WT Forums

Goose

The tank is powerful but unfortunately we can't stay in tanks and build Iraq at the same time

Edited by - ViperTTB on Sep 22 2003 12:02 PM

Viper, of the last 3 wars this nation has fought, two of them were Armored campaigns resembling the days of yore.

I don't get your assesment that the tank is less needed now than before.

If a war in Korea were to break out, we'd need every tank we can get our hands on.

If China were to invade taiwan, we would need armor to reclaim it.

If we were to invade Syria, or Iran or (LOL) Saudi Arabia, we would need tanks, many tanks.

The fact is, almost all of our projected adverseries would require armored formations to defeat.

75th Rangers should not answer to SPECOM, they don't belong categorized with SPECOPS, they are light infantry raiders that use conventional company and battalion level tactics and employment doctrine. No other specops unit in the US military does. The 75th is really the 82d Abn and 101st Air Assault rolled into one, with superior motivation and training to boot. They are the creme de la creme of light infantry in the US Army, and are clearly a conventional force, capable of taking defended conventional objectives against a superior force.

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton

Yep boots on the ground, and armor in mass is how you conquer. Spec Opps is a tool to help that, but not a subsitute. Thats just what I learned from playing Command & Conquer on my pc...Not an expert. lol

Damn Viper my best friend was in the 101st. He ever heard anybody call that unit light he would freak. 101st probably has more aircraft than alot of 3rd world countries. Nothing light about the screamin eagles...

I don't mean to belittle the green beanies, but you cannot win a war with SpecOps any more than you can win a war with Snipers or fighter pilots.

War is the ultimate team sport.

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton

I never said a war should be fought with only infantry or only special ops. I said it should be more balanced by adding more infantry and taking away a little armor. We'd still retain our armor fighting capability.

We are already short on heavy units. Mechanized units are much better for UN ops and garrison duty because their vehicles provide tremendous direct support fires while increasing mobility and force protection.

You may 'suspect' that SpecOps did some great things in Iraq, but the evidence is not there to support the argument.

All the evidence points to heavy mechanized units continuing to be the teeth of the US Army, providing the bulk of killing and manuever power in most potential future conflicts.

BTW, the 'guy' that said SpecOps was a drain on his unit was only the Commander tasked with leading the charge of the 3rd ID. I'd say that makes his opinion extremely viable, and most useful.

LOL, some of you guys just crack me up. This guy just fought the war, indeed led the major thrust, and you think you know better than him what SpecOps meant to the force.

Go figure...

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton

Edited by - m21 sniper on Sep 22 2003 7:08 PM

As I have said, the major combat warfighting, which lasted three weeks, was led by tanks and armor for good reason. But now, post-war, they are of little use. Is that really in dispute?

With SpecOps, the 3rd ID Task Force guy is seeing SpecOps more in relation to his unit than their overall contribution to the combatant commander. It isn't the overall picture becuase there are many independant SpecOps opeations. The Combatant Commander saying SpecOps suck would mean much more to me.

Personally, I have seen numerous articles lauding SpecOps in Iraq. It is not my opinion. I'm not going to drop that opinion based on one source.

Further, this suggestion that I think the Army should be all SpecOps and infantry is a mischaraterization. I think they should add a Light division like the 10th Mountain but they probably won't the have funds or the will to just add a division. They'd probably remove one, and in that event I'd remove one of the Heavy Divisions with armor in Europe. That would be a better balance of armor to infantry.



Edited by - ViperTTB on Sep 22 2003 7:29 PM

Edited by - ViperTTB on Sep 22 2003 7:31 PM

Chad:

It is semantics really. I said the 101st has hundreds of Chinooks, Hawks, and Apaches long before anyone pointed that out. I mean unarmored.

"As I have said, the major combat warfighting, which lasted three weeks, was led by tanks and armor for good reason. But now, post-war, they are of little use. Is that really in dispute?"}

Yes that is absolutely in dispute. Do you know what a QRF is, or what they do? If you want to set up a check point, isn't it nice to stick a 70 ton MBT there to provide deterrence and security for those manning the CP? Wouldn't it be nice if you are on patrol to have a nice armored vehicle to eat lunch in so you don't have to wonder if a sniper is about to blow your head off while yer chowing down on your chicken ala king?

"With SpecOps, the 3rd ID Task Force guy is seeing SpecOps more in relation to his unit than their overall contribution to the combatant commander. It isn't the overall picture becuase there are many independant SpecOps opeations. The Combatant Commander saying SpecOps suck would mean much more to me."

What the CO was saying was that SpecOps were a drain on his force, and offered nothing in return. That's viable information from a viable and confirmable source, on public record.

"Personally, I have seen numerous articles lauding SpecOps in Iraq. It is not my opinion. I'm not going to drop that opinion based on one source."

Post some.

"Further, this suggestion that I think the Army should be all SpecOps and infantry is a mischaraterization."

No one thinks you mean that, at least i don't think anyone thinks you do...i don't.

"I think they should add a Light division like the 10th Mountain but they probably won't the have funds or the will to just add a division. They'd probably remove one, and in that event I'd remove one of the Heavy Divisions with armor in Europe. That would be a better balance of armor to infantry."

Retasking an Armored division(of which their are two) to a mechanized division would increase infantry availability without surrendering the mobility, protection, and firepower of a heavy division.

Frankly, the army doesn't have enough of any type of force. It's pretty sad really. When i was in, the US Army active was 1,000,000 men alone. We had 4 Armored divisions, 3 independent cavalry regiments, and more Mech/Motorized/Light infantry than you could shake a stick at. It is quite depressing to see how that's all been tossed away.

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton

DOESNT IT REALLY LOOK LIKE THE HOLLOW FORCES AFTER WW2 AND NAM?

WE NEED MORE OF EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PRESS TO TEST

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

I agree Sgt Goose.


"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton

I'll take a surplus in the crate Oh-6 Loach... A mule for the elk hunt with one of them Smooth bore 60mm's and hmmmm some M-14 supermatch for next years DSC and Highpower matches <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Loaches are bad little mommas. Unbelievably agile little things, but quite ugly.

Can i get a ride Mudd?

"If we are not victorious, let no man return alive."

Gen George S. Patton