![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Kevin Brooks" wrote "Paul Austin" wrote You've waived away logistics loads in using SBCTs far from litterals. Can you support that? No, I have not. But, unlike you, I realize that the SBCT is not the *only* force structure design that requires log support. In order for the current LI force to acheive the same mobility on/over the ground that Stryker offers, you have to either send in a boatload of soft, less useful trucks to haul them around in, or helos--care to guess how much POL those helos will burn? The difference between the two forces, if you force both to acheive significant ground mobility, will be insignificant in terms of log requirements. The *only* way the current force wins in this regard is if you send them in with *no* transport capability--in which case congrats, you just forced us back to the same rate of movement that we enjoyed during the Civil War (if that much, since those poor grunts are going to be carrying about five times the load that their 1860's counterparts were burdened with). Now, one more time--given that urban combat scenario that you snipped, do you want to go in as a naked grunt, or with light armor support? You *really* don't want to answer that question, do you??? I agree that light infantry needs heavier support. My dislike of the Stryker concept comes from the concept's origins: Clintonian notions that the primary use for US arms in the future would be constabulary operations and peace keeping. The only force that combines strategic manueverability and enough weight to operate against enemy mech formations right now is the Marines and if you get too far from the water's edge, they have to leave a lot of equipment on the boat. We need strategic airlift that can insert and support forces with something like the tonnage of a MEU a thousand miles for water and we have no count them none under development to do that. The SBCT is in fact better than nothing but does not serve our needs. We need something heavier than SFOR. We_know_what happens when you use forces too light for the mission. Just look at (former) Yugoslavia. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
---California International Air Show Pics Posted!!!! | Tyson Rininger | Aerobatics | 0 | February 23rd 04 11:51 AM |
TRUCKEE,CA DONNER LAKE 12-03 PICS. @ webshots | TRUCKEE_DONNER_LAKE | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | December 19th 03 04:48 PM |
Aviation Pics | Tyson Rininger | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | November 7th 03 01:04 AM |
b-17C interior pics site | old hoodoo | Military Aviation | 0 | September 15th 03 03:42 AM |
Nam era F-4 pilot pics? | davidG35 | Military Aviation | 2 | August 4th 03 03:44 PM |