*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
>This is why the CS is proposing the demise of tracked armor.
Look at the Gulf War for lessons and evidence for why there is an
apparent shift away from heavly armored tracked vehicles. A "western
style" platoon with a couple of Hummers and some TOWs can inflict so much
pain on tracked equipment at a faction of the cost. The advisaries we
are likely to face (from the US perspective at the very least) are MORE
likely to have all sorts of nasty PAT weapons rather than big bulky
targets for our tanks to shoot up. For example, what were our forces
likely to meet, on average, had there been a ground battle in Kosovo?
Trying to use Abrams against pairs of guys with a rocket launchers in
rough terrain is not what I would call a good plan.
I still think there is a role for something tracked like the Bradley, but
the money spent on the successor to the Abrams could perhaps be better
spent on smaller, faster, more agile, and in practical terms just as
deadly vehicles. I will be sad to see the big stuff go as a military
historian and vehicles buff, but their place on the battlefield is
already compromised by so many factors that it really needs to be looked
at from a fresh perspective. From the little I know, that seems to be
what is happening now.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 22:30:22 PST