Blackhawk Down Part II
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
From my experience in the mid 70's the Sheridan "Tank" was a dog. Never met a tanker who liked the system. The main gun was 152mm and often knocked out the missile system when fired with conventional ammo. Firing the main gun would cause the "Tank" to rock back severly and actually lifted the first two roadwheels off the ground. The tankers in my unit joked that you could always tell a sheridan tank commander because they always had their ribs taped up. Sheridan gunners would get a black eye if they didnt press their head against the gunsight. The conventional rounds used "Caseless" ammo that caused more than one fatality when they cooked off. Not one of the Army's better designs.
Now you guys made me go out and buy the book!
Geoff Ross
[This message has been edited by K80Geoff (edited February 05, 2000).]
Now you guys made me go out and buy the book!
Geoff Ross
[This message has been edited by K80Geoff (edited February 05, 2000).]
Jeff White
New member
As bad as the Sheridan was, we have no armored punch in light units at all now. The Armored Gun System has been cancelled. This leaves the 82d Airborne totally dependent on tactical air, attack helos, the TOW and Javelin anti tank missles for anti armor weapons. I think a plan exists to move a tank heavy company team from Ft Stewart GA with the 82d, but this will require the seizure of an airfield and a lot of C5 sorties to accomplish.
If we ever get light forces involved in a situation like in Blackhawk Down at the start of a deployment, before armor can be brought in many of the lessons that 18 brave men gave their lives to learn will be for naught.
Think about this scenario for a minute: We currently have troops deployed in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Kuwait besides Korea and about 100 other hot spots around the world. Another "crisis" breaks out in Columbia. The 82d Airborne and the Ranger Regiment move in to begin stabilizing our neighbor to the South. Columbia is light infantry terrain so the forces deployed seem to be a logical choice. Special Forces missions to capture rebel leaders meet with success while they are in the boonies, but they catch on and quickly move into the cities. A similar ambush to Mogadishu could happen in the early stages of the conflict and the same thing could happen, not because we didn't learn from Somalia, but because we don't have air transportable armor or the lift to move our regular armor and support all the other far flung deployments at the same time. Could it happen again?
Jeff
If we ever get light forces involved in a situation like in Blackhawk Down at the start of a deployment, before armor can be brought in many of the lessons that 18 brave men gave their lives to learn will be for naught.
Think about this scenario for a minute: We currently have troops deployed in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Kuwait besides Korea and about 100 other hot spots around the world. Another "crisis" breaks out in Columbia. The 82d Airborne and the Ranger Regiment move in to begin stabilizing our neighbor to the South. Columbia is light infantry terrain so the forces deployed seem to be a logical choice. Special Forces missions to capture rebel leaders meet with success while they are in the boonies, but they catch on and quickly move into the cities. A similar ambush to Mogadishu could happen in the early stages of the conflict and the same thing could happen, not because we didn't learn from Somalia, but because we don't have air transportable armor or the lift to move our regular armor and support all the other far flung deployments at the same time. Could it happen again?
Jeff
I'm surprised the Humvee has engine trouble; even Japanese diesels run reliably. I could understand tranny problems (I don't trust auto trannys) or axle problems (due to the extra independent suspension parts).
if the aircraft industry was like any other industry, we could be cranking out C-17s for about $1M per copy, but we'd have to shoot several thousand GAO beancounters first. the way we buy military aircraft now, they're basically handmade one at a time.
with respect to armor, the Army seems to have OTA disease (One True Answer). if we have the dominant MBT, then the soft-skinned guys will be able to follow anywhere. just like with fighters; we have the F-15, so our other aircraft don't need self-defense capabilities.
I agree with you that many problems are best solved by the brute force solution. makes no sense for infantry companies to go mano-a-mano with the bad guys when we can "attack with our factories" (i.e. more guns, bigger guns, more ammo etc). I don't mind running out of the high-tech stuff, as long as it does its job and weakens enemy forces in preparation for direct action. of course, you've got to have the basic low-tech mechanical stuff for "Phase II", and there's always limited funding.
if we went to a more rational procurement process, we could drive prices down to where we really could afford a lot of high-tech stuff. but that would require a total overhaul of the culture in Congress, GAO, and DoD. we all know how likely that is. putting a man on the moon was easier.
if the aircraft industry was like any other industry, we could be cranking out C-17s for about $1M per copy, but we'd have to shoot several thousand GAO beancounters first. the way we buy military aircraft now, they're basically handmade one at a time.
with respect to armor, the Army seems to have OTA disease (One True Answer). if we have the dominant MBT, then the soft-skinned guys will be able to follow anywhere. just like with fighters; we have the F-15, so our other aircraft don't need self-defense capabilities.
I agree with you that many problems are best solved by the brute force solution. makes no sense for infantry companies to go mano-a-mano with the bad guys when we can "attack with our factories" (i.e. more guns, bigger guns, more ammo etc). I don't mind running out of the high-tech stuff, as long as it does its job and weakens enemy forces in preparation for direct action. of course, you've got to have the basic low-tech mechanical stuff for "Phase II", and there's always limited funding.
if we went to a more rational procurement process, we could drive prices down to where we really could afford a lot of high-tech stuff. but that would require a total overhaul of the culture in Congress, GAO, and DoD. we all know how likely that is. putting a man on the moon was easier.
The army is actually planning on going meduim. The currenlt plan is buy alot of LAV type vehcile and equip several brigades with them, and get ride of most of the Heavy armor. I beleive all the new wheeled gear is being tested at Ft Lewis. Also there is a LAV 25 recon troop as part of the DIVCAV of the 82nd. I was shock when I was told that by some Cpt that spent there entire time with the 82nd, but apparently they are the only LAV in the army right now. But in ten years or so, they will be the primary armor in the Army. This might also be the doom for the 100+ ton Crusader howitzer.
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
Mike Spight
New member
STLRN:
You're correct. Development of the METLs from Bde down to Squad/Section level, training guidance, DTOE, etc. is going on now. The Brigade Combat Team will be tested at Ft. Lewis, with 3d Bde, 2ID being the first to transform. Mission is SSCs to SASO with the capability (if required) to participate in MTW.
Request for proposals for a LAV type infantry carrier and some type of gun (probably a 105mm) to be mounted on a MAV wheeled platform are out. Intent is to have a Bde with three motorized inf bn, a Recce/Surveillance/Targeting/Acquisition Sqdn (RSTA), Bde Support Bn, various separate companies (MI, Signal, Anti-tank, etc) in the package. No organic rotary wing, dramatically reduced tail to tooth ratio compared to the typical heavy brigade or Cav Regt. Bottom line....air liftable anywhere in the world (wheels-up and on the ground) w/in 96 hours. It's the lead-in for Force XXI and will be fully digitized. Intent is to have one Btry of HIMARS, but will most likely end up with Btry of 198s as there is only one HIMARS Plt in existence at this time.
We'll see...
Mike
[This message has been edited by Mike Spight (edited February 06, 2000).]
You're correct. Development of the METLs from Bde down to Squad/Section level, training guidance, DTOE, etc. is going on now. The Brigade Combat Team will be tested at Ft. Lewis, with 3d Bde, 2ID being the first to transform. Mission is SSCs to SASO with the capability (if required) to participate in MTW.
Request for proposals for a LAV type infantry carrier and some type of gun (probably a 105mm) to be mounted on a MAV wheeled platform are out. Intent is to have a Bde with three motorized inf bn, a Recce/Surveillance/Targeting/Acquisition Sqdn (RSTA), Bde Support Bn, various separate companies (MI, Signal, Anti-tank, etc) in the package. No organic rotary wing, dramatically reduced tail to tooth ratio compared to the typical heavy brigade or Cav Regt. Bottom line....air liftable anywhere in the world (wheels-up and on the ground) w/in 96 hours. It's the lead-in for Force XXI and will be fully digitized. Intent is to have one Btry of HIMARS, but will most likely end up with Btry of 198s as there is only one HIMARS Plt in existence at this time.
We'll see...
Mike
[This message has been edited by Mike Spight (edited February 06, 2000).]
I've seen a few mentions of Shinseka's (sp?) new vision. I've also read some less than supportive comments concerning use of wheeled chassis versus tracked. supposed to have less offroad mobility, plus puncture vulnerability, plus the fire problem. I wonder if the preference for wheels has more to do with pavement damage than cost or weight.
and I really don't like getting rid of MBTs. there is a time and place for them, though the M1/M1A1 family could go on a bit of a diet and replace those turbines with turbodiesels.
and I really don't like getting rid of MBTs. there is a time and place for them, though the M1/M1A1 family could go on a bit of a diet and replace those turbines with turbodiesels.
oberkommando
New member
Ivan you dont seem to like turbine anything, should we go back to props in our jet aircraft. 
Most th400 trannys in boneyard will go another 100,000 miles with just a tranny flush and filter service. Also you could keep only the manual valve circuit in them and shift manually and the torque converter will last longer that clutches. Hummer dont put out nearly the torque or hp that drag cars and built street engines do and they seem to handle the 600-1000hp 500cid engines fine. Think they just need to use the proper tranny and build the hard parts correctly like the intermediate sprag on the TH400, its a little problem prone so best to upgrade it. These trannys have been used in school buses so a Hummer should be no problem.
Had question about the 5 ton trucks used in the Corp. Why did they change for 10 wheels to six? See them driving to san diego once in a while. Would love to have one.
Most th400 trannys in boneyard will go another 100,000 miles with just a tranny flush and filter service. Also you could keep only the manual valve circuit in them and shift manually and the torque converter will last longer that clutches. Hummer dont put out nearly the torque or hp that drag cars and built street engines do and they seem to handle the 600-1000hp 500cid engines fine. Think they just need to use the proper tranny and build the hard parts correctly like the intermediate sprag on the TH400, its a little problem prone so best to upgrade it. These trannys have been used in school buses so a Hummer should be no problem.
Had question about the 5 ton trucks used in the Corp. Why did they change for 10 wheels to six? See them driving to san diego once in a while. Would love to have one.
Mike Spight
New member
We're not getting rid of the M1A1 and M1A2 MBTs...we're not getting rid of the Bradley IFV and CFV either.
What Gen Shinseki (Army Chief of Staff) envisions is having a Brigade Combat Team available within existing force structure (IOW, within existing divisions) that can deploy totally by air and be on the ground w/in 96 hours.
Going to tires does two things: Lighter weight (remember, 96 hours by air) and a hell of a lot less maintenance than with track laying vehicles. Again, reducing the tail to tooth ratio is what they're looking for.
Mike
What Gen Shinseki (Army Chief of Staff) envisions is having a Brigade Combat Team available within existing force structure (IOW, within existing divisions) that can deploy totally by air and be on the ground w/in 96 hours.
Going to tires does two things: Lighter weight (remember, 96 hours by air) and a hell of a lot less maintenance than with track laying vehicles. Again, reducing the tail to tooth ratio is what they're looking for.
Mike
Gopher a 45
New member
Didn't Cadillac-Gage put something out in the mid-80s called the Stingray? It was a light tracked vehicle with a 105mm and I want to say an autoloader. I think it was supposed to be low-cost MBT for poor nations and potentially useful for something like a 96h RDF. I don't remember if it was airmobile (if it wasn't, that would shoot the airmobility thing in the head!) or what the gross weight was.
I've heard secondhand that the M1 series is a little more maintnance-intensive than the M-60 (Stories of the Army raiding ANG vehicle for spares and such), but that could be professional pride, as the teller of this was a long-time M-60 jockey!
I've heard secondhand that the M1 series is a little more maintnance-intensive than the M-60 (Stories of the Army raiding ANG vehicle for spares and such), but that could be professional pride, as the teller of this was a long-time M-60 jockey!
I *love* turbine engines, but on aircraft. on aircraft, their lower SFC is more than offset by very high power/weight ratio. but the fuel consumption of the Abrams is a real problem, and all that speed doesn't do any good if they outrun their fuel supply as apparently happened in Desert Storm. actually, gas turbines are also tres cool when used in frigates and destroyers; very quick acceleration which helps a lot when chasing subs.
auto trannys *can* be reliable, but it seems like Detroit has a tendency to install juiceboxes that are marginal for the vehicle. just like alternators.
Mike, this "Brigade Combat Team" sounds sort of equivalent to the ACRs. will they be a full-time separate unit like the ACRs? and why is one a regiment and the other a brigade? is that a subtle indication of intra-branch politics, or merely a "tastes great/less filling" thing?
auto trannys *can* be reliable, but it seems like Detroit has a tendency to install juiceboxes that are marginal for the vehicle. just like alternators.
Mike, this "Brigade Combat Team" sounds sort of equivalent to the ACRs. will they be a full-time separate unit like the ACRs? and why is one a regiment and the other a brigade? is that a subtle indication of intra-branch politics, or merely a "tastes great/less filling" thing?
Jeff White
New member
Mike,
I know you've been around as long as I have. Do you remember when we tested the "motorized" concept at Ft Lewis in the early '80s? The 9th ID was the High Technology Test Bed back then. IIRC each squad had a Dodge M880 (they never did develop the wheeled APC the brigade was supposed to use). Sometimes it seems that there are no new ideas out there. I think the first Fast Attack Vehicles that the SF and SEALs use wer developed in that program.
From what I've read in Army Times the initial test brigae is to be just that, a test unit. The long term plans are to get away from tracks altogether. Of course considering your last assignment, you may know more then Army Times.
STLRN,
The LAV-25 was scheduled to be procured for Army light divisions as well as the USMC. Procurement was cancelled dud to funding and the need to keep the light divisions below the "magic" 500 C141 sorties to deploy the entire division. I wasn't aware that there were LAVs attached to the 82d Airborne. Makes more sense then trying to come up with the lift to move a tank heavy company team by air.
We are still years away from having any type of light armor capability in the Army. The scenario I mentioned could happen at any time. Maybe the planners have already thought of this and have a USMC LAV unit in contingency plans.
Jeff
I know you've been around as long as I have. Do you remember when we tested the "motorized" concept at Ft Lewis in the early '80s? The 9th ID was the High Technology Test Bed back then. IIRC each squad had a Dodge M880 (they never did develop the wheeled APC the brigade was supposed to use). Sometimes it seems that there are no new ideas out there. I think the first Fast Attack Vehicles that the SF and SEALs use wer developed in that program.
From what I've read in Army Times the initial test brigae is to be just that, a test unit. The long term plans are to get away from tracks altogether. Of course considering your last assignment, you may know more then Army Times.
STLRN,
The LAV-25 was scheduled to be procured for Army light divisions as well as the USMC. Procurement was cancelled dud to funding and the need to keep the light divisions below the "magic" 500 C141 sorties to deploy the entire division. I wasn't aware that there were LAVs attached to the 82d Airborne. Makes more sense then trying to come up with the lift to move a tank heavy company team by air.
We are still years away from having any type of light armor capability in the Army. The scenario I mentioned could happen at any time. Maybe the planners have already thought of this and have a USMC LAV unit in contingency plans.
Jeff
Mike Spight
New member
Ivanhoe:
No, they won't be separate formations, but within existing divisions (unless something changes within the next few days or weeks). About a million years ago when I was a Company Commander in Germany, my soldiers' and our unit's (a separate Corps MP Company) GDP was with 2d ACR and that's who we would have gone to war with. An ACR is (was) a huge organization. It had Bradley CFVs and M1A1 Abrams MBTs in the three ground Sqdns, one SP How Btry with each ground Sqdn, an Air Sqdn with attack and lift birds and a humongous Regimental Support Squadron. You could hardly lift it via air to anywhere in the world in 96 days, much less 96 hours. They were called "Regiments" because there was (and still is) more identification with a regimental system among Cav troops (IMHO) than with anyone else in the Army. The possible exceptions are the 75th Inf Regt (Rgr) and/or the 3d Inf Regt (The Old Guard).
The missions of an ACR and the proposed BCT are light years apart...an ACR's being the traditional recce and screening missions (performed for a Corps) in a MTW and the BCT's mission focus being on SSC and SASO.
Jeff:
Yeah, I was a 2Lt and a 1Lt in the old 9th ID from 1980 to 83. I remember the "heady days" of HTTD and the High Technology Test Bed on North Fort Lewis quite well. About the time I PCSd out to attend OAC (mid 83), my unit (9th Division MP Co) began receiving its FAVs. IIRC, they were made by Chenoweth and were awesome in the speed and handling department on hardstand or off road. You're right...the FAVs variants now used by SEALs (and I think the Rangers and some selected SF units played with them for a while) came out of that experiment. They also provided 1ea 250cc dirt bikes to each of our platoon hqs...same type the Rgr Bns were receiving. I know that at least one of the company's 5 Platoon Sergeants (maybe two of them) proceed to shatter their legs while tooling around Yakima or Ft. Lewis's training areas on them. After that, only the young, skinny Spec 4s and PFCs were allowed to get on them.
Jeff, the BCT is a test initially. If all goes well, it WILL happen with full operational capability a couple of years down the road. Again, it is the lead in to Force XXI and digitization. Getting all the new equipment in is the long pole in the tent right now. Again, this formation's major mission will be Small Scale Contengencies (SSCs) and Security and Stability Operations (SASO). It is not designed to be the initial entry force in a non-permissive, Major Theater War (MTW) scenario. The heavy divisions and brigades will still have that mission, probably following a DRB out of 18th Airborne Corps, ala Desert Shield if required.
Mike
No, they won't be separate formations, but within existing divisions (unless something changes within the next few days or weeks). About a million years ago when I was a Company Commander in Germany, my soldiers' and our unit's (a separate Corps MP Company) GDP was with 2d ACR and that's who we would have gone to war with. An ACR is (was) a huge organization. It had Bradley CFVs and M1A1 Abrams MBTs in the three ground Sqdns, one SP How Btry with each ground Sqdn, an Air Sqdn with attack and lift birds and a humongous Regimental Support Squadron. You could hardly lift it via air to anywhere in the world in 96 days, much less 96 hours. They were called "Regiments" because there was (and still is) more identification with a regimental system among Cav troops (IMHO) than with anyone else in the Army. The possible exceptions are the 75th Inf Regt (Rgr) and/or the 3d Inf Regt (The Old Guard).
The missions of an ACR and the proposed BCT are light years apart...an ACR's being the traditional recce and screening missions (performed for a Corps) in a MTW and the BCT's mission focus being on SSC and SASO.
Jeff:
Yeah, I was a 2Lt and a 1Lt in the old 9th ID from 1980 to 83. I remember the "heady days" of HTTD and the High Technology Test Bed on North Fort Lewis quite well. About the time I PCSd out to attend OAC (mid 83), my unit (9th Division MP Co) began receiving its FAVs. IIRC, they were made by Chenoweth and were awesome in the speed and handling department on hardstand or off road. You're right...the FAVs variants now used by SEALs (and I think the Rangers and some selected SF units played with them for a while) came out of that experiment. They also provided 1ea 250cc dirt bikes to each of our platoon hqs...same type the Rgr Bns were receiving. I know that at least one of the company's 5 Platoon Sergeants (maybe two of them) proceed to shatter their legs while tooling around Yakima or Ft. Lewis's training areas on them. After that, only the young, skinny Spec 4s and PFCs were allowed to get on them.
Jeff, the BCT is a test initially. If all goes well, it WILL happen with full operational capability a couple of years down the road. Again, it is the lead in to Force XXI and digitization. Getting all the new equipment in is the long pole in the tent right now. Again, this formation's major mission will be Small Scale Contengencies (SSCs) and Security and Stability Operations (SASO). It is not designed to be the initial entry force in a non-permissive, Major Theater War (MTW) scenario. The heavy divisions and brigades will still have that mission, probably following a DRB out of 18th Airborne Corps, ala Desert Shield if required.
Mike
Jeff White
New member
Mike,
I went to BRIMFROST 83 with 2d Brigade of the 9th. Just started the AGR progam and my Guard battalion, 3-130th Infantry was part of the task force that provided OPFOR for BRIMFROST. It was 2d Brigade HQ, a Battalion from Ft Lewis (3-60th maybe?) and a Marine Battalion from Okinawa. I was a SSG, assistant operations sergeant back then. Small world
I'm glad we're not totally doing away with heavy forces. The Army Times sure worked hard to give that impression. I'm not sure how impressed I am with Force XXI. They didn't do well at NTC and actually had a higher fratricide rate then other non-digitalized units. I guess we're a generation or two from making all that stuff work and developing the doctrine to employ it.
I am concerned that we don't have a light armor capability now. I think the scenario I mentioned is possible at any time. When troops are deployed is not the time to start working on this stuff. It's not that I'm against high tech weapons, it's that I'm for weapons and munitions that our industrial base and economy can support. I remember another army in history that had the most advanced weapons of the time. It was not so long ago. They had everything from the first real assault rifles to theater missile systems. But they lost to forces that had a lot of less sophisticated weapons and equipment. our current helmets look a lot like the ones they wore.
Jeff
I went to BRIMFROST 83 with 2d Brigade of the 9th. Just started the AGR progam and my Guard battalion, 3-130th Infantry was part of the task force that provided OPFOR for BRIMFROST. It was 2d Brigade HQ, a Battalion from Ft Lewis (3-60th maybe?) and a Marine Battalion from Okinawa. I was a SSG, assistant operations sergeant back then. Small world
I'm glad we're not totally doing away with heavy forces. The Army Times sure worked hard to give that impression. I'm not sure how impressed I am with Force XXI. They didn't do well at NTC and actually had a higher fratricide rate then other non-digitalized units. I guess we're a generation or two from making all that stuff work and developing the doctrine to employ it.
I am concerned that we don't have a light armor capability now. I think the scenario I mentioned is possible at any time. When troops are deployed is not the time to start working on this stuff. It's not that I'm against high tech weapons, it's that I'm for weapons and munitions that our industrial base and economy can support. I remember another army in history that had the most advanced weapons of the time. It was not so long ago. They had everything from the first real assault rifles to theater missile systems. But they lost to forces that had a lot of less sophisticated weapons and equipment. our current helmets look a lot like the ones they wore.
Jeff
Jeff White
New member
Ivanhoe - Here are some more military URLs: http://sill-www.army.mil/ This is the Ft Sill homepage. http://sill-www.army.mil/gunnery/ Field Artillery School gunnery Department
http://155.219.39.98/widd/default.htm Warfighting Integration and development Directorate
http://sill-www.army.mil/FSCAOD/ Fire Support and Combined Arms Operations
http://www.jrtc-polk.army.mil/ joint Readiness Training Center (NTC for light forces)
http://www.irwin.army.mil/ National Training Center
http://147.238.100.101/center/dtdd/doctrine/armordoc.htm Armor Center Doctrine
http://call.army.mil Center for Army lessons learned
http://sill-www.army.mil/graphics/clipart_library.htm Military Graphics
HTH
Jeff
http://155.219.39.98/widd/default.htm Warfighting Integration and development Directorate
http://sill-www.army.mil/FSCAOD/ Fire Support and Combined Arms Operations
http://www.jrtc-polk.army.mil/ joint Readiness Training Center (NTC for light forces)
http://www.irwin.army.mil/ National Training Center
http://147.238.100.101/center/dtdd/doctrine/armordoc.htm Armor Center Doctrine
http://call.army.mil Center for Army lessons learned
http://sill-www.army.mil/graphics/clipart_library.htm Military Graphics
HTH
Jeff
JW ad Ivanhoe:
I know FSCAOD's, and I am pretty sure the Gunnery Depts, webpages are out of date, The doctrine (or TTP) hasn't been updated in a long time. We tell the students specifically not to use it as a reference. WIDD, was the worst thing that happened to the FA school. No one including the members of WIDD know what their job is. They have basically become a lot of retired officers and SNCO that sit around and justify their jobs. Here is something that recently happened. We sent over a proposed update to the POI for FAOBC. WIDD, who are the approving authority and the "subject matter experts" sent the revisions back us to approve as the real subject matter experts on that praticular class and request that we send the revised approved copy to them for review and final approval.
I know FSCAOD's, and I am pretty sure the Gunnery Depts, webpages are out of date, The doctrine (or TTP) hasn't been updated in a long time. We tell the students specifically not to use it as a reference. WIDD, was the worst thing that happened to the FA school. No one including the members of WIDD know what their job is. They have basically become a lot of retired officers and SNCO that sit around and justify their jobs. Here is something that recently happened. We sent over a proposed update to the POI for FAOBC. WIDD, who are the approving authority and the "subject matter experts" sent the revisions back us to approve as the real subject matter experts on that praticular class and request that we send the revised approved copy to them for review and final approval.
Jeff White
New member
STLRN,
Didn't know the pages were out of date, our command just sent the URLs out to us a couple months ago for use in preparing training etc. Sorry Ivanhoe...
Jeff
Didn't know the pages were out of date, our command just sent the URLs out to us a couple months ago for use in preparing training etc. Sorry Ivanhoe...
Jeff
Mike Spight
New member
Jeff:
That's a very good point regarding a historical perspective. The only thing they lacked was morality and that (along with being stupid enough to fight a two front war) cost the Third Reich and the German people dearly. Tactically and, to a degree operationally, they were certainly among the best. Strategically, the General Staff failed totally.
Yeah, 3/60th Inf Bn was in 3d Bde. 2/60th (a mech unit with M113s IIRC) was in 2d Bde.
Mike
That's a very good point regarding a historical perspective. The only thing they lacked was morality and that (along with being stupid enough to fight a two front war) cost the Third Reich and the German people dearly. Tactically and, to a degree operationally, they were certainly among the best. Strategically, the General Staff failed totally.
Yeah, 3/60th Inf Bn was in 3d Bde. 2/60th (a mech unit with M113s IIRC) was in 2d Bde.
Mike
- Status