Armor obsolete?

[IDonT4]

Originally Posted by TacCovert4

The reality is that the 'rapid deployment' capability of the Stryker Brigade is a gimmick that works well in the Pentagon and Congressional meetings. If you want to scramble a large response force, use a regiment of the 82nd. If you want a force there slightly less quickly but with more complete infrastructure, send in a MEB (several MEUs). If you've got a couple of weeks to build up a regional infrastructure, or the infrastructure is already in place, a Stryker Brigade can work.

If that is the case, why did the army developed the "medium" formation? Don't the amry want to be able to put something on the ground more substantial than a light infantry but without the heavy logistics tail of a heavy formation?

In addition, while the Strykers do not have a force entry capability of an MEU and requires a secure airfield, once on the ground they are much more substantial force than an MEU. A Stryker brigade (3 mechanized infantry battalions, an artillery battalion, and a cavalry troop) has a lot more firepower and mobility than the ground combat elemment of a MEU or even an MEB (even with the reinforcing tank company which complicates logistics).

[GCoyote]

The medium weight brigade concept fits in well with the need for stability operations, counter-insurgency, etc. for all of the land-locked places that blow up from time to time. Use a MEU or the 82nd or just some friendly locals to grab a port or an airfield and take lots of pictures of the US arriving to save the day.

Then while the press is off to cover the next hot spot, you ship in a medium brigade by whatever means makes the most sense and they go about the hard slog of dealing with the locals for however long the mission lasts.

For strategic flexibility, I'd prefer to withdraw my forced entry unit(s) and regenerate them for the next crisis as soon as possible. Replace them with modular units to create a joint task force that best fits the mission profile and uses your forces efficiently.

[Pruitt]

I think it is a concept that should be analyzed. To me, a Medium Weight Division would be the old Infantry Division (ROAD) where you have enough trucks to transport the troops and an extra Armor and Mechanized Infantry Battalion. Right now none of the "Light" Infantry Brigades have transport foe the Infantry! There are too many National Guard Light Brigades with only two Infantry Battalions. If the Regulars get three Infantry Battalions, so should the Guard. If the Guard Brigades get that extra INF Battalion, then they will need an extra Fires Battery and Cavalry Scout Company.

I don't understand why the Stryker Brigades in the Guard get three Stryker INF Battalions while the Light Brigades get only two INF Battalions.

Pruitt

[nikolas93TS]

[andrewza]

Originally Posted by nikolas93TS

Just because the American don't under stand light means heavy dose not mean the rest of the world dose not. The SANDF still has proper light infantry.

[Nick the Noodle]

They've been saying armour has been obsolete at least since the appearance of the 88mm, and yet it is still with us today.

[Dibble201Bty]

Originally Posted by Nick the Noodle

They've been saying armour has been obsolete at least since the appearance of the 88mm, and yet it is still with us today.

Surely you mean since the 17th century?

Paul

[Romani]

While heavy armour may have lost some of its usefulness due to its cost, resources to deploy, etc... It is my view that the tank, while it may be seen on the battlefield less often, will always be there. The tank has been one of the most decisive weapons on the battlefield since World War I, and I think that tanks will be with us to the end.

[Ubermensche]

Tanks will always be the best weapon for what it was originally intended to due: breakthrough. I don't think that I can imagine a better weapon. But new weapons also mean new rules to the game: tanks must always be supported (actually that's quite some old stuff, since Guderian pretty much did that stuff). There is also a fear factor associated to it. Though I'm not a soldier, I can imagine the amount of fear that an infantryman would experience if they saw a huge armored unit rumbling towards him.

But tanks really don't fit well into the whole counterinsurgency/guerilla warfare doctrine. If this is where the future of warfare is going, than the tank might become obsolete. But if not, than it will be forever interlocked in the eternal battle of heavier protection vs. bigger gun.

[String]

Heavy armour is not only useful because its armour and heavy weaponry, but also for what it forces the enemy to do. By its very existence, a heavy armour brigade forces the enemy to invest heavily in very expensive anti tank weapons, to adapt its tactics and doctrine vs. armoured assault etc. It's kind of like a modern day "fleet in being".

[RexTheMan14]

Originally Posted by Ubermensche

Tanks will always be the best weapon for what it was originally intended to due: breakthrough. I don't think that I can imagine a better weapon. But new weapons also mean new rules to the game: tanks must always be supported (actually that's quite some old stuff, since Guderian pretty much did that stuff). There is also a fear factor associated to it. Though I'm not a soldier, I can imagine the amount of fear that an infantryman would experience if they saw a huge armored unit rumbling towards him.

But tanks really don't fit well into the whole counterinsurgency/guerilla warfare doctrine. If this is where the future of warfare is going, than the tank might become obsolete. But if not, than it will be forever interlocked in the eternal battle of heavier protection vs. bigger gun.

What makes tanks obsolete in guerilla warfare? If supported,the tank can be useful against insurgent strongpoint and support infantry in Urban warfare(Fallujah). Tanks should get lighter and more cost effective for more effective rapid delpoyment.

[Ubermensche]

Originally Posted by RexTheMan14

What makes tanks obsolete in guerilla warfare? If supported,the tank can be useful against insurgent strongpoint and support infantry in Urban warfare(Fallujah). Tanks should get lighter and more cost effective for more effective rapid delpoyment.

It could support infantry in urban combat. But that's not where its full potential lies. In urban combat, tanks can be easily flanked, as the Russian experienced in Grozny.

When it comes to COIN. The tank, or any other high tech weapon like a jet fighter, is obsolete and useless at best.

[llkinak]

Originally Posted by Ubermensche

It could support infantry in urban combat. But that's not where its full potential lies. In urban combat, tanks can be easily flanked, as the Russian experienced in Grozny.

When it comes to COIN. The tank, or any other high tech weapon like a jet fighter, is obsolete and useless at best.

Sure tanks are vulnerable in MOUT, which is why they are supported by friendly infantry. I agree COIN is not the tank's forte, but I think obsolete and useless are a bit of an overstatement. A larger, powerful, well armed and armored vehicle can find some sort of gainful employment. I think they'll be with us for a while.

[Pruitt]

Armored vehicles are useful in COIN. The Germans used ex-French tanks to their advantage in COIN operations in Yugoslavia. The Americans used them as well in Vietnam. If you can drive it in, you can always find something useful to do with a tank. Like every other weapon, there are ways that work well and those which do not work.

Pruitt

[Ubermensche]

Be careful, COIN =/= anti-guerrilla warfare. COIN basically wants to establish a friendly contact with the local population and make them trust and expell the insurgents. In this situation, a tank can be largely unfavourable because when you drive around their streets in a big tank or some heftly armoured AFV, than you are pretty much distancing yourself from them; it's also a sign of a lack of trust. But than if even the sh1t hits the fan, you might want some heavy armor beside you. So I guess it's a catch-22.