Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Pelham
It would seem to me that recent advancements in precise delivery of explosives via air (bombs, C-130 gunships, etc.), in all weather conditions, as well as the ability to base air delivery systems far from the action had to figure into the Crusader equation (assuming a committment to always attaining air superiority). And, that probably led to the Army having concerns about Air Force and Navy support.

As someone who once depended on ASAP artillery fire to keep the enemy from getting through the wire, I can understand those concerns. I want the artillery available. BUT, that kind of fire can come from existing artillery. It might also be noted that, with a minimum of training, 105mm & 155m artillery crews can be assigned to either towed or self-propelled artillery with a minimum of training. I can understand how the Crusader would be considered high maintenance, limited in flexibility, and more suited for a mission better handled from the air.

52 posted on 04/19/2006 8:01:16 PM PDT by LZ_Bayonet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: LZ_Bayonet

I don't know about the Crusader's maintenance requirments, but it has some interesting features. It employs MRSI to drop 8 rounds on the same spot at the same moment- like having a couple of batteries coordinate time on target. Needs a specially cooled gun tube as well as a computer. Operates with a small crew and swaps parts with the main battle tank.


67 posted on 04/20/2006 5:42:31 PM PDT by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson