Posted on 01/31/2004 9:02:38 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
January 31, 2004: The U.S. Army has decided that smart bombs and smart shells make a lot of its artillery units unnecessary. So two thirds of its non-divisional (those that that are not part of a combat division) artillery battalions will be converted to other uses (engineers, military police and civil affairs.) That's 36 artillery battalions containing nearly 10,000 troops. Most of these are National Guard units, who report to state governors until they are called up by the federal government. The governors won't mind having fewer artillery, and more engineer, military police and civil affairs battalions, as these units are more useful for the natural disasters the governors usually call upon National Guard units to help out with.
May I humbly submit Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If we didn't have so many traitors working in the Manhattan Project, and credibly threatened the use of atomic or hydrogen bombs in the Korean War, then the awful example of that war would not have been the hobgobblin and objective when the rats committed us to in Viet-Nam and couldn't fight to win.
We are doing right now. We are fighting the followers of Ragheadism on their own turf. With every capture/kill we KIWI inject "the way it's going to be" in their backsides.
Remember...we fought bigger fanatics than the rags when we fought the Japanese. Hell, they thought their emperor was a god.
The air force promises more than it can deliver
I seem to remember someone elses air force making those types of promises 64 (Dunkirk, we'll take care of the British) and 61 (Don't worry about the 6th Army in Stalingrad, We'll supply it) years ago. Lets hope we don't pull blunders of this magnitude...
I seem to remember someone elses air force making those types of promises 64 (Dunkirk, we'll take care of the British) and 61 (Don't worry about the 6th Army in Stalingrad, We'll supply it) years ago. Lets hope we don't pull blunders of this magnitude...
The Air Force always promises more than its technology can deliver. I believe that's one of the reasons they wanted to get rid of A-10 "Warthogs" for Close Air Support(CAS) and use F-16s instead. When the Army heard this and said the Army then has to take responsibilty for CAS, the Air Force hesitated and desisted, AFAIK.
Technology usually means practical and functional improvement, but it is subject to technological counter-measures. That's when you need a volmue of dumb warheads to compensate. BTW, what do the numbers 64 and 61 refer to? I am familiar with Dunkirk and Stalingrad.
You know, I disliked Clinton as much as anyone here, I am sure. And I remember how much was lost in his tenure. Remember the slogan "help is on the way" back during the campaign? All due credit to Rumsfeld for political leadership in the war. But 20 years from now when people look back on it, and wonder where the arty went, where the heavy tanks went, how our guys got stuck in oversized zero combat ability thin-walled tin cans, or their shirt-sleeves, why firepower just went away - it isn't the draft dodging pot smoker that will have been responsible. If this is what we get when we elect Republicans and are in the middle of a war, just what exactly will it take, politically and in world events, before the army gets remotely realistic force planning?
The present mess is pure PC and buzzwords. This is "light", that will save one news cycle, this uses less nasty oil, we must have lighter safer hand grenades. There are semi-civilian idiots in the pentagon who truly believe only things that fly should actually shoot. (Anybody remember the single night when the 101st lost half its operational Apache strength?) As though firepower weren't winning all our actual wars. As though Iraq didn't show (again) that heavy armor rocks. (What'd the 173rd accomplish up north with none? What did the 3rd accomplish in the south with plenty?)
This is pushiong mobile, combined arms down to the lowest echelon. They have not abandoned arty, just rethought it.
"Smart" mortars are more effective than howitzers. Rockets are more accurate and have more range. The "conventional" artillary that we do need isn't conventional and isn't suitable to weekend warriors as it is too complex and needs constant training and practice.
How do you define "more effective"? Range - can't be that because howitzers outrange mortars. Explosive payload - nope. Accuracy - maybe, depending on range probable error factors. Do you have any data/links to support your statement?
As to rockets, since they are unguided (by definition), accuracy is a factor of circular error probable at a given range. I will grant you they have more range than standard howitzer rounds.
What is the "conventional" or non-conventional artillery we need, specifically? National Guard personnel currently operate the MLRS successfully and did so in Gulf War I. As a former artillery officer, both active duty & NG and tube & missile, I would like to read how to improve this battlefield asset rather than be rid of it now only to wish we hadn't later.
#4 - thanks for the ping...I would welcome your comments, also.
Perhaps I have misjudged, but to be brutally honest Phsspok's post did not strike me as the remarks of someone with significant fire support credentials. He is still entitled to his opinion and I thank him for his contribution to this thread.
I'm not arguing in favor of getting rid of artillery, witness my comment about battelship guns. I was trying, obviously unsuccessfully, to put forward the argument that the army needs to re-shuffle some of it's force structure away from the traditional massed fire approach for all things and put more of it's assets in newer, lighter, easier to deploy, forces. I think that's how I understand Rummy's comments and actions.
We need the traditional artillery units, just like we need the traditional tanks and infantry, etc. I think that they should, however, be full time assets, organically integrated with each other, not weekend warriors. Similarly we need to have more special operations as full time units, able to engage in the type of combat we are more and more facing. Shifting headcount from units designed to meet the Russians in the Fulda Gap to more sneaky peaches type operations will more effectively utilize our manpower. Those forces need the support of the conventional units, tanks, artillery, etc., but they also need the lighter, more easily deployed systems that are coming on line now. Witness the Marines choice of the 120mm mortar for some of their new units.
The NG forces need to shift to roles that are now becoming more important but are also more oriented towards the kinds of tasks they would be drawn from in the "real world," such as MPs, hospital and other civic administrators, conventional engineering (as opposed to combat) and the like.
Again, I'm not trying to argue we need to get rid of artillery. I do see the need to bring some of the force structure in line with the combat we're likely to encounter.
Oh, and perhaps I shouldn't have used the term rocket, if that designates unguided weapons 'by definition' in the lexicon. Again, sorry. As you can tell I don't have direct experience. Instead I should have referred to the types of rocket propelled precision armaments that are rapidly making life hell for some conventional forces, such as tanks. I know that this particular one is short range, but look at the video of what the Javelin does to a modern tank. We both know there are similar systems for delivering ordinence, in addition to MLRS, that do have very high levels of accuracy.
As stated, I'm an ameteur putting in my two cents in a college dorm type discussion. The closest I come to knowledge about this topic, besides what I read, are conversations with my brother, who did some time in artillery in the Marine Reserves. I understand your direct knowledge and bow to those things you know that I don't. If I were able to better frame what I'm trying to say I think we'd agree.
Regardless of any aspects of this discussion, I want to make sure to thank anyone who has done it for both full time and National Guard duty to our country. Doesn't mean I won't put in my two cents, but it does mean I will always respect what you have done and what you say.
I would second your motion as to needing both heavy and light forces and more of them on active duty. Unfortunately, Secretary Rumsfeld is pushing for the light forces to the detriment of the heavy. Each can be capable of responding to security needs that are unique and call for those respective force organizations. There is no one-size-fits-all force structure but it seems some in the current defense establishment believe the light force structure is the Holy Grail.
Your point on the types of jobs for the NG (MP, civil affairs, construction engineering) is well taken. The pitfall remains that this would mean lots of call-ups, such as we are experiencing now. This challenges personnel retention for the NG.
Overall, I believe it is time to totally re-evaluate the force structure (light v. heavy, active v. reserve, combat v. combat support v.combat service support, etc.) because we have now eclipsed the reasons for the current structure that are rooted in the Cold War and Vietnam fallout.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.