OT: pbs frontline 'the future of war'

[Croda]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:

I am of the opinion that it is worth funding, even if the UN isn't successful in its missions all the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. The world can only stand to be improved by having a world governing body with some sort of power, else all we have is a bunch of kids running around. Bullies picking on the little guys, where might makes right, and money buys might. A worldwide agency like the UN should serve as a "parent" or at least a shared conscience, so to prevent one country from imposing it's will against others indiscriminately.

------------------

"Nuts!"

[Guest MantaRay]

I found this show kind of a mixed bag. It seems to me that most of the "experts" that they have teaching at the war college, have no actual military experience.

Also, you also have to remember that this whole idea of moving some of the divisions into a "light" fighting force is based on our current global role, and the whole 2 front doctrine that our military has had in place since the 80's. Armored warfare will soon be a thing of the past, and history has shown that the force that gets there first has a better chance of winning.

Also I found it really interesting that the war games that they conducted during the show had weapons that we dont even have yet.

And no one commented on the professor that said, "We saved Great Britian's ass in WWII." Thought that would cause a stir if any Brit had seen it

Ray

[buddy]

Man, this post is all over the place so I will go ahead and post this - heard a news story on Public Radio the other day after work about Bush's comment on bringing home the US forces from the Bosnia region. NPR interviewed two Europeans about Bush and, no big surprise, both of them (I think one guy was from Great Britain, the other from Germany) stated they had no confidence in Bush's presidential abilities. You can understand why they trash-talked Bush in the context of the Bosnian thing because they don't want to have to fill the vacuum caused by our absence...

Also like to comment on the Blackhawk Down book - loved it, read it 3 times! It reads like a novel and is very fact-filled on the incident in Mogadishu.

[:USERNAME:]

How about we make the UN a traveling circus? They can pitch tents right in the hottest zones and maybe then resolutions will come quicker?

Perhaps having all the arrogant double parking ambassadors in NY is not a good idea? Perhaps their wives will stop shop-lifting with immunity and attacking people? They can live in tents and take the show on the road.

I think its a waste. Thats prime real estate on the east side of Manhatten going for nothing.

Screw the UN.

Lewis

[elementalwarre]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Splinty:

Guys,the Army isn't giving up ALL it's heavy units<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

this article says otherwise: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/000918/tank.htm

granted this won't finish until 2031, but by then this says there will be -no- heavy armor

this is part of why i'm skeptical. assuming excellent intel and that opponents will attack against a defense from good terrain sounds like a rand institute sim, not reality

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

How about we make the UN a traveling circus? They can pitch tents right in the hottest zones and maybe then resolutions will come quicker?

(snip)

Screw the UN.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is very strange. I find myself agreeing with Lewis. My views on the matter may be a lot more nuanced , but the conclusions are the same. And I must say I like the idea of the travelling circus.

Viva Jesse Helms!

Lewis, we need you back in the Cesspool. The scum is starting to coagulate, and could do with some stirring up.

------------------

Ethan

-----------

"We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." -- Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women's Studies, Bowling Green State University

[Formerly Babra]

I enjoyed the episode and agree with most (not all) of Shinseki's ideas. I was somewhat aghast at the rather bald-faced statement that the 82nd had no effective AT capabilities in Saudi Arabia. Also ignored was the presence of Saudi forces.

I don't know that I agree with the complete phasing out of Heavy Armour units, which is what they seemed to be suggesting in the program. Though such units aren't useful for rapid redeployment, once deployed they are a force to be reckoned with -- an ace in the hole, so to speak.

I do agree with the need for more redeployment-capable units though, something with an armoured backbone. Enter the "FCV" Future Combat Vehicle, in whatever form it eventually takes. Wheeled tech has come a hell of a long way. I'm sure the high-priced help can bash together a capable wheeled MBT if they put their collective minds to it. It may never have the survivablity of the Abrams or Merkava, but I do think it's possible.

In any event it was a thought provoking episode and well-made, which Frontline usually is. Check out the synopsis at pbs.org. Definitely worth a look-see.

[elementalwarre]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:

elementalwarre - What did they end up putting in Haiti after the US forces left ? I think that there was some sort of international police force (though it isn't "permanently" organized) that was set up.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, haiti had an international police force.

minus US participation, it didn't stabilize the country very well. check cnn archives

[Guest Pillar]

Let me throw something into the pot here.

Take a look at Naval vessels and how they have changed since the first half of the 20th Century. We see that armour has been sacrificed for mobility and firepower has been elevated to levels that render armour somewhat less valuable.

Apply that to the ground, and you have the notion of "Heavy Tank" as obsolete as the Graf Spee.

Perhaps the military knows something we don't.

[Schrullenhaft]

Excuse the length of the following post... I managed to drivel on a bit too long.

A lot of this ties into exactly what mission the Army believes it must fulfill. During the Cold War the 2MTW (2 Major Theater Wars - simultaneous) capability was the defacto mission/policy. It these requirements that lead the CG of the 10th Mountain Div to declare C4 (?) as their readiness level - "not capable".

With the popular sentiment that the Cold War is over and that the chances of a heavy armored conflict in Europe are extremely low; the military has to determine the applicability of their current mission. Does 2MTW still fit the political reality of the post-Cold War ? Gen. Shinseki appears to be of the opinion that 2MTW doesn't fit, especially in light of the majority of military deployments after the Gulf War.

Shinseki is facing a lot of opposition to his restructuring to an interim "medium" force. The policy of 2MTW and modern peacekeeping are at odds with each other in the Pentagon. Peacekeeping costs valuable funds that could be used elsewhere, leads to some morale problems due to lengthy deployments and reduces training time and funding. These are the stats that distress the Pentagon brass and give them a distaste (at least one aspect of their distaste) for peacekeeping missions. The deployments of various formations also affects the availability and readiness of the parent formations (1 AD & 10th Mountain in particular) and prevents them from fulfilling their 2MTW requirements.

The current presidential race has some major implications on these restructuring processes and mission goals. As a major generalization here: Bush seems to prefer something along the lines of 2MTW and severe curtailing of peacekeeping operations. He also has stated that he wants to "jump a generation" of military technology in development and procurement. It's hard to fathom exactly what that will mean to Shinseki's plans for the interim medium force. Gore on the other hand seems to prefer the status quo of peacekeeping missions, but he also prefers not to make a "drastic jump" in military systems that Bush claims to aim for and instead likes the "gradual development" that's been the mainstay of Pentagon procurement for decades. This doesn't completely bode well for Shinseki either since Gore's funding will probably continue on the current course of procuring the F-22, Joint Strike Fighter,a new aircraft carrier and other smaller weapons procurement/development projects that are in progress. Gore's Pentagon budgets probably won't give Shinseki the money to create enough brigades of his medium force that he wants.

What probably interests a lot of people on this forum is the possibility that the tracked, armored behemoth is projected to be discarded from the military. The reactions of tankers in the 9th ID in Fort Lewis (in the US News article) were interesting. These guys were being taken out of M1s and being put into a Cavalry scout role - on foot - with a leased LAV (from the Canadians noless !) as backup. A very distressing change for them, especially since their training has emphasized that they would be fighting Soviet-bloc equipped mechanized/armored forces. They were very apprehensive to say the least about their new role.

Ever since the 60's the death-bell has rung for modern armor. The development and compartively inexpensive deployment of AT missiles was seen as the end for heavy armor. However technology has been armor's savior, with chobham/composite armor and reactive armor systems providing protection against most AT systems (except the higher end ones). But now the threat of extinction comes not from armor's inability to meet a threat on the battlefield, but the inability to get to the battlefield in the time frames that modern commanders want. The deployment times available in the Gulf War are seen as an aberration of modern warfare. The shrinking availability and the vulnerability of forward bases makes it harder than ever to deploy heavy units within the theater for quicker availability.

Looking at some of the wargames run with the future medium force there were some questionable results. The deciding factor in these wargames was the high-technology/high-capability of these future weapons platforms whose actual capabilities and numbers may be quite a bit less than modelled. Admittedly the emphasis on intelligence gathering capabilities and C3I of the future interim force as a force multiplier is being overstated. C3I definitely serves an important role and does act as a force multiplier. But the reliance of the interim force on an overwhelming superiority in this capability (and the belief that the intelligence is actually accurate !) coupled with the need for terrain to maintain stealth against superior forces is a definite weak-link in the concept. As has been pointed out - the enemy can quite often counter weapons and C3I systems (often inexpensively to boot) and dependence on any one system will prove the weak-link. This interim force is still in the development stages and the units at Fort Lewis will probably see several configuration changes before something is acceptable.

I don't think that Shinseki's plans for an interim medium force spell the death of heavy armor, but they do reduce its role in future combat situations. It's still in the range of sci-fi to expect that a light weight replacement of heavy armor could have the same resilience and battleworthiness. But in modern warfare - for the US at least - speed of deployment is a critical issue. I believe Shinseki's plans will take funding and development away from heavy armor (and reduce its numbers in the military), but it will not replace it. The military is just too conservative to completely abandon the concept of heavy armor.

As for the Navy... I believe cost and speed were the critical issues for using lighter hulls and frames. SSM/ASMs will definitely make any task force commander sweat profusely. The Cole is an Arleigh Burke class destroyer that has a 'lite' version of the Aegis air-combat system - making it one of the critical ships in a carrier battlegroup's AA/Anti missile capability. One side effect of all the high-tech emphasis and lighter hulls on ships is that they are now more susceptible to low-tech threats such as mines.

[This message has been edited by Schrullenhaft (edited 10-27-2000).]

[DEF BUNGIS]

Good post Schrullenhaft, just a couple of remarks on that one.

The 9th ID is no longer at FT Lewis.

The first unit to transform is 3rd Armor BDE,

which falls under 2nd ID in Korea.

The next unit to transform is

1st Infantry BDE (light), which falls under 25th ID (L) from Hawaii. Which is where I currently hang my hat.

There is a critical factor not being mentioned in the discussion here.

TIME LINES ARE NOT BEING MET.

At the rate politics is disrupting things here, we might not see a total transformed Brigade for at least another 2 or 3 years.

When the plan was initially conceived,

3rd BDE should be ready for deployment as a medium Brigade by OCT 2001. Not gonna happen.

1st BDE was supposed to start transforming in July of this year. Well guess what, we now have a training plan written up for the

fiscal year 01, that does not include transformation.

At this rate, the Army's goal of total tranformation by 2013 will be pushed back to 2020 at the earliest.

[Iron Duke]

You tell em Sergeant!

M1's for LAV's huh? *Brrrrr...shudder*

This reminds me of the Tank Destroyer units from WWII...not quite tanks...supposedly highly mobile and lethal...yet they didn't meet up to expectations.

If any swingin *ick with an RPG can knock holes in our Armor, something just aint right!

------------------

One shot...One Kill

[DEF BUNGIS]

Duke;

Forget all this this meaningless stuff.

Where the hell is the TURN!

Depleted uranium getting to you again bro?

[Iron Duke]

Keep your CVC on Soldier!

To hell with the DU, its those damn NAAP pills and the Anthrax shots that got to me! (Not to mention the dose of VX Nerve Agent in April, remember? lol...did you get your letter from the VA about that?)

Anyhoo,

the next turn is sent.

[Guest Mirage2k]

I haven't seen the show, but personally I think that getting rid of all of the Heavy units is a bit much. Sure, they take a while to move, but once there they could be the deciding factor if we ever get into a protracted, conventional war.

On the subject of wheeled vehicles, I say forward march! There have been a lot of recent advances in this area, and there really isn't anything that proves a wheeled LAV can't survive in combat, particularly in the low-intensity OTW situations popping up all over the place. Main Battle Tanks seem to be more vulnerable every time I see them.

Forgive my ignorance...would a wheeled vehicle be easer to maintain than a tracked counterpart?

-Andrew

------------------

VOTE BLAH FOR PRESIDENT!

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it!

BLAH IN 2000!

[Jeff Duquette]

Future U.S. "ground warfare" will be cute, flak-jacketed, armored underweared mom & apple pie infantrymen with cheese-eatin' grins singin' kumbaya and God Bless America with the local whomever's we have come to save and make part of the U.S. market share. Now if'n they don't see it our way...well the U.S. Air Force & Navy slam a few smart munitions up and/or down their poop shoots till there ready to sit around the fire again like good little boy scouts singin' kumbaya and buyin' Pepsi's, Samsonite luggage and Puppy Chow for their dog that they just had to ate yesterday.

As for the rest of the world, they will still try and kill each other man to man, gun to gun, and tank to tank whenever they get a chance. Just ask Ivan and Joe Grozny.

[Guest Pillar]

Would any of you argue that the Naval vessels of today were a mistake, and that we should have stuck to huge guns and huge armour?

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Would any of you argue that the Naval vessels of today were a mistake, and that we should have stuck to huge guns and huge armour?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear God, no. When you're facing SSM/ASMs launched from 300 miles away, thick armor doesn't do you much good, except to make you a bigger, slower target. Likewise, the biggest gun in the world won't be as accurate or have the range of a missile.

Generally, warships are sitting ducks without air cover, anyway.

-Andrew

------------------

VOTE BLAH FOR PRESIDENT!

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it!

BLAH IN 2000!

[Guest Pillar]

Then why are we so reluctant to do this same "modernizing" of ground forces? Missiles, light armour, speed, and air cover all work the same way on wheels as they do on keels.

[elementalwarre]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar:

Then why are we so reluctant to do this same "modernizing" of ground forces? Missiles, light armour, speed, and air cover all work the same way on wheels as they do on keels. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

modernization is necessary, but a lot of what's suggested doesn't necessarily apply on land

how do you fire missiles when you've run out because you can only afford 4 per unit? how do you fire missiles at a spoof target or one you can't lock onto since it's in rough terrain?

will that light armor help when you have to attack through a kill zone, or into rough terrain, or through a barrage?

however fast you are, you can't outrun the 30mm chain gun that just ripped a burst right through the LAV next to you

how good is air cover if the opponent has effective anti-air, or hugs your forces, or the weather's bad?

i'm -not- saying missiles, speed, etc aren't useful. i'm saying that betting on them -alone- has clear costs for land units

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar:

Then why are we so reluctant to do this same "modernizing" of ground forces? Missiles, light armour, speed, and air cover all work the same way on wheels as they do on keels. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ocean: Flat, LOS limited by horizon and with limited support can be extended much farther.

Land: Not flat. LOS blocked by all sorts of things.

Hardly the same.

[elementalwarre]

if the US navy's serious about going brown-water, bet they're reevaluating firepower vs survivability, brilliant weapons vs suppress that square, and all the other tradeoffs. littoral warfare looks a lot more similar to land warfare than fighting off the continental shelf

[Compassion]

UPDATE:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/11/17/army.wheels.reut/index.html

[Banshee]

the phrase "too light to fight" comes to mind.

But rapid deployment is really important nowadays so I can see why they are developing these. My guess is heavy armor will go away unless we actually have a real war in the interim. I think a war would prove their value in spades, but I certainly dont want that proven that way

Edit : This was in response to Compassion CNN article.

------------------

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 11-17-2000).]

[Sergei]

The days of cavalry are over. In Chechnya, tanks were only a nuisance to Russians. Infantry prevails. Mechanized and airmobile infantry, to be exact.

US Army will soon be selling their obsolete M1A2's in eBay for the highest bidder.