Posted on 05/13/2005 3:39:21 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Like Mark Twain's death, the demise of the tank has been "greatly exaggerated." A weekend conversation with my World War II and Korea vet father spurs this column. Dad had seen a short video I shot in Iraq that featured my staff section racing down Baghdad's "Route Irish" in an unarmored SUV. Dad asked about the handling characteristics of SUVs and Humvees with "add-on" armor -- light vehicles that weren't designed to carry the extra weight. He then compared what I told him about steel plates and Kevlar panels to a Korean War "armor upgrade" to counter land mines: sandbags on a jeep's floorboard.
Army units began adding sand bags, Kevlar and steel plates to their vehicles long before last year's press and political debate over the Pentagon's failure to anticipate the need to "up-armor" Humvees and trucks. The hot-button controversy flared in a bitterly partisan political year. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld actually gave a reasonable answer when he said an administration fights with the military it has. Critics smacked Mr. Rumsfeld for "insensitivity" and excuse-mongering to cover his own lack of foresight. The fact is, in war surprise is a certainty and winning requires adaptation and flexibility. Troops are often ahead of the generals. After D-Day, tenacious German resistance in Normandy's hedgerows surprised Allied forces and frustrated the brass' invasion timetable. An American sergeant jury-rigged a "cutting plow" that allowed U.S. tanks to bust through. There are more fertile fields for critics of Mr. Rumsfeld and his Pentagon Whiz Kids' lack of foresight.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I think the "death of the tank" can be applied to enemy tanks though. Between a JSTAR/AMSTE system and a single
B-52 you can take out 160 moving tanks.
I just hope someone does not get the idea of removing our Abram main tank from the equation. Surely it will come in handy in any 21 century engagement. There is nothing more intimidating then a large fairly fast tank with a modern 120 mm gun turret swinging around and seeing the hole at the end of the barrel. I am sure those glorious proud desert warriors in Fallujah did not like to see and hear our tanks running through the buildings they where racing to in order to seek safety.
Tanks are very useful against the kinds of lightly armed infantry we face in our current wars, but without the total air superiority that the US has had in all of our recent conflicts our tanks are just as likely to succumb as our enemies have. The tank is the ultimate land weapon but it is by no means dominant or even long lived in a three dimensional battlesplace.
You had a manual?
It's hard to beat the combined effects of mass, speed, firepower and shock effect of a 69 ton M1A2 Abrams tank- Just ask any of the Iraqi survivors of OIF who had to stare one down. Any stand alone system can be defeated. It's how you employ it in concert with the total force that allows the best bang for the buck and the highest probability of survival.
Brilliant comment, baystaterrebel. You put things so simply and clearly, which is why the comments are outstanding.
Thanks so much. You're quite right in all that you say.
Char :)
We will always have a need for armor because we will always have enemies like today's somewhere in the world. What I wonder about is if we had to face a first rate enemy... oh I don't who could come to mind but say...CHINA. How would our current structure and doctrine handle the attrition of armor. It seems that our current force needs every tank it has and has little room for the kind of attrition we saw in WWII or planned for against the Warsaw Pact. If we faced a enemy with some degree of air power and significant numbers of anti-tank weapons could we sustain combat with the losses we would surely take?
"I was personally annoyed with him Rumsfeld when he at first postured that a "lighter" army was better."
I was to. Not just saying it. Surely enough Army and Marine brass will not let this main battle tank in any way go by the wayside. Any conflict world wide that needs our ground troops to come in has to know the heavies are there when needed. How right you are about Fallujah. As well as hundred of others SASO operations they have participated in.
A weapons smorgasbord..."
We're hearing a lot lately about robots. They too have their limits, just as the unmanned drone aircraft do. New technological additions to the arsenal have been made throughout the history of warfare, but I can't see how the tank (which replaced the horse) will ever become obsolete. We'll just have more sophisticated tanks.
....but then, that's the opinion of a female civilian. What do I know, after all? . . . just using a little logic.
Char :)
"The US Army is very effective in war, because war is chaos, and the US Army practices chaos on a daily basis."
Field Marshall Runstadt.
"Operations against the US Army is very difficult because their officers do not know, and do not follow their doctrine."
The Sherman was actually effective if used properly. It was designed in 1942 when German tanks were armed with short barreled 75s and had 2 inches of armor. It was designed to take either of the large engines available, which caused its high profile. The vulnerability to fire was caused, not by its high octane gas, but rather by its ammunition ready rack. Changes encased the ready rack ammunition in radiator fluid, and stopped that.
Advantages of the Sherman: It had a power traverse, so that at short range it could fire first. If you went straight at the enemy you would die. If you played cowboys and indians, and went fast, the enemy would have to react to you, and then the Sherman won.
Doctrine was to use tank destroyers with lighter armor, higher mobility and larger caliber guns against enemy tanks, and commit tanks against the enemy rear areas. When used that way the US won.
That was part of the reason why the 101st Airborne was able to hold at Bastone. The 7th Armored Divison tanks had been destroyed, but their tank destroyers were still in Bastone.
Char :)
The desert storm army took six months to move into position, when the Arabian peninsula has the best ports in the world. Before that, the 82nd Airborne were in place as speedbumps.
Rummy quite rightly thought there should be something heavier than the 82nd that could move faster than the 1st Armored in a strategic sense.
Part of the answer is lighter equipment that can use the large numbers of C-130s rather than depending on the few C-17s and C-5s. Part of the answer is prepositioned ships, but that puts our limited inventory of heavy armor out where enemy operations can destroy it. A logistical nose if you will.
Armor is great, if you have it, no doubt. If you can't get it for a while, then something lighter than an M-1 but easier to move could be helpful.
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.