"Mobility gets our soldiers out of trouble faster; gets the Cavalry to the rescue faster, gets weapons to bear on targets faster. Gettin' there firstest with the mostest is no longer important?"
It's not that, it's just that you are thinking about the *last* war rather than our present and future battles.
We're not going up against Soviet main battle tanks. They aren't there. We don't need to be arguing about the penetrating power of the 155mm vs the 120mm or the reload speed of the 105mm. It's not about thicker armour or minutely faster vehicles.
Our fights in SE Asia, Central Asia, the Middle-East, and in Africa are going to be against militia-style amatuers. These guys are going to be using whatever weapons have been left behind by formerly-Soviet-backed forces.
We aren't going to see the enemy mass in force any longer. Our new enemy has to hide from our current military, venturing out only to plant mines, IED's, set booby traps, and lob teh occassional RPG or mortar round.
Our new enemy is going to take the occassional sniper shot, fire off the odd Strella SA-7, and engage in various hit and runs or suicide bombings.
Militarily, these attacks are insignificant. Politically, these attacks let our Leftist press gin up reams of bad publicity for us.
As such, we need to focus our brain power on stopping and besting these expected military and political attacks.
So don't tell me the merits of a turbine over a diesel in an M1A1. The marginal differences in such things matters not a whit. Whether we have one or the other inside our MBT's, we're still going to get hit with the self-same RPG's, mines, IED's, mortars, Katyushkas, AK-47's, and suicide bombers.
Therefor, what I'm telling you is that we, you and me and all of our side, has to change *our* way of thinking (quite possibly the most difficult thing to ask of anyone). We can't keep thinking in our Cold War, Soviet foe battle ways.
Show me how to detect one more mine or IED than we are currently spotting, and that will save one day's headlines from our bloodstained press. Show me how to stop an RPG with new side armor, electric counter measures, or by launch detection, and we've stopped yet more bad press against us as well as saved the lives of soldiers in the field....something that our new body armor has already done against AK-47 rounds.
The glory of fighting big tank versus big tank is gone, perhaps for some great length of time. Now we are squashing gnats who are armed with essentially WW2 technology.
you are thinking about the *last* war rather than our present and future battles.They all kind of run together. Weapons, tactics and technologies change from war to war. Humans don't.
We're not going up against Soviet main battle tanks. They aren't there.
We went up against some last spring. Special Forces went up against Taliban T-55's two years ago. Ex-Soviet Main Battle Tanks all over the place. The Red Chinese and the Iranians have a few, too. In the land of the tankless, the old, rusty, raggedy, black smoke-spewing tank is king, unless you have lots of air and Javelins and TOWs.
We don't need to be arguing about the penetrating power of the 155mm vs the 120mm
Agreed. Who is arguing that?
It's not about thicker armour or minutely faster vehicles.
Tell that to General Shinseki. That's what the whole Stryker vs. LAV III and wheels vs. tracks controversy is all about.
Our fights in SE Asia, Central Asia, the Middle-East, and in Africa are going to be against militia-style amatuers.
Are they, now? No doubt some will. The Iranians, Syrians, Libyans, Pakistanis and Egyptians all have armies of some significance.
These guys are going to be using whatever weapons have been left behind by formerly-Soviet-backed forces.
Including the Soviet tanks you said weren't there.
We aren't going to see the enemy mass in force any longer.
I do not believe that is true. It may be true of Iraq. It may even be true of al Qaeda. al Qaeda is not the only enemy we will ever fight from now to the end of time.
Our new enemy has to hide from our current military, venturing out only to plant mines, IED's, set booby traps, and lob teh occassional RPG or mortar round.
Our "new" enemy has been at war with us since 1979. His "new" tactics were well understood by Soviet partisans and Nazi Kopfjaeger 60 years ago.
Militarily, these attacks are insignificant. Politically, these attacks let our Leftist press gin up reams of bad publicity for us.
Our leftist press has many of the same goals as our enemy. They have a symbiotic relationship. 4GW. And these attacks are significant militarily when they cause commanders to be less aggressive for fear of incurring casualties the folks at home have no stomach for.
So don't tell me the merits of a turbine over a diesel in an M1A1.
That post was not addressed to you. Somebody asked, I posted a link. You don't want to read it, don't read it.
The marginal differences in such things matters not a whit.
That such trivialities are of no consequence to you does not necessarily make discussion of "marginal differences" pointless for everybody.
We can't keep thinking in our Cold War, Soviet foe battle ways.
There were several "hot wars' fought during the Cold War. They bear many resemblances to the war in Iraq right now. Much that worked then still works now. The biggest difference is 24-hour sattelite news and no tolerance for friendly casualties. Now when a soldier gets killed it must have been the commander's fault, or the Army's fault, or Rumsfeld's fault, or Bush's fault. Why do so few ever think to blame the enemy?
Show me how to detect one more mine or IED than we are currently spotting, and that will save one day's headlines from our bloodstained press. Show me how to stop an RPG with new side armor, electric counter measures, or by launch detection, and we've stopped yet more bad press against us as
Show me an aggressive, TRUTHFUL, counter-propaganda PR campaign to counter-act the al Qaeda sympathizing press.