1st Tk Bn. RCT 7.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, 18:22 [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, 18:22 [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>