Iron Dome in action

[Skipjack]

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

Wow, I know that the German Leopard has had that since the 80ies.
The most important thing about modern warfare (well really since WW2) is mobility. Hard frontline and dug in artillery belong into WW1. You want to be able to quickly reposition your units so that the enemy will always be one move behind. I am not really qualified to judge which one of the systems make more sense from that POV. I would assume that artillery mounted to a reasonable armored tracked vehicle is easier to move around than towed artillery, but it could probably depend on the terrain and the situation.

[GIThruster]

If you think the doctrine of main battle tanks is alive and well, I'd hate to see what you think qualifies as sickly and dying. The Abrams' design is more than 40 years old and we haven't built any in 20 years. It is older than the F-14 which is out of service now almost a decade, and there is no plan to replace it. That's because against a real enemy rather than the paper tigers we've fought, tanks are vulnerable and more trophies than assets.

Indeed, Schwarzkopf's brilliant "Left Hook" strategy in the first Gulf War is an example of the maneuver warfare tanks are best suited for. Some argue that maneuver warfare goes back to Ghengis Kahn though I think that is giving him too much credit. In any event, I know someone who fought in Desert Storm and he says our tanks didn't do a thing. Yes, they skirted across something like 80 miles was it? to appear behind the Iraqi units deployed against them, but they didn't kill any enemy tanks. According to my friend, who flew an A-10, they killed all the enemy tanks. The Abrams merely drove over the ground the Warthogs secured for them.

Regardless, current doctrine is not to rely on tanks because their armor is easily defeated and you cannot know your enemy doesn't have the proper weapons. The current military planning is for fast, stealthy vehicles that avoid incoming without depending upon armor. And the M777 is the breakthrough it is specifically because it not only can be towed it can be airlifted by troop transports--something no similar gun can do. It might seem a small point that it is 50% lighter, but that 50% makes it able to be slung under an MV-22, which means it can be deployed across much greater distance in less time than any similar field piece. That is breakthrough technology, far more important than rate of fire.

BTW, I happen to think the EFV was a very cool idea. Move an entire rifle squad with their landing craft with the same speed and range as the Abrams. It's a compelling notion. The problem is simply that the armor cannot keep the men inside safe. That's why no EFV, no Crusader and no new main battle tanks.

[choff]

All my knowledge of modern warfare comes from playing Panzer General against a computer. Any scenario I was stuck with SP artillery was a loser. They were either out of ammo, or out of fuel, or too darn slow to arrive and be of use. Towed artillery alway made more sense, you had more of it, and the problem was getting ahead of the tanks, not being stuck back in the rear.

One other thing I found from the game, SP antitank guns made more sense that tanks, weapons like the StuIIIG or Hetzer, even the PanzerJagr IB. Cheaper means more vehicles, turrets are over rated, look at the Swedish S tank. It employed a protection system not seen since the German Mark IVJ, which also saved weight.

[GIThruster]

Towed artillery can also go many places self propelled can't, and in particular atop mountains where there are no roads. Afghanistan is amazingly rocky and mountainous, and it is simply more convenient to air-lift an M777 with an MV-22 than to try to drive a 43 ton vehicle up the side of a mountain. And note that this is where you want your artillery, on the top of mountains; not in the valleys, not just because you get better range and choice of range, but also because your position is easier to defend.

[ladajo]

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

Wow, I know that the German Leopard has had that since the 80ies.
The most important thing about modern warfare (well really since WW2) is mobility. Hard frontline and dug in artillery belong into WW1. You want to be able to quickly reposition your units so that the enemy will always be one move behind. I am not really qualified to judge which one of the systems make more sense from that POV. I would assume that artillery mounted to a reasonable armored tracked vehicle is easier to move around than towed artillery, but it could probably depend on the terrain and the situation.

The actual soup-du-jour for army fires (not joint) is MLRS. Big punch, fast flexible package. Also fairly soft, but high mobility helps make up for that.

Another news flash on eastern systems, the Russians have just figured out recently how to make reliable submerged cruise missile shots. Of course Russian targeting of said cruise missiles is another discussion. It ain't pretty IMHO. They just ran the submerged firing test on the new class.

[ladajo]

Indeed, Schwarzkopf's brilliant "Left Hook" strategy in the first Gulf War is an example of the maneuver warfare tanks are best suited for.

It wasn't his. He just took credit for it. I would also call it a more "up the middle" than a "left hook". The real magic of the Jedi Knights (The insider's nickname for the planners) was to get the arab coalition to play the coastal charge game. It was really touch and go in the lead up. Without that, things might have been a bit more dicey.

I would argue the real winner in Gulf I was the IO folks. Information Operations carried the day. They can and should take credit for the massive wet paper towel folding of Saddam's army. Surrender's on a scale not contemplated nor seen before.

[ladajo]

If you think the doctrine of main battle tanks is alive and well, I'd hate to see what you think qualifies as sickly and dying. The Abrams' design is more than 40 years old and we haven't built any in 20 years. It is older than the F-14 which is out of service now almost a decade, and there is no plan to replace it. That's because against a real enemy rather than the paper tigers we've fought, tanks are vulnerable and more trophies than assets.

See above about Information Warfare. There were tank on tank engagements, and they were completely one sided. There is no real peer for the Abhrams. Between the mobility, gun system, fire control and armor (all of which have seen multiple upgrades since initial chassis design - like the B-52). As for "vulnerability", it is the least such for tanks.
It can take a hit like no other, and is combat proven, unlike the others.

Indeed, Schwarzkopf's brilliant "Left Hook" strategy in the first Gulf War is an example of the maneuver warfare tanks are best suited for. Some argue that maneuver warfare goes back to Ghengis Kahn though I think that is giving him too much credit. In any event, I know someone who fought in Desert Storm and he says our tanks didn't do a thing. Yes, they skirted across something like 80 miles was it? to appear behind the Iraqi units deployed against them, but they didn't kill any enemy tanks. According to my friend, who flew an A-10, they killed all the enemy tanks. The Abrams merely drove over the ground the Warthogs secured for them.

See above. The reason they had no fight, was that pretty much there was no one there to fight. When they did get deep enough, and had some fight, it was really one sided. To the point where we had Bradley's engage Iraqi armor and crush them as well. All that said, yes, it is true, you are right, having air superiority is a gigantohuganormous plus. And owning the air (where are all ther arguments about aircraft being so vulnerable to integrated air defense???) and having A-10's (another peerless system) going against a ground force. Yup, certain victory.

Regardless, current doctrine is not to rely on tanks because their armor is easily defeated and you cannot know your enemy doesn't have the proper weapons. The current military planning is for fast, stealthy vehicles that avoid incoming without depending upon armor. And the M777 is the breakthrough it is specifically because it not only can be towed it can be airlifted by troop transports--something no similar gun can do. It might seem a small point that it is 50% lighter, but that 50% makes it able to be slung under an MV-22, which means it can be deployed across much greater distance in less time than any similar field piece. That is breakthrough technology, far more important than rate of fire.

Uhh, current doctrine does rely on tanks. You should read it and see. M1A1 armor is not easily defeated and the reat of the planet except you seems to know that. They also know that tank crews are more important than tanks, and this is another reason they really are scared shitless to fight M1A1s. I fully agree about M777 mobility. Always have, since the first time I heard of them. Great force multiplier. However, they remain at the whim of a prime mover, and higher levels of Force Protection requirements that have to be planned for.

For the record, current military planning covers many lanes, just one of them being for fast "stealthy" action. It is not the mainstream that you make it out to be. And we do not plan equipment. We plan for what we have, you remember, Rumsfield said it, "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want". We also do not want a total force makeup as you present. You are way off mark with that. The total force makeup one the table and future force is one of a robust mix of capabilities. You are cherry picking a few limited statements as the "mainstream thinking". I can assure you there is way more being discussed.

BTW, I happen to think the EFV was a very cool idea. Move an entire rifle squad with their landing craft with the same speed and range as the Abrams. It's a compelling notion. The problem is simply that the armor cannot keep the men inside safe. That's why no EFV, no Crusader and no new main battle tanks.

Again, you are basing the entire future force on one point that is not true nor the issue. You do not really understand how fights are planned and prosecuted. Nor do you understand truly how systems are applied to the job at hand. It is not your fault. You are a layman googling your way around the internet. It is not your profession. I do not mean to belittle you. You are simply out of your depth. You make a somewhat good argument for the uninformed, but look a little silly to the informed.
I am not the end all, and I am certain some of my peers have different points of view. After all, they need to. Diversity is important. But I assure you that a sweeping view like your "all armor is toast" is simply niave, and is not shared by any professional that I know. No offense intended.

[ladajo]

All my knowledge of modern warfare comes from playing Panzer General against a computer. Any scenario I was stuck with SP artillery was a loser. They were either out of ammo, or out of fuel, or too darn slow to arrive and be of use. Towed artillery alway made more sense, you had more of it, and the problem was getting ahead of the tanks, not being stuck back in the rear.

One other thing I found from the game, SP antitank guns made more sense that tanks, weapons like the StuIIIG or Hetzer, even the PanzerJagr IB. Cheaper means more vehicles, turrets are over rated, look at the Swedish S tank. It employed a protection system not seen since the German Mark IVJ, which also saved weight.

That is the trouble with simulations. When a simple algorythm or data point for one thing in the sim can effect a synergy that skews the total outcome of the sim. That is why professional warfighting sims are run hundreds and thousands of times with data and algorythm adjustments to seek out these anomalies from real data. Home gaming really does not compare.

[GIThruster]

I can agree with that. Honestly, people tend to ignore military success and amplify military failure. Desert Storm was an unparalleled success and that win goes to everyone involved. I'm sure Schwarzkopf's staff had much to do with the Left Hook strategy, but ultimately the decision for the action goes to the commanding General and it is still heralded as his plan. That may have been the world's record for defections and surrenders, and surely the US walked all over Iraq as if it weren't even a real opponent. There were only 4 days of ground combat, but the thing to recall is there were 38 days of bombing first. The last 3 weeks of that were after all the strategic targets had been removed and actual troops came under fire. For 24 days, 400,000 Iraqi troops suffered constant pounding from the air. It was little surprise when the tanks rolled in so many surrendered, though no one would have guessed this would happen a month earlier.

Shock and awe indeed. . .

[Skipjack]

The actual soup-du-jour for army fires (not joint) is MLRS. Big punch, fast flexible package. Also fairly soft, but high mobility helps make up for that.

There is this constant back and forth between rockets and artillery (which nowadays also can be smart). I think it very much comes down to the situation. Artillery is cheaper.

Another news flash on eastern systems, the Russians have just figured out recently how to make reliable submerged cruise missile shots. Of course Russian targeting of said cruise missiles is another discussion. It ain't pretty IMHO. They just ran the submerged firing test on the new class

Uhhh, I am pretty sure that both the US and Russia have been doing that for a while.

[GIThruster]

I am certain some of my peers have different points of view. After all, they need to. Diversity is important. But I assure you that a sweeping view like your "all armor is toast" is simply niave, and is not shared by any professional that I know. No offense intended.

No offense but the facts are obviously against you. The FACTS are that we are NOT buying Crusaders, we are NOT buying EFV's and we are NOT buying MBT's. Obviously, the plan for the future is not to rely on armor, or we would be buying armor.

How can you manage this convoluted argument in the face of the facts?

Look, just saying, your posts are always enlightening and interesting, but you're 20 years behind the times, and you're making absurd arguments here. My original point stands--we are not buying Crusaders because we are not buying armor. The Pentagon has been very open about its plans for stealth and electric vehicles that move quickly and quietly. If you don't know this, then we can't have a discussion past the original point, which you still don't seem to get. There are good reasons for not buying the Crusader. They're the same reasons we're not buying EFV's and MBT's.

BTW, I am not making the case that armor is all washed up, or that we should let our Abrams go into mothballs. I don't know what their shelf life is, but I expect we can get another 20 years out of them and by the time we need a replacement, we'll have unmanned tanks as well. So lets not make my point as if it were hyperbolic. Just saying, this is why no Crusader.

Final case in point is, that we are in fact reorganizing the US's armed forces away from the heavy, static forces used with Warsaw, to lighter, more streamlined and more quickly deployable forces. Forces are relying more and more on first, obtaining air superiority and later, bombing. Heavy static forces like tanks, that require huge logistical support are on the way out, and not just in the US. The UK reduced its orders of Challanger 2's a decade ago based on the Rumsfeld Doctrine.

[choff]

The reason for the not buying has nothing to do with obsolecense, and everything to do with the lack of capable enemies. The old equipment is still ahead of potential threats in quality and quantity.

[GIThruster]

I really don't want to continue with this argument. The decision to cancel the Crusader was made by Rumsfeld and if you acquaint yourself with his statements at the time, that shoulder fired anti-tank weapons had made that system obsolete, and if you acquaint yourself with what the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" is all about, you'll then be able to speak knowledgeably on the subject. The Crusader was cool because it had a robotic loading system but beyond that it was very expensive and totally unnecessary. As I said, we don't even use the Paladins we have.

[Stubby]

All my knowledge of modern warfare comes from playing Panzer General against a computer. Any scenario I was stuck with SP artillery was a loser. They were either out of ammo, or out of fuel, or too darn slow to arrive and be of use. Towed artillery alway made more sense, you had more of it, and the problem was getting ahead of the tanks, not being stuck back in the rear.

One other thing I found from the game, SP antitank guns made more sense that tanks, weapons like the StuIIIG or Hetzer, even the PanzerJagr IB. Cheaper means more vehicles, turrets are over rated, look at the Swedish S tank. It employed a protection system not seen since the German Mark IVJ, which also saved weight.

LOL

Do you still play PG?

[Skipjack]

I am still surprised that they cancelled the RAH 64. I thought it would have been quite useful.