[ggekko]

I hope we don't take the wrong lessons from this war. We faced an enemy with antiquated armor and no air support. We should not conclude that in the future the M1 Abrams tank will be the center of ground operations.

The future of the tank is highly questionable. M1 Abrams are huge and easy to detect on number of electro-magnetic spectra. Anti-tank weapons have been increasing their ability to kill a tank faster than armor technology that is able to protect a tank. The invention of "smart" mortars and and cheaper surface-to-surface missiles (SSMs) is bringing powerful and cheap technology within the grasp of irregular forces. Research into masking and armor technology have not produced a breakthrough sufficient to change this calculus.

I am glad that Rumsfiled is forcing the Army to think about a "post-tank" world. The Army Generals have been the most recalcitrant to accept the implications of new technology for traditional ground operations. The Army generals of today remind of the Navy's affinity for Battleships before WWII. Pearl Harbor rendered the argument between air power and Battleships moot; after Pearl Harbor WWII Naval engagements became Aircraft Carrier battles with Battleships reduced to supporting roles. Let us hope we do not need a ground-based "Pearl Harbor" to force the Army Generals to rethink the role of their cherished tanks.

[colorado tanker]

What you describe, the Future Combat Vehicle is already in the design stage, but it's years away from deployment, if it's built. I imagine this war has given Rummy a new appreciation that we will need a heavy force unless and until the new systems are built. I think you'll find less resistance to change in the Army than you have surmised; the architect of the Iraq plan is an Army general and the nay-sayers and curmudgeons aren't on active duty any more.