New Army Secretary hates the Army?

[Coyote]

Hmmm....

http://slate.msn.com/id/2082641/

While I like the idea of a fast-deployable Army structure, I'm not sure if this is the way to go about it...

[Sea Skimmer]

Rumsfeld hates maneuver warfare, no surprises hear.

[Stuart Mackey]

Hmmm....

http://slate.msn.com/id/2082641/

While I like the idea of a fast-deployable Army structure, I'm not sure if this is the way to go about it...

So long as America does not face serious long term opposition in a conflict Rumsfeld will likly prove right. When you face long term opposition, and you will eventually, things will change.
Also you face one issue that seems to be determining the attitude of the likes of Rumsfeld etc, and thats that you have not faced continous warfare against a tacticaly, operationaly or technoligacly equel foe since WW2. This will have a influence on politicans but also on younger service people who have never seen any long term warfare of any type.

[Axis Kast]

I still don't like it. Something about the FCS irks me. It's just too damn vulnerable.

[Wicked Pilot]

Of course it's always wise to have heavy armor, especially in places like South Korea, but changing the bulk of the Army into a lighter more rapidly deployable force is the necessary responce to the end of the cold war and the rise of rogue nations and international terrorist. The military that looks to the future will trump the military that looked to the past.

[Axis Kast]

So you agree with the overall downsizing of what are clearly becoming increasingly important occpation forces?

[SirNitram]

Of course it's always wise to have heavy armor, especially in places like South Korea, but changing the bulk of the Army into a lighter more rapidly deployable force is the necessary responce to the end of the cold war and the rise of rogue nations and international terrorist. The military that looks to the future will trump the military that looked to the past.

Unfortunately, Rumsfeld seems to be advocating dropping all heavy units in favor of rapid response.. Which'll cause the US to get it's ass handed to it if any major military force clashes with us. At least, that's my understanding of it. I, frankly, prefer the urban combat optimized British forces: Heavy enough for field work, and we keep getting better at protecting our units from RPG's.

[Rubberanvil]

but changing the bulk of the Army into a lighter more rapidly deployable force is the necessary responce to the end of the cold war and the rise of rogue nations and international terrorist.

Replacing the tanks with a vehicle with even less protection than a humvee, isn't going to make the soldiers happy. The last thing the Army needs, is having to replace most of the remaining experienced service personnal when they early retire.

[Wicked Pilot]

Replacing the tanks with a vehicle with even less protection than a humvee...

Um, what are you talking about? Have I missed some of new designs here?

[Tom_Aurum]

He's talking about the bradley fighting vehicle, a vehicle that has a long standing reputation of being one of the most pathetic armored vehicles in existence. A kid armed with a large rock could take this thing down. Well, maybe not literally, but damn close.

[Howedar]

a vehicle with even less protection than a humvee

What are you smoking, how much does it cost, and where can I get some?

[Falcon]

He's talking about the bradley fighting vehicle, a vehicle that has a long standing reputation of being one of the most pathetic armored vehicles in existence. A kid armed with a large rock could take this thing down. Well, maybe not literally, but damn close.

which is why they beat t-72 tanks?

From what I can tell Rummy isn't going to do away with heavy armor abilities, he is simply going to introduce a new ability to the army.

[jegs2]

Hmmm....

http://slate.msn.com/id/2082641/

While I like the idea of a fast-deployable Army structure, I'm not sure if this is the way to go about it...

I've heard about this upcoming shuffle/fiasco. Two four-stars have apparently turned down the job of Army Chief of Staff. Now I can see why.

[MKSheppard]

which is why they beat t-72 tanks?

Monkey model T-72s with 350mm RHA armor, not the REAL T-72s that were only available to select Warsaw Pact Members..which had ceramic
plating to defeat HEAT and 600+MM of RHA armor plus ERA up the ass
to defeat HEAT.

[MKSheppard]

I've heard about this upcoming shuffle/fiasco. Two four-stars have apparently turned down the job of Army Chief of Staff. Now I can see why.

damn, it seems Rummy has forgotten the lessons of WW2, which was
never to be fucking outarmored and outgunned by your enemy....

And this new chicom tank that's going to have a 150mm main gun
is going to eat FCS for breakfast.

[Falcon]

which is why they beat t-72 tanks?

Monkey model T-72s with 350mm RHA armor, not the REAL T-72s that were only available to select Warsaw Pact Members..which had ceramic
plating to defeat HEAT and 600+MM of RHA armor plus ERA up the ass
to defeat HEAT.

My point was that any armored personal carrier which can beat a tank, even a substandard one, is fairly decent. Not to mention, how many armies field top of the line tanks anymore, what with the USSR being done for. I doubt China even has a very large supply of tanks which Bradleys couldn't defeat, let alone tanks that would match an Abrams.

[MKSheppard]

My point was that any armored personal carrier which can beat a tank, even a substandard one, is fairly decent

That's only because of the TOW-2B missile the Brad carries. Which can
also be carried by pretty much anything down to M151 Jeep level

[Spyder]

It sounds like he's getting a little complacent. Given the the US military is pretty much unmatched he can pretty much do what he likes with the composition of the frontline forces. A quick strike force will work as long as it is guaranteed that they can end any conflict quickly. However, if there is ever a conflict that is not ended quickly then lighter forces are going to find serious problems. Complacency can be very dangerous.

[Howedar]

I've heard about this upcoming shuffle/fiasco. Two four-stars have apparently turned down the job of Army Chief of Staff. Now I can see why.

damn, it seems Rummy has forgotten the lessons of WW2, which was
never to be fucking outarmored and outgunned by your enemy....

And this new chicom tank that's going to have a 150mm main gun
is going to eat FCS for breakfast.

I'd be more concerned by the T-80s and such than this Overlord they're building. FCS could be killed by a 125mm gun, and I don't expect the Chinese supertank to be especially well-armored, given Chinese tanks of the past. Basically, its going to be a 500-ton gorilla in a situation where a 300-ton gorilla would do just fine.

The extra size and power just means it has less ammo and is a bigger target.

Going up against the M1 makes things totally different, of course.

[Rubberanvil]

I'd be more concerned by the T-80s and such than this Overlord they're building. [/quote]I'm much more concerned about the RPGs and man portable anti-tank missiles being launch at the FCS.

[Rubberanvil]

Crap mess up on the quoting.

I'd be more concerned by the T-80s and such than this Overlord they're building.

I'm much more concerned about the RPGs and man portable anti-tank missiles being launch at the FCS.

[Stuart Mackey]

He's talking about the bradley fighting vehicle, a vehicle that has a long standing reputation of being one of the most pathetic armored vehicles in existence. A kid armed with a large rock could take this thing down. Well, maybe not literally, but damn close.

Please remember that things like the Bradly etc are not designed to face down tanks, they are to protect against machine gun fire and be survivable against RPG's, not invulnrable. They also protect its crew and passengers in NBC environments.
Ultimatly something thats 22 tons is not ever going to be able to protect against every threat out there, any more than a old Stuart light tank can protect against an 88.

[Sea Skimmer]

Please remember that things like the Bradly etc are not designed to face down tanks, they are to protect against machine gun fire and be survivable against RPG's, not invulnrable. They also protect its crew and passengers in NBC environments.
Ultimatly something thats 22 tons is not ever going to be able to protect against every threat out there, any more than a old Stuart light tank can protect against an 88.

The M2 has protection against fire up to about 30mm

[MKSheppard]

I don't expect the Chinese supertank to be especially well-armored, given Chinese tanks of the past.

NEVER underestimate your enemy. You could get a 150mm gun to work
in a tank of the same size as today's tanks by making it a remotely
operated turret with an autoloader

[Stuart Mackey]

Please remember that things like the Bradly etc are not designed to face down tanks, they are to protect against machine gun fire and be survivable against RPG's, not invulnrable. They also protect its crew and passengers in NBC environments.
Ultimatly something thats 22 tons is not ever going to be able to protect against every threat out there, any more than a old Stuart light tank can protect against an 88.

The M2 has protection against fire up to about 30mm

Indeed, but as designed/built, they were good against HMG, RPG, if memory serves, upgrades have accomplished the rest.
And I suspect such protection is not from every angle, correct?.

It annoys me when people complain about things while not understanding the design specifications and whether they are met or not. As I said, Bradlys are a survivable vehicle, but not invulnerable.