Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Fred Mertz
Aren't you a little biased?

I was a IN (Mech) platoon leader for one year and a REMF for my last three years on active duty. I have no ax to grind, but also think that nothing beats a tank when it comes to direct fire applications. Nothing raises the pucker factor like seeing a tank barrel pointed at you that has plenty of 'stand-off'. The fact that one may even be able to see the round coming at them must make it even worse.

22 posted on 07/23/2002 12:15:57 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: connectthedots; Fred Mertz
IMHO this issue is caught up in Army restructuring. The ivory tower guys think armor and arty are things of the past and will be replaced by precision bombs, unmanned aircraft and computers.

A group within the Army, including, unfortunately, the Chief thinks they can preserve a role for the Army in a restructured force by giving up main battle tanks for armored cars and leaving most of the arty at home, which would give them a force transportable on C-130's and therefore be a "rapid reaction" force. Basically, they're willing to give up firepower for allegedly increased maneuverablity and mobility. Spec ops guys like Hackworth think this is great because they've been down on firepower since Vietnam and think spec ops and/or leg infantry is the answer to everything anyway.

The only thing I know for certain is that this world has not seen its last general or "world" war and it is highly unlikely the rest of the world will trade in their tanks and arty for all terrain bikes.

27 posted on 07/23/2002 12:35:04 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson