LAV-25. The only reason the Army didn't buy it then was because the M2/M3s were in their final phase of development and about to deploy. The LAV-25 was adopted by the Marine Corps though.

It was more of logistical decision that the Army didn't want to focus on two vehicle that in many minds did the same thing as they replaced the M113 and that line of variants. Yes, granted the LAV-25 was suppose to go to help create Medium Force that could move quickly while the M2/M3s were going to Heavy Force units.

The Medium Force was put on hold for another decade or so...

The US Army has however trialled the LAV25 in the field, a number were loaned from the USMC and used alongside the M551 Sheridan in the First Gulf War by 3/73 Armor. After the war they were returned. Source Osprey M551 Sherridan

[Legbreaker]

Seems their minds were already made up...
What minds? ;)

[bobcat]

What minds? ;)

the TO&E clearly state that nobody above squadron level is authorised a working brain. its right there in black and white...:D

[Legbreaker]

the TO&E clearly state that nobody above squadron level is authorised a working brain. its right there in black and white...:D

And nobody below is authorised to use theirs.....

[dragoon500ly]

The US Army has however trialled the LAV25 in the field, a number were loaned from the USMC and used alongside the M551 Sheridan in the First Gulf War by 3/73 Armor. After the war they were returned. Source Osprey M551 Sherridan

One platoon out of how many deployed in PGI? The biggest draw backs that the LAV-25 had as far as the Army was concerned came down to two points...It was Canadian...and even more chilling, it was used by the Marines first!

And that was the end of that discussion!

[dragoon500ly]

And nobody below is authorised to use theirs.....

Gentlemen, may I remind both of you that you are violating National Security by confirming what many people already suspect?

:p

[Legbreaker]

Meh, what do I care? I'm Australian... :D

[dragoon500ly]

Two of my favorite authors (at least on the military) are James Dunnigan and Albert Nofi, authors of the "Dirty Little Secrets..." series and "How to Make War". How are some...

During WWII one of Britain's most critical war materials, right after ammunition, was tea. They stockpiled 150 million tons of tea at the height of the war...thats about 6 trillion cups of the stuff!

The armies of WWII went into action with two rather odd types of units (and these units are still around today). These are the mobile bakery and mobile butchering detachments which are able to process large amounts of raw material into rations. A typical mobile butchery could provide half-pound meat rations from a typical animal: 40 head of cattle would provide 40,000 rations; 80 pigs would provide 24,000 rations and 240 head of sheep would provide 19,000 rations. A field bakery, depending upon the season and weather conditions could provide between 15,000 and 19,200 rations of bread (1 pond per ration).

What does "USA" really mean? During WWII, the US shipped thousand of trucks to the Russians. Needless to say, these military vehicles had "USA" painted on them. One popular "translation" concocted by the political officers was that USA meant "Ubiyat Sukensyna Adolfa or..."Kill that son of a bitch Adolf!"

As the US Army advanced across France in 1944, it entered ground familiar to the oldermen, the battlefields of WWI and there are two stories that came out.
A regimental commanding officer was pouring over some maps when he came across some familar village names. Turning to his operations officer he asked, "Major, any chance we can go around this town? Back in 1918 I made some pretty tall promises to a young lady there and I'd rather not run into her just know."
A pillbox in Lossarine, in NE France was taken by American troops twice, once in each world war. On one of the walls is written a doughboy's name and a date in late 1918. Just under it appears the same name with a date in late 1944. Beneath that is scrawled "This is the last time I want to be in this damned bunker."

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah that is the damn thing about both of those wars. Closed enough together for some of the young men who fought in the first one, to be either recalled duty, still on active duty, volunteer for return to duty. I bet that happen lot more than people realized.

[dragoon500ly]

What a change from the hell of Trench Warfare to Blitzkrieg! Its also a stat that you don't see any real info on.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah I know what you mean.

[dragoon500ly]

Think about the guys who served in WWII, get recalled to fight in Korea and then have a couple of tours in Vietnam....

[Webstral]

And nobody below is authorised to use theirs.....

Sad but true. The US Army needs to develop a better idea threshing machine to separate the wheat from the chaff of Joe's ideas. The operating assumption is that the wheat-to-chaff ratio makes idea that comes from below not worth the trouble of examining. There are exceptions, of course, such as when the leadership desperately needs a new idea or when one is talking about small units with a fair experience base. For the most part, though, Joe's ideas are considered chaff.


Webstral

[Abbott Shaull]

Think about the guys who served in WWII, get recalled to fight in Korea and then have a couple of tours in Vietnam....

Yeah I know there several troops who fought in Korea and then did tours in Vietnam. The main difference was that they weren't far remove from what they had done WWII when they fought in Korea. Of course, the fighting was slightly different depending on if they had served in the Pacific, France, or Italy during WWII.

Then to go into Vietnam which was totally a different animal all together.

The sad thing is many of the lesson that were learned in Korea and Vietnam have been relearned many more times. So much so that the lessons that we had retained from Europe and North Africa in WWII are fading away fast.

Looking over the information that at some sites. Looks to me that the Army is not transforming from Mechanized/Armor heavy that they were before 2003 starting after 1991 in which their was movement to create light and medium forces to balance out things out which by 1991 seemed to be on the way out.
Now there seems to be more units that are would have been considered light and medium type combat than less and less of the heavy units.

I looked at this with mix feelings. Granted the last several year many of the old heavy units and others have gone into theater with-out the equipment that they had trained with for years. It is one of those things when you look as recently as 2008 I think it was when the Russia Army invade Georgia, a nation that had been seeking entry into NATO at the time. There were several lesson that one would of thought, that would still validate having a good share units still organized as heavy units.

The one thing is if we do let things go because the we believe that the use of the heavy units isn't going to happen. The idea that any Divisional command should be able to support any mix of troops that the Army decides to throw together for this mission or that mission. Or the next time the US has to send military forces over somewhere where we will have six months or longer build up period and have the leisure to rotate troops as we see fit.

Then it is sorely misguided. Granted rotating troops from front-line position to rest/refit position is all too important, but if anything what modern operation going back to WWII at time has shown there is no Front line. It is wide and flexible area that can change at time within hours, if not faster.

Yes it would be sad if the 3rd ACR was order to convert to any of the new model of Brigade Combat Teams. It still has a unique and very important role that it can fill. What is left of the few ACRs in the Nation Guard all have seemed to have been converted to other function much like the 2nd and 11th ACR in the Regular Army have been.

In some sense the Infantry/Airborne/Air Assault Brigade Combat Teams are much like the former Light Infantry/Airborne/Air Assault Brigades of the pre-modular Army with the modification that they now have Special Troop Battalion made up of what used to be Divisional Support units and Forward Support Battalion with an reduce Artillery Battalion as part of the Brigade organization. With the reduction of one Infantry Battalion out and replaced by a Cavalry Squadron that they still trying to figure out what it should be. One of the sad thing is 10 years ago some of these Infantry Brigades were Mechanized or Armor Brigade under the old system.

The Heavy Brigade Combat Teams well there has been lot of debate and harsh tones over how these units lost 1 Battalion either Mechanized or Armor depending on what the Brigade was task original. Now for say the US Army of 1980s or early 1990s that would be true, but 2003 they had 3 line companies. What was lost in the transition was 1 Battalion and 1 Artillery Battery. What the Brigades gains was that Armor Brigades receive one Mechanized Company and the old Mechanized Brigades got one Armor Company. Along with having the Artillery, and Support Battalion assigned to support the Brigade full time. They also received Engineer Battalion that on paper was parsed out, Special Troop Battalion from divisional assets, and again Cavalry Squadron.

With the new Stryker Brigades they keep the same 3 Infantry Battalions, the Cavalry Squadrons which the RSTA missions started out as. They still have full Artillery Battalions. What they gained on paper wasn't really a gained since many of these Brigades were originally 'Separated Brigades' or 'Enhance Brigades' depending on how you want to word was Special Troop Battalion which were largely operated independently prior or as part of the Support Battalion already assigned to the Brigade. Yes, these Brigade seemed to take what had worked with ACRs and mold it to the Infantry unit that could be sent anywhere in number of days with number of aircraft were ready to use.

Yet they still didn't go to the ACR extreme where the each Infantry Battalion was compose of Engineer Company, Artillery Battery, and Support sub units like the Armor Cavalry Squadrons were broken down to. This is one of the points missed with all three organization of the new Brigade Combat Teams. In some ways the Heavy Brigades are much better organized, but their is room for more improvement.

Then their are still units like the 1st Mechanized Division, 3rd Mechanized Division, and even the 10th Mountain Division where they have one or more of their component units based else where from the Division while the Divisional Command still has nominal control. Then their is the 2nd Infantry and 25th Infantry Divisions where Divisional HQ doesn't necessarily have operation control of the Brigades. Even though in theory they will be used with those Divisions. I am sure there are other units that have Brigades scattered. Such as the 1st Armored and 4th Mechanized that may have units still at Fort Hood. Then again Fort Hood at one time was home to III Corps and 2 Division that had Division HQ, Divisional Support, Aviation and two of the three Combat Brigades there at one time a past that GDW worked with.

Honestly, I remember when I was in, there wasn't much believe that we would have time build up our forces in either Germany or Korea if the balloon went up. The only ones who seemed to believe who were the ones who promoted the idea of have round-out Brigades and other sub-units to make the Army appear larger than it really was. It was game played by both side during the cold war. The 6th Polish Airborne/Air Assault Division for example for most of it life under the Warsaw Pact never amounted to much more than reinforce Brigade. Or the fact that depending on the material you read, one could be led to believe that French and English Divisions weren't much better. In fact, the standard Soviet MRD and TD had about two-thirds of the strength of US or German Division.

Even the Germans it seem never pleased with their Divisional organization. I have read at one time standard Panzer/Panzergrenadier Brigade had up to 5 line Battalions. Or the fact that their Airborne Division was largely administrative organization when it exist since it three Brigades were already tasked to one of the III Corps. Or that their Mountain Division consisted of only one Light Brigade with special Panzer Brigade and Panzergrenadier Brigade.

In fact, largely since WWII many of the Divisions on either side was just a number games. The Soviets and Pact forces had a larger number of Divisions, but the question was always how much of fight some of the Pact forces would put up. While on NATO side it was always a question of where would they be able to stop the incoming Soviet/Pact horde before the front line troop could get reinforce. The second most important question is how far into Germany the French would allow the Soviets/Poles push before they popped nukes. Which was followed by a third question how far the US/UK were willing to allow the Soviet/Poles go before they started popping nuke and then where.

It seems that Soviets believed that the US may used the Vistula River as an line to drop nukes in order to slow Soviet reinforcement, or that how they war-gamed it with the Polish. You know you can't nuke an allies territory right. Ironically one has to wonder if the somehow the US Seventh Army and other units of the CentAG were able to stop the Soviet/Germans/Czech forces in Southern West Germany, and were able to go on the offensive cutting off forces in Northern German and forced them into retreat, which if turned into offensive deep into Poland. Would it be the Soviets using the Vistula River as last ditch stopping line to keep NATO out of Soviet territory?

I don't know...just some thoughts and ramblings.

[Panther Al]

You know, I've been thinking about all the talk about light, medium, and heavy cav units, and how they should be equipped and all. Pros and Cons of tracks vs. wheels, heavy and light versions of the same, and so on and so forth. Even have talk of other forms of "cavalry" missions by different sorts of troops on a number of other threads (be it horse, bike, or even helibourne fireforces). What sort of makeup would you pick as the ideal cavalry force (Given a set sort of mission), with whatever equipment and organization existing or not?

[dragoon500ly]

You know, I've been thinking about all the talk about light, medium, and heavy cav units, and how they should be equipped and all. Pros and Cons of tracks vs. wheels, heavy and light versions of the same, and so on and so forth. Even have talk of other forms of "cavalry" missions by different sorts of troops on a number of other threads (be it horse, bike, or even helibourne fireforces). What sort of makeup would you pick as the ideal cavalry force (Given a set sort of mission), with whatever equipment and organization existing or not?

Ouch! Ask a tough one why don't you!!


The equipment needed would be based on the mission and terrain expected. Sooooooo

For the heavy division recon squadron....two troops of air cavalry, I have no arguement with. Two ground troops equiped with armored cars (4 or 6 wheels, armed with at least a 90mm) and a third ground troop with tracked vehicles (M-3/M-1A1). This would give you sufficient ground troops to cover a division front, two lightly armed and fairly mobile to get in and sneak-n-peek and a third heavy troop with the firepower to support. I can also see three heavy ground troops at the division level...and then a independent troop of wheeled at the brigade level.

For the ACR.....heavy is the only configuration that allows it to perform its missions.

For the LCR...this is for the XVIII Airborne Corps, so I think wheeled vehicles would be the best choice.

[Graebarde]

Think about the guys who served in WWII, get recalled to fight in Korea and then have a couple of tours in Vietnam....

Back in '72 I has an old SFC as my NCOIC at the Inital Receiving Point at the reception station. Kids would always ask him about his war experiences and all he would tell them was his whorehouse experiences.. He had combat bars from his cuff to his elbow. Well I went to his retirement ceremony, the only time I ever saw him with his decorations other than his CIB with two stars. They read off his record per se, not how many times he was busted back from Master Sergeant though.

This man, who was an alcoholic btw, and I then realized why, was in 16th Infantry through out North Africa, Sicily, Normany (Omaha Beach) and on to the end of WW2.. then went to Japan Occupation forces (where a vast majority of his whorehouse stories came from I think). He was in the 24th Infantry Division initally, and was in the 1-21 Infantry (Task Force Smith) that was sent to stop the North Koreans.. he wound up in hospital in Japan for six months and went back to Korea as a replacement in the 1st Cav. He was still in country in '53.

After Korea he was in the fore runners of the Special Forces. He spent five tours in RVN, his first in 1956 as an advisor.. his last in 1970, as an advisor..

The man had two DSC, five Silver Stars and several Bronze with V devices.. as well as seven or eight purple hearts.. and ppl wondered why he drank?

He actually retired as a Master Sergeant, being promoted just before he retired, and not enough time to get in trouble again, and they dried him out..

I often think of Sergeant Johnson. I was a young buck at the time with two tours under my belt, and he was an inspiration to me as an infantryman.

Grae

[Abbott Shaull]

He actually retired as a Master Sergeant, being promoted just before he retired, and not enough time to get in trouble again, and they dried him out..

I often think of Sergeant Johnson. I was a young buck at the time with two tours under my belt, and he was an inspiration to me as an infantryman.

Grae

You back then a good NCO could be busted several time with hopes to raise back up through the ranks. In today Army if you get busted from NCO rank you will probably at best make Specialist 4 and barred from re-enlistment.

I know of one E-5 who was in my Company in 1988 who was promoted back to E-5 for the third time. This was toward the end, a couple months later another E-5 got busted for something trivial compared what the previous E-5 was busted for and he was only busted to E-4, but was barred from re-enlisting again. Not that he cared, he came from well off family, but it still amazed me that in short time the Army and Officers had started to change policy.

[Panther Al]

Yeah, the army has changed a lot in the past few decades, and not always for the better. Seen some really strange things go down, including some that frankly disgusted me. While in we had a SGT play air guitar with a M4 and sprayed a room full of joes- killing one and crippling another. Busted to Spec4, made sergeant again a year later. A year later, a Sergeant goes into a club, gets carded like everyone else, gets a number of a girl he meets. 6 months later, and nothing more than phone contact, gets booted because her fake id didn't say she was 17, upon chaptering out with a General OTH (I was his escort), he asked the brigade commander what made him so different, and with a straight face, the commander said, "He was a good christian, he obviously didn't mean any harm, your not." (The soldier was jewish, and when he cried foul.. (and I did) the reply from the EO guys was a "So what, its true")

[Abbott Shaull]

While in we had a SGT play air guitar with a M4 and sprayed a room full of joes- killing one and crippling another. Busted to Spec4, made sergeant again a year later.

He was playing air guitar with a load F*#$ing weapon. Wow, and they only busted him down to Spec 4. Mind boggling, there was time he would spent time out at military outpost in Kansas for log and reduction in grade would of been to E-1...

Then compare it to what they did to the sergeant that didn't know he was talking to underage minor and his response from the Brigade Commander that is just outrageous.

[Panther Al]

He was playing air guitar with a load F*#$ing weapon. Wow, and they only busted him down to Spec 4. Mind boggling, there was time he would spent time out at military outpost in Kansas for log and reduction in grade would of been to E-1...

Then compare it to what they did to the sergeant that didn't know he was talking to underage minor and his response from the Brigade Commander that is just outrageous.

Yeah, that and the stunts that was being pulled in USAREC was getting out of hand that talked me into not staying in. Had a station commander (amongst other less savory things) who held bible study classes in the station, and while he couldn't require us to attend, he could require us to be in the office during that time frame. Pretty sad when no one saw anything wrong with that, and the Recruiting School's motto according to all the instructors was "Deny Everything, Admit nothing, Demand Proof." The mid 2000's was just a bad time all in all.

[Legbreaker]

...bible study classes in the station, and while he couldn't require us to attend, he could require us to be in the office during that time frame.

That just boils my blood. :pissed2:

While I'm about as atheistic as it's possible to be, I've got no problem with others believing whatever they want, provided they don't try and drag me into it as well (I spent two hellish weeks in a small car with a Muslim who tried converting me the entire time - not fun). As far as I'm concerned, the military is about one thing - defeating the enemy. "Voluntary" bible study groups have no place in that mission and should be done only in a soldiers downtime.

[Targan]

While I'm about as atheistic as it's possible to be, I've got no problem with others believing whatever they want, provided they don't try and drag me into it as well (I spent two hellish weeks in a small car with a Muslim who tried converting me the entire time - not fun). As far as I'm concerned, the military is about one thing - defeating the enemy. "Voluntary" bible study groups have no place in that mission and should be done only in a soldiers downtime.

I can totally relate, almost word for word (I say almost because I've never been stuck in a small car for two weeks with a proselytising Muslim).

[dragoon500ly]

Yeah, the army has changed a lot in the past few decades, and not always for the better. Seen some really strange things go down, including some that frankly disgusted me. While in we had a SGT play air guitar with a M4 and sprayed a room full of joes- killing one and crippling another. Busted to Spec4, made sergeant again a year later. A year later, a Sergeant goes into a club, gets carded like everyone else, gets a number of a girl he meets. 6 months later, and nothing more than phone contact, gets booted because her fake id didn't say she was 17, upon chaptering out with a General OTH (I was his escort), he asked the brigade commander what made him so different, and with a straight face, the commander said, "He was a good christian, he obviously didn't mean any harm, your not." (The soldier was jewish, and when he cried foul.. (and I did) the reply from the EO guys was a "So what, its true")

Dear God!!!:screams:

The SGT and his love of air guitar should have been fast tracked to Private E-1 and introduced to his new duty station at Fort Leavenworth for the next 10-20 years. As for the Brigade Commander AND the EO people...ya'll should have gone straight to the IG!!!

[dragoon500ly]

That just boils my blood. :pissed2:

While I'm about as atheistic as it's possible to be, I've got no problem with others believing whatever they want, provided they don't try and drag me into it as well (I spent two hellish weeks in a small car with a Muslim who tried converting me the entire time - not fun). As far as I'm concerned, the military is about one thing - defeating the enemy. "Voluntary" bible study groups have no place in that mission and should be done only in a soldiers downtime.

DITTO!!!!!!!:mad:

Talk about abusing your authority! This should have been an IG complimant, complete with web-cam of this jackass ordering everyone to attend...

[Panther Al]

Ah- but that's the catch, we wasn't ordered to attend; that's clearly against the rules- we was however required to be in the station at that time for "professional reading", you know, regs, bulletins, etc. Dude is a recruiting 1SG now. Al this was happening back when the military was shutting down all the "underused" religious programs. While I was at carson I was one of the ones attending services at the Air Force Academy when they shut the program down, for lack of fund they said, and tripled the evangelical groups funding. One of the few times I agreed wholeheartedly with the NY Times when they threw a fit over it.

[dragoon500ly]

Ah- but that's the catch, we wasn't ordered to attend; that's clearly against the rules- we was however required to be in the station at that time for "professional reading", you know, regs, bulletins, etc. Dude is a recruiting 1SG now. Al this was happening back when the military was shutting down all the "underused" religious programs. While I was at carson I was one of the ones attending services at the Air Force Academy when they shut the program down, for lack of fund they said, and tripled the evangelical groups funding. One of the few times I agreed wholeheartedly with the NY Times when they threw a fit over it.

Just the kind of person that you want to chose to do the first walk through of a minefield....what an arsehole!

[Panther Al]

Thats the new Army for you. Do I miss being in? Yep. Did I love being in? Despite the patent falsehoods, lies, and deceit that was coming in to vogue, Yes. I think I did good things, I served my country - something all too few these days wish to do, and did good things for those in other countries just by being there. But it is a crying shame things have gone the way they have.

[pmulcahy11b]

Thats the new Army for you. Do I miss being in? Yep. Did I love being in? Despite the patent falsehoods, lies, and deceit that was coming in to vogue, Yes. I think I did good things, I served my country - something all too few these days wish to do, and did good things for those in other countries just by being there. But it is a crying shame things have gone the way they have.

Yes, despite all that, I'd rather still be in. I sometimes tell people I'd rather stayed in and died in Iraq or Afghanistan than gotten out. But oh well.

[dragoon500ly]

Thats the new Army for you. Do I miss being in? Yep. Did I love being in? Despite the patent falsehoods, lies, and deceit that was coming in to vogue, Yes. I think I did good things, I served my country - something all too few these days wish to do, and did good things for those in other countries just by being there. But it is a crying shame things have gone the way they have.

When I first joined up, the Hollow Army was rebuilding after the Vietnam War. We made such strides in getting rid of the druggies, rebuilding the leadership, pride, discipline. By the time I made NCO, the service was something to be proud of. By the time of Desert Storm, we had overcome the Hollow Army.

Then came the Peace Dividend, Don't Ask Don't Tell, the exodus of the combat leaders and the advent of the corporate bullshit. The Army has lost its way yet again. We may have first-class equipment, and excellent material in the form of our enlisted personnel, but there are too many "leaders" who are just there to punch the ole time card and then get themselves a nice position with ole Chase or IBM....they could care less about their responsibilities.

[Abbott Shaull]

That was part of the problem before too with many officers in all services were in it just to do their time. That included going to airborne, Ranger, and Special Operation schools because it looked good on their records.

[dragoon500ly]

Yup, too bad they forgot the "LEADERSHIP" part of the course.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yup, too bad they forgot the "LEADERSHIP" part of the course.

Yeah I know. It just boggles my mind that they have 20 year old E-5s and E-6s running around who have one or two tours under their belt. I remember even to be become an NCO you had to BNCO and then on to work your way up. Most of these kids as E-5 and E-6 barely had time to learn their field craft of their MOS let alone take the classes, train properly with their units before deployments and what not.... Maybe it just me.

Granted if a guy is promoted due leadership they have showed out in the field that is fine, but one thing I do remember is that you were usually one type of soldier. You were great garrison troop, or great with field craft aspect. It took time to become competent in both....

[Panther Al]

Leadership course? What's this of which you speak? Back in 07 you didn't have to take any till you was a E5 promotable.

[Abbott Shaull]

Leadership course? What's this of which you speak? Back in 07 you didn't have to take any till you was a E5 promotable.

How come that doesn't surprise me. I know it was one of the reasons why I was in, at least with the 82nd Airborne there were no Corporals, if you E-4 you were Specialist even if you were Fire Team Leader you still were a Spec-4. I remember when I was in the 82nd Replacement Detachment an Corporal who was transferring in from Korea was told by the Detachment E-6 that there were no Corporals in the Division...

Of course, now I don't know if they have change that or not. I always felt if you were E-4 and Fire Team Leader then you should be able to wear the stripes. Otherwise, to someone outside of your chain of command would assume you were just another lazy pogue....

[Abbott Shaull]

I suppose they are allowing E-4 or lower to join Special Forces now.

As well as probably there is drop in the demand of having Airborne Wings, Air Assault Wings, and the Ranger Tab. That so many NCOs and Junior Officers seem to get, most of the time to make them look more impressive to themselves than any real desire to do those jobs...

[Panther Al]

I suppose they are allowing E-4 or lower to join Special Forces now.



Thats one way to put it...

Back in 06-07 when I was consigned to recruiting hell, you could actually enlist, while still in high school, Special Forces. A little harder granted. You did basic, did jump, did Q, and then language school if you didn't already have one, and once done, insta-sgt and off you go.

[Abbott Shaull]

Thats one way to put it...

Back in 06-07 when I was consigned to recruiting hell, you could actually enlist, while still in high school, Special Forces. A little harder granted. You did basic, did jump, did Q, and then language school if you didn't already have one, and once done, insta-sgt and off you go.

Yeah, I understand why Special Forces are doing that, because other services Special Operation Command allow new recruits. At one time when they were basically went into country side to train and advise then yeah a team of E-5s on up would come in handy. Yet, for many of the operations they carry out today, I don't see where having everyone at least E-5. Maybe E-4 until they prove themselves and what not, but not give them sergeant stripes because they have finish 2 years or so of courses.

[bobcat]

but one thing I do remember is that you were usually one type of soldier. You were great garrison troop, or great with field craft aspect. It took time to become competent in both....

i know i guy always standing in front of somebodies desk while in garrison. but once he's down range people beg to have this young FO assigned to them.

[Abbott Shaull]

i know i guy always standing in front of somebodies desk while in garrison. but once he's down range people beg to have this young FO assigned to them.

Yep it the same in every MOS. The ones who do best in the field don't always make the best garrison soldiers...

[helbent4]

Then came the Peace Dividend, Don't Ask Don't Tell...



Lee,

I would have to agree about the negative effects of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) on the US military, especially in light of the real costs involved. The Government Accountability Office determined that between 2004 and 2009 alone, DADT cost the US military $193 million dollars to carry out in just five of the seventeen years of its existence.

Think about it... this was money that did not go towards funding a single weapon, buying a single round of ammunition up-armour a single Humvee or buy a single set of body armour. It was a policy that by design did not save one American life (other than perhaps the soldiers that were forced to quit and return home). Not a single dollar went directly or indirectly towards making the United States or the rest of the world any safer. It did not kill a single Irqqi insurgent, Saddam Fedayeen, Taliban, al Qaeda member. Crucial technicians, translators and intelligence officers (among others) were removed from their positions, the funding to train them going completely to waste. Indeed, most of the cost of DADT was towards training replacements, but by the same token it would seem more valuable for those funds to go towards adding thousands of additional trained personnel.

Tony

[dragoon500ly]

Lee,

I would have to agree about the negative effects of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) on the US military, especially in light of the real costs involved. The Government Accountability Office determined that between 2004 and 2009 alone, DADT cost the US military $193 million dollars to carry out in just five of the seventeen years of its existence.

Think about it... this was money that did not go towards funding a single weapon, buying a single round of ammunition up-armour a single Humvee or buy a single set of body armour. It was a policy that by design did not save one American life (other than perhaps the soldiers that were forced to quit and return home). Not a single dollar went directly or indirectly towards making the United States or the rest of the world any safer. It did not kill a single Irqqi insurgent, Saddam Fedayeen, Taliban, al Qaeda member. Crucial technicians, translators and intelligence officers (among others) were removed from their positions, the funding to train them going completely to waste. Indeed, most of the cost of DADT was towards training replacements, but by the same token it would seem more valuable for those funds to go towards adding thousands of additional trained personnel.

Tony

I always thought Don't Ask, Don't Tell was one of the dumber moments in US military history. What somebody does to another consenting adult, off-base, is no one else's business. But I guess it was just a means of taking attention from the hijinks that the brass was pulling...a base commander taking advantage of his position to get the wives of his subordinate officers to have sex with him? Another general flying his mistress on military aircraft? A officer responsible for nuclear weapons disobeying orders so that she can have an affair with an enlisted airwoman's husband? Perhaps the service needs to add more saltpeter to the rations!

[Legbreaker]

Perhaps the service needs to add more saltpeter to the rations!

I assume you mean in the same manner as the Bromide myth?
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/06/29/2611115.htm

[Abbott Shaull]

I always thought Don't Ask, Don't Tell was one of the dumber moments in US military history. What somebody does to another consenting adult, off-base, is no one else's business. But I guess it was just a means of taking attention from the hijinks that the brass was pulling...a base commander taking advantage of his position to get the wives of his subordinate officers to have sex with him? Another general flying his mistress on military aircraft? A officer responsible for nuclear weapons disobeying orders so that she can have an affair with an enlisted airwoman's husband? Perhaps the service needs to add more saltpeter to the rations!

Gee glad to hear the zero-tolerance only applies to those serving in the ranks...lol

[dragoon500ly]

Gee glad to hear the zero-tolerance only applies to those serving in the ranks...lol

What I enjoyed was a Captain, a company commander in the same armored battalion, hitting on my wife at a battalion BBQ. When my wife told him that she was married to a NCO, his response was to let her know that he could have me assigned to CQ when ever he liked, just to make it easier for her.

Her response was to let him know that we kept a 12-gauge in our quarters and anytime he felt like dropping by, the MPs would be picking his dead body up the next morning.

He pulled this stunt one too many times and a SP4's wife nailed him in the gonad's with a load of birdshot...and since it was off-post, the local police got involved and he was charged with breaking and entering and attempted assault...

When the story hit the local paper, a lot of wives called in, turns out that over thirty (that is 30+) IG complimants had been made, with no action.

A lot of officers got relieved over that one...

I know that rank has its privileages...but all too many people forget that rank has its responsabilities as well.

Captain Dick got it...in the 'nads, with a .410...in the bedroom!

LOL

[pmulcahy11b]

I also look as the ban on gays from a National Security standpoint -- at a time when we need more fresh troops, and there are probably as many patriotic gay Americans as straight Americans willing and able to do military service, we are depriving ourselves of a vast pool of manpower, while we damage the mental health and home life of thousands of American servicemen and servicewomen by continually sending them off to year-to 15-month combat assignments.

[Abbott Shaull]

What I enjoyed was a Captain, a company commander in the same armored battalion, hitting on my wife at a battalion BBQ. When my wife told him that she was married to a NCO, his response was to let her know that he could have me assigned to CQ when ever he liked, just to make it easier for her.

Her response was to let him know that we kept a 12-gauge in our quarters and anytime he felt like dropping by, the MPs would be picking his dead body up the next morning.

He pulled this stunt one too many times and a SP4's wife nailed him in the gonad's with a load of birdshot...and since it was off-post, the local police got involved and he was charged with breaking and entering and attempted assault...

When the story hit the local paper, a lot of wives called in, turns out that over thirty (that is 30+) IG complimants had been made, with no action.

A lot of officers got relieved over that one...

I know that rank has its privileages...but all too many people forget that rank has its responsabilities as well.

Captain Dick got it...in the 'nads, with a .410...in the bedroom!

LOL
Yeah like I said I am so glad they abide by the same zero-tolerance rules they wish the enlisted men to abide by...

[Abbott Shaull]

I also look as the ban on gays from a National Security standpoint -- at a time when we need more fresh troops, and there are probably as many patriotic gay Americans as straight Americans willing and able to do military service, we are depriving ourselves of a vast pool of manpower, while we damage the mental health and home life of thousands of American servicemen and servicewomen by continually sending them off to year-to 15-month combat assignments.

I agree why deny them the chance to serve their country.

Don't get me started on constant rotation rate that both the Regular Army, National Guard/Reserve and the Marice Corps has to keep up with since 2003. The reorganization of the Army and her National Guard/Reserve has only compounded the problem when they should of expanded the military and not move troop around to make it appear bigger....

[Panther Al]

Ouch! Ask a tough one why don't you!!


The equipment needed would be based on the mission and terrain expected.

*hehs*

Now that I am no longer distracted, I can return to this concept. At any rate yes, mission and all does play a role, but a large focus should be on the conditions where they will be used. In essence away from the normal supply chain as they will be spending a lot of time away from the established lines. To me, that means minimal complexity. The fewest possible different makes and models of everything. Right now, in a normal Heavy ACR's average squadron, just the ammo supply situation is a clear example of that, 155 how, 120 Gun, 120 Mortar, Jav, TOW, AT4, Stinger, 40mm HV, 40mm GL, 25mm, .50, 7.62, 5.56, 9mm, 12G. And that's not counting aviation and the fact that all of that save the Stinger and 155 can be found in a single troop.

And then of course parts supply has to be a PITA.

If I had to equip and man a cavalry unit, that would be the first thing I would address. Yes, I can see why having a totaly different weapons mix than the regular army would be a issue, but in the context, it would be worth the hassle at the corps and divisional level.

The first thing I would address would be the small arms. I would standardize on two: A pistol round, and a rifle round. Just for S&G's it would be the .45 for the pistol, and for reasons other than the argument over the 5.56, the 6.8spc. Why the 6.8? Because it makes a better machine gun round than the 5.56, and finding a reliable compact light 7.62N weapon is non-trivial. Now the exact weapon is a little up in the air. I would prefer a design that can be used as a ultra short carbine, a reasonable AR, and a machine gun. I can get all that, well, most of all that with the AUG. And with the bonus that the weapons would be much more compact. The LMG version would also make for a decent DMR, so bonus there. MG wise, have to use something else. The M249 MInimi comes to mind, and it can be used for commanders weapons and coaxial mounts as well. With the Minimi being designed to fire a 7.62 round in the first place, upping it from 5.56 to 6.8 shouldn't be a problem. For vehicles I would do the same winnowing, even when it comes to unarmoured vehicles in all the flavours they come in. In this case, I'd base all trucks, wreckers, van bodies, anything larger than a HMMWV on the MAN series of trucks. Be it 3 tonnes, or 10, there is a size for that, and they are all based on the same parts, be it tyres, engines, whathave you. In the light vehicle category, yes, I'll stick with the humvee family. I have a soft spot for the things. Combat vehicles would follow the same format. A base chassis from which Gun, scout, mortar, air defense, command, apc, and recovery can be based off of. All cannons, be they scout or air defense would be the same size, and the gun would be probably be a 105. Anything less just wouldn't cut it in an anti tank role. My personal preference would be the CV90 series, in 40mm. With a small 4 man scout section, plenty of room to stow equipment. I would go tracks over wheels for durability, but note that there is no arty. This is the once place where having organic artillery is nice, but not essential, especially since I would (Using the ACR as a model) double the mortar section in each troop to four vehicles, all mounting the Patria doublebarreled automort. This way, we have fewer types of ammo to supply, fewer types of parts to supply, and can keep things simple. But, if wheels was needed, whatever wheeled vehicle I would have, would be either based off of the MAN trucks for parts commonality, or vice versa.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes, I would wish the US would finally figure out what the rest of NATO has know for years. The 5.56N round is almost useless, then again they did the same thing with 9mmP round to us in return.

[Legbreaker]

Captain Dick got it...in the 'nads, with a .410...in the bedroom!
Beats the butler in the library with the candlestick.....
:p

[dragoon500ly]

Now that I am no longer distracted, I can return to this concept. At any rate yes, mission and all does play a role, but a large focus should be on the conditions where they will be used. In essence away from the normal supply chain as they will be spending a lot of time away from the established lines. To me, that means minimal complexity. The fewest possible different makes and models of everything. Right now, in a normal Heavy ACR's average squadron, just the ammo supply situation is a clear example of that, 155 how, 120 Gun, 120 Mortar, Jav, TOW, AT4, Stinger, 40mm HV, 40mm GL, 25mm, .50, 7.62, 5.56, 9mm, 12G. And that's not counting aviation and the fact that all of that save the Stinger and 155 can be found in a single troop.

Never said it would be easy. Trying to get the Army to get rid of a weapons system is sort of like pulling teeth...with a pair of pliers...and no pain-killer.

There are basically two styles of "cavalry"; the divisional cavalry squadron is not going to be in a postion where it is cut off from established LOC, their mission is primarily short range in other words. So the ammo/parts mix is not going to be quite as bad a problem.

The second style is that of the ACRs...Desert Storm perhaps shows the intended role of an ACR in the best light. 2ACR screened the advance of VII Corps often ranging as much as 75 miles in front. While technically on its own, it controlled the ground to such an extent that fuel/ammo convoys were sent forward with minimal escort, so again, not cut off from established LOC.

And then of course parts supply has to be a PITA.

If I had to equip and man a cavalry unit, that would be the first thing I would address. Yes, I can see why having a totaly different weapons mix than the regular army would be a issue, but in the context, it would be worth the hassle at the corps and divisional level.

The first thing I would address would be the small arms. I would standardize on two: A pistol round, and a rifle round. Just for S&G's it would be the .45 for the pistol, and for reasons other than the argument over the 5.56, the 6.8spc. Why the 6.8? Because it makes a better machine gun round than the 5.56, and finding a reliable compact light 7.62N weapon is non-trivial. Now the exact weapon is a little up in the air. I would prefer a design that can be used as a ultra short carbine, a reasonable AR, and a machine gun. I can get all that, well, most of all that with the AUG. And with the bonus that the weapons would be much more compact. The LMG version would also make for a decent DMR, so bonus there. MG wise, have to use something else. The M249 MInimi comes to mind, and it can be used for commanders weapons and coaxial mounts as well. With the Minimi being designed to fire a 7.62 round in the first place, upping it from 5.56 to 6.8 shouldn't be a problem. For vehicles I would do the same winnowing, even when it comes to unarmoured vehicles in all the flavours they come in. In this case, I'd base all trucks, wreckers, van bodies, anything larger than a HMMWV on the MAN series of trucks. Be it 3 tonnes, or 10, there is a size for that, and they are all based on the same parts, be it tyres, engines, whathave you. In the light vehicle category, yes, I'll stick with the humvee family. I have a soft spot for the things. Combat vehicles would follow the same format. A base chassis from which Gun, scout, mortar, air defense, command, apc, and recovery can be based off of. All cannons, be they scout or air defense would be the same size, and the gun would be probably be a 105. Anything less just wouldn't cut it in an anti tank role. My personal preference would be the CV90 series, in 40mm. With a small 4 man scout section, plenty of room to stow equipment. I would go tracks over wheels for durability, but note that there is no arty. This is the once place where having organic artillery is nice, but not essential, especially since I would (Using the ACR as a model) double the mortar section in each troop to four vehicles, all mounting the Patria doublebarreled automort. This way, we have fewer types of ammo to supply, fewer types of parts to supply, and can keep things simple. But, if wheels was needed, whatever wheeled vehicle I would have, would be either based off of the MAN trucks for parts commonality, or vice versa.

In an ideal military, everyone would be in battlesuits and equipped with 5MW pulse cannons...but I do agree with you, if nothing else Iraq and Afghanistan simply confirm what was known since the Vietnam War...the 5.56mm round sucks. The 6.8mm looks like the best mix between the punch of a 7.62 and the light weight of the ole 5.56. I would like to see a AR/SAW/GPMG using this caliber...will I live to see that, doubtful, too many careers are tied up with 5.56mm.

105mm for an air defense cannon....hmmmmmm it would take out the attacker with one shot, but the rate of fire is going to suck! I think an autocannon in the 25-40mm range would be the best bet, but you are still going to need something to knock tanks out with, so thats a cannon in the 90mm-120mm range. I don't think that the various calibers are going to be culled down as far as you want to go....

[Panther Al]

Urm, I meant the automatic cannon would be the same, the large calibre cannon would be 105. :)

I agree that it is unlikely to say the least to see significant changes, but one can hope. I mean for crying out loud, for the price of 1, maybe 2, F35's, we could rearm all the branches, active, reserve, and guard. And I also agree, that the units shouldn't have to be out of the LOC, but there has to be the ability to run with minimal to none for short times, remember, the enemy is the enemy because he does things you don't want him to. :)

Basically though the point of the exercise is to figure out a "sandbox" formation and equipment schedule if you was king and could do as you will. :)

(Can just see it... "Today, I just signed Executive Order 42276, ordering the procurement department to pull their collective heads out of....")

[dragoon500ly]

Urm, I meant the automatic cannon would be the same, the large calibre cannon would be 105. :)

I know, I was just picturing a former Warthog pilot in the office next door rolling in hot with his 30mm and an evil tanker grinning back, setting his 105mm to "HIGH RATE"....he tells me about all of the tanks he destroyed in Desert Storm and I remind him that the Air Force considers hitting the ground to be an accomplishment.

I agree that it is unlikely to say the least to see significant changes, but one can hope. I mean for crying out loud, for the price of 1, maybe 2, F35's, we could rearm all the branches, active, reserve, and guard. And I also agree, that the units shouldn't have to be out of the LOC, but there has to be the ability to run with minimal to none for short times, remember, the enemy is the enemy because he does things you don't want him to. :)

But you have to have the spirit, not to mention the courage, to make that kind of decision. And that's something that I see lacking in the DoD. Yup the Air Force could do without a couple of F-35s and does the Navy really need another Aegis Destroyer? Face it, the Army is the least "sexy" of all the branches...that's why we always get hind tit when it comes time to dish out money for the various programs. Its been known that we need decent ADA ever since the Sergeant York disaster (and that one was the fault of certain congressmen and their corporate buddys), still soldering on with the M-741 ehhh! OH WAIT! We get the Avenger...a hummer with a turret that breaks down moreoften than not with a four pack of stingers and a ma deuce...:mad:

We need better body armor and helmets...and it takes retired officers and NCOs to badger Congress and DoD into doing something...I still chuckle remembering when they started sending helmets to GIs in Iraq....DEAR GAWD!!!! DON'T CNN OR FOX FIND OUT!!!!!

We had a good platform with the M-8 MGS...till it was killed off so that the navy could but a couple of Burke-class destroyers....considering that the US Navy is now capable of taking on all the next ten largest navies at the same time? Guess we had to worry about ole number eleven!

Don't know what the requirement for an ACR is nowdays (is there even an ACR left?) But the 2ACR was always loaded with enough supplies for 72-hours of independent operations...when we had our truck company. Beyond that, then the trucks start to outnumber the tanks/CFVs, just how much operating time is needed?

Basically though the point of the exercise is to figure out a "sandbox" formation and equipment schedule if you was king and could do as you will. :)

(Can just see it... "Today, I just signed Executive Order 42276, ordering the procurement department to pull their collective heads out of....")

WHAT!!!!!! Our current President ordering the Pentagon to just drop 60 years of bad habits!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

[Abbott Shaull]

I know, I was just picturing a former Warthog pilot in the office next door rolling in hot with his 30mm and an evil tanker grinning back, setting his 105mm to "HIGH RATE"....he tells me about all of the tanks he destroyed in Desert Storm and I remind him that the Air Force considers hitting the ground to be an accomplishment.



But you have to have the spirit, not to mention the courage, to make that kind of decision. And that's something that I see lacking in the DoD. Yup the Air Force could do without a couple of F-35s and does the Navy really need another Aegis Destroyer? Face it, the Army is the least "sexy" of all the branches...that's why we always get hind tit when it comes time to dish out money for the various programs. Its been known that we need decent ADA ever since the Sergeant York disaster (and that one was the fault of certain congressmen and their corporate buddys), still soldering on with the M-741 ehhh! OH WAIT! We get the Avenger...a hummer with a turret that breaks down moreoften than not with a four pack of stingers and a ma deuce...:mad:

We need better body armor and helmets...and it takes retired officers and NCOs to badger Congress and DoD into doing something...I still chuckle remembering when they started sending helmets to GIs in Iraq....DEAR GAWD!!!! DON'T CNN OR FOX FIND OUT!!!!!

We had a good platform with the M-8 MGS...till it was killed off so that the navy could but a couple of Burke-class destroyers....considering that the US Navy is now capable of taking on all the next ten largest navies at the same time? Guess we had to worry about ole number eleven!

Don't know what the requirement for an ACR is nowdays (is there even an ACR left?) But the 2ACR was always loaded with enough supplies for 72-hours of independent operations...when we had our truck company. Beyond that, then the trucks start to outnumber the tanks/CFVs, just how much operating time is needed?



WHAT!!!!!! Our current President ordering the Pentagon to just drop 60 years of bad habits!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

You know very few units ever had their 'Full Load Out' even when they could claim this it was general short. Unless you were in ACR in Germany or in Korea that is.

Yeah one thing that I always wonder when I was in was about the body armor. I had play twilight 2000 before going in, and the armor I ever seen while in was the helmet. So did they replace the 'Fritz' helmet with improve version? Yeah I always wonder where the body armor was.

What made me shake my head during Operation Desert Storm/Shield was that video of troops in the US 1st Mechanized Division that had been deployed late to the Middle East. They were wearing vest that had regular green camo cover. Even many would still be in the old woodland uniforms. Which proves they never really had enough of the Desert cammys on hand for large scale operations. Granted at the time who would of thought of having the units from the III Corps and Germany being sent to Middle East or for that matter anywhere but Germany. It one of the things especially the Army, where they have mind set that only certain units would ever be sent to this place or that place. When the last 20 years have shown once the units that are suppose to head there are already committed, you should have plans and option to move other units as needed.

[dragoon500ly]

You know very few units ever had their 'Full Load Out' even when they could claim this it was general short. Unless you were in ACR in Germany or in Korea that is.

Yeah one thing that I always wonder when I was in was about the body armor. I had play twilight 2000 before going in, and the armor I ever seen while in was the helmet. So did they replace the 'Fritz' helmet with improve version? Yeah I always wonder where the body armor was.

What made me shake my head during Operation Desert Storm/Shield was that video of troops in the US 1st Mechanized Division that had been deployed late to the Middle East. They were wearing vest that had regular green camo cover. Even many would still be in the old woodland uniforms. Which proves they never really had enough of the Desert cammys on hand for large scale operations. Granted at the time who would of thought of having the units from the III Corps and Germany being sent to Middle East or for that matter anywhere but Germany. It one of the things especially the Army, where they have mind set that only certain units would ever be sent to this place or that place. When the last 20 years have shown once the units that are suppose to head there are already committed, you should have plans and option to move other units as needed.

The ole fritz was replaced with one with improved webbing suspension...then updated with padding. The new advanced combat helmet has a different mix of plastic and kevlar, the improved suspension and padding and adds the bolt on plate to attach a NVD.

As for the VII Corps and its use of woodland BDUs in Desert Storm...it worked out in the end, the PSYOP people were dropping leaflets telling the Iraqis that the Allies had even pulled the troops from Germany to fight them, you know, the ones that had spent 20+ years training to kill Russians! And the Iraqis could tell these Soviet-killers apart becuase they would wear green and brown camouflage. It always comes down to the delivery, doesn't it?

And it was also a sad testiment that the Army was simply not equipped to conduct large scale desert operations.

[pmulcahy11b]

Even being Army I have to admit the ones who really get hind tit are the Marines. They have the oldest gear, and get the good stuff last.

[Abbott Shaull]

Even being Army I have to admit the ones who really get hind tit are the Marines. They have the oldest gear, and get the good stuff last.

In general they do tend to get the best gear last, but they have been able to claim some gems at that others have passed up on, ie LAV-25 for their.

[dragoon500ly]

Even being Army I have to admit the ones who really get hind tit are the Marines. They have the oldest gear, and get the good stuff last.

They also boost that they are the only branch that returns part of their budget back to the Treasury at the end of the fiscal year.

Remember the buying sprees that went on when October came around?

Where in heaven's name did a armored company need 12 pizza ovens?!?!?!?!!

[Abbott Shaull]

Well you know that is 3 Pizza Oven per Platoon and three for the HQ element of the Company. Have to keep the company well fed...lol

[Panther Al]

The ole fritz was replaced with one with improved webbing suspension...then updated with padding. The new advanced combat helmet has a different mix of plastic and kevlar, the improved suspension and padding and adds the bolt on plate to attach a NVD.

As for the VII Corps and its use of woodland BDUs in Desert Storm...it worked out in the end, the PSYOP people were dropping leaflets telling the Iraqis that the Allies had even pulled the troops from Germany to fight them, you know, the ones that had spent 20+ years training to kill Russians! And the Iraqis could tell these Soviet-killers apart becuase they would wear green and brown camouflage. It always comes down to the delivery, doesn't it?

And it was also a sad testiment that the Army was simply not equipped to conduct large scale desert operations.

*laughs* I remember that. They still thought that when we went back over this last time. I recall talking to an IP in Fallujah, who was wondering if he should be glad we didn't send the Russian killers down this time, or insulted that we didn't feel the need to send our best troops.

[Abbott Shaull]

*laughs* I remember that. They still thought that when we went back over this last time. I recall talking to an IP in Fallujah, who was wondering if he should be glad we didn't send the Russian killers down this time, or insulted that we didn't feel the need to send our best troops.

LOL... There are times when PSYOP did too good of job. Just think if the 3rd Mechanized and the Marine units in the initial invasion would of been in their woodland cammies instead of the desert cammies...lol

[Abbott Shaull]

No it just a testament to an Army that was geared to fight a war in Europe. Every where else is secondary option that they hope they had time to build up for.

[dragoon500ly]

Well you know that is 3 Pizza Oven per Platoon and three for the HQ element of the Company. Have to keep the company well fed...lol

Ha!

What was really funny was in Jan-Feb when IG time came around....kinda makes one wonder just how many stashes of "excess" equipment were buried around the ole motor pool!

[bobcat]

its amazing how soldiers always leave an instalation with a tons of kit that noone has any record of.

[Graebarde]

Ha!

What was really funny was in Jan-Feb when IG time came around....kinda makes one wonder just how many stashes of "excess" equipment were buried around the ole motor pool!

Sort of like the engineer company that buried two containers of excess along with a jeep that wasn't on the books.

We always had excess to hide, and I imagine most units did too. And the IG was not a bunch of duds either, as they had played hide the thimble games themselves in previous assignments.

[helbent4]

Sort of like the engineer company that buried two containers of excess along with a jeep that wasn't on the books.

We always had excess to hide, and I imagine most units did too. And the IG was not a bunch of duds either, as they had played hide the thimble games themselves in previous assignments.

Grae,

It reminds me of what a friend who was in a local militia regiment (Seaforth Highlanders) said, that when their unit was converted to light infantry and gave up their mortar section, they kept an 81mm tube (just "in case") and stored it with the signals equipment listed as a "signaling device". Further, they had C9 SAWs (FN Minimis) that had been stricken from the records as worn out but completely rebuilt, and several FN C1A1s (FALs) weren't passed along when they upgraded to C7s (AR-15s).

Tony

[Abbott Shaull]

Well that and at many units they had more M16s than they were authorized for used while under fire. I mean when a good third of the Company didn't carry a M16s when we went to the field, yet come qualification day everyone had one from the company armory. Yes the supply room was usually excessively full too.

[Panther Al]

Got something I would like to bounce off of those here for comments, ideas, suggestions, and even flames. Group I hang out with are always futzing about with various scenarios from various time frames ranging from the second world war to the next one. We've used various rules systems to game them out, and the current debate is on how things aught to be done (Yes, its a dead horse here).

Currently, I'm putting together a combined arms company like everyone else, with the idea is something along the lines of a well manned us cav troop mixed in perhaps with a little infantry.

I'm giving it a pair of command variant IFV's in the HQ along with a APC and a TOC, a maintenance section of 2 ARV's, a mortar section (Using the AMOS) of 2 SPM's, 3 platoons of 6 IFV's with 5-6 man sections in each, and a 4th platoon of 6 Large Caliber Gun vehicles (that could be held as a support force or chopped into 3 two vehicle sections attached to the first three platoons).

Naturally it being me, these are all CV90 based, but, the idea is to give a balance of mobile firepower, with enough boots to actually be able to do something outside the vehicles without being stretched.

So, am I missing something, is this to off the wall, or?

[Abbott Shaull]

Got something I would like to bounce off of those here for comments, ideas, suggestions, and even flames. Group I hang out with are always futzing about with various scenarios from various time frames ranging from the second world war to the next one. We've used various rules systems to game them out, and the current debate is on how things aught to be done (Yes, its a dead horse here).

Currently, I'm putting together a combined arms company like everyone else, with the idea is something along the lines of a well manned us cav troop mixed in perhaps with a little infantry.

I'm giving it a pair of command variant IFV's in the HQ along with a APC and a TOC, a maintenance section of 2 ARV's, a mortar section (Using the AMOS) of 2 SPM's, 3 platoons of 6 IFV's with 5-6 man sections in each, and a 4th platoon of 6 Large Caliber Gun vehicles (that could be held as a support force or chopped into 3 two vehicle sections attached to the first three platoons).

Naturally it being me, these are all CV90 based, but, the idea is to give a balance of mobile firepower, with enough boots to actually be able to do something outside the vehicles without being stretched.

So, am I missing something, is this to off the wall, or?

How about this, for the 3 platoons. Have two APC with 9 man squad, four IFV or (two IFVs and two AFVs) with small section carrying capabilities. The APC would have something similar to .50 caliber and 40 mm Grenade launcher. This would give you an almost well rounded assortment of weapons, and still give you full dismounted infantry platoon when needed.

With the platoon of 6 Large Caliber Gun vehicles, make two platoons one standard 4-tank Platoon and then 6 vehicle platoon that LCG or something like the M901. Where the 6 vehicle platoon can be either farmed out to the three main platoons or used to protect their own sector as needed, their could be command vehicle for this platoon where the platoon leader doubles as operation officer for the company. The tank platoon could be the muscle that is needed or used as point during move out.

Yes, I know in theory this would be a very large company, but I see the one platoon mostly operating as section attached to the other platoons during most operations, adding to those platoon firepower. Also each of these platoons would have the manpower on the ground too. If the Company gets into position where they have too operate in fair size town they have enough men on the ground and still can have fair size reaction force too.

Another option is to have two of the hybrid infantry platoons in some six vehicle combination like the old ARC scout platoons with two tank platoons with again an addition 6 LCG/Anti-tank Missile Platoon that could be farmed out as needed.

Just some thoughts.

[Panther Al]

I thought about a 5th platoon, but three things kept me from doing so:

1, I thought it was getting a little on the cumbersome side, and the more vehicles the more of a tail the notational higher level unit needs.
2, I always liked the 3 line platoon, 1 weapons platoon format that the Wehrmacht used in the second world war - and occasionally you would find a pair of morts in the HQ section.
3, But most importantly, we have some limits on what we could do: No upper limits on spending - yet - but the manpower limits are in the 150-250 men range, so had to take that into account.

I based it off of the current ACR troop, but instead of straight up Cav, I flexed towards Mounted Rifle, sort of a primarily recce, but with the manpower to do line if needs be. Hence the larger number of not only dismounts, but IFV's as well. I went with 3 squads of 2 sections to keep manpower down, while making sure that the vehicles can actually carry them and their equipment easily.

I seriously considered doing the APC/IFV mix: And I might do so if the group puts a spending limit on us, I figure for most uses, a OWS is good enough. If the platoon is mixed APC/IFV, or if 3rd is a 'shock' platoon with IFV's and the first two with APC's is still up in the air. I am leaning to shock just for the coolness factor of it. :)

[Abbott Shaull]

The thing back in the late 1980s when Mechanized Battalion was suppose to have 4 Mechanized Companies, HQ, HCC, Support Company as well as the Anti-tank Company. Like the Light Infantry cousins with their Weapons Company, the Company rarely served as combat unit in the field with the platoons and sections attach directly to the other combat units and HQ/HCC.

About the only time they did serve together was when the Battalion would be in the defensive position and they would cover high speed avenues of approaches to the defensive position that the cross-attach armor company(ies) didn't cover. Also during the offensive they and the various M113 based vehicle was limiting factor of how fast the battalion could move forward. Kinda hard to move to fast when many of the FO, FIST, and Ambulance were still based on them.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah never understood how anyone could think 4 M2 or 6 M3 could provide the proper number of dismounts for an Mechanized Infantry or Cavalry/Armor Cavalry platoon to perform their functions. Then again with some Divisional Cavalry and Battalion Scout Platoon converting to 6 HMMWV still had limited number of dismounts, for the Divisional Cavalry and Battalion Scout Platoon you wanted to have smaller dismounts for it was their job to screen, locate, and give the information to higher HQs.

Where the Armor Cavalry had this mission at Corps-level as well as misleading the enemy recon units in to thinking they were facing a much stronger force than a Troop, Squadron or Regiment. Thus tying up resources before their main body ran into the Corps main body.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah it is the one things I don't understand with the 2nd ACR now being Stryker Brigade and plans of changing the 3rd ARC into one. They have increase manpower, but they exchange the increase of manpower with the lost of combat punch.

I find it ironic that the new Heavy Brigades are similar to Armor Combat Commands of World War II. With similar irony that when these Brigades and the new Infantry Brigades were deployed they usually had third combat battalion attached to the Brigades. Rarely when they did deployed a Heavy and Infantry Brigade would also cross-attach a Battalion to give the lighter armed Infantry Brigade some punch and Heavy Brigade more manpower on the ground.

So yeah having a Company with up to 5 combat platoons seems to unwieldy. Yet, like I said the one platoon parsed out to the other platoons. Having 3 mounted infantry platoons companies would serve as the Mechanized companies/troops while the other company with 2 Infantry and 2 Tank platoons would served 'ideal' mix to give armor punch, but still have plenty of boots on the ground.

[Legbreaker]

What's the cost of an M2 or M3 compared to a Stryker?
What's the cost of maintenance?

Which one looks better on the annual budget papers?

In other words, which one can the politicians point to and say, "yes, we have more armoured vehicles on the ground at a reduced cost"?

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah only if the Stryker and it family of vehicle had been able to do what they were suppose to do, but that is another story.

Reason they weren't adopted before 2000, was that at the same time when the Army had been testing the LAV-25 with Marine Corps, the plans were in motion to buy the M2/M3 family for the Mechanized forces. I have always felt that the Wheeled Mechanized Brigade would fit in the US Army, especially like say the second Mechanized Brigade of the Mechanized Divisions and with the 2nd Infantry Division. Many other nations had done this with many of their Mechanized Division with one Brigade/Regiment being track and rest wheeled.

Yet, the M2/M3 was too new and they didn't want to dilute the supply chain with another vehicle since the older M113 and it variants would still be soldiering on for many years to come. What I find ironic is the Stryker Brigades are the only Brigades still established with 3 Stryker Infantry Battalions while the Heavy and Infantry Battalion have 2 Heavy Task Forces or Infantry Battalion(Light).

It sad that even the last true ACR is being converted to Stryker Brigade, had hoped that at least one decent Brigade size unit would survive intact...*ugh*

On side note if they took a Stryker Battalion from every two Stryker Brigades and move things around they would still be able to raise the 5th Brigade the Army had planned on being Infantry Brigades but cancelled in early 2010....Oh Well.

[Panther Al]

As mentioned in another thread, the Iraqi army has spent over two billion dollars on US equipment over the past few years, including such things as ODS Brads and M1A1SA's. Just enough of both to equip an "elite" division extremely well, while the rest will be getting rebuilt WarPac grade (The high end granted) equipment. So far, the universal opinion is that now the Iraqi's really have a good grasp at just how game changing the M1 is when it comes to armoured warfare in the region, and how much training makes a difference. At any rate, even though they have not received them all yet, nor have the finished training all the personnel that will field this largesse of stuff, they are already looking at their most likely threats (Iran and Turkey) and seeing something they might change. Was talking with a buddy is part of the US troops training them and he says their officers are already pointing out that M1's, and in particular this division, is not equipped nor trained for urban combat, but for open field. And since they don't have to worry about trees and such blocking turret traverse, how hard will it be to install a longer calibre gun tube in the Abrams, if not a 140? Seems that they accept the fact that they won't get their hands on DU ammo, so are looking for ways to maximize what they do have.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah it is grand we are re-arming their elite unit with our ancient materials of war while the rest of their army is still Pact armed.

[Legbreaker]

Still, experience has shown that 20+ year old western cast-offs appear to be better quality than the best they already had. You would expect a tank should be able to withstand a shot or two from it's enemy counterpart and be able to return effective fire. From what we know the T-72's etc popped like a pricked balloon, even before they knew the M1s and Challengers were there.

[Panther Al]

Actually, the M1's are not cast offs: They are fresh off the refurbishment line at Lima. Damn near brand spanking new - newest ones around actually, and will all have the latest goodies save for Battlefield Management. From what I understand, the Brads are also being rebuilt to new condition as well. I hear A3, but most places I have read all say ODS, so, I'm leaning to the majority on this one.

[pmulcahy11b]

From what I understand, most armies are replacing their DU-based penetrators with tungsten-based penetrators due to fears (possibly unfounded) of hazmat problems on battlefields and ranges. Anyone have current experience or knowledge on this?

[Legbreaker]

Actually, the M1's are not cast offs:

Cast offs, downgrades, whatever - they're not the absolute best available anyway.

[Panther Al]

No idea, we was issued DU when we rolled into Iraq, even got to shoot a few off at live targets, but never heard word one on if it was bad for us or not. And with the e-kick the military was on, if there was any hard evidence to that, they would have said something. So my money is on none to negligible negative impact. In honesty the environmental impact from using tanks is worse than any effect DU has in my opinion. After all, the D stands for Depleted. IE: Safe, Non Radioactive, not bad for you 'less you get hit with it, and so on and so forth. As to the spalling, anything will cause that, hell WP is worse.

[Panther Al]

Cast offs, downgrades, whatever - they're not the absolute best available anyway.

Of course not, no one has gotten any of the full up SEP's except for the US. Thats fairly obvious. Even you all only got the M1A1SA's... which come to think of, so did the Iraqi's.

Granted, the SA isn't a bad tank, almost as good as a SEP, and just as good in all the ways that really count when its time to lay tube on target.

[Abbott Shaull]

Actually the T-72 we encounter in Iraqi as well as all Pact/Soviet/Russia vehicles were the actual top of the line models one would find say in the Russia or other Soviet Republics military arsenals. Even with their allies in the Warsaw Pact wouldn't get the same capabilities built in as their Soviet counterparts.

Still up until the the US M1 and other NATO tanks of that generation of AFVs started to come online, the Soviets T-62, T-64, and T-72 units probably would probably been able to carry the day easily due to sheer numbers. It one of the reasons it took over 10+ years and couple false starts for the US to come up with the replacement for the M60 MBT.

It still makes one wonder though for lot of the Pact units were still equipped with T-55 and T-62s. They were still in the process of updating the front line units in the Warsaw Pact even as the wall coming down with the major exception being the East German Army which seemed to be more heavily armed as their units were suppose to function as components of the Soviet Armies...*shrug*

[dragoon500ly]

One of the main reasons that the T-55 was kept in service in the Warsaw Pact countries is that, for its environment, it was a good tank. The perceived battle ground of West Germany has a lot of terrain that doesn't allow for long range tank sniping. One NATO study gives an average range of 900 meters, well within effective range of the 100mm main gun. The Soviets (and the WP) trained for short range engagements, where whoever gets the first round off, wins the fight. They also used an intresting gunnery technique that compensated for the poor fire control system.

You see, the Russians do not practise one-on-one engagements.

What they practise is platoon-on-one engagements. A typical four-tank platoon would start with the platoon leader's tank calling out his estimated range and firing. The second tank in the platoon, would call out their adjustment and fire, then the third and fourth tanks would repeat the process. With four tanks engaging, the assumption is that the NATO tank would find itself overwhelmed by targets and forced into breaking off its engagement by firing its smoke grenades or abandoning its fighting position, thus allowing the Soviet platoon to close the range and negate the superior NATO fire control systems.

It was only with the issue of the new generation of laser-rangefinders and digital computers that NATO was able to come with a counter to this technique.

As for a lot of the T-55s poor rep...it has a lot to do with the Middle East Wars of 1967 and 1973...the T-55 was used in an environment that allowed for long range sniping by tanks as well as terrain that features dunes and sharper hills than those found in the Central Russian steppes. Here the numerous design flaws of the T-5s were brought into view and ruthlessly exploited by the IDF.

[Abbott Shaull]

That and the pure numbers of T-55s produced. Yeah, it always been the Soviets goal attempt to overwhelm an enemy tank with the numbers games.

[dragoon500ly]

And why not...it worked in the World War II and the Russians have also been big fans of don't mess with a working method.

[dragoon500ly]

Was websearching and came across a fansite; one of the postings was a modified US OOB for Twilight 2000. In this OOB, the writer had several units activated; now some of them I can understand, like reactivating the 4th Armored Division and sending it to the Persian Gulf; reactivating ACRs like the 10th and 14th and sending one to Europe and one to the Persian Gulf. Okay, gives some badly needed firepower for the XVIII Airborne and I Amphibious Corps....

But it was his reactivation of the 11th, 13th and 17th Airborne Divisions that raised an eyebrow. I know I'm going to start a major flame war, but this is my opinion; the age of throwing airborne divisions into major operations via transport aircraft ended with World War Two. Nowdays, the "Airborne" portion simply means that the division has strategic mobility via the Air Force. I feel that Desert Storm simply confirmed that while it is very easy to transport several thousand paratroopers to a distant theater, their ability to project power is limited to how far they can march in a day. This is the major drawback of the light divisions and the reason why the US Army is moving to the medium division format. Light Divisions are to light to project power and Heavy Divisions tie up too much strategic sealift in sending them to the area of operations.

Now, by no means am I slamming the Light fighters, I have the deepest respect for them, I am simply questioning their ability to project power. Tactically, they have a range of about 30 miles, they do not have the ability to transport enough supplies to sustain operations without the assignment of transportation companies. They truely are a case of "too little tail, not enough teeth."

Now I have strapped on my flame-proof longjohns, put on my SCBA....FLAME AWAY!

[Adm.Lee]

No argument from me, at least as far as new divisions.

I like an idea that I remember reading in Patton's "War as I knew it," in which he recommended a parachute regiment for each Army, for quick-grab operations, like a bridge in the enemy rear. With the advent of helicopters, I think some kind of air-assault unit on call for a corps or army commander would be a handy force-multiplier.

I point out that the Soviets apparently agreed, and there was an air-assault brigade assigned to each Front, and another for the Shock Army/Tank Armies that were supposed to be the breakthrough and exploitation forces. These were in addition to the airborne-mechanized divisions held in strategic reserve.

For me, I guess for the US, I would have liked to make that a Ranger unit (company/battalion) semi-attached to a corps' helicopter brigade. It could be dropped or choppered to some location really quickly. If not Rangers, then consider them light dragoons, and we are back to the cavalry theme of this thread. :rolleyes:

[dragoon500ly]

I for one would like to see a "reasonable" expansion of the Ranger Program, something capable of the missions that the Ranger Battalions were intended for. While a battalion per corps may be too much, I can see two battalions assigned to each theater.

[Abbott Shaull]

Honestly the formation of 11th, 13th, and 17th Airborne Divisions to me wouldn't be much, if they were treated as holding unit with at least one of the Brigades airborne-trained and the other Air Assault/Air mobile trained. Still having a Division at Army/Army Group levels would give major command enough troops that one could move in to take Bridge or something like that as needed and allowing the Brigades enough time to train and absorb replacement in between operations. Even if these Divisions only had two Brigade Combat Teams it would still give Army Group Commanders, or UN Korea Command option they wouldn't have.

Even WWII showed a military force that got to cocky with their Airborne troops, would attempt foolishness that could only be topped by the other side couple years later. Crete and Market Garden proved the limitation. It interesting that the last airdrop in Europe was more of tactical one much similar to what today Air Assault/Air mobile troops fill in today.

I do remember that even though at time the West German Army had an HQ for their Airborne Division each of the operational Brigades were tasked to a Corps.

As for the 4th Armored along with the 10th and 14th ACR would of seemed to make sense. Especially if they were heading out to the Middle East and Korea.

[Abbott Shaull]

I for one would like to see a "reasonable" expansion of the Ranger Program, something capable of the missions that the Ranger Battalions were intended for. While a battalion per corps may be too much, I can see two battalions assigned to each theater.

Yeah I would think there would be some type of expansion and not likely to find the entire Regiment in the Middle East since they were suppose to operate as independent Battalions or smaller size unit during operations.

[Abbott Shaull]

It is one of the things that having in theory, that the 82nd Airborne, 101st Air Assault, and 10th Mountain Divisional HQ, are suppose to be able integrate into their Division the new Infantry and Heavy Brigade seamlessly. It is one of the things when you look at the various Division Commanders in the Army, not only these three Divisions, but Army-wide.

Several of the Division Commanders of these three Division rarely spent time outside of the XVIII Airborne Corps, the 75th Ranger Regiment, or Special Forces community. What time they did, it was a tour here in Germany or Korea, some time at the Pentagon, but most of their postings rotated around these type of units. Where as the other side of the coin the rest of the Divisional Commander of the for other Divisions served largely in Mechanized, Armor, and Armor Cavalry with various stints in with Light units.

Results have been that many of the Heavy Divisional Commanders do know the limitation that the Light force bring to their Operational Mix, while the Light Divisional Commanders seem so sure they could do so much more that the Heavy Divisional Commanders realized all too well.

As for the Army heading toward more and more to Medium scale force, well it what the the 6th, 7th, 25th Light Infantry Division as with the 9th Motorized Division should of been organized with maybe one Brigade of each of the mention Light Division being organized into Light Infantry Brigade for air mobility, but that would of been stretch in itself since the 25th and 7th basically shed their heavy equipment to become Light units....

[Panther Al]

Been thinking over those ideas of a hip pocket force at the corp level, and I am thinking that it really is a good idea. Maybe even at the divisional level. Some sort of hip pocket force, much more mobile than the division that its part of of, as some sort of 'elite' company that can be pulled out and used for those really hairy missions that has to go off - and do so faster than the divisions normal assets would allow.

[Abbott Shaull]

Been thinking over those ideas of a hip pocket force at the corp level, and I am thinking that it really is a good idea. Maybe even at the divisional level. Some sort of hip pocket force, much more mobile than the division that its part of of, as some sort of 'elite' company that can be pulled out and used for those really hairy missions that has to go off - and do so faster than the divisions normal assets would allow.

If you look at the deployments for the 82nd Airborne Division it was usually 2 Brigade size elements during it larger deployments, with the notable exception of 1990-1991 and 2003. While most of the time the 101st and 82nd sent out Battalion size task forces out for most deployments, which invariably included other sub-units of the XVIII Airborne Corps in support.

The main reason why they still have XVIII Airborne Corps around with these two Divisions is because it sounds nice when you can claim to assets in the air on the ground in so many hours. It was part of the reason why the 9th Infantry Division was a test unit for so long, part of their goal was to help give the 6th, 7th, 25th Light and 10th Mountain Division Medium Brigade to support the two Light Brigades. Then again we know where history went on that before and after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Especially when you consider the 6th, 7th, and 25th along with the 9th probably would be the first units shipped to Korea if they were needed first. Now with the 2nd ID only having forward it Heavy Brigade and the other 3 Brigades are stationed at Fort Lewis home of the 9th Motorized Infantry Division 'Test Bed'. The main difference once the 2nd Infantry and 25 Infantry are finally deployed fully to Korea there will be 8 Combat Brigades as oppose 11 regular duty Combat Brigade under the older system. *Shrug*

[dragoon500ly]

Honestly the formation of 11th, 13th, and 17th Airborne Divisions to me wouldn't be much, if they were treated as holding unit with at least one of the Brigades airborne-trained and the other Air Assault/Air mobile trained. Still having a Division at Army/Army Group levels would give major command enough troops that one could move in to take Bridge or something like that as needed and allowing the Brigades enough time to train and absorb replacement in between operations. Even if these Divisions only had two Brigade Combat Teams it would still give Army Group Commanders, or UN Korea Command option they wouldn't have.

Even WWII showed a military force that got to cocky with their Airborne troops, would attempt foolishness that could only be topped by the other side couple years later. Crete and Market Garden proved the limitation. It interesting that the last airdrop in Europe was more of tactical one much similar to what today Air Assault/Air mobile troops fill in today.

I do remember that even though at time the West German Army had an HQ for their Airborne Division each of the operational Brigades were tasked to a Corps.

As for the 4th Armored along with the 10th and 14th ACR would of seemed to make sense. Especially if they were heading out to the Middle East and Korea.

I can see 82nd as strategic reserve; with the division joining the XVIII Airborne in the Persian Gulf, there would be a need to rebuild the strategic reserve, but with the pressures of supporting three overseas and one CONUS front, I doubt if the manpower/training time to organize another airborne division.

I can see a airborne brigade, perhaps, but I think it would be more likely that there would be a couple of airmobile brigades and 1-2 light divisions.

In the Twilight timeline I can see SEATF being upgraded to brigade level (and yes, call it the 173rd), this would give the ACE Mobile Force a major reinforcement, high likely to go either to Turkey or to southern Germany following the Italian attack.

Got to admit, I'm a fan of the ACRs being reactivated, in their heavy level of organization, they would make a great fire brigade for RDF/Korea!

[Abbott Shaull]

Like I said I doubt any of those three Division would be completely Airborne or Air Assault trained. Maybe a Brigade or two at best. Say one Division HQ of each moving to Korea and Europe and keeping one in the states.

The Korea one would probably take administration and operational function of Air Assault Brigade of the 2nd and airborne units sent there.

The one Europe could provide support to the an expanded 173rd Airborne, but also NATO with the ability of deploying Airborne/Air Assault/Airmobile Division where need with the other Brigades for such operation coming from other members of NATO.

The Division left in the State would be administrative HQ, with Brigades at Bragg, Benning, and Campbell for training purposes with another active Brigade ready for deployment.

Just some thoughts.

[Abbott Shaull]

So would you think that if more ACR were activated would they be more along the lines of the traditional ACRs or would make the one being sent to the XVIII Airborne Corps a lighter and leaner version?

[dragoon500ly]

So would you think that if more ACR were activated would they be more along the lines of the traditional ACRs or would make the one being sent to the XVIII Airborne Corps a lighter and leaner version?

While I feel that sending a traditional "Heavy" ACR would give more punch to the XVIII than a light, it would be more likely that it will be one of these hyped-up Hummer/TOW outfits that gets created.

In a perfect world, where I'm SECDEF (LOL) I would push for a heavy ACR preloaded just for the PG and I don't think it would be a bad idea to assign two. A pair of heavy ACRs could raise holy hell in the area!

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah I would tend to agree to you, and yeah two traditional would give the Corps the additional back-bone that would give it ability to take on forces they might face. Leave the HMMWV/TOW outfit to bulk up the Airborne and Air Assault units.

The one interesting thing is that during the operation in 2003 when Heavy units were flown into Norther Iraq after the 173rd had secured airfields. Not the most effective way to get heavy equipment into the airhead, but it was proof it could be done. Yet, like many things, after the first time you do a trick, the next time they will know what you were up too, when tried again.

[Panther Al]

While I feel that sending a traditional "Heavy" ACR would give more punch to the XVIII than a light, it would be more likely that it will be one of these hyped-up Hummer/TOW outfits that gets created.

In a perfect world, where I'm SECDEF (LOL) I would push for a heavy ACR preloaded just for the PG and I don't think it would be a bad idea to assign two. A pair of heavy ACRs could raise holy hell in the area!

I nominate that last it as the understatement of the month. :)

The 3rd, when we rolled in, from what I saw of not only Iraqi units, but Kuwaiti ones as well, could easily manhandle units three times its size, and thats without the Air Force/Navy air strikes. Send a couple of Heavy ACR's, back them with a pair of carriers in the gulf, and they would own anything they wanted.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah, that is why the 24th then the 3rd Mech after being re-flagged was assigned to the XVIII Airborne Corps with the hopes that this unit would be enough. Even though the active components of this Division probably would of been diverted to Europe if there was chance for it becoming an active battlefield to reinforce even temporary the units of the III Corps. At least until the National Guard units were brought up to speed.

Always felt that the 194th, 197th, and both Brigades of the 24th Mechanized probably would ended up in Europe. The assigned Round out Brigades then would shipped out to the Persian Gulf to build the 24th Mechanized Division and possible a new formed Armored Division. Also I could see the 40th Mechanized Division ending up in either Korea or Persian Gulf before ending up in Europe due to their west coast location.

[dragoon500ly]

I nominate that last it as the understatement of the month. :)

The 3rd, when we rolled in, from what I saw of not only Iraqi units, but Kuwaiti ones as well, could easily manhandle units three times its size, and thats without the Air Force/Navy air strikes. Send a couple of Heavy ACR's, back them with a pair of carriers in the gulf, and they would own anything they wanted.

LOL!

I have never understood why the equipment for a ACR was never pre-loaded...it was always a Marine Brigade or an Airborne Task Force...Iraq, at one time, could field more MBTs than anyone else in the region...so expecting that a couple of light brigades would serve as much more than a speed bump always seemed the height of stupidity. After all, if the equipment is there, than all ya need is to fly the crews in, and wasn't that what was expected of the lights?

If I had been Saddam, sure as hell, the Coalition would not have been given months to build up and ship heavy divisions in and bring in air wings. After all, the last time paratroopers went toe-to-toe with an armored division, they got their asses handed to them! TOWs and Dragons are nifty little toys and they sure beat the hell out of 6-pounder antitank guns and PIATs, but like any ATGM, they have a lot of drawbacks and I would not want to see what happened when a half-way decent armordivision commander, grins and yells "GO FOR IT!"

Sitting here typing this, I have an ex-zoomie telling me about how the Air Farce won Desert Storm. If you have the time to fly in the air wings and ship the bombs and missiles in, then the ole AF can be a real decent equalizier...but if Saddam had the balls, the olnly thing he would have had to worry about would have been a couple of Carrier Air Wings initially, and if he had used his air force, then the 82nd and Marines would have fought under a neutral sky at best...and then it would have been lights against heavys....and what a fight that would have been!

[Abbott Shaull]

The sad thing only ACR that could of been touch before the fall of the Berlin Wall was the one based out of TX. I forget if it was the 2nd or 3rd, always confuse which one was where without looking it up. I wanna say the 3rd ACR, anyways they were the only ACR the US could move without NATO throwing a shit fit. For that matter any unit of the III Corps being used elsewhere caused some members to worry. Especially the one who realized of the 5 Divisions that were part of the III Corps only the two that had forward deployed Brigades had on paper their entire force, with the other three Division relying on round-out Brigades.

[Panther Al]

LOL!

I have never understood why the equipment for a ACR was never pre-loaded...it was always a Marine Brigade or an Airborne Task Force...Iraq, at one time, could field more MBTs than anyone else in the region...so expecting that a couple of light brigades would serve as much more than a speed bump always seemed the height of stupidity. After all, if the equipment is there, than all ya need is to fly the crews in, and wasn't that what was expected of the lights?

If I had been Saddam, sure as hell, the Coalition would not have been given months to build up and ship heavy divisions in and bring in air wings. After all, the last time paratroopers went toe-to-toe with an armored division, they got their asses handed to them! TOWs and Dragons are nifty little toys and they sure beat the hell out of 6-pounder antitank guns and PIATs, but like any ATGM, they have a lot of drawbacks and I would not want to see what happened when a half-way decent armordivision commander, grins and yells "GO FOR IT!"

Sitting here typing this, I have an ex-zoomie telling me about how the Air Farce won Desert Storm. If you have the time to fly in the air wings and ship the bombs and missiles in, then the ole AF can be a real decent equalizier...but if Saddam had the balls, the olnly thing he would have had to worry about would have been a couple of Carrier Air Wings initially, and if he had used his air force, then the 82nd and Marines would have fought under a neutral sky at best...and then it would have been lights against heavys....and what a fight that would have been!

Never understood why he stopped: A 24 hour stand-down would have doctrinally correct with the pact style doctrine they used, in fact, I assumed that was what was going on. Even 72hrs may have been possible, but past that, there was no chance to go south. One of the many what-if's I like to think about is what-if he followed doctrine and swung south 24-36 hours after he swept the last of the Kuwaiti resistance away?

[dragoon500ly]

Never understood why he stopped: A 24 hour stand-down would have doctrinally correct with the pact style doctrine they used, in fact, I assumed that was what was going on. Even 72hrs may have been possible, but past that, there was no chance to go south. One of the many what-if's I like to think about is what-if he followed doctrine and swung south 24-36 hours after he swept the last of the Kuwaiti resistance away?

This has been wargamed, both officially and by wargamers, the results have been surprisingly even. In every game, if Saddam goes for broke after nailing Kuwait, he's well into Saudi Arabia before the US can intervene effectively. I've seen the coastal strip on the Saudi side of the PG go down, the capital fall, in one game I've even seen Mecca fall to the Republican Guard. Most of the games have Saddam taking the key oil fields AND managing to hold them in the wake of an Coalition counterattack. And the wargames always wind up with a light brigade drawing a line in the sand. And then getting smoked when the Republican Guard goes for broke. Maybe its the wargammer's last round mentality...but dropping a shitload of heavy artillery on paratroopers and then following up with three armored divisions on a narrow front......well, George Patton always claimed that the best use for enemy soldiers was greasing his tank's tracks....just don't think he meant it this way!

[Panther Al]

Agreed: Field day for a few weeks until we can get enough heavy stuff (Be it armour or air) to really slow him down or stop him - and I'd hate to be one of the airborne speedbumps flown in those first few days. My question is: With Saddam going south, and taking lumps eventually from allied forces, would Iran go west seeing a chance to bite off a chunk of Iraq?

[dragoon500ly]

Agreed: Field day for a few weeks until we can get enough heavy stuff (Be it armour or air) to really slow him down or stop him - and I'd hate to be one of the airborne speedbumps flown in those first few days. My question is: With Saddam going south, and taking lumps eventually from allied forces, would Iran go west seeing a chance to bite off a chunk of Iraq?

The primary question is just how much and how fast heavy stuff could have been transported in, remember that it took almost 20 days to ship armor and supplies from CONUS and get them through the Suez Canal, and if Saddam had been able to close the canal down, even if only for a few weeks....the transit time around the Horn of Africa would have added another 15 days easy...the only hope of slowing down Saddam would have been if Egypt had been able to push through two or more corps into the fight, something that would have been very hard to pull off in real life.

As for navy air....the carrier in the Med could have been pulled through the canal within the first days of the fighting, PacFlt could have chopped one and possibly two carriers so the initial support would have been 3 CAWs, maybe 200 combat aircraft? While the Air Force could have shifted 2-3 wings, but its the logistic support that would have been the real stumbling block...in the pre Desert Storm days, it flat out didn't exist in the size needed to take on Iraq at the time.

So with Saddam and the Coalition engaged in a nasty dog fight, would Iran have been able to push. I doubt it. Iran took severe losses in equipment and manpower.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah, well it one of those things. I think Persian Gulf War, Saddam had several things to worry about.

1st off he always wanted to appear to be much stronger than he forces really were.

2nd off there was alway exposing himself from attack from his other neighbors. Iran had grudge, of course they were still in rebuilding phase after their battles with the Iraqis. Then there was always fear of Turkish Troops in the north who would of course been in pursuit of those troublesome Kurds. Syria even though both were ruled by Parties with the same name, they weren't on the most friendly of terms, as was proven with a Syrian units in the coalition troops. Jordan wasn't much of friend.

3rd the further he moved from his supply depots the more exposed his forward units would of been. Saudi is big country with lot of nothing. It like places out between the Mississippi River and Rockies Mountain in the US, but much more barren.

4th I think the resistance movement that was put up in his newly acquired province even took him by surprised and didn't want make run into Saudi to have to tie down units doing the same.

5th if he taking out Saudi, he may as well take the other City-State that populate the southern Persian Gulf coast to eliminate places where the coalition to gain foot holds to attack him.

6th possibility he wasn't totally acting on his own. Strangely enough Russia or China didn't veto the UN actions against him. I think much like Korea and Vietnam there were still people in the Russia who wanted to see what the Americans and her allies would respond. It also gave them chance to test some of their equipment even though it wasn't as good as they had for themselves and see how it performed. Russia was still trying to find out how strong NATO was, and was objecting to so many of their former client States and Republic in their efforts in joining the Alliance. After seeing it took 6 month for the US and the coalition to get enough ground forces to take eject the Iraqis, along with the fact that National Guard round-brigade would still out of the game too. Then that little Battle of Kafji (sp?) was little too set up to test the Marines and the coalition forces with them.

The trouble thing is if you look at the list. It seems like he had all the card in his hands for at least the first week after his initial movement. After that he had another two weeks of freedom of moving at his own choosing, yet he allow the US and the coalition to build up a strong defensive position before he even sent a 'Recon-en-force' into Saudi. There were plenty of things, that don't make sense. The one thing he had with Kuwait and Kuwait City was a decent port to the Gulf. Maybe he figure trying to take much more would be waste of time effort, more so than trying to build up his defenses. In the end this was part of the downfall, because instead of dispersing his force out of much larger are, they were concentrated in very limited area, which in turn made it just that easier for the Coalition Air unit to pound the crap out his ground troops and take the fight out of them, before the ground fighting had even started.

The thing is he had several things to worry about if he pushed on, the further he push the further away the Republican Guard would have to be removed from areas where his regime needed them more for control.

Just some thought on that.

[dragoon500ly]

Well the Saddam-into-Saudi-Invasion will always be one of the great what ifs. There is no doubt that by pausing after taking Kuwait was one of the biggest mistakes of the campaign. If he had gone for broke, the most likely result would have been his being able to seize the east coast of Saudi Arabia and even over running some of the smaller Gulf oil states. Strategically, this would have given him control of well over half of the world's known oil reserves, as well as most of the major water distelliation plants in the region. This would have given him a much better chance of keeping his ill-gotten gains. This would also have thrown a major monkey wrench into any operations to through him out.

One of the things that a lot of people forget is that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states provided a lot of POL and purified water to the Allied forces, with most of this capability in Iraqi hands, it would have added much more to an already over-stretched supply line.

So Saddam sweeping into Saudi would have been a nightmare scenario for CENTCOM.

[Abbott Shaull]

Well the Saddam-into-Saudi-Invasion will always be one of the great what ifs. There is no doubt that by pausing after taking Kuwait was one of the biggest mistakes of the campaign. If he had gone for broke, the most likely result would have been his being able to seize the east coast of Saudi Arabia and even over running some of the smaller Gulf oil states. Strategically, this would have given him control of well over half of the world's known oil reserves, as well as most of the major water distelliation plants in the region. This would have given him a much better chance of keeping his ill-gotten gains. This would also have thrown a major monkey wrench into any operations to through him out.

One of the things that a lot of people forget is that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states provided a lot of POL and purified water to the Allied forces, with most of this capability in Iraqi hands, it would have added much more to an already over-stretched supply line.

So Saddam sweeping into Saudi would have been a nightmare scenario for CENTCOM.
Yeah as matter of fact, if he would had kept advancing hew would of had gain control of large section of Saudi, most likely any Gulf State who even thought about objecting too loudly, they would be gobbled up too, just like Kuwait.

I still think Moscow, and fear of over-extension, along with the memories of the Irar-Iraq War all played factor on why they stopped where they did. Why else would you allow the opposing force over 6 months to prepared and get it shit together so they can steam roll over you. Due to your waiting for them to steam roll, your army goes from the 5th largest in the world to shadow of itself. Also the agreement that Saddam was able to negotiate for a cease-fire is too much of co-incidents that will probably be debated for years. For most of the people who really know the truth about the top people in the Iraqi Government in 1990-1991 are either dead or if they are lucky enough be alive are in prison.

[Panther Al]

You know, all of the really odd things about the gulf war that made it what it was, certainly qualifies it in my mind for one that causes the most WTF moments when researching it.

[Abbott Shaull]

You know, all of the really odd things about the gulf war that made it what it was, certainly qualifies it in my mind for one that causes the most WTF moments when researching it.

Yes I know what you mean. Like why invade the smaller of two countries that you share oil fields with, then sit and wait for your a$$ to be kicked.

I mean who lets coalition combine Air power fly over with little or no resistance.

It did show some weakness of our equipment starting with the Patriot Missile system in that as anti-missile system it was somewhat effective, but if you didn't destroy the warhead, all you have done is cause someone else to have headache.

Or the fact that you send SAS team deep into Iraq in an area where Intelligence failed to notice an Iraqi Armor Division was located at defending Scud launch sites, but also showed that the equipment they were issue could fail too under certain conditions too. Also the team was ill prepared for the weather they faced too. The team had many strike against them, it could of easily been a situation where the entire team could of been lost.

Even the 2003 with the Information Minister out on the river claiming that American were hundred of miles from Baghdad even while their was M1 tanks on the other side of the river in plain sight behind him.... Both wars makes you wonder WTF for several reasons.

[Targan]

Or the fact that you send SAS team deep into Iraq in an area where Intelligence failed to notice an Iraqi Armor Division was located at defending Scud launch sites, but also showed that the equipment they were issue could fail too under certain conditions too. Also the team was ill prepared for the weather they faced too. The team had many strike against them, it could of easily been a situation where the entire team could of been lost.

They should have sent the Aussie SAS.

[Abbott Shaull]

They should have sent the Aussie SAS.

As it was, General Schwarzkofp didn't want to use them, he didn't trust from his time in Vietnam. It took the second-in command of the Coalition Forces to convince him to even think about using the Special Forces and Special Air Services. The person is question was British SAS trained soldier who knew their capabilities. He was the one who push for expanding their use.

In part it was much like various US Operations in the 1980 in which more and more Special Operations units were given bigger piece of the action because they had to show their capabilities. Only this time they didn't go way over board like they had in Operation Just Cause and Operation Urgent Fury. In those operation many time and again afterwards the Special Operational units were sent on mission that other units should of taken care of. Like the Seals taking down airfield that is usually reserved for the 75th Ranger Regiment units. Just Bravo Zero Two just had blind stupid military luck that happens.

[dragoon500ly]

As it was, General Schwarzkofp didn't want to use them, he didn't trust from his time in Vietnam. It took the second-in command of the Coalition Forces to convince him to even think about using the Special Forces and Special Air Services. The person is question was British SAS trained soldier who knew their capabilities. He was the one who push for expanding their use.

In part it was much like various US Operations in the 1980 in which more and more Special Operations units were given bigger piece of the action because they had to show their capabilities. Only this time they didn't go way over board like they had in Operation Just Cause and Operation Urgent Fury. In those operation many time and again afterwards the Special Operational units were sent on mission that other units should of taken care of. Like the Seals taking down airfield that is usually reserved for the 75th Ranger Regiment units. Just Bravo Zero Two just had blind stupid military luck that happens.

There was a Ranger battalion in country as well as most of Delta Force, all tied up in the vital task of providing bodyguards and security for His Imperial Majesty Norman "The Pimple" Schwartzkopf. At least the Special Forces Group was allowed to do (mostly) what they are trained to do, organize and train local resistance and liaision for foreign military units.

[Abbott Shaull]

There was a Ranger battalion in country as well as most of Delta Force, all tied up in the vital task of providing bodyguards and security for His Imperial Majesty Norman "The Pimple" Schwartzkopf. At least the Special Forces Group was allowed to do (mostly) what they are trained to do, organize and train local resistance and liaision for foreign military units.

Yeah I always liked the one or two Delta operator who were the one people were suppose to see when he was out and about. That isn't the job I would of wanted, the #1 or #2 target for anyone wanting to kill him. Yeah, I am surprise they limited it to only Battalion of Rangers. Then again they did need to keep something in Reserve considering the usual Reserve Force were sent over first due to the speed they could be deployed...*Shrug*

Yeah he was allowing the Special Force Group to act as force multipliers, but as for using the Special Forces for some the other vital mission they could carry out, Schwartzkopf was of the mind of the Marine Corps for a long time. Any Light Infantry man could pull off the same job.

[perardua]

It always amuses me that the British SAS pretty much returned to their roots during the Gulf War - a clusterfuck in the form of B20, followed by going to much more successful Land Rover columns behind enemy lines - just like in Africa during WW2!

On the subject of light armour, there is some worry that if the Future Rapid Effect System is adopted by the British Army, we will lose the capabilities our CVR(T) family gave us. FRES is planned to be our future medium weight forces, comprising both tracked 'specialist vehicles' (recce, engineering, medical, etc) and wheeled 'utility vehicles' (APCs, etc), originally with a requirement to be C-130 portable, but that has since been dropped as unworkable. Of course, given the current state of the defence budget, this programme may not ever see the light of day, or at least, will be cut back significantly.

Regardless, while medium weight forces have their place, they will result in the loss of our light armour, which does offer quite a few useful capabilities. For a start, unmodified CVR(T) vehicles are light enough that not only are they easily carried in a C-130, but they can be underslung on a Chinook. There have also been reported incidents of the extremely low ground pressure of these vehicles making them unable to set off anti-tank mines, as well as enabling them to traverse extremely soft terrain (the Scorpions and Scimitars deployed to the Falklands proved this, and one of the regrets of the task force was that they did not take more). While the 30mm cannon on a Scorpion is not well-suited for fighting heavy armour, it is a good system for supporting light infantry, especially mounted on a platform that can get a lot of places. The downside in the current operational context, of course, is the vulnerability to IEDs.

[Abbott Shaull]

It amazing how everyone wants C130 air transport capability and yet it seems to be first things that gets dropped when they start adding other things for the vehicle to do.

Yeah, well that is one of the things that US Army let slide by the way side. With an emphasis on Heavy Forces and very little money spent on Light and Medium forces until after the fact, even after having twenty years to come up something... *shrug*

It can't be fun bing a light unit being sent to a UN Peacekeeping Mission knowing that many of the other units you will be working with would be better equipped than you.

[dragoon500ly]

It amazing how everyone wants C130 air transport capability and yet it seems to be first things that gets dropped when they start adding other things for the vehicle to do.

Yeah, well that is one of the things that US Army let slide by the way side. With an emphasis on Heavy Forces and very little money spent on Light and Medium forces until after the fact, even after having twenty years to come up something... *shrug*

It can't be fun bing a light unit being sent to a UN Peacekeeping Mission knowing that many of the other units you will be working with would be better equipped than you.

Remember the design requirements for a tank:

1) It must be capable of taking out an enemy tank with one shot.

2) It must be able to withstand enemy antitank fire.

3) It must be able to be transported by a C-130.

Pick two.

[Abbott Shaull]

Remember the design requirements for a tank:

1) It must be capable of taking out an enemy tank with one shot.

2) It must be able to withstand enemy antitank fire.

3) It must be able to be transported by a C-130.

Pick two.

Hey that list is unfair... Because you can't have option one or two along with option 3...lol So you are stuck with options 1 and 2...lol

[Legbreaker]

Of course you can although you have to pull back a bit on #2. It's called an armoured humvee with a TOW.

Oh, you want tracks on it...? I'm sure we can come up with a kit to replace the wheels. Should only cost about a billion dollars to develop and then half a million for each unit to produce...

[pmulcahy11b]

Oh, you want tracks on it...? I'm sure we can come up with a kit to replace the wheels. Should only cost about a billion dollars to develop and then half a million for each unit to produce...

They've done that already as an experiment. I have a picture somewhere...

[Legbreaker]

They've done that already as an experiment. I have a picture somewhere...

Hmm, ok, scratch that. A billion dollars to refine the prototype (aka paint it a different shade of green) and prepare it for production.... :D

[Abbott Shaull]

Of course you can although you have to pull back a bit on #2. It's called an armoured humvee with a TOW.

Oh, you want tracks on it...? I'm sure we can come up with a kit to replace the wheels. Should only cost about a billion dollars to develop and then half a million for each unit to produce...

Well first they have to make an Armored Humvee that really Armored...

[Legbreaker]

Well first they have to make an Armored Humvee that really Armored...

It stops a 9mmP doesn't it? That's armoured... :D

[Abbott Shaull]

It stops a 9mmP doesn't it? That's armoured... :D

Oh that the protection I want to ride in and feel safe in. Even the unarmored Humvee would stand a decent chance of stopping this round...lol

[dragoon500ly]

Hmm, ok, scratch that. A billion dollars to refine the prototype (aka paint it a different shade of green) and prepare it for production.... :D

Geez, I can tell you never had any experience with the defense contractors... :D

You stamp out a tin-plate addition that is bolted somewhere to break up the outline, then scrap the last four digits of the serial number off and replace with higher numbers...and then charge a 75% cost overrun due to the "speed" with which you developed the "new" prototype.

These are the experts that convinced the Navy to buy adjustable wrenches, "silenced for submarine service", they simply dipped the handle in vinyl....cost the company all of $5.00 each for the coating and another 20.00 for "off-the shelf" wrenches and charged the Navy $500.00.....

[Abbott Shaull]

Geez, I can tell you never had any experience with the defense contractors... :D

You stamp out a tin-plate addition that is bolted somewhere to break up the outline, then scrap the last four digits of the serial number off and replace with higher numbers...and then charge a 75% cost overrun due to the "speed" with which you developed the "new" prototype.

These are the experts that convinced the Navy to buy adjustable wrenches, "silenced for submarine service", they simply dipped the handle in vinyl....cost the company all of $5.00 each for the coating and another 20.00 for "off-the shelf" wrenches and charged the Navy $500.00.....
What supplier contractors aren't suppose to make a profit either. Remember they have labor cost too..lol

[dragoon500ly]

What supplier contractors aren't suppose to make a profit either. Remember they have labor cost too..lol

What labor costs? They farmed the contract to a company based in China...

:D

[Abbott Shaull]

What labor costs? They farmed the contract to a company based in China...

:D

Now they do now, but there was time you would only find American made product in the hand of the troops...lol

Then again many of these contractor have their suppliers shipping them supplies with x% of reduction of pricing every year for the lifetime of the contract. Much like the Auto Industry force down their Suppliers throat even though cost such as shipping, material, utilities, and what not usually went up while they were force to keep their wages low to be compete for the few contracts. While they kept paying their exec big money, their line worker quite well because the Unions felt they needed bloated wages. While the people working at many of their low end suppliers could barely make living let alone afford to buy new vehicle.

Don't get me started on the just in time production penalties that were enforce when shipments were late not due to their supplier, but still they were the ones who paid for shutting down a line. Granted there was time in the Auto Industry where at some plants they had inventory for vehicles that they had made a generation before at times. It one of the many reason at one time, it wasn't a problem to find parts for vehicle that were 20+ years old. Their inventory of parts was that huge, where now you have trouble finding parts for anything vehicle that is over life-time of it Warranty. We had 1995 Chevy Lumina Mini Van but we couldn't find parts as simple as track for the door windows. Ugh.

Sorry for getting on the soap box. Stepping off it now.

[helbent4]

They've done that already as an experiment. I have a picture somewhere...

Paul,

Stick a TOW II on this and we're done:

http://www.humvee.net/pix/straxa.jpg

Tony

[Legbreaker]

Better give it a coat of nice shiny tin foil first as protection against the lasers the enemy are fielding...

[dragoon500ly]

We had 1995 Chevy Lumina Mini Van but we couldn't find parts as simple as track for the door windows. Ugh.

Compare this to the US Army...during an bi-annual audit at a certain military base located in the state of Oklahoma, and home to the redleg branch of the service, my team and I had the pleasure of opening up some old warehouses, emptying them and getting to verify the count of the contents....included in this was, I kid you not, a rather large shipping crate that had been butted up against the wall, behind several large stacks. The markings were badly faded, so we had to open it. Inside the crate was a US Army M-1894A4 75mm Field Gun on a original Pattern 1917 carriage. It had been shipped to Fort Sill in 1918, had been stored ever since in this warehouse, lost from inventory.

I have seen M-1 Garands, M-1 Carbines, M-1 Thompsons, M-1918A2 BARs,
M-1919A4 LMGs, still in their original 1942 crates, still stored in QM warehouses. Crates of Korean War-vintage uniforms, C-Rations with 1941 dates, cases of toilet paper made in 1948 and the list goes on and on and on.
In a series of warehouses in Virginia, they still store Civil War-era artillery pieces (for use by the Historical section and the National Park Service, but how many 12-pounder Napoleons need to be stored for national security?).

After one particular audit, our running joke was that the US Army was prepared to refight all of its wars at once!

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah reminds me of stories that I heard about the warehouse of stock they had over in Europe at one time. There were so many scattered locations that some of the smaller caches were from time to time lost track of. You this was before the day of modern GPS system...

[dragoon500ly]

Stationed at Erlangen, FRG with the 1st AD back in 1978...

I was standing Gate Guard one New Years Eve when a GI attempted to reenter the post. The Gate Guard had to stop this guy due to what he was carrying back onto base. A Stu.44 Assault Rifle, complete with a WWII German helmet and web gear.

It seems our young drunk had gotten lost and entered an old building, thinking that it was a short cut back to the ole kaserne. He somehow wound up in the basement and break through an old door. In the sub basement he found an old steel door leading into an old air raid shelter and had gotten lost.

In one of the old store rooms, he found several crates of material that had been forgotten, and this was the source of his fashion accessories.

The local Poliezi and the CID later pulled over twenty tons of material out of that old air raid bunker. Crate after crate of rifles, SMGs, pistols, assault rifles and machineguns; cases of ammo and grenades; crates of uniforms, boots, just about everything necessary to equip a couple of companies if infantry.

According to one Poliezi that I spook with, they found such a cache about every two years. The museums would get first claim, then the rest was destroyed. His reason, Erlangen had been headquarters for the Waffen SS in southern Germany and had built litterly hundreds of such caches as part of the Southern Redoubt that Hitler was building by 1945.

[Abbott Shaull]

Stationed at Erlangen, FRG with the 1st AD back in 1978...

I was standing Gate Guard one New Years Eve when a GI attempted to reenter the post. The Gate Guard had to stop this guy due to what he was carrying back onto base. A Stu.44 Assault Rifle, complete with a WWII German helmet and web gear.

It seems our young drunk had gotten lost and entered an old building, thinking that it was a short cut back to the ole kaserne. He somehow wound up in the basement and break through an old door. In the sub basement he found an old steel door leading into an old air raid shelter and had gotten lost.

In one of the old store rooms, he found several crates of material that had been forgotten, and this was the source of his fashion accessories.

The local Poliezi and the CID later pulled over twenty tons of material out of that old air raid bunker. Crate after crate of rifles, SMGs, pistols, assault rifles and machineguns; cases of ammo and grenades; crates of uniforms, boots, just about everything necessary to equip a couple of companies if infantry.

According to one Poliezi that I spook with, they found such a cache about every two years. The museums would get first claim, then the rest was destroyed. His reason, Erlangen had been headquarters for the Waffen SS in southern Germany and had built litterly hundreds of such caches as part of the Southern Redoubt that Hitler was building by 1945.

Sounds like Iraq with a weapon depot on every corner after we went in 2003.

[dragoon500ly]

Sounds like Iraq with a weapon depot on every corner after we went in 2003.

Nothing says loving your neighbor like staching enough weapons to blow his shit away....and that punk on the next street that plays his hip-hop way too loud at 0430....

[Abbott Shaull]

Nothing says loving your neighbor like staching enough weapons to blow his shit away....and that punk on the next street that plays his hip-hop way too loud at 0430....

What punk playing what at? We took care of his boom box, and he was collateral damage! Did get our point across.

[dragoon500ly]

What punk playing what at? We took care of his boom box, and he was collateral damage! Did get our point across.

Down here he was hit with everything from .22 Mag up to .50-caliber BMG...and we have a Civil War re-enactor just down the road, complete with 12-pounder Napoleon....try to run our roadblock!

:p

[Abbott Shaull]

Down here he was hit with everything from .22 Mag up to .50-caliber BMG...and we have a Civil War re-enactor just down the road, complete with 12-pounder Napoleon....try to run our roadblock!

:p

One of the great thing of the US road system, I don't have to go through the road block, I can find an alternate route and go around it. Only in few cases, such as the far northern part of Michigan on across over to Washington, and most of the other western states once you get beyond Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa. There alternative route may add a few hundred miles easily. Where everything in the east and along the Pacific West Coast most work alternative route are just annoyance waiting for the kids to ask how much longer it going to be or if we are there yet.

[dragoon500ly]

One of the great thing of the US road system, I don't have to go through the road block, I can find an alternate route and go around it. Only in few cases, such as the far northern part of Michigan on across over to Washington, and most of the other western states once you get beyond Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa. There alternative route may add a few hundred miles easily. Where everything in the east and along the Pacific West Coast most work alternative route are just annoyance waiting for the kids to ask how much longer it going to be or if we are there yet.

BEG!!!

But where I live, there are only two roads in...and if you set up on the ridge (all of 12m high!) you can keep both roads under fire. The rest of the area is creek and swamp...

[Abbott Shaull]

BEG!!!

But where I live, there are only two roads in...and if you set up on the ridge (all of 12m high!) you can keep both roads under fire. The rest of the area is creek and swamp...

Sounds interesting...lol Yeah I didn't say it was be easy to bypass all roadblocks, but in many locations it would take lot of resource to set up effective blocking force... There are way to many areas in the East and along the West Coast where you simply bypass them and attempt to starve them into submission...lol

[Panther Al]

Currently in Frederick MD on business, and was talking to a few folks down here. A couple of interesting things was brought up.

First, just to get it out of the way, the road trips to see the sights of the Allegheny Uprising was rather cool in and of itself.

But second, and the reason for bringing the thread back to life, was the discussion I had on the Stryker. I shall now pause for boos and hisses..


Right.
A point was made in the discussion that I though made enough sense that it should be brought up. The biggest thing a lot of us have against the Stryker is that we are comparing it (And I think the Army is guilty of this as well) to the Bradley, that it should and could be used as a wheeled version of. In this respect, all the hate is justified. But as a replacement for the 113, in the role of a slightly souped up battle taxi, perhaps the Stryker, working within that particular doctrine, that of taking the infantry to the battlefield, and kicking them out before they get into it deep, might not be as bad as we all tend to think?

[dragoon500ly]

If Stryker was being used to replace the M113, then I can agree with you. But them there folks with all dem shiny stars are using that there ole'Stryker to replace Bradleys.

And thats my problem.

To be sure, there is a place for a medium/light AFV, but has been proven time and time again, since the tank was introduced....there is a need for heavy armor.

One only hopes that the Army's leadership pulls its collective head out of its primary point of contact and figure that out.

[Panther Al]

Exactly, they think its a replacement for the Brad. Scary bit is, is that so far its working: Because the oppo's are lightly armed and poorly trained insurgents, we are getting away with it, but the moment we try the same stunts we are doing now against a force that is trained and properly equipped, its gonna be bad.

[Adm.Lee]

Exactly, they think its a replacement for the Brad. Scary bit is, is that so far its working: Because the oppo's are lightly armed and poorly trained insurgents, we are getting away with it, but the moment we try the same stunts we are doing now against a force that is trained and properly equipped, its gonna be bad.

Wouldn't you agree that a key reason the Strykers are being bought in such numbers is that our foes anymore appear to be those lightly-armed and definitely unmechanized forces? I seriously doubt that if we were still in the throes of the Cold War, this wouldn't be an issue-- we'd be keeping the full mechanized forces. But that's not what is needed right now.

OTOH, I may have missed something: are ALL the Bradleys going away, to be replaced by Strykers, or just MOST of them? Are the Bradleys being scrapped, sent down to the NG, or just being mothballed?

[Panther Al]

From last I heard, most Bradley units are converting to Stryker: Now what happens to the Brads I just don't know.

Now, as to the other point:

Thinking that ones better equipment, coupled with the belief that it won't be needed because there is little likelihood that the international community will allow a war to happen is false.

Just ask Czech's.

So while yes, odds are against us ever having to fight against China, or any other major power, is slight, we can't assume that it won't ever happen.

[Adm.Lee]

From last I heard, most Bradley units are converting to Stryker: Now what happens to the Brads I just don't know.

Now, as to the other point:

Thinking that ones better equipment, coupled with the belief that it won't be needed because there is little likelihood that the international community will allow a war to happen is false.

Just ask Czech's.

So while yes, odds are against us ever having to fight against China, or any other major power, is slight, we can't assume that it won't ever happen.

Entirely true, but the US has a huge advantage that the Czechoslovaks didn't. If a mechanized force wants to fight the US, there's a lot of space & time that has to be crossed first, and that means (assuming there still are Bradleys lying around) there should be time to re-arm the Stryker units or call up the National Guard. Exceptions for the troops still based in Korea and Germany, granted, but that's not everyone.

[dragoon500ly]

Had this topic come up in the ole lunch room and I thought it was of intrest.

The US is considering closing the few bases remaining in Germany. Reasons are that the Germans are tired of playing host to foreign militaries, don't agree with a lot of recent US actions. The US is tired of paying high fees to the Germans to "rent" facilities.

So..... :D

Does the US need to maintain a presence in Europe at all?

And if it does, would shifting bases to say, Poland or some other eastern european country be the best choice?

Myself, I've of two minds on this. If Poland is willing to play host country, then an Air Base or two and perhaps, a forward deployed Brigade.

Or, taking a page form a Tom Clancy novel, how about basing a Brigade/Air Base in Israel?

Thoughts?

[Panther Al]

Actually Poland has agreed to allow the Air Force to base F16's and cargo aircraft inside Poland- and from what I read not that far from Koenigsberg, which should make the Russians real happy.

[95th Rifleman]

The USAF bases in the UK are safe for the forseable future, which gives a good radius for European operations.

Not sure if an American military presence in Israel is politcaly advisable. It would be seen in the middle east as overt support for israel and will undermine any peace efforts on behalf of America with regards to the Palestinians.

Assuming you can get israel to agree in the first place, which would be very unlikely.

[dragoon500ly]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the agreement with Poland restrict activity to direct support of NATO? Its not like the agreements that we currently enjoy with the FRG which allows staging through as long as the host government is informed.

As for US bases in the middle east...to be sure, Israel would not like basing of US forces, unless there was an advantage to them allowing the basing. The last time that this came up, the Israel wanted a mutual defense pact that would require that US forces based in Israel to assist the IDF in the event of an Arab military action...and required those forces be under IDF command.

Just a bit of a sticking point.

But the US does need bases in an area of the world that is becoming increasingly important. Both the Middle East and the Indian Ocean are major areas of intrest. Diego Garcia is just to small and too far out in the Indian Ocean to sustain major forces. Its doubtful that Iraq would want any US presence. Afghanistan is very favorable right now, but the lack of harbors requires land transport (through Pakistan and with the current state of affairs...) or aerial resupply (NOT sustainable in the long run).

Would India allow a US presence, doubtful at best.

Perhaps Vietnam would allow the US to rebuild its former facilities at Cam Rhan Bay? Especially with the current distrust that they have with China...and how would that rate on the irony scale?

[95th Rifleman]

Perhaps Vietnam would allow the US to rebuild its former facilities at Cam Rhan Bay? Especially with the current distrust that they have with China...and how would that rate on the irony scale?

Don't you just love geo-politics?

[Panther Al]

And you know the weird bit of it is, I'd rate the odds of Vietnam making a deal to allow US basing if asked as fair to middling: Odd as it might seem, the results of the "Police Action" *Cough* war *cough* being what it was actually helps here.

[Targan]

But the US does need bases in an area of the world that is becoming increasingly important. Both the Middle East and the Indian Ocean are major areas of intrest. Diego Garcia is just to small and too far out in the Indian Ocean to sustain major forces. Its doubtful that Iraq would want any US presence. Afghanistan is very favorable right now, but the lack of harbors requires land transport (through Pakistan and with the current state of affairs...) or aerial resupply (NOT sustainable in the long run).

A few weeks ago the Australian government announced a force structure review and that immediately sparked a couple of days of the media speculating on whether US military bases would ever be established in Australia. Once upon a time most Australians were vehemently opposed to such a thing but I think a much bigger proportion of the Australian public today supports the idea.

[dragoon500ly]

The growth of the PRC's military capability has a lot of nations in the region "concerned"

I've heard about the possibilty of building a US base in Australia, I've also heard that the Philippines is considering basing rights again.

I broached the idea of a base in Vietnam with some of the officers at lunch, and most of them rated the idea as "very possible", at least as far as air and navy go.