Sounds like you were with 1st MarDiv. 1st or 2d Tanks?
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>