Rumsfeld's "Light" Doctrine Worthwhile?

[Axis Kast]

Despite what you might have thought of him as a result of the “Enron connection,” it’s undeniable that White’s resignation represents yet another collapsed link in the increasingly tenuous barrier against Rumsfeld’s “lightening” of our regular military. Between his cancellation of “Crusader” and approach toward an FCS concept – the 20-ton main battle tank still light-years away -, does anybody here find a recipe for success or disaster within SecDef’s new doctrine?

Personally, I predict problems ahead. By forgoing upgrade of the M1 tank series we sign away the commanding value of the main battle tank. If Iraq showed anything it was that thin-skinned vehicles aren’t always best for the kind of fighting we’ll now face. Preemption means combat against irregular forces – most of which can capably knock out the kind of fighting equipment for which Rumsfeld so strongly advocates. Other thoughts or opinions?

[Pu-239]

Disaster.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I dont like Rumsfield much, but I agreed with cancelling the Crusader. I dont think going to a 20 Ton MBT is smartest thing however, at least not for the entire force. The fighting in Iraq did show the value of a heavy MBT like the Abrams or British MBT's.

However, Im not sorry to see White go either. Enron and its cronies fucked over CA and TX hard. I remember when CA was crying foul and everyone thought we were crazy. Then the company collapse and TX got it too.

[Enforcer Talen]

kill the crusader, keep the heavy tank.

[Stormbringer]

I think the overall lightening of the military is a bad fucking idea. The same sort of draw down that's bit us on the ass in every major war.

In short we need heavy forces (not necessarilly Crusader and Abrams but an effective one) because not everyone is going to be a pushover like the Taliban or Iraq. Against some one that can actually fight back we'll need a serious army. It's a big mistake to base necessary levels on pushing over third world nations.

Rumsfeld is making a big mistake in letting things slip. Not that we need everything but we do need an effectice army.

[Master of Ossus]

I actually agree that the US needs more light forces, and should be better with quick responses, but I also think we should retain part of our current heavy armor and go with a mixture.

[Sea Skimmer]

Rumsfeld doesn't like any form of maneuver warfare period. Stryker, a 20 ton FCS and a couple other projects have actually been more driven by lower level Generals. If he could have his own way, Rumsfeld would give the army nothing but rocket artillery and Special Forces.

As for Crusader, It was much better then the M109A6 which is very dated. But it wasn't worth spending billions on. Its 50 kilometer range with a 59cal barrel had already been beaten by the 52cal G5, its rate of fire wasn't much of an improvement over several existing systems and in its lightened for the fire on the move capability and DPICM protection had already been lost.

[Sea Skimmer]

The fighting in Iraq did show the value of a heavy MBT like the Abrams or British MBT's.

Iraq also showed just how long it takes to move such forces anywhere. Even with huge amounts of propositioned equipment and a bunch of additional chartered transport moving everything in still took months. The 19 ships with Forth Infantry divsions equipment took two weeks just to go from the Med to the Gulf and unload.

However Iraq has defeated Rumsfields campaign against maneuver forces, less so the drive for light armor.

[TrailerParkJawa]

The fighting in Iraq did show the value of a heavy MBT like the Abrams or British MBT's.

Iraq also showed just how long it takes to move such forces anywhere. Even with huge amounts of propositioned equipment and a bunch of additional chartered transport moving everything in still took months. The 19 ships with Forth Infantry divsions equipment took two weeks just to go from the Med to the Gulf and unload.

However Iraq has defeated Rumsfields campaign against maneuver forces, less so the drive for light armor.

Yes, I agree heavy forces take A LOT of time to move. I don't see an easy way around it. Question is, should the US find itself in a situation where heavy forces cant get there to stop an enemy in time, are we willing to suffer the casulties that be required to invade without the help of friendly ports and airfields. Or would we just cut our losses.

[Sea Skimmer]

Yes, I agree heavy forces take A LOT of time to move. I don't see an easy way around it. Question is, should the US find itself in a situation where heavy forces cant get there to stop an enemy in time, are we willing to suffer the casulties that be required to invade without the help of friendly ports and airfields. Or would we just cut our losses.

Thats the point of Stryker, Its practical to fly in a lot of armored support in days, rather then waiting two weeks or more for preposition stuff and another four to six for a division from the states.

With the pace of modern conflicts, that's often not going to be an option. Even for the 33 knot SL-7's, it takes 18 days to get from the US east coast to the Persian Gulf, with two or three weeks to load and another week to unload and assemble the forces on arrival.

[Vympel]

To me the time it takes to move something isn't as important as what it does when it gets there.

[Sea Skimmer]

To me the time it takes to move something isn't as important as what it does when it gets there.

That line of though assumes your willing to lose a lot during the wait.

[Howedar]

Both are necessary. Lighter forces should be investigated and invested in, but not at the expense of all US heavy divisions.

[Rubberanvil]

I think the overall lightening of the military is a bad fucking idea. The same sort of draw down that's bit us on the ass in every major war.

Especially when the Armed Forces needs every available service right now.

[Sea Skimmer]

I think the overall lightening of the military is a bad fucking idea. The same sort of draw down that's bit us on the ass in every major war.

Especially when the Armed Forces needs every available service right now.

Personally I've never heard anyone describe tens of billions of dollars of new equipment and new units as draw down, until now anyway.

[MKSheppard]

Other thoughts or opinions?

Keep the M1A2, fund a M1A2 Replacement in a brand new tank for
the FY2020 time period.

Develop 2 or 3 fully funded light brigades for rapid deployment
anywhere in the world. Don't assrape the army to turn every division
into a light division. Create a fucking EXCLUSIVE elite light force
for that purpose...and use that as an excuse to reactivate some old
cavalry divisions

[Sea Skimmer]

Other thoughts or opinions?

Keep the M1A2, fund a M1A2 Replacement in a brand new tank for
the FY2020 time period.

Develop 2 or 3 fully funded light brigades for rapid deployment
anywhere in the world. Don't assrape the army to turn every division
into a light division. Create a fucking EXCLUSIVE elite light force
for that purpose...and use that as an excuse to reactivate some old
cavalry divisions

We already have several divisions worth of light forces, Stryker and FCS are medium.

[Rubberanvil]

Thats the point of Stryker, Its practical to fly in a lot of armored support in days, rather then waiting two weeks or more for preposition stuff and another four to six for a division from the states.

IIRC Strykers are still overweight and reguire partial disassembly to fit abroad C-5 Galaxies. Their armor protection is inadequate in stopping light machinegun fire much not less anything bigger.

[Ralnia]

The reason we're lightening our military is that we want to be able to invade people quickly. If our military was really for "defense", then why do we need a military bigger than the rest of the world combined? For the money we're spending on foreign conquest now, we could easily create a missle defense system (not that I'm for that), keep the navy, and have a few billion left for more important things (like clearing America's distinction as the worst-eductated developed country). Maybe we wouldn't even need the military if we didn't invade someone every few years...

[Sea Skimmer]

Thats the point of Stryker, Its practical to fly in a lot of armored support in days, rather then waiting two weeks or more for preposition stuff and another four to six for a division from the states.

IIRC Strykers are still overweight and reguire partial disassembly to fit abroad C-5 Galaxies. Their armor protection is inadequate in stopping light machinegun fire much not less anything bigger.

Wrong on both counts, the Stryker needs the whole of 15 minutes work to be flown on a C-130 and the armor can stop 12.7mm fire, soon RGP strikes as well. For its role as a battle taxi thats quite sufficent, and better then most of the worlds infantry carriers.

[Sea Skimmer]

The reason we're lightening our military is that we want to be able to invade people quickly. If our military was really for "defense", then why do we need a military bigger than the rest of the world combined?

Clearly we dont need a military that large, since outside of the USN we don't have the worlds largest force by a wide margin.

For the money we're spending on foreign conquest now, we could easily create a missle defense system (not that I'm for that), keep the navy, and have a few billion left for more important things (like clearing America's distinction as the worst-eductated developed country). Maybe we wouldn't even need the military if we didn't invade someone every few years...

No actually, the cost of the invasion of Iraq would pay about 40% of the cost of the planned ballistic missile defence system for the US, or it could fund the USN for mabey one year.

Last time the US ceased actively protecting its interests overseas we ended up with WW2. I'd personally like to avoid another wider war, the cost is combating the many brushfires.

[Howedar]

Well said, Sea Skimmer.

As far as I see it, the reason the US spends as much on its military as the rest of the globe is because, for better or for worse, the US has military interests and responsibilities covering the entire globe. No other country must deal with this today, at least not at the same level.

[Rubberanvil]

As far as I see it, the reason the US spends as much on its military as the rest of the globe is because, for better or for worse, the US has military interests and responsibilities covering the entire globe. No other country must deal with this today, at least not at the same level.

Then someone explain to me why the military being downsized when it is needed around the world?

[Sea Skimmer]

Well said, Sea Skimmer.

As far as I see it, the reason the US spends as much on its military as the rest of the globe is because, for better or for worse, the US has military interests and responsibilities covering the entire globe. No other country must deal with this today, at least not at the same level.

The US's interests are rather massive, mainly because its economy is about half that of the whole worlds. And because of the fact that they are quite large and spread across the globe the US will never be able to bring more then a fraction of its military against any one theater. Just look at the USN against Iraq, even with a massive surge of warships and extending some vessels deployments by 50% only half the carrier fleet could be brought into action.

All this means the US must have superior equipment, and it might be able to deploy it, be it Strykers or M1s which means huge numbers of ships and planes. It must also be able to secure a place to land, requiring lots of Marines and the 82'd and other units, and support flying in tactical aircraft which means lots of aerial tankers.

Really it all adds up to the US needing abilities few other nations do, and even fewer have and all that costs a damn lot of money. Now you add the high US standard of living and volunteer military, and that means al the manpower to keep it going is also very expensive.

And even with nearly 400 billion in the budget the US military is under funded for things as basic as training ammo, new battery's for submarines, putting several 688's out of service or routine maintenance for carriers, several of which have inoperable shafts because Klinton tried to run twelve of them on the budget of eight.

[Sea Skimmer]

Then someone explain to me why the military being downsized when it is needed around the world?

Its not. It is however being deprived of funding it needs to run and fight what it has which has seriously reduced available combat power.