Similar fun on the other end when we hear the LAR talk about how fast they
are. Not faster than 120mm!
I will say again that for however much we despised the grunts in garrison
(which was entirely mutual), I loved seeing them dig fighting positions
near us on first entering Baghdad. We each echoed the "glad to see you
guys" of the other. Then proceeded to direct our amer at 4th ID for not
relieving us on schedule.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, 14:45 [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> There was also a large component of professional jealousy within the Army
> toward the Cav-Armor branch. Those guys didn't just think in 45 mph vice 2
> mph on the battlefield, but in everything they did. Armor was always out
> front, moving out and drawing fire for the benefit of the whole service,
> and the other branches didn't like it. First they got a chief of armor to
> sell out and give the Stryker command slots to the infantry, then they
> moved the branch down to Fort Benning to be smothered in the 2 mph swamp.
> RIP, Armor Branch, RIP maneuver warfare, hello flypaper.
>
>
>
> > I'm slightly more cynical than you when it comes to the "tank
> > controversy".
> >
> > 1. There is no controversy.
> > 2. The last war was fought mostly by infantry and a lot of spec ops with
> > tanks providing a supporting role. If the the old quote about wars is
> > true, that "the next great war will not be fought like the last one...",
> > then the next war will involve a lot of mechanized forces fighting large
> > scale tank battles.
> > 3. The generals that tell you that "we don't need more tanks" live a
> > lifestyle of comfort that is totally dependent upon them agreeing 100% of
> > the time on important issues (like which weapons systems we need/don't
> > need) with the politicians who hired them. Their word can't be trusted.
> > 4. The current batch of politicians (especially those in charge of
> > Defense/War departments) in the West think "Call of Duty" is a real
> > reflection of how wars are fought, don't know an AK-47 from a
> > semiautomatic rifle, have a boss that has 14 other budget priorities that
> > get them more votes (manned space flight not being one of them) and have
> > their countries mired in debt/bad economies. Worse, some of them actually
> > believe that some countries can be talked to death and out of being bad
> > people and think that a standing army is largely unnecessary.
> > 5. Much like economists, you lay a 100 "defense analysts" end to end and
> > they will all point in a different direction. When you hear a general or
> > a politician claiming their views against tanks are supported by defense
> > analysts, what they are saying is true. Defense analysts also say we need
> > the same number of tanks, more/better tanks, and one or two think that
> > getting rid of the horse cavalry was a bad idea.
>
>
>
are. Not faster than 120mm!
I will say again that for however much we despised the grunts in garrison
(which was entirely mutual), I loved seeing them dig fighting positions
near us on first entering Baghdad. We each echoed the "glad to see you
guys" of the other. Then proceeded to direct our amer at 4th ID for not
relieving us on schedule.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, 14:45 [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> There was also a large component of professional jealousy within the Army
> toward the Cav-Armor branch. Those guys didn't just think in 45 mph vice 2
> mph on the battlefield, but in everything they did. Armor was always out
> front, moving out and drawing fire for the benefit of the whole service,
> and the other branches didn't like it. First they got a chief of armor to
> sell out and give the Stryker command slots to the infantry, then they
> moved the branch down to Fort Benning to be smothered in the 2 mph swamp.
> RIP, Armor Branch, RIP maneuver warfare, hello flypaper.
>
>
>
> > I'm slightly more cynical than you when it comes to the "tank
> > controversy".
> >
> > 1. There is no controversy.
> > 2. The last war was fought mostly by infantry and a lot of spec ops with
> > tanks providing a supporting role. If the the old quote about wars is
> > true, that "the next great war will not be fought like the last one...",
> > then the next war will involve a lot of mechanized forces fighting large
> > scale tank battles.
> > 3. The generals that tell you that "we don't need more tanks" live a
> > lifestyle of comfort that is totally dependent upon them agreeing 100% of
> > the time on important issues (like which weapons systems we need/don't
> > need) with the politicians who hired them. Their word can't be trusted.
> > 4. The current batch of politicians (especially those in charge of
> > Defense/War departments) in the West think "Call of Duty" is a real
> > reflection of how wars are fought, don't know an AK-47 from a
> > semiautomatic rifle, have a boss that has 14 other budget priorities that
> > get them more votes (manned space flight not being one of them) and have
> > their countries mired in debt/bad economies. Worse, some of them actually
> > believe that some countries can be talked to death and out of being bad
> > people and think that a standing army is largely unnecessary.
> > 5. Much like economists, you lay a 100 "defense analysts" end to end and
> > they will all point in a different direction. When you hear a general or
> > a politician claiming their views against tanks are supported by defense
> > analysts, what they are saying is true. Defense analysts also say we need
> > the same number of tanks, more/better tanks, and one or two think that
> > getting rid of the horse cavalry was a bad idea.
>
>
>