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
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/6/2003 9:33:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/6/2003 10:16:13 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
[url]http://www.combatreform.com/lpjaprilmay.htm[/url] Nasty language here.
Clearly the RMA firepower Tofflerians are not happy about Operation Iraqi Freedom which demonstrated clearly the need for decisive GROUND MANEUVER. The Army Tofflerians didn't get to stage a PR event with their computerized armored cars while the tracked armored fighting vehicles did the heavy combat, and the Air Force Warden worshippers didn't get regime change from a precision guided munition. When all was said and done it was the 3rd Infantry Division with their "fuzzy tv set" patches sewn to the sides of their desert camouflage helmet covers that stood on the ground of Baghdad; not the the vaunted and self-promoting egotistical marines who had their noses bloodied all along the way by ambushes and RPGs when they portayed themselves as a "combined-arms force" needed for open-terrain desert and fortified urban warfare when in reality they are a soft-skin vehicle "motorized mob" with a few tanks and oversized ship-to-shore amtracks (AAV-7s). This is why the lessons learned from the recent triumph in Iraq will be long in coming as the RMA and marine corps egotists conjure up clever ways to distort shreds of reality to promote their agendas. The sad thing is its likely these folks will use the deaths of American heroes to justify their flawed force structures and cash cows when their losses should spur us to greater self and institutional examination to face the TRUTH not what we want reality to be.
View Quote
It gets nastier:
In this issue we will pull no punches as the survival of America's Army is in question and Secretary of Defense Rumsfled poised to make sweeping leadership changes. While America's mechanized Army has on TRACKED armored vehicles marched at incredible speed to take down Baghdad and eliminate Saddam Hussein from power thru decisive MANEUVER, the right axis of advance by the mainly motorized marines in thin-skinned wheeled trucks and LAV armored cars has had its butt kicked resulting in heavier casualties. Had a more potent enemy been fighting us, the entire advance could have been checked with the vulnerable marines pummeled to expose the right flank of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized). Rick Leventhal who was "embedded" with the marine LAV armored cars reports they were stuck in the mud and unable to enter Baghdad to keep pace with the Army's mighty tracked M1 Abrams, M2 Bradleys and M113 Gavins.
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 9:46:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/6/2003 9:48:01 PM EDT by sherm8404]
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 9:51:20 PM EDT
You know what I haven't heard from official Pentagon sources? "Damn those A-10's were effective. Why did we ever want to get rid of them? We should order some more to ensure a large supply of dedicated CAS aircraft."
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 9:53:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/6/2003 9:55:02 PM EDT by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 10:00:42 PM EDT
I can't beleive that "mighty" and "M113 Gavin" were used in the same sentence. Someone will be along soon to say the Marines did more with less, took the more populated route (leaving out, that it was a far shorter route, and they only faced 1 regiment of Republican Guard, and militia), and that even though the Army went 3 times as far no one was in their way (until the 6 Republican Guard Divisions in Baghdad, but we'll skip that little detail) The problem with the Army isn't their effectiveness once they are on the ground. It's the getting them there, and supporting them. With some consideration on finding bridges and terrain that can support the behemoths that they use as MBT's.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 10:15:48 PM EDT
[url]http://www.geocities.com/transformationunderfire/sld001.htm[/url]
The problem with the Army isn't their effectiveness once they are on the ground. It's the getting them there, and supporting them. With some consideration on finding bridges and terrain that can support the behemoths that they use as MBT's.
View Quote
Results are what counts. I cannot see how we can get results like we got from the 3rd ID without 70 ton tanks. There is no denying that the Marines took the shorter route against less powerful opposition and sustained heavier casualties. Going heavy wins, so we need to figure out how to get the heavies there faster. The easiest solution is-buy more transport aircraft.
Link Posted: 5/6/2003 10:28:35 PM EDT
Well that is a doctronal question. The basic weapon in the Army is the tank. Everything else is there to support it. Unfortunately the Army seems to have 2 types of forces. Light infantry, 82nd, 101st, 10th, 173rd, and Rangers. They are easily deployable, and easily supported. But they lack offensive punch. They have mobility issues, very few vehicles. Then they have Heavy forces 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th ID's of the top of my head. 600 Abrams/Bradleys in a division, plus all types of tracked support vehicles, M88, M113, MLRS, M109, M548, and on and on. All those vehicle reuire lots of gas and parts, which in turn are carried by 5 ton trucks, and HMETT's. Everyone else has a HMMV. These force require tons of fuel. Getting them to a battle is also a logisticians nightmare. Now the Army wants to go to the Stryker. Which is a LAV that has been blinged. I think the Army needs to look at up armoring the "light" divsions. M8 light tank, M113's etc. would be more effective than the Stryker, and probably easier to support. They may also have to consider making the "heavy" divisions a little lighter or possibly more flexible, having a Division or Corps Commander be able to devide what type of vehicles, and how many are deployed with a division or corps.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 2:50:01 AM EDT
I will sound off on this matter. First off, Reichsfurher Rumsfeld is forcing his vision of the military upon the services. He is a believer in the order of the Jedi Knights, that air power is the end all combat system. The recent "retirement" of the sec. of the army and his new replacement with the sec. of the air force, the CJCS is an airman, and "shock and awe". I guess Rummy has no idea what a COMBINED ARMS TEAM is...bastard. The Stryker brigade is a good idea that is being badly implemented. As mentioned before the army is either heavy or light and there needs to be something in the middle. The intent of the Stryker was to be deployable ready to fight out of a C-130 and it's not, but they continue to proceed with the program. Next I dont think anyone is going to argue that the USMC amtracs are not on par with the BFV. But the new amtracs will be once they enter production. The jerkoff who wrote this article is a heavy metal supporter and has his brain clouded by his affinity to that doctrine. In order for the US military to succeed they must be versitile, utilize combined arms doctrine, and modernize.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 3:38:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Stryker_11A: Reichsfurher Rumsfeld is forcing his vision of the military upon the services.
View Quote
He is the [b]Secretary of Defense[/b]. He is supposed to be forcing his vision on the military services. I would be disapppointed if we had a secretary of defense that was NOT forcing their ideas. ..and it might be interesting for the debate here if I were to mention that it was Rumsfeld who made real troop deployments to Afghanistan happen. It is Rumsfeld who helped the president understand that we can't just drop bombs and return to safety in this kind of war. It was Rumsfeld and Cheney who are students of Boyd who help shaped this neo-blitz that the media can't understand. I wouldn't be so quick to criticize, unless perhaps you are just used to Secretaries of Defense that don't do [b]their job[/b].
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 3:46:19 AM EDT
I think this needs to said and this is a fine place to say it. Remember the [b]COAST GUARD[/b] was there too !!!!!!
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 3:54:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By raven: "Damn those A-10's were effective. Why did we ever want to get rid of them? We should order some more....."
View Quote
The A-10 doesn't have a large enough "COOL" factor to the brass, to the contractors, or to the politicians. Sure, it get's the job done! But that doesn't cut it in defense contracting. We need something "NEW" and "HIGH TECH"...... Something that requires years of "development" and BILLIONS of $$$$. Can't have something as "old" and "ugly" as the A-10 back in production. Yuck...paaatooie! Nope!....We need something "Cool" like the DEATH RAY SKYFLASH 2004 ......... that will be the FIREBOLT OF GOD to the enemy...... Something proven, reliable, and successful, like the A-10 just don't cut it. Can you tell I haven't had my coffee yet this morning?
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 4:32:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Lightfighter:
Originally Posted By Stryker_11A: Reichsfurher Rumsfeld is forcing his vision of the military upon the services.
View Quote
He is the [b]Secretary of Defense[/b]. He is supposed to be forcing his vision on the military services. I would be disapppointed if we had a secretary of defense that was NOT forcing their ideas. ..and it might be interesting for the debate here if I were to mention that it was Rumsfeld who made real troop deployments to Afghanistan happen. It is Rumsfeld who helped the president understand that we can't just drop bombs and return to safety in this kind of war. It was Rumsfeld and Cheney who are students of Boyd who help shaped this neo-blitz that the media can't understand. I wouldn't be so quick to criticize, unless perhaps you are just used to Secretaries of Defense that don't do [b]their job[/b].
View Quote
Yes, he is the Sec Def, no arguement there. But I disagree with the fact that he is pushing the LeMay agaenda too far, to the detriment of the forces on the ground. From what I have read in the press Rummy denied CENTCOM the operational forces it requested in Afghanistan, resulting in a less than stellar results at Tora Bora. I would say the same for the invasion of Iraq because there was no theater reserve, all ground combat units were engaged in operations. Since when do we deviate from BASIC land combat doctrine? Since we got a jedi knight in the Pentagon. His stacking of the deck with other LeMay worshippers will definately increase the capabilities of aviation, but I fear the land portion of the air-land battle doctrine will suffer. That is my concern and critisim, which I think is well founded. I believe balance in our forces and doctrine will continue to lead us to victory, something that Rummy does not do. This is supported by press report that Rummy wanted a smaller force to invade Iraq relying on speed, surprise, air power, psychological operations, and help from Iraqi opposition groups. I am thankful that he did concede to CENTCOM's request for a larger ground force. They did deviate slightly from OPLAN 1003 by a single division though. I just question Rummy's intent, especially with the recent personnel changes and placing other jedi knights in key positions. I would also be at odds with him if he were placing nothing but the heavy metal crowd into those positions.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 4:40:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Stryker_11A: First off, Reichsfurher Rumsfeld
View Quote
First off, you lost any credibility you might have had and lost me reading anything else you had to say when you uttered the above idiocy.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 4:42:14 AM EDT
I am not sure if the account put forward in this journal is actually a sign of nasty infighting in the military. This screams more of armchair QBing by outsiders than actual interservice fighting.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 4:47:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 4:51:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Stryker_11A: I will sound like an idiot on this matter. SNIP.....
View Quote
Yes you will.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 5:10:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By Stryker_11A: First off, Reichsfurher Rumsfeld
View Quote
First off, you lost any credibility you might have had and lost me reading anything else you had to say when you uttered the above idiocy.
View Quote
I like Bush, dislike Rummy. I just disagree with the way he is running DOD. My own opinion.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 5:11:22 AM EDT
I'm going to wait and see. If the Marines needed different equipment for that mission then they should have had it or be used in another capacity.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 5:12:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
Originally Posted By Stryker_11A: I will sound like an idiot on this matter. SNIP.....
View Quote
Yes you will.
View Quote
Gee, I never remember typing that, how did that get in there? You may disagree with my opinion about Rumsfeld but there is no need for crap like that.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 5:14:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RAMBOSKY: I'm going to wait and see. If the Marines needed different equipment for that mission then they should have had it or be used in another capacity.
View Quote
USMC is developing a new amtrac with more firepower, speed and protection. [url]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/aaav.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 5:14:34 AM EDT
Just don't call my boss!
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 5:16:44 AM EDT
LOL! By the way, what is up with that? Are people trying to get other people fired for what is posted here? Gimme a break. Can't people discuss things like rational human beings and come to an understanding? By the way, you don't have photoshop do you?
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 5:19:03 AM EDT
I don't photoshop and I'm just trying to raise a little hell at 8am. Nothing personal you moron. [:)]
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 5:20:12 AM EDT
No problem, trying to stir the pot a little myself needledick.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 5:26:00 AM EDT
Some ignorant, bitter ranting. Not worth the attention.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 5:44:00 AM EDT
Actual title of this thread should be changed from.... [b]"Victory unleashes nasty infighting in Army"[/b] to: [b][size=3]"Victory unleashes nasty infighting amongst dorky, Internet, keyboard commanders"[/b][/size=3]
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 5:47:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: This combatreform.org looks like it's by the same guy over on geocities who set up a pro-paratrooper anti-Marine Corps site because [b]he couldn't cut it in the Marine Corps and was passed over.[/b] Stark or something like that is his name. Anything to down the Marine Corps is his MO.
View Quote
Absolutely. If he doesn't like current DoD policy, then it is his right (and duty?) to make every effort to change it through legit means. Attacking The Corps is not only ridiculously stupid...but divisive. All the troops in every organization did the best with what they had. The guy clearly has a painful scar over something related to The Corps. As a retired naval officer, I take personal exception to his bad-mouthing my Marine brothers in arms. For that... [stick] . What a weenie...
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 5:49:16 AM EDT
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the classic long-range thrust performed by the 3rd ID does not sound like a typical mission for the Marines. Why wasn't the 3rd ID's right flank occupied by another large army unit? This smacks of inter-service rivalry to me. Everybody wants a piece of the action and a share in the glory. Kind of like the rescue of Pfc. Lynch. I'm surprised the Coast Guard didn't participate in that one. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 6:12:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: I can't beleive that "mighty" and "M113 Gavin" were used in the same sentence. Someone will be along soon to say the Marines did more with less, took the more populated route (leaving out, that it was a far shorter route, and they only faced 1 regiment of Republican Guard, and militia), and that even though the Army went 3 times as far no one was in their way (until the 6 Republican Guard Divisions in Baghdad, but we'll skip that little detail) The problem with the Army isn't their effectiveness once they are on the ground. It's the getting them there, and supporting them. With some consideration on finding bridges and terrain that can support the behemoths that they use as MBT's.
View Quote
Well the Army did have a longer route than the Marines, but 3X the distance -- I don't think so. The Army MAY have faced a greater number of RG forces than the Marines, but by the time the USAF had done there work there was much less left for the Army to deal with. And, the Marines DID face greater problems due to the fact that they had more contact with the enemy ALL THE WAY TO BAGHDAD! Later,
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 4:50:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LWilde:
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: This combatreform.org looks like it's by the same guy over on geocities who set up a pro-paratrooper anti-Marine Corps site because [b]he couldn't cut it in the Marine Corps and was passed over.[/b] Stark or something like that is his name. Anything to down the Marine Corps is his MO.
View Quote
Absolutely. If he doesn't like current DoD policy, then it is his right (and duty?) to make every effort to change it through legit means. Attacking The Corps is not only ridiculously stupid...but divisive. All the troops in every organization did the best with what they had. The guy clearly has a painful scar over something related to The Corps. As a retired naval officer, I take personal exception to his bad-mouthing my Marine brothers in arms. For that... [stick] . What a weenie...
View Quote
Yeah, I have noticed his irrational anti-Marine, anti-Navy. HOWEVER when they stick to talking about just how to improve the US Army, they usually have very sound ideas. They are quite creative. One area that their hatrid of Marines blinds them is when they talk about modernizing Army aviation to improve its deployability. Right now it takes the 101st AAD about as long as a heavy division to deploy anywhere as its sheer volume of equipment is too much for the current size of the Air Mobility Command-even though all their equipment is individually light enough to fly and most would fit in a C-130. In this case they are blind to the obvious solution-replace some or all of the 82nd and 101st's Blackhawks with V-22 Ospreys that are self-deployable to anywhere in the world in two days. While the Osprey is not as good a battlefield helicopter as the Blackhawk in a high AA threat enviroment (it cant hovertaxi around below tree top height like a true heilo can) for the majority of the RDF's missions, which involve third world enemies without sophisticated AAD, the Osprey would be quite safe. And the improvement in unit transportablilty would be enormous.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 7:50:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Stryker_11A: I like Bush, dislike Rummy. I just disagree with the way he is running DOD. My own opinion.
View Quote
And a respectable one, as stated above. However, disagreeing with how he runs the DOD is a far cry from comparing him to a Nazi official.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:16:49 PM EDT
Some of the issues he raises are legitimate, if expressed in a dumb way. This is all highly premature since the histories haven't been written yet. But my impression is that the Marines were a step slower than 3 ID, and the major reason 3 ID could move faster was their better protected armored vehicles. The press accounts of the time often mentioned 3 ID simply driving through major ambushes, shooting things up as they went. They could get away with that because their Bradleys were better protected than the AAVs. I don't think the Marines could have handled the raids in Baghdad by 3 ID, which involved driving down major arteries and taking a ton of RPG fire, and culminating in the move to take the presidential palace on the Tigris in downtown Baghdad. 3 ID's speed and protection were a major cause of the Iraqi defense coming unhinged.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:59:19 PM EDT
Another A10 fan checkin' in. This being a gun site and all, I'm taking a moment of silence to appreciate that nasty cannon of the front of those bad mofo's. [homer]mmmmm.....depleted uranium[/homer]
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:08:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mcgredo: Some of the issues he raises are legitimate, if expressed in a dumb way. This is all highly premature since the histories haven't been written yet. But my impression is that the Marines were a step slower than 3 ID, and the major reason 3 ID could move faster was their better protected armored vehicles. The press accounts of the time often mentioned 3 ID simply driving through major ambushes, shooting things up as they went. They could get away with that because their Bradleys were better protected than the AAVs. I don't think the Marines could have handled the raids in Baghdad by 3 ID, which involved driving down major arteries and taking a ton of RPG fire, and culminating in the move to take the presidential palace on the Tigris in downtown Baghdad. 3 ID's speed and protection were a major cause of the Iraqi defense coming unhinged.
View Quote
You got the whole point right there. Continuing on with the Stryker armored car program would reduce the Army down to the level of the Marines. And the Marines, are not going to have this problem for much longer. The AAV-7A1 already has a scheduled replacment the as yet unnumbered Advanced AAV which is better armed and armored than even the Bradley. And is only 2 years away from service.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 10:22:00 PM EDT
The AAAV will revolutionize the Marine Corps Combined Arms doctrine on the ground i really believe it will.I will say that more than likely the AAV-7 slowed the Marine advance more than anything.The Marines in the interem want to update the AAV-7 till the AAAV comes out i say why bother save your money and buy AAAV's. Im not going to take anything away from the 3rd Infantry's advance because it was the greatest military advance in the history of warfare.However this was also the deepest land penetration in US Marine Corps history.So both deserve alot of credit. However i do believe if the Marines want to fight in Regiment/Brigade size formations and do what they did in Iraq to a more formidable foe they are going to have to go heavier there is no if's and's or but's about it. The LAV series vehicles is a jack of all trades its a Infantry fighting vehicle,Morter carrier,Air defense,Tow-2b antitank system,command post and anything else i missed what it is not is a M3 or M113. The LAV is not tracked,It does not have the armor anywhere near as good as the M3 or the M113 and while its fast it cannot compare to the manueverability that Tracks can give you on bad terrain.The AA-7 is tracked but is much more worthless than a LAV is. The Answer is that the Marines are going to have to figure out how to use the AAAV like the Army uses M3's or M113's.Make a IFV/Troop carrier version,Maybe a version either with the 120mm breach loading mortor or maybe a LW155?Who know's,a Air defense version couldnt hurt?I think that this vehicle could be a very good platform to build a Heavy Regiment/Brigade around along with maybe updating our M1A1 to A2's. We could build one Heavy Regiment per Division to be the Assault Element in a division sized block on the battlefield,That way the other Regiments could still focus on MEU operations and they should be updated too but within the MEU (SOC) structure. Thats what i would do.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 10:43:51 PM EDT
More nastyness to be found here:[url]http://philcarter.blogspot.com/[/url] under the May 6 headline
Rumsfeld v. The Army A number of stories in the last several days -- including those on Secretary White's resignation and General Shinseki's sacking -- have created the perception that the U.S. Army occupies Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's doghouse on the Potomac. The Pentagon has added fuel to this fire by releasing a slew of general officer transfer orders (like this one) for the Army, including this message today announcing that MG Ricardo S. Sanchez would take command of V Corps from LTG William Wallace. Already, the press is painting this as a decision to remove LTG Wallace for comments he made during the war that the Iraqis were fighting differently than the Army's planners had wargamed.
View Quote
There is more on the site along with several links. Too much to copy all here.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 12:41:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By Stryker_11A: I like Bush, dislike Rummy. I just disagree with the way he is running DOD. My own opinion.
View Quote
And a respectable one, as stated above. However, disagreeing with how he runs the DOD is a far cry from comparing him to a Nazi official.
View Quote
You are correct, but I refered to him as such because of his heavy handed and single minded running of DOD. Over the top perhaps but I still dont like the SOB or his methods.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 4:23:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 4:32:33 AM EDT
Don't forget.... The LAV can ford rivers. They float and have propellers. As far as the Marines being a little slower on the advance to Baghdad... ...they were given a MUCH more populated route. Constant contact with the enemy, and the irregular forces. The 3ID moved fast, but if they had been given the Corps' route, they too would have been slowed down. Just like during the first War. The Army swings up on the left, the Corps goes head first right up the middle.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 4:59:07 AM EDT
It shows the beauty of the plan. Give the Marines the route that they were best suited for, and give the Army the route that they were best suited for. As for the Stryker in the Army, think of it as the light units actually getting some armor at least. It's not like these things are getting assigned to the heavy divisions. They're going off in their own world, and basically will end up supporting light units that have NOTHING to support them right now. Regardless of the choice of vehicle, this is actually a good thing! Two things very lacking in the LIDs is logistics and armor. These light-armor brigades will also be a learning thing for the Army. Don't bet on the current light-armor force to stick around without changes for very long. What we're seeing is a good idea that's having difficulty being born out of ignorance of what's needed and politics as usual. Ross
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:03:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2003 7:14:17 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Don't forget.... The LAV can ford rivers. They float and have propellers. As far as the Marines being a little slower on the advance to Baghdad... ...they were given a MUCH more populated route. Constant contact with the enemy, and the irregular forces. The 3ID moved fast, but if they had been given the Corps' route, they too would have been slowed down. Just like during the first War. The Army swings up on the left, the Corps goes head first right up the middle.
View Quote
The 3-ID has more M-1's than the USMC. They had appx 300 Bradleys. Again that is a lot compared to a USMC unit would have. Bradleys are more capable IFV's than what the USMC has. That heavier, more capable force structure allowed 3-ID to "overrun" opposition. or bypass them. They also fought what was called a major tank battle on the way to Baghdad. You should check WW-I, and for that matter WW-II history with the 3-ID. They have very interesting stuff, look for the Fort Stewart website. Tidbit in WW-II they were in constant combat for 547 days. The Fought in North Africa, Sicily, Anzio, France and Germany. Outside Anzio they were attacked by 4 German divisions. 1 brigade, of the 3-ID, was pushed back a whopping 400 yards. Pop Quiz #1 What branch of the US Armed Forces had a company level fire fight between to of it's units during Operation Iraqi Freedom? Pop Quiz #2 Which unit in WW-II participated in the most amphibious assaults? EDIT---------------------------------------- The M113 or MTLV (M113 stretched) are probably better vehicles, for a whole bunch of reasons than the Stryker. Also the M8 light tank was developed, tested, type classified, then canceled. It's a 25 ton 105mm equiped tank. It could probalby be dusted off and given to the "light" divisions and do very nicely.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:15:04 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:16:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: The basic weapon in the Army is the tank. Everything else is there to support it.
View Quote
Actually the basic weapon of the Army is the M16/M4. Everything else is there to support the infantry, including armor. You can prosecute and win a battle and a war with just infantry, but you can't with armor. The Queen of Battle is what it is. Now a quote from my favorite insane German, Nietzche: "In times of peace the warlike man attacks himself."
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:18:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2003 7:18:58 AM EDT by Cincinnatus]
OLY, I think you are mistakenly reading my post as anti-3ID. It is not. That you find it necessary to denigrate the Corps is unfortunate. The Marines and the Army had two different routes. The Corps' was FAR more populated, and had many bridges to secure. Much more urban situations. If it is your intention to insult the Marines because of a friendly fire incident don't. But remember, the first US Forces to reach Baghdad were indeed Army- unfortunately they were POWs at the time. The premise of this thread is that those individuals on that site are obnoxious asses. Do you wish to emulate them?
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:20:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: OLY, I think you are mistakenly reading my post as anti-3ID. It is not. That you find it necessary to denigrate the Corps is unfortunate. The Marines and the Army had two different routes. The Corps' was FAR more populated, and had many bridges to secure. Much more urban situations. If it is your intention to insult the Marines because of a friendly fire incident don't. But remember, the first US Forces to reach Baghdad were indeed Army- unfortunately they were POWs at the time. The premise of this thread is that those individuals on that site are obnoxious asses. Do you wish to emulate them?
View Quote
No you're already doing too good of a job. I'll let you go. Since in every post you seem to run down the Army.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:22:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: OLY: What are you trying to do, rehash the stupid and fratricidal "Army vs. USMC" thread again? Your loyalty to the 3ID is well known. When I posted a thread giving the story and citation of a Medal of Honor awardee from each of the four DOD services a while back, you felt it necessary to add eight or ten just from the 3ID. Point taken. Really. [beathorse]
View Quote
Yeah, Yeah, I also didn't run down the other services when I did that. There are still about 70 more that I could post [:)]
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:27:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Pop Quiz #1 What branch of the US Armed Forces had a company level fire fight between to of it's units during Operation Iraqi Freedom?
View Quote
I had heard rumors of something like this. Do you have any links you could post?
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:27:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By soylent_green:
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: The basic weapon in the Army is the tank. Everything else is there to support it.
View Quote
Actually the basic weapon of the Army is the M16/M4. Everything else is there to support the infantry, including armor. You can prosecute and win a battle and a war with just infantry, but you can't with armor. The Queen of Battle is what it is. Now a quote from my favorite insane German, Nietzche: "In times of peace the warlike man attacks himself."
View Quote
I just don't think so. In M-1 equipped divisions the test for every other vehicle is whether or not it can keep up with the M-1. Thats' why the M-113's have been upgraded twice since the M-1 came out. The MBT is what the Army seems to build around. I got to play on a couple of Re-Forger's, The M-1's were leading on offense, and the anchor on defense. In the "light" units Infantry is the basic weapon, that everything else supports.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:36:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:45:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: OLY, I think you are mistakenly reading my post as anti-3ID. It is not. That you find it necessary to denigrate the Corps is unfortunate. The Marines and the Army had two different routes. The Corps' was FAR more populated, and had many bridges to secure. Much more urban situations. If it is your intention to insult the Marines because of a friendly fire incident don't. But remember, the first US Forces to reach Baghdad were indeed Army- unfortunately they were POWs at the time. The premise of this thread is that those individuals on that site are obnoxious asses. Do you wish to emulate them?
View Quote
No you're already doing too good of a job. I'll let you go. Since in every post you seem to run down the Army.
View Quote
Tell me, what in this post "runs down the army"?:
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Don't forget.... The LAV can ford rivers. They float and have propellers. As far as the Marines being a little slower on the advance to Baghdad... ...they were given a MUCH more populated route. Constant contact with the enemy, and the irregular forces. The 3ID moved fast, but if they had been given the Corps' route, they too would have been slowed down. Just like during the first War. The Army swings up on the left, the Corps goes head first right up the middle.
View Quote
No where did i say anything negative about your beloved 3ID, but you come back at me with derogatory crap about the Corps. You apparently are bit paranoid.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:51:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
View Quote
Bradleys are more capable IFV's than what the USMC has.
View Quote
The Corps' vehicles can ford rivers. Can Bradleys? The Amtracs can drop off the well deck of an Amphib Ship, and land on a coast that is over the horizon. How about Bradleys? The AAAV will hold 18 Marines and go 29 MPH on the water. How about the Bradley?
View Quote
Ford? Sure, Swim........ah maybe, I beleive it is a design spec, but don't think it has "really" been tried. Bradleys also don't like air tranpsort. It's there biggest downfall. Once the get someplace they are good to go, but it's the getting there that is the PITA. Bradleys will carry a fire team, at 50 mph, and have TOW or ADA missiles in addition to the 25mm Bushmaster. Do AAAV's or LAV's have AT or AA capablilty besides the gun? The Army needs 2 Bradleys to lug the Infantry the 1 AAAV will. Based on what I know, a little, the Army uses 4 Bradleys when the USMC uses 1 AAAV. That's a signifigant difference in firepower.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top