The New Military: Proposing change

The Times Herald Norristown, PA ^ | 11/28/2003 | KEITH PHUCAS

[Darksheare]

Archy and I kicked the idea around a bit about somehow mating the tube from an M119A1 to a tracked chasis and make a Paladin light that would still be air portable.
It wouldn't be as survivable, but 19000 meters RAP round range is nothing to sneeze at.
That's 400 square miles or so where the enemy can find shells landing on them.
And if the helo portable capability of the M119 would be excellent as well.
One of the merits of that light towed system is that one can fly it behind enemy lines and fire at them from there. Like creating a small friendly occupied hole from within which to create a pocket of friendlies to push out from.. within the enemy rear area. Crazy idea, but sometimes works if you don't make it your whole entire operational philosphy.

[sauropod]

Except the PzH 2000. They actually plan to use their system w/ piles of ammo (no joke).

[Darksheare]

What?!
And when they have to move out in a hurry, where are those piles of ammo going to go?
*Ugh!*
Or will they do the old WWI standby, detonate it in place?

[sauropod]

It's a good idea. Kinda like the AGS system (that was never fielded).

Crusader had a range of 40 klicks (50 assisted) IIRC. My major bitch about the system was that it was unnecessarily complicated (having maintenance TMs "online") and the poor engine choice that resulted from the contractor being given a free hand to choose the engine. They chose the cheapest one to get the job done (and it still required a substantial amount of modification). The LV100 was the far better choice, but TARDEC was kept out of the decision process for the engine.

[sauropod]

They are planning strictly defensive uses for it. Therefore, they can afford to do resupply in this manner.

[R. Scott]

While Cebrowski doesn't want to eliminate tanks altogether, he clearly believes Stryker is the centerpiece of the military's future, giving the forces necessary nimbleness and speed in urban areas such as Baghdad.

Once again we hear that tanks are obsolete?

[Darksheare]

Yeah, the engine and the TM's were stupid.
That was done more to cowtow to some idiot's pipe dreams somewhere.
As well as win brownie points with someone that they thought held the power to either kill the programor keep it alive.
*Snort*
ironic in a way.

[Darksheare]

A purely defensive artillery piece?
What the heck is that?
I was in artillery, and have never heard of artillery being used purely defensively.
That sounds insane and short sighted to me.
But if they think they can get it to work..
*chuckle*

[mark502inf]

What's Imperative for an Information Age fighting force, according to Adm. Arthur Cebrowski, Ret., director of the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation, is being connected to the military's Tactical Internet and wowing the enemy. "We want our enemies, current and future, to look at us and say, 'Wow, how do they do that?'" He told an audience at the Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington recently.

Cebrowski is dangerous. He is a technophile with absolutely zero ground combat experience or knowledge who has Rumsfield's ear. His programs are designed to ensure we are even more successful the next time we fight the Republican Guard, but are next to useless against Iraqi guerillas, Taliban hold-outs, Somali militia, or any enemy that uses non-conventional organizations and tactics. Which, of course, is how most will fight us knowing that they have no chance against our force as it exists even now.

[blanknoone]

In a recent conversation I mentioned "Idiots who forget that after all of the situational awareness, we still have to go and kill bad guys." This is one of those idiots...no tanks, no SP artillery...he is going to cause a lot of casualities that are avoidable.

[servantoftheservant]

While Cebrowski doesn't want to eliminate tanks altogether, he clearly believes Stryker is the centerpiece of the military's future, giving the forces necessary nimbleness and speed in urban areas such as Baghdad.

Hmmm...The 8 wheel Stryker will have a hard time turning around in a city, while a tracked vehicle can pivot on it's own axis. The remote fifty-cal is reliant on a clear view from the commander, which he generally won't have in a city.

Though the tanks proved effective in protecting their crews from artillery or missile fire, for the transformation director, the new high-tech vehicles give troops better awareness of where the enemy is located so that troops can avoid danger - or speed out of harm's way.

How is the Styker high-tech? Because of the stupid non-stabilized remote 50 cal? And the Styker's big advantage is that it can run away from the enemy faster?? I even question that...give me a Bradley or M1 anyday over cross country.

"Anyone that doesn't like speed, or says that speed isn't required, has never been shot at," he said.

Anyone who doesn't like ARMOR or says that ARMOR isn't required, has never been shot at, you f-in idiot.

[Darksheare]

But but but.. Shinseki says that Wheels are more manueverable!
He says so, so it must be true!
*chuckle*
Shinseki has never been stuck up to his axles in Fort Drum sand while tankers, Bradley crews, and Paladins drive on by with a smile, wave, finger pointing, and outright laughter..

The Stryker is unstable on cross country moves, it will flip like an MF if it hits rolling lumpy ground.
And you mentioned that the treadheads can spin on it's centerline in it's own bodylength.
Wheel vehicles can't do that..
More manueverable?
On paved highways like what we have here in the US maybe.

[tortoise]

Anyone who doesn't like ARMOR or says that ARMOR isn't required, has never been shot at, you f-in idiot.

The point that seems to escape many who have responded on this thread is that heavy armor is becoming obsolete. Not for ideological or doctrine reasons, but for technological reasons. Cheap, portable anti-armor weapons have started to become good enough that no practical amount of heavy armor provides protection against them. For the military to bury their head in the sand and not deal with this reality would be foolish.

Now, I don't know about the guy in the article, but the strategy for future war has been to go to lighter faster vehicles that provide just enough armor to stop shrapnel and bullets, but which don't bother to provide protection against real anti-armor weapons, primarily because they can't build a system that will withstand them. It is quickly coming to the point where the best defense really is a good offense. Be faster, more lethal, smarter, and see the enemy before he sees you. Heavy armor is very quickly being eliminated as a useful tool.

We see these kinds of anti-armor systems in the field today, and crappier countries are starting to have them as well. We have anti-armor systems in field testing with more range than an Abrams and which could eat the Abrams frontal armor for breakfast. There are physical material limits to what you can do with armor, and anti-armor weapons are starting to breach this limit such that there is no direct solution to it.

[Paul Ross]

...Like bringing back fast fleet oilers rather than have us go into port to fuel vessels like the Cole.

Common Sense, NO-KIDDING, BUMP! Wonder why Rummy ISN'T doing this? There are apparently a number of tankers that could be bought for relative peanuts on the open market ( there is a big glut right now) and retrofitted to fleet oilers.

[Darksheare]

Armor is always in development.
And reducing armor to nothing, as in the Stryker, is moronic and bordering on dereliction of duty.

Stryker's armor isn't effective enough to stop bullets.
And if it won't do that, then definately it won't stop shrapnel.
Also, if it takes 6 weeks to make this supposedly faster unit war ready, then why have it at all since a heavy brigade with MORE MANUEVERABLE tracked vehicles can be on hand in the same amount of time.
Wheels are a liability in rolling terrain.
And Stryker is unstable like a drunken Ted Kennedy on said terrain.

[Darksheare]

It makes too much sense, thus that is what we won't do.

[servantoftheservant]

There's always a back and forth between armor development and defeating it....I remember when the sabot round supposedly meant the the end of the tank!

Can you imagine a single scenario in the world today where you would rather have a Stryker than a Bradley? Or a Styker gun system (LOL) over an M1?

How in the world can the US Army field an 'armored' vehicle that gets chewed up by 14.5 mm machine guns (and maybe even 12.7mm) that are common all over the world? Forget not yet fielded, in development weapons. What the heck good is a Stryker against a Somali with a 14.5 mm in the back of his Toyota pickup? The frickin Toyota outguns and outmaneuvers the Styker everytime!

[servantoftheservant]

Shinseki has never been stuck up to his axles in Fort Drum sand while tankers, Bradley crews, and Paladins drive on by with a smile, wave, finger pointing, and outright laughter.

The Stryker is unstable on cross country moves, it will flip like an MF if it hits rolling lumpy ground.

LOL...sad, but funny.

[Darksheare]

My artillery unit getting stuck in the Fort Drum sand was pretty funny.
And then all the treadhead drive by and point & laugh.
My unit was light towed artillery, so we used Humvees as the prime movers.
The worst part of getting stuck like that was this, not a single Abrams, Bradley, OR Paladin driver offered to pull us out.
One would think that a fellow artillery unit would assist.. *chuckle*
Logpack pulled up and hauled us out..
How embarassing.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

What would Cebrwski suggest - piles of ammunition along the side of the road for the howitzers to use?

According to the Air Force we don't need tube artillery anymore. We can just bombard and occupy, using Special Forces as body guards for ETAC's and friendly war lord troops as occupiers.