Figured it was either that or 2 Tk/RCT 5.
Are you still in? Figure you're not a Reservista, else you would have been
with Tarawa, although that was 12 years ago, maybe you are now.
> 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
Are you still in? Figure you're not a Reservista, else you would have been
with Tarawa, although that was 12 years ago, maybe you are now.
> 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>