Ray

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Anoop C

Ray sahab,

I don't know if they sell CD, but I'll see what can be done about getting the books to you safely. I may know people who will visit Cal at the end of summer. But I would urge you to take a look at the list of books and see if you are interested in any other titles.

Anon

True, but then, i would expect that a heavy Bn(ie an Armored TF or Heavy Cav Sqn) would be able to fully secure a major airbase/Int'l airport and then hold that airbase against nearly any attack that any realistic enemy may be able to throw at it.

When you have the USAF flying top cover a single US "Digital" Heavy Cav Sqn(M1A2/M3A3/AH64D/OH58D) fighting from defiled positions has as much combat effectiveness as most nations entire military's do.

Used in conjunction with elite Abn forces, in many cases a single US Heavy Cav Sqn and a Bn of US Rangers would be as good- nay, better than- a whole division of light infantry.

Likewise there are times that a single Inf Bn is better than a much larger armored force.(think jungle/mountain here).

It all depends on the scenario.

I do agree that what we should be doing instead of lightening up our formations is increasing our sea/airlift though(Blademaster said that above i think). I agree with that assessment entirely.

Ray

Interesting.

Could you elaborate/ amplify?

Anon

PS to my last post:(before i engage the Brigadiers question) I do see a unique niche for a true air droppable light mechanized/light armored force, but the Stryker bdes are not the answer. It's too heavy.

The light tank was an extremely useful weapons system in some roles. It's about due for a comeback IMO.

Air Mech baby, Air mobile. LOL...

Anon

I'd be happy to Sir.

In which areas are you specificially interested in my musings sir?

Officer of Engineers

You're preaching to the converted here. I agree absolutely that the scenario dictates the size and composition of any intial entry force. However, there's also the issue of the standby force. I know of no armoured battalion around the world that is ready to be deployed within 72 hours. Almost all of them are light infantry, most namely because it's cheaper to man them at standby readiness than tanks.

How light? And what can it do that armoured humvees cannot in this role?

__________________
Chimo

Anon

True, but that's not an insurmountable hurdle. All it would take is additional funding combined with actually making the effort. Simply a matter of commitment.

How light what sir? Afraid you'll have to be a bit more specific.

As far as what a M1/M2/M3 TF can handle that Heavy Hummers cannot, a major armored/mech inf attack comes to immediately to mind.
And troops under defiled armor would be much better protected from enemy artillery, as well as allowing US TACAIR to make drops very close to US positions, much closer than would be the case for a light/motor infantry force.

Armored forces also have the obvious inherent advantadge of being much harder to overrun as well.

If you look at the flip side of the coin, ie offensive operations, obviously in many situations the Heavy Cav sqn or Heavy M1/M2TF would be far superior to a light infantry force 3x it's size, or even a motor inf force 2x it's size.

But again, that depends on the mission and the terrain.

Officer of Engineers

My apologies. How light of tanks are you talking about? 10 tons? 20 tons? 40 tons? And in this role of light tanks vis-a-vi known threats (I cannot imagine such light tanks could take the punishement of a M1), what could such light tanks do that armoured HUMVEES can't? Again, with the air insert role in mind.

BTW, has there been any air lift exercise of a tank battalion?

Anon

An entire bn of heavy equip? Not that i know of.

The US did a company sized element during OIF, but ive never heard of any field problems that involved moving a bn sized element.

If you look at the numbers of C17s(approx 140) and C5s(126) we have, we should be able to move an entire Heavy bn sized TF(especially if it's bradley heavy) in one sortie evolution. The initial Ranger entry force as well as ammunition, support personnel, and non-outsized equipment supply would be accomplished via C-130 sorties.
The range of a fully loaded C130 would therefore seem to be about the maximum range of this sort of airborne attack. This sort of op would obviously also take up a good chunk of the Herc fleet.

Obviously a proper(ie fairly extensive) buildup from a suitable kickoff point would be critical to a timely massed insertion.

If this occured within about 100 miles of a coastline the whole thing becomes much easier as the USN has numerous unique capabilities to support such an operation if you think outside the box a bit. Along the lines of the Carrier that was cleared of it's airwing and used as a mobile and secure SPECOPS base, and then used to strike over 1000 miles inland at Afghanistan, but perhaps in this case loaded with logistical supplies and a large contingent of MH-53s and CH-47Ds for aerial resupply. It also allows the USMC to augment the US Army heavy force, and allows the USNs airpower to effect the battle too.

We have to have the flexibility of mindset to use assets imaginatively if we want to move that much steel that far in the air that fast, but we could do it.

Just airlifting an entire Heavy Bn TF into some foriegn hostile land(or a foriegn friendly land too) while at the same time parking 4 fleet carriers off their coast is a MASSIVE show of force and an unmistakable commitement of resolve. Which is pretty much the point half the time anyway.

Anon

As for the light tanks, i'm thinking like this:

M8 "Thunderbolt" 120mm light tank(fully C130 transportable):


http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...icial%26sa%3DN

Compliment them with these:

And a bunch of these guys:


And you have a nice deep raiding force that would give forces like the 82d, 101st, 173d, and 75th some real mechanized punch and mobility. They'd also be heavy enough to use in a scouting/screening role in any high intensity conflict.(you can NEVER have too much scouting).

And all that stuff is either already in service with the US or other nation, or already fully developed and awaiting a greenlight for production.

Barring that the only way to give them an armored punch is to move in a hvy TF.

I leave it to you gentlemen which is the better route.

Shek

The real question isn't getting a heavy force to the fight - it's getting all the tail to the battlefield to sustain them.

For example, for the TF 1-63 AR(-) that deployed to the northern front of Iraq required 30 x C17 sorties, and had 8 x M113, 4 x M2, and 5 x M1 as its rifle company contingent, and required 150 x C17 sorties and 30 x C130 over a 45 day period. As an example of how critical this tail is, during a 50km road march within a few days of the initial insertion sorties, a heavy team of 5 x M1 and 2 x M2 had 2 x M1 go Tango Uniform and have to sit on the roadside because they were non-mission capable.

http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/c...03/barclay.pdf
http://www.knox.army.mil/armormag/Ca...5maddox03c.pdf

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Anon

You'd need to figure out what the US C-17, C-5, and C-130 fleet could realistically support, determine how much you'd reasonably need, and the difference between the two(if any) would be the lift shortfall.

We have approx 140 C17s(hard to place an exact figure because they're still in production) and we have 126 C5s and 514 USAF C130s(cargo versions of all models, marine hercs excluded).
-all stats from USAF factfiles

For an armor heavy Cav TF figure 30 M1s and 14 bradleys(M2s would be my pick) 6 mortar tracks, two FDC tracks, and a troop of 9 Apaches and 3 Kiowas. Obviously MLRS and other arty would be very useful, but they would also increase the logistics footprint.

Just a matter of crunching the numbers for anyone interested, and factoring in the key variable of range from the nearest major friendly airbase and proximity to the coastline(and potentially massive resupply assets).

It is also very important to point out that defensive operations would require far less logistical support than offensive ops.

A force of M8 AGS and turreted M113s would obviously require far less fuel support than one composed of M1s and M2s, which is one of the pro arguments for a dedicated light armored/mech inf unit. It would also have the advantadge of being fully C130 deployable.

Shek

Don't forget about MOG restrictions and how the sequencing of your equipment will change as you bring in a heavier force, meaning that you'll bring log in faster and push back your tooth later in the air flow.

Anon

Those are considerations that some full bird colonel sitting in some office in the pentagon is far more qualified to address than i.

LOL.