|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 21, 2021 16:03:23 GMT
Thank you both for your very comprehensive replies.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 21, 2021 22:06:30 GMT
Ian: I must have missed your earlier post on downsizing the number of tanks in the British Army inventory. As you probably know the USMC has gotten rid of all their tanks and have disbanded all of their tank battalions. The tanks themselves are being sold off, and I think the Australians have purchased most of them. Canada has greatly reduced their tank numbers too. While I have not kept up with other Allied nations, the reduction in the numbers of tanks looks like it is starting to be a trend.
You probably also know that we replaced a number of our heavy brigades starting about 2005, with Stryker Brigades, and we now have eight of them in the regular force with two more in the ARNG, for a total of ten. Initially the Stryker family included a Stryker mobile gun platform, mounting a 105 mm cannon. We have made the decision recently to withdraw this model from service, but in so doing we are upgrading all the other types in the Stryker family. We have two brigades worth of Strykers stationed right down the road from me, and several of my neighbors serve in Stryker brigades, and they tell me they love them. Mike is pulling his hair out about now, because I think his opinion of the Stryker is fairly low, in fact lower than whale shit. But that's another story.
The point is that times are changing, and armies must change with them. You have to move heaven and earth to get a heavy brigade from the States into a combat theater. It is a monumental logistical exercise, that involves railroads, highways, seaports, and specially designed ships. With the Stryker, or any lighter weight vehicle, they can move over the road, and if they have to move to a seaport they, in theory, can convoy to that destination. We also have a brand new facility located just over the ridge from my home, that is dedicated to the air transport of military vehicles and gear, and we quite often see C-17 aircraft coming in there to load up among other things Strykers.
The only caution in using Strykers, Centauro's, LAV's and other light weight armored vehicles is that you better not think it's a goddamned tank, and use it that way, or you are going to get your ass blown away.
Just to show you though that the U S Army is still an organization led by a few bright fellows and a plethora of bone headed idiots, we have stationed Stryker Brigades at Fort Lewis (near a seaport), Schofield Barracks (near a seaport),and then Fort Carson (as far away from the sea as you can get), Fort Hood (nearly ditto), and Alaska (are you kidding me). God bless the Guard Bureau, one the two ARNG Stryker brigades is near the port of Philadelphia, and the other in Washington State (near the Port of Seattle). The last Stryker brigade is in Germany, and must be maintained there by a law passed by Congress about ten years ago. Now you would think these aforementioned boneheads would take the 3rd ID at Fort Stewart, near one of our largest and most modern seaports, Savannah, and take the Strykers from Carson and Hood and put them there.
I despise bone heads. You may have gathered that by now. They take what is or can be good, and make it mediocre.
Tanks will be with us for some time to come though Ian, as it is not one system that is vital, but a system of systems called combined arms that wins battles and wars. I think the British Army needs to add back one armoured regiment, and possibly include it in a combined heavy/light brigade, but they certainly do not need to reconstruct the Army of the Rhine.
Hope that either answers your question or at least gives you food for future thought. By the way I really like that new vehicle (the name escapes me) that the Scots Grays are tooling around in these days
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2021 22:41:22 GMT
The fundamental questions are who, where, and why we are going to fight and how are we going to get there? There is nobody "close' whom we have to fear, unless you want to militarize the Sothern border. The East and West Coast are protected by the nuclear deterrent, the Navy, the USAF, and somewhat by US Army Air and missile defense forces. Having an available army with no real threats makes politicians it easy for politicians to use it and waste our troops by not trying to win or resource the fight. How will the US Army, a force with no organic air or sea transportation deploy, fight, and sustain itself in the Pacific? There are bunches of other questions and I fear I can't articulate the questions well, much less the answers. But to your point about required levels of command. Is the span of control still 3-5 major subordinates? Could 3rd Army have effectively controlled 1ID(M), 1CD, 1AD, 1(UK)AD, 3AD, 6(FR)LT, 24ID(M), 82ABD, 101ABD(AA), 2ACR, 3ACR, and 2 separate CABs in Desert Storm without 2 Corps HQ? (A separate question is did we really need that much force? But is it better to send too much than too little? War is not a "Lean" operation.) And then there is all the other crap that deploys with an Army Artillery, Service Support, Engineers, Air Defense. In Iraq II, since there were so few ground forces on our end, 3rd Army could have controlled 3ID(M), 82ABD, 101ABD(AA), and the Marines with no big issue. Might have been better. I don't think automation has really helped us. I think it tends to overwhelm commanders with information and detail (showing the position of every vehicle in the unit), is subject to attack more so than were radios (You can make them show things that aren't there), and contributes to analysis paralysis as our commanders are risk averse and want more and more information to 'help' them make decisions. I think to some extent, layers of command guard against loss of command at a higher or lower level. On that note, I just ordered Andrew Baceviche's new book After the Apocalypse: America's Role in a World Transformed. If you don't know, he commanded the 11th ACR, was relieved (and forthrightly admits) it for a devastating fire in Iraq after Desert Storm, and is not the typical Army Officer. In this book he proposing leaving NATO and disestablishing our combatant commands. Haven't read it, but I read the review here: responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/06/18/bacevich-get-out-of-nato-shut-down-combatant-commands/. Some days I support leaving NATO since Europe fails to resource its defense as needed to deter Russia and three US brigades don't do much and not even a Dunkirk could save them if they were going to be annihalated. Plus, we have to figure out how to do better than the Russians at their own game.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 22, 2021 4:08:57 GMT
The link to the review did not work for me.
Your example is from a war that occurred 30 years ago. The question then should be, is it the same world today, and are wars the same, and if not how have they changed. We have gone through two major changes in force structure since 1991.
Five to seven is now considered the optimum span of control parameter.
Leaving or staying in NATO is a political decision, and as such WELL above our pay grade.
There were those that said the same thing you did, or something similar in 1917, when the field telephone was the means of communication, longing for the good old days of "secure" horse and rider communications. They were saying the same thing in 1941 with the FM Radio - is someone listening? These are problems that can be worked through.
Remember what Bret Maverick used to say "Faint of heart never filled a flush".
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 22, 2021 9:54:22 GMT
What vehicles Chuck, this one? linkIt shows how out of touch I really am concerning modern AFVs, I have never even heard of it!
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 22, 2021 10:05:32 GMT
I don't relish being part of a tank crew, in these modern times you could be knocked out by a weapon which you can't even see as it is so far away and these missiles don't seem to bounce off anymore, they destroy you and the tank in a flash, that is why large tanks are at a distinct disadvantage if faced by another well equipped modern army, once your tank company took to open ground you would be getting it from the air and ground plus much of this fire would be invisible to you, and don't forget even at night you will still be vulnerable. The Russians, Chinese and their confederates, will all have similar weapons, which is pretty scary. Look at the Israeli army, they know if they move into Palestine or the west bank, that their armour will be attacked RPGs and IDEs and their Infantry will meet a plenty of automatic fire, so imagine if they took on the Iranians, who will be well equipped with the latest commie hardware.
Maybe you could hire this guy link
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2021 12:08:40 GMT
Chuck: I updated the link in the above comment and here it is again for simplicity. responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/06/18/bacevich-get-out-of-nato-shut-down-combatant-commands/I am not saying go back to the old days of radio, I am saying we have not developed an automated system that works well and that it is easily attacked. This is of course just another iteration of guns vs Armor. Somewhere I read a quote that said "Iraq 1991 showed the world how we fight. Iraq 2003 showed the world hot to fight us." In the present day, I don't think we have evolved a way to counter the Russian way of war as demonstrated in Ukraine and surrounding regions. On the other hand, we still have not mastered even the 'conventional' insurgency. As citizens, informing our government of what we think we should do about anything, including NATO, is in our paygrade. Not that anyone will pay any attention to what we say unless we grease their palm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2021 12:22:16 GMT
I don't relish being part of a tank crew, in these modern times you could be knocked out by a weapon which you can't even see as it is so far away and these missiles don't seem to bounce off anymore, they destroy you and the tank in a flash, that is why large tanks are at a distinct disadvantage if faced by another well equipped modern army, once your tank company took to open ground you would be getting it from the air and ground plus much of this fire would be invisible to you, and don't forget even at night you will still be vulnerable. The Russians, Chinese and their confederates, will all have similar weapons, which is pretty scary. Look at the Israeli army, they know if they move into Palestine or the west bank, that their armour will be attacked RPGs and IDEs and their Infantry will meet a plenty of automatic fire, so imagine if they took on the Iranians, who will be well equipped with the latest commie hardware.
Maybe you could hire this guy link Ian, Perhaps you would relish being an infantrymen where almost everything kills you and you have only a flak vest as protection (in addition to good fieldcraft) or sometimes only your shirt? The tank may yet be superceded, but not just yet. Tanks now have passive protection against HEAT warheads with reactive armor and active armor meaning systems that detect and fire counter weapons at incoming projectiless before they even hit the tank are now coming into more widespread use, some are even effective against kinetic weapons. All of these are limited by the number of shots a vehicle can carry. We also have electronic systems that cause artillery shells to detonate at ranges where they do not much affect the target. www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/an-vlq-9.htm. Other methods of protecting the crew such as were demonstrated by the Russians with their most recent tank where the crew is all in the hull were already demonstrated by an early M1 experiment called Tank Test Bed where the crew of 2 or 3 was all in the hull, had duplciate controls, and the turrent was unmanned, but we continually choose not to quickly adopt advanced systems, just like the Army Ground Force Command did not believe we needed the M26 to give our crews an edge against Panther and Tiger (and T-34). We continually shortfall the Army because we are believers in high technology and prefer, rightly, to send a bullet instead of a man, but don't properly resource the men. Anything can be overmatched, but to avoid being seen and hit, smaller is better. This of course contributes to the development of UAV and now UGVs. I find the development of autonomus armed UGVs ethically disturbing for two reasons. One. I know the people who develop the reasoning and do the programming. The engineers frequently do not pay attenion to what the SME's tell them. I was a SME who was ignored. Two. If it is good enough to kill for, it is good enough to die for. It's a dangerous place out there.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 22, 2021 12:40:12 GMT
I respect your views Mike, you are a tanker, troops in the open are very vulnerable, but tanks would be top of the list for incoming fire, rather than a soldier.
I base a lot of my views on how the allies roughly handled the Iraqi (soviet) armour, they totally smashed them, with fire not only from tanks but attack helicopter's.
I always remember a book I read years ago and the infantry being concerned that a tank had come to their position as support, the soldiers said the tank would bring down artillery on their position
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2021 13:17:07 GMT
All true. There is still a need for combined arms. Artillery is the big killer and they have sufficient warheads available today to deal with most any target. Perhaps when we get Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" there won't be as much of a need for a separate arm possessing mobile protected fire power.
The Russians pretty much destroyed a Ukrainian Motorized Rifle and/or tank regiment with Multiple Rocket Launchers, but had it been an infantry regiment in the same place and detected by the same means, it would have had the same result.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 22, 2021 14:29:27 GMT
Yes Ian, that is the vehicle. Wish I had one in my driveway.
None of this is anything new. Measures begat countermeasures. The Machine Gun dominated until the tank came along, and then everyone was scared of the tank until the anti-tank weapon in its various forms came along. Now we seek to overcome anti-armor technology. And it goes on and on, BUT the machine gun and tank are still with us. Military development is like the old game of Rock-Paper-Scissors.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 25, 2021 19:51:11 GMT
There is a thread on Axis about Infantry carrying spare mortar rounds and "line doggie" came up with this rather apt answer!
Rangers being Light Infantry units didnt usually carry heavy weapons (though the 81 was in their TO&E). Its a LOT easier for them to scoot across hills than Engineers with gear and attached 81's. Typical Rangers wearing a wool OD's and helmet and carrying a garand, rifle belt, canteen, pig sticker, 2 frags and 2 bandoliers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 25, 2021 21:55:12 GMT
Two things Ian.
1.) I am not at all sure that the 81mm mortar was in the WWII era Ranger TO&E.
2.) It was quite common in WWII and Korea for all (except armored) Infantry to have each rifleman carry a round of 60mm mortar ammunition. That was especially true with airborne Infantry, and in fact many airborne rifleman parachuted with a 60mm round on their person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2021 1:25:55 GMT
STRYKERS!
Somehow I missed that comment of your's Chuck. Hair pulling, Gnashing of Teeth, Muttering, and most other things you can think of.
Guess how many Strykers a C-17 can carry? 1 Bradleys's? 1 Tanks: 1 M109: 1 MLRS: 1
You are right. Move those things to the 3ID near Savanaha.
However, at least Fort Hood, Fort Riley, and Fort Carson have semi direct routes to Houston for rail movement to the Seaport. But we don't have a lot of ships to carry them. Plus, we think we own the seas and have not enough ships to carry III Corps all at once, nor enough escorts, nor enough of anything to replace anything that gets sunk. we depend on an intact seaport and an intact airport protected by allies to allow us to mass enough force (6-12 months) in order to do anything. Provided the sea crossing is not contested and the air bridge is unmolested.
And while the ready battalion of the 82nd can be somewhere fairly fast, it takes 96 hours for the ready brigade, and 7-10 days for the Division? Plus, we can move a maximum of 2 Marine Expeditionary Brigades some place, provided they are all in the right place.
Sometimes my head just explodes.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 26, 2021 11:27:37 GMT
Chuck, I know about the extra mortar rounds, I posted that quote because I know you have a fondness for light infantry. Anyway, here is a link to the thread on Axis; link
|
|