Iron Dome in action

[ladajo]

Another fine gun. Quick setup and tear down for shoot-n-scoot ops (but still not as good as an SPG for beating counter-battery fires). Certainly one of the pinnacle guns for towed artillery world. The weight drop alone (almost 50%) from the M198 has made an incredible difference in the operating profiles.
Good kit for a highly mobile force. Not cheap though.

[GIThruster]

I like the M777, airportable, truck towable, none of the maintenance complications of self-propelled artillery, and accurate!

Yes. Self propelled only makes sense when you're moving and redeploying regularly, which is not how artillery is normally used. For the mass of a single Crusader, you can move a dozen M777's. Normally they're deployed only 6 at a time and even then, they don't often all fire at the same time.

Crusader was a big waste of money, not needed and not as effective as the M777, which can even be moved with an MV-22. The Marines love 'em.

[kunkmiester]

Half the point of an SPG is to be able to keep up with an armored force moving around at speed and still needing support. By the time you get a towed gun set up(or it was this way), you're front line needing the shots has already moved out of range. So you need some, to keep up with your tanks, but not a whole lot.

[choff]

SP Artillery is okay for a country like Israel where you need protection for the crew and you don't have to move vast distances. For armies that have to pick up and move half way round the world the M777 is it.

[ladajo]

I like the M777, airportable, truck towable, none of the maintenance complications of self-propelled artillery, and accurate!

Yes. Self propelled only makes sense when you're moving and redeploying regularly, which is not how artillery is normally used. For the mass of a single Crusader, you can move a dozen M777's. Normally they're deployed only 6 at a time and even then, they don't often all fire at the same time.

Crusader was a big waste of money, not needed and not as effective as the M777, which can even be moved with an MV-22. The Marines love 'em.

GIT,
There is a basic and fundamental difference between the battlefield purposes of an SPG and a Towed Gun. You clearly do not understand.

The M777's primary advantages are two fold, one is with Digital Fires and Geo Location which dramatically cuts setup time, the other as you have somewhat grasped is mobility. Its weight reduction over previous systems has created a huge advantage in mobility. But specifically mobility of a lightweight highly mobile force, such as the US Marines. USMC has not ever really wanted SPGs because it is outside of the mission set.

The primary issues with Towed guns is also two main themes. One is counter battery fires. Although Digital Fires has greatly reduced speed of setup and first shot out, it is still a major risk for Towed Guns when facing a modern counter-battery setup. They are at significant risk to make the fires, tear down and scoot before counter battery impacts on site. The other issue with Towed Guns is crew and system protection. They (crew and all supporting equipment) are at much greater risk in a contested environment than a self contained armored SPG.

Stop pretending to be an expert about everything. You are smart on some things, but war fighting is not one of them.

[GIThruster]

There is a basic and fundamental difference between the battlefield purposes of an SPG and a Towed Gun. You clearly do not understand.

I understand perfectly well. Your presumption makes you foolish. I understand the entire use of SPG's has been under hot dispute for decades because their ability to protect their crews has always been vastly overrated, and because the need to protect the crews seldom arises. SPG's have never been a great idea.

Stop pretending to be an expert about everything. You are smart on some things, but war fighting is not one of them.

I'm just reporting what Rumsfeld said when he cancelled the Crusader. IMHO, he was right. You are the one pretending. When did you ever man a field piece?

I would note to you too, in attrition warfare like what we are doing in Afghanistan, you don't move large forces often. You fly them in and build a base and from there control the area around you, continually wearing out the enemy through their continuous loss of personnel and material. For that, a battery of M777's is ideal to command the area around its base. No point in wasting billions in the development, and deployment of the Crusader at the expense of better choices. Rumsfeld was right.

In any event, it doesn't take an expert to know that mobility is better served by guns that weigh 4 tons each, than in guns that weigh 43 tons each and historically are seldom deployed at all. For instance, we have no Paladins deployed in Afghanistan. We use M777's exclusively. The fact the M777 can be deployed by troop transports is a game changer. Crusader was a waste of money, as was Comanche which had no mission, EFV which was too big a target to be safe, and the F-35 which cannot perform up to 5th gen standards because it only has one engine.

There are people here who disagree every time a defense program gets cancelled. They get cancelled for good reasons. It's time people grappled with the hard facts of life: we can't afford to continue spending what we do on the military. The greatest threat to our national security is our debt, and we can't spend our way out of debt. In order for the left to agree to cut entitlements, the right has to agree to cut military spending. Everyone sacrifices. That's the only way to avoid ending up like Greece.

And too just to note--we really should have pressed forward on the G11 program. That is cutting edge that could have enabled the average warfighter to carry twice as much ammo in the field and use a weapon with better accuracy and firepower. We didn't press ahead on the G11 because the money went to things like Crusader. each time you buy one weapons program, you rule out another, so every choice needs to be a good one.

[ladajo]

GIT,
I do not disagree with the spending issue, and system costs. It needs to be gotten under control. In some areas progress is being made, in others not. It will take a while to "re-train" the system for cradle to grave.

But in regard to war fighting. You have no idea what you are talking about. And it is a good thing that you are not running any show regarding it. Ironically, you would not know that I have been certified as a spotter and also as a FIST Lead, FSCC and SACC certified by the marines. I have also been a Force Fires Planner, and other fun stuff. Isn't that funny. It was a few years back, but I remember it well.
So what real knowledge do you have? Oh, none. Thought so. You wouldn't know a 9 line from a cartoon.

[GIThruster]

You're starting to remind me of Jim over at NSF. Jim fancies himself expert on everything remotely relating to human spaceflight because he's an aero engineer who worked for years on Shuttle launches. He's really bright guy, and knows his stuff when it relates to his very tiny field of expertise, but he is an emotionally disturbed asshole, who dominates the forum like a tyrant, constantly belittling others without cause and pretending it is only his opinions that matter.

Do you really want to be like Jim?

Rumsfeld cancelled Crusader for the excellent reasons I've here elucidated. If you disagree, make a disagreement. That doesn't include throwing up a bunch of acronyms you know no one has any idea what they are. Guess what. . .when doctors use this "abuse of jargon" rhetorical fallacy, they're being assholes. When lawyers pretend they're saying something without saying anything, they're being assholes. When you use acronyms to sound smart rather than to make a real point. . .well, do the math.

[ladajo]

Fire Support Coordination Leader - FIST LEAD
Fire Support Coordination Center - FSCC
Supporting Arms Coordination Center - SACC
Spotter - Forward Observer
9 line- Standard Call for Fire Format (consists of 9 lines...)

If you want to think me a "narrow expertise" asshole, go ahead.

Once again, as I have oft stated in the past. Our aquistitions program is broken. It has been for a while, and the damage is deep. There are initiatives to fix it, some are doing better, some are not. I fully agree that we are spending too much. I see it all the time. One of the biggest problems ironically is that we spend more trying to force savings than if we just allowed better purchase practices. It makes my skin crawl everytime I see some new "cost control and accounting" initiative come down from the hill that causes knee jerk programs and requirements which further burden total cost into silliness. It literally costs us $10 to save $1. And sometimes much more. And that does not include the actual aquisition cost itself. Just the admin burden to make it happen.

[GIThruster]

Well see, we're completely agreed.

Too its good to note that these programs are usually championed by a single person, but they programs often take longer to implement than the person who instigated them. US Army started looking for replacement light helicopters in the 80's, but they didn't pay for any real development until the late 90's. By the time Comanche started to show real promise, it had no champion. Despite it's a cool machine with real promise, the need is just not there and the program is best left to die unless/until someone reformulates how they would be used.

And that's why we have these very expensive programs that generate tens in billions in cost, with nothing to show for them. What can I say? People are fickle.

[Betruger]

he is an emotionally disturbed asshole, who dominates the forum like a tyrant, constantly belittling others without cause and pretending it is only his opinions that matter.

Nothing like Ladajo, but at least half of those are consistent with your own behavior.

[GIThruster]

That's the fifth or sixth time you've posted a pure attack on me for no reason, Betruger. You're not contributing to the conversation and have no point except that you hate my signature, just like you hate anything Christian.

Why do you persist in forcing everyone to see atheists as petty and vindictive?

[Betruger]

It's a pure (unpure?) attack to challenge your warped perspective with objective observation. Ok.

you hate anything Christian.
persist in forcing everyone to see atheists as petty and vindictive?

I could say something more about your off the wall interpretation, but you do such a good job on your own.

Putting aside how this non sequitur's a red herring from the plain face value assertion that your characterization of Ladajo is totally off, and again how it's you that keeps involving EXACTLY this kind of rhetoric you accuse him of, which is curiously similar pattern to psychological projection, which is certainly part and parcel of your pet favorite psychological theme - courage etc; IOW your courage-colored glasses AKA paradigm is surely a severe bias of yours, whether you use it for good or ... "evil".
You got banned from NSF for acute lack of knowing how to play (discuss) nicely with others. And here on T-P you repeat a similar pattern - I say that's no coincidence.

Ladajo is nothing like Jim other than both of them having, willfully or circumstantially, the role of expert on topic. Whereas Jim is curt and unapproachable, Ladajo will repeatedly go out on a limb to make amends for misunderstandings from and shortcomings of his arguments.

It won't be too long now before someone could compile a Rossi like list of your best of the worst in ad hominems and other shameless non sequiturs.

[GIThruster]

Ladajo is nothing like Jim other than both of them having, willfully or circumstantially, the role of expert on topic. Whereas Jim is curt and unapproachable, Ladajo will repeatedly go out on a limb to make amends for misunderstandings from and shortcomings of his arguments.

Well for once we seem to be agreed. I consistently find Ladajo's posts and thoughts to be amongst the best here, and I do in fact see the huge difference between him and Jim. My objection was only to him shutting down the discussion by saying I don't understand, when in fact I do. I understand completely why the Crusader program was cancelled and I explained this.

What I'm now surprised about is that you've stumbled into agreeing with me about how Jim acts over at NSF. You do understand it was entirely my interactions with him that led to my ban, and the fact he was way past abusive to me and several others on a daily basis for months, while NSF did nothing about this. (To be fair, I did have several discussions with NSF mods and they did warn Jim to knock it off several times. Trouble was when he continued they did nothing in response.) You keep whining about my ban at NSF. This is the first time you've agreed that the problem was not all with me. Quite frankly, given your predisposition to assault people without cause, I'm shocked you ever agree with the common sense observations about the troubles at NSF.

And just to be more to the point about Crusader, and one I expect Ladajo will agree with; the entire doctrine concerning armor has been reappraised these last 30 years. Before the time when soldiers had access to shoulder mounted tank killers, tanks and armor were considered valuable as a hard point on the battlefield around which infantry could rally. This is no longer so. Armor is instead limited to maneuver tactics where it crosses large swaths of ground in short periods and eliminates targets. It is no longer used as an anchor, specifically because it is cheaper and easier to supply someone with a shoulder mounted tank killer than to build a better tank. Armor is on its way out unless and until we can build armor that can defeat shoulder mounted weapons. Right now, that's not true and that's one of the reasons the Crusader was cancelled, according to Rumsfeld. In short, unless they are moving, tanks and other armored units are trophies, rather than hardpoints; and will remain so until armor once again overcomes the ability to pierce it. Such is the struggle for the last 1,300 years. Recognition of these facts is what is driving the research on high speed and stealth terrestrial transport, and what killed the EFV. A single soldier with a shoulder mounted missile can take out an entire rifle squad while aboard the EFV. That's why we don't have EFV's.

[ladajo]

GIT,
Tanks in large battle doctrine are alive and well. M1A1s are pretty darn hard and it is nigh impossible to find a crew cabin penetration incident, especially from oppossing fire. The combat losses that I know of were mostly mine based mobility kills. There may have been a ATM/ATGM mobility kill or two as well. I am also discarding friendly fire.

The idea of maneuver warfare is very old. Armored maneuver predates WWII. It was considered coarsely with the advent of tanks in WWI. So, one could argue that mobility and movement under fire has been a key point for the life of tanks.

Today's fight still requires armor. Even more so when the other guy doesn't have it. ATM/ATGMs are not the end all for tanks, especially western tanks with composite armor. The prevalence in older eastern block militaries to own cast armor hulls is a prime weakness. Ask the Iraqi's how GUlf I went, when they entrenched armor into hull down firing positions only to find out out that US Armor not only defeated their rounds, they also fired SABOT rounds that sliced through the berms and cast armor like hot knives through butter. (Think arrow through sand bag).

The eastern tanks are just now gaining the credible ability to shoot on the move, something western tanks have had for years.

I will agree on one point, for now at least, the idea of two massive opposing battle lines clashing on a large open plain is not really going to happen. But that is also not just a function of armor.