To Go Lean Or Go Mean

[bradclark1]

August

It proves only that with resistance come problems that are manifested in the field. Fast and lean is a valid and necessary goal to strive for. As much as we all like heavy forces, heck i was in 1st AD for three years, they are very difficult to move, require enormous amounts of taxpayer cash to keep outfitted, and are very difficult to keep supplied in the field. Where do you envision a use for things like the Crusader 155mm SPH? How do you intend to get them to the battlefield?

Brad

This could be a thread all of it's own. I'm not going to get into it here.

So here we are.

[bradclark1]

It needs to be a balanced force not a lean force.

1) Why?
WW2 and Korea are good examples of being lean and not being prepared.

2) But this is the twentyfirst century. There aren't going to be wars like that anymore.
WW1 was the war to end all wars. Safe to say that didn't work.

they are very difficult to move, require enormous amounts of taxpayer cash to keep outfitted, and are very difficult to keep supplied in the field.

Thats the price for being prepared.

Where do you envision a use for things like the Crusader 155mm SPH?

It's not in any units inventory. But I assume you mean heavy AFV's.
Simple. You use them where needed. Planes with high tech weapons only go so far. In Iraq it was still tanks that did the most tank killing.

Rumsfeld was going to cut the number of divisions down. Could we have rolled over Iraq with a "leaner force"? Could we hold with a leaner force.
You can't have a force that is continually in action. It just won't work. Enlistments are so far down they are dredging to try and fill and they are not succeding? Why? Because nobody wants to be in a state of permanent deployment. Soldiers are people not robots. In other words our present size is still not enough to accomplish our mission.

[blue3golf]

it was still tanks that did the most tank killing.

Airstrikes took out most of the armor in Iraq, Abrams and Bradleys took out mostly abandoned BMP's and tanks. I agree with brad that it has to be balanced. Right now it seems they are trying to make everyone air mobile. We are going to need heavy units. I've been in 3 ID for 4 years now and we're getting made into something in between heavy and light. In Iraq the heavy units are the ones really putting up results. The light units record doesn't come anywhere close to that of the heavy units. We have to be prepared for anything. This leaner fighting force is gonna bite us from behind eventually I think. We're starting to rely on technology to much.

[bradclark1]

I can't find squat to back up my statement on tank numbers. Maybe someone else will have better luck.
Where is AL when you need her superior research skills.

[blue3golf]

http://www.slate.com/id/2083605/

While I can't find any real stats on who destroyed what if you go to this site and click on the the report link in the second paragraph there's a lot of interesting numbers to see just how much was used.

[blue3golf]

Closest I could get:
http://www.afa.org/magazine/May2003/desert_triumph.pdf

[DeepSix]

Can't find specific numbers of tanks vs. aircraft, but they may be buried on this site:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq.htm

TONS of interesting reading there for hawks and doves. Also:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran.htm

for looking at the horizon. Or Google "OPLAN" or head to http://www.globalsecurity.org/