The Israelis do quite well with a Caterpillar D-9
Posted on 08/19/2004 8:47:02 PM PDT by Southack
Okay, I see your point, only it doesn't work. The GAU-8 does the job on tanks and vehicles because it attacks SINGLE targets, one at a time. A GAU-8 will not take out a building full of guerillas. A GAU-8 will not cause secondary fires/explosions when it's round comes into contact with concrete. A GAU-8 does what it does to tanks because it's ammo is designed to penetrate their armor, not because of the number of rounds it punches out. If it was simply a question of number of bullets and penetrating power, then every AC-130 and A-10 in the world would be over Najaf right now.
It's not exactly an efficient way of doing business against the type of foe we face right now.
The weapons we have are just fine, when they are used in the way they were designed to be used. Tanks and gatling guns are not suitable weapons for urban combat. High explosives and a lack of remorse ARE suitable weapons. Let's use what we have, more intelligently and less sympathetically, before we go designing new combat systems.
If, in the end, the EXPERTS agree that what we have is not up to scratch, they'll make the changes. But stop gaps and wish lists do not win the kinds of fights we're in now. Vietnam proved that. It wasn't the weapons that failed there, but the WILL to use them that did. We have the same problem here.
I believe that an armored division has about 315 tanks, while one of our heavy Mech Infantry divisions (of which we have at least 4 - 1st, 3rd and 4th Inf, and 1st Cav) has about 250. Of course, we only have one "armored" division left, the 1st Armored.
Good idea, that dozer blade. I seem to recall an awful lot of Japanese being bulldozed inside their bunkers during WWII.
I would add that for urban fire support a new type of grenade launcher needs to be developed. I would envision one with a higher rate of fire than the MK19 that fires rounds similar in pressure to the MK19 rated pressures (as opposed to the M203 pressures). This would have been excellent for Mogadishu.
One of the problems in Mogadishu was that the locals were blocking roads with burning tires, cars and debris. A vehicle that can punch through this would be essential.
And that's 1,000+ tanks designated as "Mech Infantry" rather than in an "Amored Division". I know that mixing tanks and infantry is only smart tactics, since they complement each other, but since the tanks are operating in smaller units within the generic infantry division anyway, why not collect them under one banner and parcel them out as needed?
Or is it, again, a matter of having something that appears to do everything, i.e. having a total, combined-arms unit in one package that at least trains together all the time?
Do we have anyone who can answer this for me?
Sorry, I'm forgetful tonight. By 'distinct' I mean that you still want infantry with the MBTs but those Divisions should be specialized for killing other MBT Divisions. A separate division for urban warfare should be created using the fire support platform. IMHO.
Yes, they are complimentary. Armor keeps enemy aromor off the infantry and infantry keeps their counterparts off the armor. I know this. What we wind up with is armor that winds up performing infantry support in an urban enviornment which is not a good thing. A tank functions they way it does because it manuevers, not just because it has tremendous firepower. You cannot do this when you are in street fighting or tied to infantry.
Rather than a new platform, I'm thinking more along the lines of going back to an older (and seemingly discredited) way of waging war: total destruction, which was the hallmark of western military practice since ancient Greece. This "hearts and minds" b.s. does not work until the enemy has had the snot beat out of him and is in no position to continue resistance.
Again, we do not need a new platform for this. What we need is a return to an older mindset. We no longer have Pattons and Shermans in command of our armed forces. Instead, we have Dr. Phil or Oprah with four stars. A little less caring for the other guy and a lot more emphasis on WINNING and KILLING might actually be more beneficial than any new wonder weapon.
Yep, we covered that, and I was corrected earlier. But thanks anyway!
There, you have an APC with firepower! (AMOS)
It was canx in part because the York system used somehthing called an ADEWS, a SLC-32 on a stick - or a bullet magnet.
Using a high power jammer on the ground in todays modern warfare is - well, stupid. SO the whole York system was dumped. I got to play with the EW/ESM part of the ADEWS - kinda cool for training, but fatal in a real battle.
Chamber pressure. The MK-19 fires at a much higher chamber pressure (hence the much longer range of it's 40mm round) than the M203.
And almost totally useless in an age where missiles and artillery can take a target out well outside of gun range. The Sgt. York came into this conversation because I mixed up the York and the M163, which was a gatling on a chasis. The originator of this thread was thinking it would be a good idea to put a gatling into an urban combat zone, but I disagree.
However, them twin 40's would do a good job, I think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.