Rumfeld is at it again..

Falstaff · Jun 15, 2003, 06:01 AM

Japan could actually enact special powers to the military to enable an enhanced response to threats from N. Korea or any other threat, but I must admit, it would take a breach or violation territorial waters or national security to exacerbate a full scale retaliation...but they can do it...we have in joint operations been responsible for removing threats from their shores by targeting small submersibles operating without the expressed permission of the Japanese government. some were washed up on the northern coasts but many lie at the bottom of the sea, The United States navy is aware of thier continued activity near or in japanese waters but we choose to let the japanese navy deal with it in their own way, its their country...and even though the the secret police do not exist on paper.....they exist. I have always been impressed with the efficiency and professionalism of the native forces. I know this will no doubt anger some, but the japanese have quietly and with great caution managed to maintain a precarious position in world politics and still maintain a powerful military force. In short whatever numbers you may have seen in the web...the military is larger than even I know...and my experience only goes back to 1996...They posses the block 4 and nuke capable tomohawks mounted on surface and submerged platforms....but enough of this....I know you werent putting down the JSDF, it is just that I have tremendous respect for them all. Brave Samurai are perhaps an anachronism, but they still exist and their spirit lives on in the hearts of their children and perhaps in the hearts of americans as well...

FuNsTeR · Jun 15, 2003, 02:25 PM

the type 90 tank is basically a copy of the German Lepard 2A 4 main battle tank and is very formidable , better than the Abrahams , proven in trials within nato , i think the Challenger 2 is better than the Abrahams also which is starting to show its age

Falstaff · Jun 15, 2003, 04:04 PM

because they use the same 120mm smooth bore gun, but the targeting systems are different and the Abrams I believe has superior protection systems, (halon) and chobam armour like the challenger, with a layer of reactive armour it makes it even more formidible with an average 250 to 275 mile range. In ballistics tests the Merkava is proven superior to all in exposed and hull down scenerios based on the lower profile. In all terrains the M1A2 is superior and has a higher reliability record per service hours.

JavaFox · Jun 15, 2003, 05:21 PM

Well, one thing the US military has definitely been more interested in as of late is speed. This is the reason they are trying to replace at least some of their tanks with Strykers. Strykers are fast, easy to work on, and versatile. In this sense, the M1A2 is the better tank for American needs/wants because it is far faster than the Challenger 2.

Falstaff · Jun 15, 2003, 05:46 PM

The design is impressive and has been the brainchild of GM, but the idea is pretty old though, the French sold the israeli's a design that mounted just the gun on a light chassis in the 60's, it was used extensively and successfully. I understand that the armour has been lightened considerably as well, making it more economical to operate. Now it is lighter that it's WW2 german counterpart, and much faster..
What's next, robot tanks?

But they may not compare to the old sheridens, still faster and better armoured, the old flat tire fear emerges again and again in arguments, tracks are considered more reliable..

I think Rumsfeld however is more interessted in an economical approach to war.....you know..more for less?
I believe in the law of diminishing returns...We could spend our tank dollars on lighter vehicles for lightning type wars or blitzkriegs if you will, but they don't have the loiter capability a heavy tank does and can get killed by lighter weapons, especially in a guerilla style war...

JavaFox · Jun 15, 2003, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
We could spend our tank dollars on lighter vehicles for lightning type wars or blitzkriegs if you will, but they don't have the loiter capability a heavy tank does and can get killed by lighter weapons, especially in a guerilla style war...

You are absolutely right, but to paraphrase retiring Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, "it isn't a matter of making impenetrable armour -- the enemy will always find a weak spot. The goal would to not get hit in the first place."

Your opinion on military matters means a whole hell of a lot more than mine, Jeff, but I for one am pretty excited about the Stryker*. I think it is going to be for the Army what the MP5 is for SWAT/counter-terrorism teams.

--

* Originally I thought the name was a cheesy mispelling of "Striker," but I have actually since learned that it is named after two unrelated soliders: one who fought in WWII (Stuart Stryker) and another who fought in Vietnam (Robert F. Stryker) -- both posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.

Falstaff · Jun 15, 2003, 07:47 PM

I am and always will be a Hosptial Corpsman in my heart, and embrace the spartan lifestyle of my brethren, many of them are Medal of Honor recipiants, I thankfully learned to duck and run like hell, no shame in staying alive, ha ha..
Donald Rumsfeld loves the Marines because they are economical and wants to continue to downsize the compliment of our armed forces during campaigns. He believes as I have read in the past, that the military is wasteful and demands more attention in the future. I am surprised that General Franks managed to accomplish his goals with such speed, despite what the american public thinks this was a fast conflict and it was messy, cells of unrest still exist in IRAQ, and the story will not be over until the last American leaves. This is why I disagree with Rumsfeld and so does my brother, a Major in the U.S. Army. Rumsfelds polices forced us to ignore aspects of the war that now will haunt us...such as the lack of a police force trained to take over when we pull out. I just see us being whittled down trying to find Saddam and enforce some kind of gun control.
Donald Rumsfeld wants robot drones, robot fighters, robot guns and robot tanks, and I think he wants a more core community of elite forces that will respond to world conflicts augmented by reservists that will be hastily trained to meet theater challenges...
I live in a town where the U.S. army's 3rdCav is based and they have lost ten men since the war was over and it appears that they will continue to lose more men, Donald Rumsfelds name is often spoken of with some comtempt here...He may be quite a business man, but as a statesman he may leave something to be desired, and I wonder somehow, if the ongoing issue of WMD verification and authentication is somehow linked with him, because it sure is becoming embarrassing for Bush and Rice, even Dick Cheney had his doubts before the war.....such is the world and Rumsfeld..

FuNsTeR · Jun 15, 2003, 08:34 PM

the german 8 wheeled 234/4 amoured car had a 75 mm Pak 40 anti tank gun instead of a turret and could travel at 55 miles per hour ... just like the Horton Gotha 229 was the first Stealth aircraft ever built , they also had a crude fly by wire missile system , plus several surface to air Missiles ... German technology was very frightning and some of their plans for future projects even more worrying

back to the Abrahams ... didn't seem to see any Challengers knocked out but i saw several US tanks knocked out ... as i stated the considered best fighting Vechile in Nato is the 2A 5 proven in war trials , theese were the same trials that showed up the major failings of the Challenger 1's to the extent Britian removed them from Nato trials after coming last

Falstaff · Jun 15, 2003, 10:45 PM

mechanical faliures notwithstanding all engagements were successes for Abrams tanks, but you have take into account the number of targets engaged. During the battle for Bagdhad an Abrams towing another Abrams engaged two T-72s and knocked both tanks out with sabo within 10 seconds. Some suicide units did manage to throw burning gasoline onto an Abrams on a bridge, and several units literally fell off bridges and rolled into canals trapping crews underwater, the drivers were certainly to blame for those losses. Fratricide has also been blamed for several losses, I haven't seen any statistics for the Challenger but it is a formidible unit for sure. I am beginning to think that almost all military powers and western powers are gravitating to cheaper and lighter units with incredibly accurate weapons systems and sophisticated ammo are going to be the order of the day, no more land battleships so to speak.
Javafox brought up a good point and it was expressed by Gen. Guderian and Irwin Rommel, keep moving and dont let them hit you and your tactics will win the day..Weapons systems today are certainly more expensive and plentiful, it really pays to be hauling ass and shooting when you move. I foresee remotely operated turrets and autoloaders with smaller rounds of depleted uranium used to disable and destroy rather than pitched battles like Kursk and the engagements with the republican guard during GW1.
Donald Rumsfeld surely wants to streamline and economise the military, it worries me a great deal that we might be unable to replace units lost to attrition in the future...

just in.....3 challenger tanks as of april 5th and 8 abrams tanks as well more than half to fratricide...

FuNsTeR · Jun 16, 2003, 12:18 AM

2 of our Challenger tanks were taken out by other challenger tanks in the midst of battle

JavaFox · Jun 16, 2003, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
I live in a town where the U.S. army's 3rdCav is based and they have lost ten men since the war was over and it appears that they will continue to lose more men, Donald Rumsfelds name is often spoken of with some comtempt here...

You may find this interesting, Jeff. In yesterday's Stars and Stripes (God, it is nice to read this paper again!) they reported that Rumsfeld is actually quite disliked by Army brass, but is given high levels of approval among the other services. I wonder why.

Falstaff · Jun 16, 2003, 03:25 AM

My brother, an army intel guy feels that Rumsfeld is heavy handed and like Churchill would exercise almost dictatorial control over the armed forces, Since the Army actually spends the most money getting to where they want to go, fighting the fight and asking for money, and the infrastructure is huge, The army feel he is going to meddle too much, like Pres. Johnson or McNamarra, you know impose limits, restrict spending and establish goals that are not in concert with military thinking..
objections raised against Donald Rumsfeld

Jun 15, 2003, 06:01 AM	Thread Starter #31
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	But according to the limited SOFA Japan could actually enact special powers to the military to enable an enhanced response to threats from N. Korea or any other threat, but I must admit, it would take a breach or violation territorial waters or national security to exacerbate a full scale retaliation...but they can do it...we have in joint operations been responsible for removing threats from their shores by targeting small submersibles operating without the expressed permission of the Japanese government. some were washed up on the northern coasts but many lie at the bottom of the sea, The United States navy is aware of thier continued activity near or in japanese waters but we choose to let the japanese navy deal with it in their own way, its their country...and even though the the secret police do not exist on paper.....they exist. I have always been impressed with the efficiency and professionalism of the native forces. I know this will no doubt anger some, but the japanese have quietly and with great caution managed to maintain a precarious position in world politics and still maintain a powerful military force. In short whatever numbers you may have seen in the web...the military is larger than even I know...and my experience only goes back to 1996...They posses the block 4 and nuke capable tomohawks mounted on surface and submerged platforms....but enough of this....I know you werent putting down the JSDF, it is just that I have tremendous respect for them all. Brave Samurai are perhaps an anachronism, but they still exist and their spirit lives on in the hearts of their children and perhaps in the hearts of americans as well... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Jun 15, 2003, 02:25 PM	#32
FuNsTeR Caledonian and Proud Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Darkest Ayrshire Posts: 1,305 Rep Power: 88 System Specs	the type 90 tank is basically a copy of the German Lepard 2A 4 main battle tank and is very formidable , better than the Abrahams , proven in trials within nato , i think the Challenger 2 is better than the Abrahams also which is starting to show its age __________________ "They say when you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear satanic messages ..... but that's nothing, if you play it forward it will install Windows"

Jun 15, 2003, 04:04 PM	Thread Starter #33
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	I would say that they are similiar because they use the same 120mm smooth bore gun, but the targeting systems are different and the Abrams I believe has superior protection systems, (halon) and chobam armour like the challenger, with a layer of reactive armour it makes it even more formidible with an average 250 to 275 mile range. In ballistics tests the Merkava is proven superior to all in exposed and hull down scenerios based on the lower profile. In all terrains the M1A2 is superior and has a higher reliability record per service hours. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Jun 15, 2003, 05:46 PM	Thread Starter #35
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	I.A.V. The design is impressive and has been the brainchild of GM, but the idea is pretty old though, the French sold the israeli's a design that mounted just the gun on a light chassis in the 60's, it was used extensively and successfully. I understand that the armour has been lightened considerably as well, making it more economical to operate. Now it is lighter that it's WW2 german counterpart, and much faster.. What's next, robot tanks? But they may not compare to the old sheridens, still faster and better armoured, the old flat tire fear emerges again and again in arguments, tracks are considered more reliable.. I think Rumsfeld however is more interessted in an economical approach to war.....you know..more for less? I believe in the law of diminishing returns...We could spend our tank dollars on lighter vehicles for lightning type wars or blitzkriegs if you will, but they don't have the loiter capability a heavy tank does and can get killed by lighter weapons, especially in a guerilla style war... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor." Last edited by fallang_jeff; Jun 15, 2003 at 06:01 PM.

Jun 15, 2003, 07:47 PM	Thread Starter #37
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	This is why Rumsfeld scares me.. I am and always will be a Hosptial Corpsman in my heart, and embrace the spartan lifestyle of my brethren, many of them are Medal of Honor recipiants, I thankfully learned to duck and run like hell, no shame in staying alive, ha ha.. Donald Rumsfeld loves the Marines because they are economical and wants to continue to downsize the compliment of our armed forces during campaigns. He believes as I have read in the past, that the military is wasteful and demands more attention in the future. I am surprised that General Franks managed to accomplish his goals with such speed, despite what the american public thinks this was a fast conflict and it was messy, cells of unrest still exist in IRAQ, and the story will not be over until the last American leaves. This is why I disagree with Rumsfeld and so does my brother, a Major in the U.S. Army. Rumsfelds polices forced us to ignore aspects of the war that now will haunt us...such as the lack of a police force trained to take over when we pull out. I just see us being whittled down trying to find Saddam and enforce some kind of gun control. Donald Rumsfeld wants robot drones, robot fighters, robot guns and robot tanks, and I think he wants a more core community of elite forces that will respond to world conflicts augmented by reservists that will be hastily trained to meet theater challenges... I live in a town where the U.S. army's 3rdCav is based and they have lost ten men since the war was over and it appears that they will continue to lose more men, Donald Rumsfelds name is often spoken of with some comtempt here...He may be quite a business man, but as a statesman he may leave something to be desired, and I wonder somehow, if the ongoing issue of WMD verification and authentication is somehow linked with him, because it sure is becoming embarrassing for Bush and Rice, even Dick Cheney had his doubts before the war.....such is the world and Rumsfeld.. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Jun 15, 2003, 05:21 PM	#34
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	Well, one thing the US military has definitely been more interested in as of late is speed. This is the reason they are trying to replace at least some of their tanks with Strykers. Strykers are fast, easy to work on, and versatile. In this sense, the M1A2 is the better tank for American needs/wants because it is far faster than the Challenger 2.

Jun 15, 2003, 08:34 PM	#38
FuNsTeR Caledonian and Proud Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Darkest Ayrshire Posts: 1,305 Rep Power: 88 System Specs	the german 8 wheeled 234/4 amoured car had a 75 mm Pak 40 anti tank gun instead of a turret and could travel at 55 miles per hour ... just like the Horton Gotha 229 was the first Stealth aircraft ever built , they also had a crude fly by wire missile system , plus several surface to air Missiles ... German technology was very frightning and some of their plans for future projects even more worrying back to the Abrahams ... didn't seem to see any Challengers knocked out but i saw several US tanks knocked out ... as i stated the considered best fighting Vechile in Nato is the 2A 5 proven in war trials , theese were the same trials that showed up the major failings of the Challenger 1's to the extent Britian removed them from Nato trials after coming last __________________ "They say when you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear satanic messages ..... but that's nothing, if you play it forward it will install Windows" Last edited by FuNsTeR; Jun 15, 2003 at 08:47 PM.

Jun 15, 2003, 10:45 PM	Thread Starter #39
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	M1A2 operational losses mechanical faliures notwithstanding all engagements were successes for Abrams tanks, but you have take into account the number of targets engaged. During the battle for Bagdhad an Abrams towing another Abrams engaged two T-72s and knocked both tanks out with sabo within 10 seconds. Some suicide units did manage to throw burning gasoline onto an Abrams on a bridge, and several units literally fell off bridges and rolled into canals trapping crews underwater, the drivers were certainly to blame for those losses. Fratricide has also been blamed for several losses, I haven't seen any statistics for the Challenger but it is a formidible unit for sure. I am beginning to think that almost all military powers and western powers are gravitating to cheaper and lighter units with incredibly accurate weapons systems and sophisticated ammo are going to be the order of the day, no more land battleships so to speak. Javafox brought up a good point and it was expressed by Gen. Guderian and Irwin Rommel, keep moving and dont let them hit you and your tactics will win the day..Weapons systems today are certainly more expensive and plentiful, it really pays to be hauling ass and shooting when you move. I foresee remotely operated turrets and autoloaders with smaller rounds of depleted uranium used to disable and destroy rather than pitched battles like Kursk and the engagements with the republican guard during GW1. Donald Rumsfeld surely wants to streamline and economise the military, it worries me a great deal that we might be unable to replace units lost to attrition in the future... just in.....3 challenger tanks as of april 5th and 8 abrams tanks as well more than half to fratricide... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor." Last edited by fallang_jeff; Jun 15, 2003 at 10:53 PM.

Jun 16, 2003, 12:18 AM	#40
FuNsTeR Caledonian and Proud Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Darkest Ayrshire Posts: 1,305 Rep Power: 88 System Specs	2 of our Challenger tanks were taken out by other challenger tanks in the midst of battle __________________ "They say when you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear satanic messages ..... but that's nothing, if you play it forward it will install Windows"

Jun 16, 2003, 03:25 AM	Thread Starter #42
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	I believe that My brother, an army intel guy feels that Rumsfeld is heavy handed and like Churchill would exercise almost dictatorial control over the armed forces, Since the Army actually spends the most money getting to where they want to go, fighting the fight and asking for money, and the infrastructure is huge, The army feel he is going to meddle too much, like Pres. Johnson or McNamarra, you know impose limits, restrict spending and establish goals that are not in concert with military thinking.. objections raised against Donald Rumsfeld __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."