Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/31/2005 4:47:55 PM EDT
Do we still need all those armor divisions. It seems silly to keep all those heavy divisions. Do we still need so many armor divisions. What would happen if we changed some of those divisions into a air assault or medium weight divisions. It seems that infantry are more usefull in MOUT situations and on what is expected to be the future battlefield. I am not talking about getting rid of all the armor divisions just changing some into faster lighter lighting action divisions.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 4:53:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2005 5:02:44 PM EDT by Max_Mike]
No thanks.

What happens if have a situation where you need those heavy assets… shit them. In case you have not noticed M1 tanks has been in big demand in Iraq.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 4:55:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 4:57:25 PM EDT
They are changing them. The unit formally known as 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment has been redesignated the 2nd Cavalry Regiment and turned in their Bradleys for Strykers(when we all of them, 1st sdrn. has theirs 2nd gets theirs in Oct) and will be designated as a Stryker Brigade Combat Team(SBCT). 1AD is really a mix of 19Ks, 13Fs, and 11series, they just have heavier armor components when compared to regular "leg" units.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 5:07:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bloodmoon:
Do we still need all those armor divisions. It seems silly to keep all those heavy divisions. Do we still need so many armor divisions. What would happen if we changed some of those divisions into a air assault or medium weight divisions. It seems that infantry are more usefull in MOUT situations and on what is expected to be the future battlefield. I am not talking about getting rid of all the armor divisions just changing some into faster lighter lighting action divisions.



Yes, we need them.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 5:29:59 PM EDT
Gen. Patton is that you?
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 5:31:47 PM EDT



we only have one armored division



Link Posted: 8/31/2005 5:35:25 PM EDT
The tank is one of the most effective, if not the most effective weapon of Gulf Wars I and II. Why would we give it up now after such success? It would be like scraping aircraft carriers after WWII. If anything, we need more heavy sealift capacity to get more tanks onto the battlefield.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 5:36:56 PM EDT
The 4ID (M) isn't all infantry. It has alot of armor and other assets. The units are just keeping names
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 5:37:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2005 5:39:07 PM EDT by happycynic]

Originally Posted By TIMMAH:


we only have one armored division






We have 6 active duty heavy divisions IIRC. Only minor differences between an Armored and a Mech Infantry Divisions so we essentially have 6 Armored Divisions in layman's terms.

Armored Division - 6 tank battalions and 4 mechanized infantry battalions

Mechanized Division - 5 tank battalions and 5 mechanized infantry battalions.

Disclaimer: I get this stuff from books because I am interested in military history. Anyone with actual experience feel free to correct this.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 5:45:06 PM EDT
We only have one cavalry division too, but it is really just an armored division.

I think we need to keep all the heavy units we have. Even in the urban fights, armor has been very useful. But I wouldn't mind at all seeing the 1st Cav reflagged as the 2nd Armored Division, then reactivate the 1st Cav as an air assault division, like it was in Vietnam. That would give us an extra division (doable) and would make us more versatile.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 9:32:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
We only have one cavalry division too, but it is really just an armored division.

I think we need to keep all the heavy units we have. Even in the urban fights, armor has been very useful. But I wouldn't mind at all seeing the 1st Cav reflagged as the 2nd Armored Division, then reactivate the 1st Cav as an air assault division, like it was in Vietnam. That would give us an extra division (doable) and would make us more versatile.


Not entirely true :P We do have 3 other independant "cavalry" regiments that could be rolled into a division sized element.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 9:50:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Preparing for the multiple types of combat is a major task. Tanks are useful in more than just tank-to-tank shooting.



You got that right, I can bet that the grunts love having M1A2's come up and obliterate well fortified Tango's as it sure beats the hell out of having to do it the old fashioned way.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 9:52:10 PM EDT
What we might need is more flexable corps of 1 Armored Division, 1 Mech Inf, and 1 Air Cav (3 or 4 Corps might be all) and a few indepent Armored Cav and Light Inf Regt's.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 10:03:16 PM EDT
Independant Brigades are the future.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 10:05:57 PM EDT
North Korea and China still have lots of tanks.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 10:21:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
Independant Brigades are the future.



+1
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 10:25:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
Independant Brigades are the future.



+1



Maybe. Gulf War II has shown some limitations with Rumsfelds transformation to smaller units. Despite the advances of firepower, there is something to be said for more boots on the ground.

Or as Stalin (may he rot in hell) said, quantity has a quality all its own.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 2:38:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/1/2005 2:39:12 AM EDT by Ross]
What the Army needs is what the Army is going to get with the Brigade Combat Teams.

The BCT's aren't smaller, but actually larger with "more boots on the ground" in terms of actual shooters. No units have gotten "smaller" because of Rumsfeld. Each division actually gained approximately 3,000 combat soldiers.

I was pretty hesitant at first since no one really had a good explanation of how they were doing the transformation. After getting the info, I've been convinced that this is definately the way to go for the Army. There's alot to this. It's not just a reshuffle or relabelling. I was fearing that it was just that, and it's not.

The combat power of the Army will probably be increased by some 30% overall, due to transformation. That's nothing to sneeze about, and it's not all high-tech firepower driven. Much of it is because of some very wise decisions on adding both trigger pullers and support-types to make sure they can actually do what they need to.

The current "Transformation" is the direction the Army needs to go.

Link Posted: 9/1/2005 3:58:02 AM EDT
Perhaps there are people who are a whole lot more educated in Global projection of power and future military conflicts who know more about what we need then you?
Top Top