Hi there Bernhard,

>>quote: Besides, the United States is trying to >>bring some civilization to Al Anbar, by force >>if necessary, :quote

>Sure, there was no civilization is Iraq before >the United States came to bring it. Just a few >thousand years...

>What a f... racist sentence.

Thank you for acknowledging that civilization is a distinct, and legitimate, means for different people to live under a rule of law.

Er... that... *was* why you were so incensed at that casual slip of the keyboard, right? Because you know the value of civilization, and know why it must be understood, and defended?

What a f... stupid objection.

Posted by: Edwin at March 10, 2006 11:11 PM

Actually the Shermans of WWII were not intended to go toe to toe with enemy armor, that was the Tank Destroyer Corps' raison d'etre. According to Gen Leslie McNair, CO of Army Ground Forces, the guy whose opinion mattered, tanks were to support infantry in stronpoint reduction for which a medium caliber, medium velocity cannon was sufficient. We started upgunning for anti-tank after his death in summer of '44 but the damage had already been done.

On the whose tank's better thing, decide what you want your tanks to do, then pick the design that fits best. Leo, Challenger, LeClerc, Abrams, all are useful designs whose effectiveness will depend on the competence of their crews and the ability of their commanders to best employ the tools at hand.

Posted by: JSAllison at March 10, 2006 10:29 AM

Bernhard,

Obviously you've never been to Al Anbar.

Posted by: David Axe at March 10, 2006 10:15 AM

I don’t think the M-8 Buford would be the beat all in Iraq. It’s a light armored gun basically that would be just as or more vulnerable as the Bradley actually maybe even more like Strikers.

The M-1 with its TUSK suit will be a something serous for urban warfare.

But if you want to really want an urban warfare Demon I think the Russians got the idea. Also the Israelis got something similar under development. I would imagine we would get something of the like in the years to come at least for our Legacy forces.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=8843

An Urban environment is 3dementional for one and 2 the terrorist tactics are hit and run. So you engage and only have a limited time to bring the pain before they again withdraw disperse to hit again later. This Russian baby will take the first hit then poor out all hell in short order high angle if desired also.

Posted by: C-Low at March 10, 2006 12:40 AM

Just got done reading an article in popular mechanics,which touches on this subject.It went onto say that,while we are engaged in a global war onterror(GWOT)We are still funding high tech,cold war combined arms conflict weapon systems such as the F-22 raptor,future combat system,littorell classfrigates and DDX advanced technology destroyers.The thinking here is that these systems are for a future hypothetical/possible dust up with china.a sound rationale,taking into consideration china's ramping up of military power

of course due concideration must be given to our
current engagement scenario.Low intensity conflict
like,guerrila style counter-insurgancys requires
a different approach.admittedly,pressing an M1-a1
abrams from cold war anti-armour,tank killer to
close-in urban assault gun platform seems out of
place,but remember,the m-4 sherman tank of WW2
was originaly intended to go head to head with
that eras german armour(for which it was sadly,
not up to the task,as the smoking hulks of sherman
tanks littering the german and french countryside gave stark testimony.)but was used in urban house to house fire support.

Not a perfect solution,the question of course still begs,do we need to go to an older,or more
to the point,simpler,mobile gun platform for urban
fire team support? well,we had a solution,in the form of the m-8 mobile gun platform,which,had been
given the green lite for adoption,until an eleventh hour budget cut by our friends on capitol
hill put the deal to bed,presumably for good.

Why is that relevant? simple.the m-8 was, for all intents and purposes just what the doctor ordered
for an light,air transportable,armoured assault
vehicle that could be deployed in a rapid reaction
force,was simple,staight-forward,yet completely
upgradeable on the ground as was the mission
requirement.But the powers that be axed because,
they thought(although,nowadays,politicos"thinking"
is usually a relative thing)it was unnessesary.

Hmmm,seems pretty nessesary now doesn't it? we seem to lack for foresight here.The need for big manuever warfare items,in case we may need them
is valid,but,weapons geared towards GWOT,MOUT and
CQB/CQC operations must also take precedants if we
are to maintain a force structure which can,indeed,address the threats we come up against
effectively,what ever they may happen to be.

Taking an all inclusive approach is just being smart,if not prudent.We seem to base our operational thinking on big war,state-on-state
conflict.But we have to be more versatile,now,more
then ever.Theres been a lot of talk about our
forces being adaptable,its well past time we started walking the walk.

Posted by: KATSESAMA at March 9, 2006 11:10 PM

quote: Besides, the United States is trying to bring some civilization to Al Anbar, by force if necessary, :quote

Sure, there was no civilization is Iraq before the United States came to bring it. Just a few thousand years...

What a f... racist sentence.

Posted by: Bernhard at March 9, 2006 08:39 PM

I am not so sure that the M1 is "hands down" the best MBT in the world. The Leopard 2 would almost certainly give it a run for its money, and the Challenger 2 is no slouch either.

Posted by: Maurs at March 9, 2006 06:36 PM

Joseph
The M-14 uses a 7.62 Nato round or pretty much a 308 win

Bottom line is yes it maybe that a old school T-55 can kill terrorist with AK’s just as well as a M-1A1Sepi BUT to get to fight a insurgency you must first conquer a nation. In this first phase the M-1A1Sepi is worth 20 or more T-55’s and if you count the lives not needlessly sacrificed its advantage is innumerable. When they are complaining about how they are dieing in droves and their tanks don’t stack up see WW2/European front then its serious, Never Again.

Very simply it’s a balance you must have equipment that can decisively win the conventional war even if that means you have less numbers and needless overkill during the insurgency phase.

Saddams Army was perfect for fighting insurgency. Massive numbers of boots, Tanks, and brutal. But when they hit the US Army all those numbers were useless and therefore their great insurgency Army was killed before they even made it to the insurgency stage.

Prepare for the Big Show adapt to the little show when it comes. A disadvantage in the big show is detrimental a disadvantage in the little show is containable.

Posted by: C-Low at March 9, 2006 05:47 PM

There is a discussion there for sure. But as far as the tanks goes I don't think that a older model would be better. My reasoning would be the armour protection that the moderen M-1 has, the ceramic type armour isn't on the older models and thats what protects them from HEAT rounds like the RPG's. Now I do belive that the M-60 had a upgrade that covered the frontal arc with ceramic, I am not sure of the designation. To my knowledge the M-48a5 or the M-41's didn't. But on those tanks the all around protection isn't there to take multiple hits and we would have more casulties. But a program could be undertaken to upgrade these but at what cost. Well one thing I noticed that they want to add to the M-1 is the phone on the outside so the infantry can talk to the tank with out anyone exposing themselves, I know that was a standard on the old M-41 and I belive the M-48 and M-60 had it also. Funny that it was eliminated on the M-1 and now all of a sudden they want it. Of course I am no expert on any of this, just my two cents. I guess there are other examples like small arms rounds. I have seen where Marines have went back to the M-14 becasuse they like the heavier .30 round and it's power though they trade off for weight with the 5..56. Also I have seen guys use the M-79 launcher to take our IED's. But I don't think the M-113 would be better then the Bradley or Stryker. I guess it would be case by case thing.

Posted by: Joseph at March 9, 2006 05:01 PM