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

Global Analysis ^ | April 3, 2003 | JR Nyquist

[Theophilus]

think the M-1 is obsolete

Not really, the like the B-52, the M-1 will be a mainstay for decades to come. No replacement is in the pipeline. It probably isn't needed. There are a lot of other goodies comming that will augment it.

[Southack]

"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."

Even if all of that were achieved, that would still leave our boomers available for global retaliation on a scale never before witnessed.

No, the *only* answer to American military power is to channel any conflict with the U.S. away from our storng suits (e.g. economic or military wars) into areas in which we've traditionally been more vulnerable, such as diplomacy, negotiations, and trade relations.

...But it won't hurt my feelings if the rest of the world never figures that fact out.

[BushMeister]

It's a shame the Brits weren't with the U.S. on the wild dash to Baghdad. Are all the Brititsh tanks still in the Basra area?

[nicollo]

Fascinating article. And I agree entirely that the lesson for despots will be to have the nuke threat before menacing the USofA.

That said, I don't think it will work, not even for Iran, N. Korea, Brazil or other wanna-be world powers. Going nuclear requires inherent stability to sustain both the program to get there and infrasture, international prestige, and constancy in purpose to maintain it. Nukes for North Korea is a short term goal. Whatever long-term benefit it brings is beyond them. They will assume it will bring parity to the U.S. It won't, for the US, as this article notes, will not sit still. We are a dynamic, fluid force that adapts faster than our enemies can deploy.

The strategic and long term challenge for the United States is to manage this world of both asymetrical threat (aka, those who cannot face our conventional forces, or who avoid U.S. retaliation via amorphous, non-state structures), and nuclear parity. The question shall be what constitutes nuclear parity. One bomb? Ten? A hundred?

Would we have invaded Iraq were it nuclear? I say yes, for we would have brought our full might upon that threat. When it was removed, or nuetralized via retaliation, or threat thereof, we could move with the conventional war (which we have redefined, yet again, and less than a year past the last war... hell, the Iraqis have been fighting Somalia and Bosnia while we were fighting an entirely new war, constituted of old methods with new capacity).

We have a tremendous challenge in front of us, but it has been made infinitely simpler with the removal of Hussein.

America is defined by collective self-interest, the fountain of our genius. We will always prevail.

Southhack, your no. 31 in part answers my query, but not fully.

CT, JH2,thought you'd like to see this one.

[Teacher317]

We'll never see positive and complete reporting like this on TV or in the major papers.

[colorado tanker]

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

No, I mean the Kornets that took out the first M-1's lost due to enemy fire. You understand, of course, that the Russians are seeking to upgrade their technology too. Look, their economy may be behind ours and their army may be run by unimaginative neaderthals, but the Russians are still pretty good engineers. And what they produce seems to get leaked all over the world.

[don-o]

I am quite calm.

The posted article was about the next war, when our enemy will be prepared to use WMD from the get go.

Tanks would then be, shall I say, passe'?

Or is that just my take?

[yarddog]

Here is an interesting story about the M-1 Abrams.

During the mid 1950's our preacher at a small Southern Baptist church in the Florida Panhandle had a PHD from Yale. Dr. Lett was semi-retired and served trying to help a struggling country church. One day the preacher and his wife showed up at church driving a brand new Chrysler. My Mother told me later that their Son who was an engineer at Chrysler, had designed the car and given one to them.

I basically forgot about it until one day I was watching the History Channel program on the development of the Abrams tank. They interviewed the head of the Chrysler design team several times and he was identified as Dr. Phillip Lett. I noticed he had a strong resemblance to the old preacher and asked my Mother what the preacher's Son's name was.

She told me his name was Phillip. I guess it is possible there is another Dr. Phillip Lett who looks like our old preacher but I am reasonably sure that is him.

[DannyTN]

"Going nuclear requires inherent stability to sustain both the program to get there and infrasture, international prestige, and constancy in purpose to maintain it."

The problem is that technology is going to continue to advance. Proliferation is going to continue. In fact, I predict that without external influence, rogue states will develop the capability to turn out WMD as easily as we turn out desktop computers today.

Thus while it may be possible for the US to stay ahead of the curve. We will have to be ever vigilant. And possibly excercise an ever increasing amount of control over such states.

I hate hate hate to quote Jimmy Carter. But there is some truth to his statement "We need to be building the kind of world we want to live in when we are not the biggest"

OK, Carter's a jerk for assuming that we will not be the biggest. But my concern is that biggest want matter. WMD will become so plentiful and easy to produce that size isn't going to matter much. Any country will be able to demolish any other county in a matter of a few seconds.

I'm all for missle defence systems, but I see them as possibly only a temporary stopgap.

We need to eliminate governments that would resort to the kind of savagery we've seen out of Saddam and NKorea's premier chia head.

[Milwaukee_Guy]

Blitzkrieg was all about the ability of tanks, infantry, artillery and air power to communicate and move together as a team in real time.

A Main Battle Tank = Exploitation.

We are seeing it played out again in it's most formidable permutation yet. Truly awesome to watch.

BTW - Why are we and the Brit's still bothering with towed artillery? It only slows down the advance and is vulnerable to retaliation. Good thing the Iraqi's have no concept of counter battery fire.

[EvilOverlord]

Regarding the need for small countries to develop NBC weapons and the need for the US to develop defenses.

In my opinion, the tendency for the small countries to develop WMD calls for a policy of preemption, rather than simply defense. The US must change the rules of the game such that nuclear weapons become not a guarantee against attack, but rather a guarantee that the regime will be attacked.

The nuclear club must be closed to new membership, and this must be enforced by the US military. There's no other way. It's simply too dangerous for us to not hold this policy. North Korea is a perfect example of what happens if we are negligent in stopping proliferation.

Unfortunately, the world is a harsh place, and harsh measures may need to be taken to ensure our security.

And the answer to the question of who are we to decide who gets nuclear weapons is that we are the strongest, wealthiest, and freest country in the world. We are also the most likely target of these weapons and we are the ones who inevitably go in to clean up the messes caused by these little Hitlers. I prefer to do the cleanup when the job is small, rather than waiting for disasterous consequences.

[El Gato]

Jessica Lynch is freed from the torture and humiliation

It's pretty clear, that *whatever* they did to her, they did not succeed in humilitating her.

As dawn breaks over Baghdad and I listen to the sound from the "Baghdad Cam", I hear a small piece of payback coming down on the defenders of those who tried to humiliate her and through her, us. More, even more satisfying, payback is yet to come, and you know what they say about payback, do you not?

[Republic of Texas]

This war is not an adequate test for the M-1. Or the M-2 for that matter. We would really find out about them in a conflict against N. Korea or China. The true test is a battlefield where air superiority is not assured.

One lesson we did learn from tank warfare, was in WWII. He that has the MOST NUMEROUS tanks, with the best tactics, can overwhelm an enemy with the BEST tanks.

[El Gato]

BTW - Why are we and the Brit's still bothering with towed artillery?

It's lighter and easier to deploy to the theater. Once there however, it does indeed have the problems of no protection for the redlegs and lesser mobility than self propelled. It's also cheaper, and in these days of low defense budgets, that is important too, much as we'd like it to be less so. We also have lots of it still around and it still shoots.

While it may not be artillery, let alone towed artillery, something is whooping up on Baghdad as I post this and as the sky lightens towards dawn there. Oops, that last set sounded like outgoing tube artillery. So for our forces, or the Shiites in other parts of Baghdad, "INCOMING!".

[Axenolith]

The perfect person to ask a question then. The M1 appears to have a large shot trap under the turret, is the armor thick enough in the area there that this is considered inconsequential?

Since you were on them during the turnover, I suppose you remember all the negative press BS they got in the late 70's early 80's? Man, that used to drive my Dad bugscrew. He was in Liason at the time, taking congress critters out to demo and explain weapons systems.

He'd come home from work, take a gawk at a Pravda West (Wash Post) article on them, and exclaim "I sure hope the Russians buy all this Horse s***. If they do they are gonna be in for a BIG surprise when\if they ever go up against it". :)

Has an M1 ever been destroyed by enemy fire? I am under the impression that one has not been taken out in a hard kill by another main battle tank, can you clarify?

[SWake]

OK, since we're talking vehicles here, what are the wedge shaped markings on the tanks (see the picture in #25)? Is it a unit insignia or something?

[Axenolith]

Controlled by SkyNet?

[TexasBarak]

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.

Ah yes, concieved and named many years ago by Keith Laumer (a man of many talents)- you refer to the magnificent "Bolo".

[nicollo]

I hate hate hate to quote Jimmy Carter. But there is some truth to his statement "We need to be building the kind of world we want to live in when we are not the biggest"

If you hate it so, then don't. The world that is safest for the United States is one in which we are the biggest. Your solution, preemption, is fundamental to being the biggest.

Carter is wrong because he starts from the wrong principle. Extrapolate from his view and you have a world in which preemption is impossible. No, quite the opposite.

Go with your instincts: Carter is wrong.

[Tailback]

Careful, there's a MI guy lurking here that might charge you with treason for badmouthing the Stryker.