CM related news article (Shermans)

[Hans]

The US Army's Armor Branch is giving a frosty welcome to the

idea of giving up M1 tanks for LAV armored cars. According to spokesmen from

the infantry branch, the armor should use these lighter vehicles so that they

can be quickly transported to a theater of war and provide armored support

for the infantry. The Armor Branch, however, points out serious problems with

this theory. Simply put, LAVs cannot survive in combat against tanks and

major armor-killing systems. If it is a choice between an LAV that arrived on

time and a tank that did not arrive on time, the Armor Branch points out that

it would be better not to be there at all. If the first tanks to arrive in

the Gulf War had instead been LAVs, they could not have stopped attacks by

Iraqi T-55s and T-62s. As such, the problem is not getting light vehicles to

the battle, but to figure out a way to get heavy tanks to the battle faster.

That might mean more cargo planes, new dirigibles, or high-speed ships. The

tankers point out the painful lessons of WWII. The Army lost 900 Sherman

tanks between 6 June and 14 August 1944. (Shermans had about the same armor

as the LAV, and faced less of a threat than the US would face in many

theaters today.) While the loss of 900 vehicles and a few thousand crewmen

were bad enough in World War II, such losses would be unsustainable

today.--Stephen V Cole

[JunoReactor]

The counter-argument is that the US army may be more often than not called to peacekeeping operations which call for rapid deployment of light forces.

In such cases, M1s are useless for combat is rarely, if ever, seen. Their high operating cost males them a liability in such cases.

[gunnergoz]

You might want to read up on the US Army's dismal experience in Ethiopia, in particular Black Hawk Down is a chilling and in-your-face depiction of infantry combat in urban terrain as I've ever read.

Denied the use of a platoon of Abrams they'd requested by a SecDef who was himself thousands of miles from the scene, the US rangers had to depend upon "allied" armor to come rescue them, with the result that there were many more dead rangers than need have happened.

LAV's in that environment would have been eaten alive, which is what happened to the armored humvees and allied APC's that were present during the rescue.

I'm very, VERY worried about the wisdom (NOT!) of abandoning our heavy armor just to accomodate some civilian consultant's view of what future combat will entail.

What's worse is that the Army's own leaders have a disappointing propensity to make boners like this decision. Group-think and yes-man thinking at it's worse. Anyone see the emperor's new clothes?

The only thing worse than preparing to fight yesterday's war, is getting into tomorrows war while crippled by today's mistakes.

[LimShady]

When they say LAV, do they mean the Marine Corps LAV (with 20mm cannon)? If so, the Armor branch is probably right, no way could those things have stopped T-72s, but one has to wonder what the case would be if the proposed 105mm LAV existed at the time.

My $.02

LimShady

[JunoReactor]

Ethiopia or Somalia?

I am pretty sure the events you described happened in Somalia, which was a peacekeeping operation, lending some value to your argument.

Yet, Somalia was a lesson on how not to conduct peacekeeping operations. The US chose sides in a conflict where they were supposed to keep peace, so they drew themselves into the conflict. The whole thing became a manhunt.

I am not a military expert and I cannot comment on the value of a M1 in such operations. I merely gave the argument behind LAVs.

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by JunoReactor:

Ethiopia or Somalia?

...

Thanks, JunoReactor, brain fart, it was of course Somalia...just tired, I guess

[Doug Williams]

First everyone in the U.S. Army gets a black beret to make them feel "special". Now, let's take away their tanks. Sheesh! What are we going to do if, God forbid, we get into another war? Give 'em a mean look?

Doug "I'd rather have an Abrams than a black beret." Williams

[This message has been edited by Doug Williams (edited 03-20-2001).]

[:USERNAME:]

What is needed is a convertible armored vehicle. It can be air shipped light, so that a fast, heavily armed weapon system can get to where its needed, and then converted with armor packs that can arrive after. The suspension has to be adaptable for each role.

The initial armor is just bullet proof with reactive armor on the front. Add on slabs give protection with chobham/uranium armor later to the front and the reactive armor is moved to the sides.

Without the add-on armor, the vehicle has great speed/acceleration. This gives it the ability to out manuver to survive and to get to where it is needed (without sucking down all the fuel). Its basically a hot rod cannon that can be made into a miniM1 later. A drop weight of 20 tons and 15 tons of add-ons.

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 03-20-2001).]

[Croda]

Recall the debacle in Yugoslavia where it took Apache Crews weeks to get the helicopters ready for flight. I can't imagine taking light vehicles which are overmatched in the field, pulling them all back, adding all sorts of armor, and returning them to the field to sieze the day. How is that supposed to work?

[This message has been edited by Croda (edited 03-20-2001).]

[Olle Petersson]

From what I've read about this it's not an issue of replacements for the M1s, but a whole new (intermediate) organisation.

The options, when action is needed here and now, are:

1) The infantry go in directly by air, with heavy MBTs arriving by ship for support a couple of weeks later.

2) US troops arrive after a couple of weeks, when their cargo ships has arrived at a nearby friendly harbour and disembarked all troops and equipment.

3) The infantry arrive by air, supported by light/medium AFVs. Should there, against any assumption, arise a need for heavier support, then that will arrive by ship within a couple of weeks.

Today #2 is the one in use, with #1 as optional. #3 is the one suggested for future use.

Cheers

Olle

[Enoch]

My understanding of the situation is that the US Army is starting to use LAV's for quicker deployments as an interim step until a new lighter Armoured vehicle is developed. The main battle tank may still have a place in the army inventory, but the new lighter tank will be used to enable faster deployment.

I think I recall seeing that the development of the new vehicle centered around wheeled versus tracked (with wheeled winning) and how large of a gun to put on it.

That is all.

[Echo]

The root of the problem lies with the Navy, not the Army. When I left the Navy in '94, we (USA) had over 600 combat and transport ships. Today, thanks to the incompetence of our last elected leader, we have less than 300.

Our naval transport capacity is abysmal. And while we may be able to move equipment to deal with "peace keeping" mission, we would be sorely lacking if a major conflict erupted.

It took 3 months to move the men and equipment into the gulf before the ground war started. That is in fact why it was delayed so long, Schwatzcoff(?) waited long enough to get everything he needed there.

It would take an executive order to seize conrol of the Merchant Marine to deal with a massive conflict today.

It sounds like the politicians are evicerating our military readiness again.

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

As I walk through the Valley of Death, I will fear nothing, for I am the meanest mother*#*#** in the valley. (George S. Patton)

[Cos]

One of the problems the army had in the Gulf War was getting the M1's prepped for combat once they were unloaded from the ships.

The army asked for Driver/Mechanics from General Dynmanics to come over to Suadi Arabra and help their personnel in getting the tanks combat ready. A large number of the GD guys went over to help. Of course the pay wasn't bad for them either, the first one back was driving a brand new convertable through the gate at work. Pays to have skill like that

[Enoch]

Here is a link that discusses what the Army is trying to do in updating it's armoured forces. Essentially they want to develop a 20 ton tank that is a lethal and has the "survivability" of the M1 but can fit in a C-130.

Go to the links that talk about the objective force. The LAV (or IAV as the Army calls it) is meant to be part of the interim force.

http://www.army.mil/usa/Cover%20Sheet.htm

[This message has been edited by Enoch (edited 03-20-2001).]

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Croda:

Recall the debacle in Yugoslavia where it took Apache Crews weeks to get the helicopters ready for flight. I can't imagine taking light vehicles which are overmatched in the field, pulling them all back, adding all sorts of armor, and returning them to the field to sieze the day. How is that supposed to work?

[This message has been edited by Croda (edited 03-20-2001).]

Yea, let's think about this a little.

No deep water port near Yugoslavia. Greece politely declines to allow our army to use theirs. So I don't know how you're going to "adding all sorts of armor, and returning them to the field to seize the day." Since they can't there from here.

Now what?

"Oh sorry - we only fight in easily accessible areas with open terrain. So let's take this marker and mark on the map where our enemies can operate. Lebanon didn't work out too good - so that's out. ... too hilly ... major city ... no deep water port close by ... There. Nice and comfy areas for us - enemies please restrict yourselves to these areas. Thank You."

[Blenheim]

Oh, pleaseeeee...

If I find any other American complaining about "how bad is our army", I'll send the Panthers in... please...

Come on, the US armed forces are by far the best of the whole globe. No way to win them, anybody. Really anybody (Nukes not allowed) can put up a fight against US. So stop complaining.

Since you lost Vietnam (Guerrilla warfare is the only Spanish apportation to modern war, BTW... yes, spaniard here) you really feel weak...

[CavScout]

Originally posted by JunoReactor:

The counter-argument is that the US army may be more often than not called to peacekeeping operations which call for rapid deployment of light forces.

In such cases, M1s are useless for combat is rarely, if ever, seen. Their high operating cost males them a liability in such cases.

And the counter-argument is two fold, should we be in peace-keeping/making and is it really better to mold a force to be ready for peace-keeping/making but unprepared for a major war or to have it ready for major war but less suited for peace-keeping/making?

History seems to show that as soon as you think a big war isn't comming one does.

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 03-20-2001).]

[Guy w/gun]

double post

[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-20-2001).]

[Guy w/gun]

Originally posted by Blenheim:

Oh, pleaseeeee...

If I find any other American complaining about "how bad is our army", I'll send the Panthers in... please...

Come on, the US armed forces are by far the best of the whole globe. No way to win them, anybody. Really anybody (Nukes not allowed) can put up a fight against US. So stop complaining.

Since you lost Vietnam (Guerrilla warfare is the only Spanish apportation to modern war, BTW... yes, spaniard here) you really feel weak...

I swear to GOD. I am so tired of posts like this. Don't you know that this is a one way ticket to lock down? If I (an American) feel that my armed forces is lacking, I have every right to say so. And I assure you that those who feel that way on this board express informed opinions

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

"I saw one of the new Tiger tanks at a range of around 1000 yards & fired seven times. I saw each round bounce off the front & side armour. The Tiger traversed it's gun & blew off our left track killing the driver.

"British Matilda tank commander Tunisia 1943

[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-20-2001).]

[gunnergoz]

I've seen our friend Blenhiem take to this nationality-bashing before in a different thread and then it was with the Italians. Unfortunately for him, perhaps, I happen to be BOTH American and Italian, so he crosses wires with me on both counts.

Blenheim, you seem quick to bring up the issue of nationality so perhaps your are sensitive about the topic; I don't know what kinks your pantyhose and I really don't care.

What I want you to consider is that the facts of global diplomacy force the USA, for better or worse, into the forefront of crisis situations. Often, we are invited but other times we have to take the initiative when others clearly are reluctant to.

In any event, like it or not, we will be there and our citizens at home are understandably sensitive to seeing their sons and daughters put into harms way. I'm quite sure that Spanish folk are no different from any others in this regard.

That's why it's so nice to wrap a couple of feet of M-1 Abrams Chobham around one's precious butt when one goes into a hostile environment. We want our soldiers protected and able to get the job done with minimum danger to themselves.

This is not an issue about who's army is best, but rather one about what is best for that army's people.

Es claro, amigo?

[Guy w/gun]

Good points, gunnergoz.

Not to mention that while US tech is really good, US numbers aren't. Technology can't always make up for the lack of equal numbers.

[Simon Fox]

I am sure that the US Army is not run by a bunch of bozos as implied by some posts in this thread. As a disinterested observer it seems to me that the proposal is directed at providing better protection for the infantry under certain circumstances where heavy tanks are unavailable. It's all a matter of "horses for courses". As I understand it not every US soldier has the option of wrapping "a couple of feet of M-1 Abrams Chobham around one's precious butt" perhaps those guys might appreciate the availability of a bit more firepower on the ground in a hurry when it counts. Every time this sort of bash your own army or political control of it thread comes up the spectre of Somalia is raised. I've got to admit this is one of the most amusing, the idea of a bunch of Abrams trolling round shooting up Mogadishu while on a supposed humanitarian mission is pretty funny. I would suggest there were a few more planning cockups involved than just the absence of a few heavy tanks.

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

"Stand to your glasses steady,

This world is a world of lies,

Here's a toast to the dead already,

And here's to the next man to die."

-hymn of the "Double Reds"

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

...I would suggest there were a few more planning cockups involved than just the absence of a few heavy tanks.

Actually, Simon, you are correct, there were a number of errors made in the Somalian episonde.

This does not alter the fact that US commanders on the ground requested the deployment of a platoon of Abrams to Somalia, but were turned down by a politically sensitized Secretary of Defense. As I recall this unhappy episode, this same SecDef later resigned over the scandal when Rangers died unnecessarily in Somalia because they had no organic heavy armor backup.

Like the debacle at Desert One, the abortive attempt to rescue US embassy hostages in Iran, these are lousy decisions made by politicians miles away that cost soldiers their lives for no good reason or result.

Again, the issue here is whether the Army leadership is pursuing a wise course of action. The Army's leadership has not always shined and has shown periodic propensities to choose the wrong doctrine, strategy or weapons for a particular task. This seems the result of a promotion system that rewards "school solutions" and stifles the career progress of battle-wise officers. Thus we see politicized decisions driven by budget constraints, special interests, industry inside deals and beltway expediency. These decisions seldom seem to reflect the actual experience, desires and interests of the soldier who has to be at the pointy end.

[Soddball]

Interestingly there was an article in the 'New Scientist' a few months ago investigating the advantages of using giant airships to transport cargo. With an estimated cargo capacity of 200-400 tons and a flight time across the atlantic of 24-48 hours (depending on whether you have a headwind or not)half a dozen of these machines could allow you to deploy moderate numbers of heavy armour units rapidly. The downside is their great size and the fact that they are not desperately stealthy and are, of course, highly vulnerable - but if you need to ship goods across a large area very rapidly then this seems to me to be the best way to do it.

I am inclined to agree with those taunting Blenheim - let the US pick their own armies - but it does worry me when I hear reports that the US is no longer going to take an 'active role' as world peacekeeper. With our crappy aircraft carriers and my cretinous british government cutting back on all the military hardware we urgently need I welcome 90,000 tons of nuclear carrier backing up British forces on the ground.

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

"Woof!Woof!"

That's my other dog impression.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Soddball:

The downside is their great size and the fact that they are not desperately stealthy...

I'd say they're pretty stealthy.

They're clearly visible to the eye, allright, but the radar signature is minimal.

I don't know about thermal and audible signature.

Most stealth aircraft of today aren't stealthy from any other aspect than radar visibility...

Cheers

Olle