America's Stunning Victory-(Modern Day Blitzkrieg and the M1-Abrams)

Global Analysis ^ | April 3, 2003 | JR Nyquist

[Aric2000]

Thanks for those pictures, these are my babies, I was in on the turnover from M-60 A3's to the M1A1 tank, and I have been in love with them ever since.

I am in outside sales, I have a large flag lapel pin on my Left lapel, and a silver M1A1 lapel pin on my Right.

I love these beasts, they are one of the most powerful weapons in the world, and I am proud of the fact that I have worked on them, driven them and fired them. They are incredible.

Thanks for such a wonderful article and pictures...

[spokeshave]

They need the new ceramic British tank....can get 3 or 4 into a C5

[JudgeAmint]

Thanks for your service...you may like this little humor break...

 

 

 

TRUE OR FALSE????

 

 

 

 

ANGRY HORDES OF IRAQI'S HEED THE CALL

TO DEFEND THE SADDAM AIRPORT....

 

 

FALSE!!

 

 

 

FRIGHTENED IRAQI'S RUNNING FOR THEIR LIVES!!

 

LOL!!   JudgeMint

[Bob Mc]

"Through all of this, America’s real enemies have learned an important lesson: namely, that U.S. military power can only be effectively opposed by employing mass destruction weapons at the outset of a conflict. If U.S. power is to be overthrown in the world, that overthrow must rely upon nuclear, biological and chemical munitions. Only an attack that destroys U.S. conventional military advantages is workable, and this attack must be overwhelming. In order to work effectively a mass destruction attack must decapitate the U.S. leadership. It must cripple the U.S. economy and paralyze the American military. Anything short of this merely invites destruction in turn."

"It cannot be repeated too often that the weapons of choice for such regimes must therefore be nuclear, chemical and biological. Only by leveling the playing field with such weapons do the inferior states of the totalitarian periphery stand a chance against American technological and administrative vitality."

"What the United States must do now, in the wake of its victory in Iraq, is anticipate the anti-American coalition’s intensification of WMD proliferation. This will be their response to America’s victory. Since this is a potentially effective strategy, the United States must solidify its defenses against such weapons."

Strange how this author seems to dwell on what it would take to stop the U.S. It's almost as if he his trying to drive a point home to our enemies, a useful point.

[Senator_Palpatine]

"accelerate confusion....."

[colorado tanker]

But will we need it? With hunter-killer missiles currently under development, we might be able to do with fewer tanks. Remember that the Battleship was expected to dominate WWII's naval battles. Maybe a faster stronger Bradly controlling an armada of long-loitering hunter-killer cruise missiles will win the next war.

The future combat vehicle's planned capabilities are impressive, but assuming the technology can be developed, it's at least ten if not 20 years away.

The weapons you describe don't address the problem of increasingly sophisticated ATGM's. Fortunately, Saddam acquired few Kornets due to the embargo and relied on old RPG's. That's not the case with other potential adversaries. Sending Strykers or Bradleys with no tank cover into that environment would be suicide. It makes no sense to shift to less survivable vehicles in a more lethal environment. We can't assume we'll always go up against an enemy starved of technology by a 12 year embargo, but may go up against an A-Team armed with the latest Russian-developed technology. So, there's no alternative to maintaining a tank force until FCV is available.

[MortMan]

Look at it this way: If the US can surpass the Abrams' capabilities while the M1A1 is still the best - we stay on top. Because of the length of time necessary to develop a new platform, starting way ahead of time is necessary to keep from being overtaken technologically.

[LibKill]

The demise of the tank as a viable weapon of war has been greatly exagerated. :)

[colorado tanker]

I'm not siding with the nay-sayer's who said we needed three armored division to win. And I would take an LAV over a Stryker any day. IMHO Stryker is good for nothing but peacekeeping missions and taking on unsophisticated infantry armies, and I agree we do some of that, but it's useless against an adversary like Iraq or Syria or N. Korea.

I think we both agree we need more transport of all kinds.

[Reeses]

seem to think the M-1 is obsolete

In its human controlled version it's fast becoming obsolete but make it much smaller, remove the seats and install an autonomous computer and you have a fearsome machine that comes with no political cost to put in harms way. The sky is now full of robot airplanes. Next we need robot soldiers. The hard part will be the artifical intelligence to not kill civilians. A fire only when fired upon behavior may be a solution.

[colorado tanker]

Look at it this way: If the US can surpass the Abrams' capabilities while the M1A1 is still the best - we stay on top. Because of the length of time necessary to develop a new platform, starting way ahead of time is necessary to keep from being overtaken technologically.

Completely agree.

[colorado tanker]

You mean, the Terminator?

[jrawk]

Please don't give anyone this kind of Bush = Hitler ammunition...

Operation Iraqi Freedom is just fine.

-- lates

[HighRoadToChina]

BUMP!

[snooker]

>>>It' ain't over TIL it's over!!

I agree, but can't you just see the look on that lying ministers face tommorrow? I wonder what he says to the media.

First question: whose tank is that outside the building?
insert world's funniest answer here: ______

[don-o]

Not real sure why you posted those pics. off that article.

PRNK is going to school off this.

[JudgeAmint]

HUH? Pics of tanks, and comments about public battle tactics. Calm down...

[Southack]

I'm not really thrilled with the article for this thread, but the pictures are nice.

Anyway, what better place than this thread to mention the obvious:

The U.S. has the world's mightiest military due to an amazing combination of technology, training, and integration.

It is the integration that is the least understood. Our soldiers on the ground are digitally linked through HQ to every unit in the skies and in the rear, and thus coordinated into highly effective local tactics that fit in with the overall strategy.

What does all of this mean? It means that simply copying American technology *won't* give pipsqueak nations a competitive force to challenge us. It means that simply adapting our training won't allow another nation to match us.

But what the Iraq war illustrates is something even more amazing: that even with ex-Soviet military advisors, the latest in French and German military equipment, the breaking of all military rules of acceptable behavior, and willing suicide volunteers, that a 600,000 man army is little more than modern roadkill for any sizeable U.S. military force (in this case, 1/6th the size of the defenders).

Or put another way: the rest of the world is failing to match the U.S. in *any* significant category (e.g. technology, training, integration, et al).

And the so-called "great equalizers" are being threatened by our new dominance in ABM interception technology, special forces operations in strategic areas, as well as our electronic eavesdropping capabilities.

Thus, the rest of the world is not only wasting every penny that it spends to try to compete with our own military, but it is also playing into our strong suit by insisting upon military solutions to conflicts with us (a *clever* Iraq would have played a South Africa-style hand, completely disarmed in an open, visible fashion, and simply held on until GWB was no longer in office, for instance).

So North Korea wants a nuclear war with us and old Europe wants an economic trade war with us, the strongest economy in the history of this entire planet?!

B.r.i.n.g. I.t. O.n.

[don-o]

Strange how this author seems to dwell on what it would take to stop the U.S. It's almost as if he his trying to drive a point home to our enemies, a useful point.

Yes. And IMO, he has it right.

[peacethroughstrength]

The latest Soviet technology? Do you mean the GPS blockers they sold to the Iraqi's that worked so well?