The latest trouble for the new brigades is financil. In testimony before Congress last week. General Shinseki said that the Army needs 8 of the new brigades and that 5 conversions have beem authorized. However there is only enough money for 2 in the budget. The administration is pressuring the Army to come up with the money by cannceling development of major Army programs such as the Crusader cannon and the Comanche helicopter.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Army's New Mobile Light Combat Brigade Concept is in Trouble.
- Thread starter Hard Ball
- Start date
EchoFiveMike
New member
Are all the Army generals stupid? The purpose of the US Army is to have the heavy guns to fight major wars. Try fighting against a real army with LAV's and light tanks and you will be SOL. The USMC is for fighting all these stupid little bush wars. We are already light and mobile, we don't have lots of tanks or arty like the Army and so we are faster to deploy. We don't have the mechanized stuff to fight the kind of war that the Army can fight. We don't need to, we have the Army. This is such a stupid duplication of effort. Cancel Crusader and Commanche in order to have money to make your units less effective? Are they smoking bats**t? Yes, we are fighting a lot of silly assed little operations right now, but what happens when we have to fight a real war and no one has the gear or training to do so. Can you say TF Smith? Semper Fi...Ken
Nestor Rivera
New member
Seems to be that the army wants "skirmsh units" to screen for MLU's and also to be used as a RDF that is better equiped than the 82nd for these uses they would be fine.
I think that just as the Battle cruiser was not a Battle Ship these "armored" units are not Armor units and just as the BC got forced into the BB slot in the line so will the MCB be forced (if ever realy used) into the slot that an true Armored Brigade should be in.
Reminds me a little of the TRI-CAP div. of the 70s and the RDF of the 80s a pet project that gets a lot of attention then fades away.
[This message has been edited by Nestor Rivera (edited May 04, 2000).]
I think that just as the Battle cruiser was not a Battle Ship these "armored" units are not Armor units and just as the BC got forced into the BB slot in the line so will the MCB be forced (if ever realy used) into the slot that an true Armored Brigade should be in.
Reminds me a little of the TRI-CAP div. of the 70s and the RDF of the 80s a pet project that gets a lot of attention then fades away.
[This message has been edited by Nestor Rivera (edited May 04, 2000).]
Well a couple of observations.
How do we protect our logisitcal system for such deployments?
Remember U boats in WW 1 & 2?
How much fuel does it take to keep american units combat ready?
For real wars vs beating up on little guys you will need ships. Lighter than air craft would be a semi viable option. But LTA craft are very vulnerable to weapons.
How do we protect our logisitcal system for such deployments?
Remember U boats in WW 1 & 2?
How much fuel does it take to keep american units combat ready?
For real wars vs beating up on little guys you will need ships. Lighter than air craft would be a semi viable option. But LTA craft are very vulnerable to weapons.
Glamdring, LTA vehicles are not as vulnerable as you think. In the North Atlantic during WWII, our blimps were in on the kill of many U boats, yet only one airship was shot down. And with modern design and materials, a blimp could be made very damage-tolerant. And relatively cheap, too. If we had a couple hundred of them, 99 out of 100 banana republics would empty their SAM arsenals without clearing the sky of our airships.
A few years ago, I would have said that our best bet for fleet ASW was LA class attack subs. But now, the Navy is claiming that the Russian Akulas are as quiet as ours, which probably means we'd have to use active sonar (i.e. hull-mounted and towed sonar from destroyers as well as sonobuoys). The airships would do a good job of dropping sonobuoys and prosecuting contacts, since they have quasi-infinite loiter time. The USN is apparently looking into this right now, though the odds of funding are probably low.
But we're still lacking high-speed transport ships in the quantity to move serious ground forces. We don't have to develop a damn thing, we just need to start building hulls from existing designs. I guess you could claim that our combat capability is not defined by how fast we can put a light infantry division on the desired spot on the map, but how fast we can deliver one mech inf division and one armored division to support the "speedbump forces."
A few years ago, I would have said that our best bet for fleet ASW was LA class attack subs. But now, the Navy is claiming that the Russian Akulas are as quiet as ours, which probably means we'd have to use active sonar (i.e. hull-mounted and towed sonar from destroyers as well as sonobuoys). The airships would do a good job of dropping sonobuoys and prosecuting contacts, since they have quasi-infinite loiter time. The USN is apparently looking into this right now, though the odds of funding are probably low.
But we're still lacking high-speed transport ships in the quantity to move serious ground forces. We don't have to develop a damn thing, we just need to start building hulls from existing designs. I guess you could claim that our combat capability is not defined by how fast we can put a light infantry division on the desired spot on the map, but how fast we can deliver one mech inf division and one armored division to support the "speedbump forces."