Quote:
Originally Posted by chico20854
I agree, I think that LACR is one that is much more likely to be effective in a medium-intensity conflict. Against a Soviet tank army they're still out of luck, but in a light corps that was always a foregone conclusion. It seems from the US Army Vehicle Guide that the Army had decided to forgo some strategic mobility in exchange for additional tactical mobility and firepower in the light infantry divisions with the conversion of three battalions to various light mechanized and AGS battalions. Not a bad tradeoff in my opinion!
|
Yep. There's a scene in Sword Point where a BMP battalion rolls over a light infantry battalion so quickly the POV character doesn’t even realize they’d done so. A platoon of 105mm armed AGS could have evened the odds a bit. Rediscovering the value of mobile, protected firepower in support of infantry seems to be almost generational in the US.
The AGS/113/109 equipped regiment was probably as much a casualty of the “peace dividend” as of any real bias for strategic mobility. Witness the deployment by air of a composite heavy battalion into an airhead during OIF I or the deployment by air of an USMC armored unit to Afghanistan. You can do it if you’re willing to dedicate the sorties. Especially once the C-17 comes on line.
Being a little less armored is not as lethal in most parts of the CENTCOM AOR as it is in Europe or Korea with closer engagement ranges and heavy threats. In Iran and on the Arabian peninsula there are more areas supporting long range fires than in Europe, while a medium weight system is sufficient for the Armor threat in most of Sub-Saharan Africa.