Posted on 05/22/2002 8:01:45 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Tampa, Florida -- Following are comments from Army General Tommy Franks, the head of the U.S. Central Command, on why the United Defense Industries Inc. Crusader wouldn't have been used during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan.This 17-day ground-and-air assault on Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters entrenched in the mountains of southeastern Afghanistan was the largest offensive of the anti-terrorism war. Some Army officers and lawmakers in Congress say artillery should have been used to destroy al-Qaeda mortars that wounded U.S. troops early in the conflict; the mobile, 40-ton Crusader would have been a good fit, they say.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced May 8 that he's canceling the $11 billion Crusader program. The U.S. House has passed legislation directing him not to; the Senate Armed Services Committee is considering similar action. ``The idea of trying to get a bunch of Crusaders in place to participate in the Anaconda battle, quite frankly, boggles the mind,'' Rumsfeld told the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee today.
Franks' comments came at a briefing with reporters conducted at Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida.
On why artillery wasn't used in the battle:
``The altitudes of that operation were somewhere between 8,000 and 12,000 feet above sea level. If you consider the weight of various kinds of systems -- let me talk to you about mortars: A 60-millimeter weighs about 45, 46 pounds; an 81-millimeter mortar weighs about 90 pounds.
``A 105-millimeter howitzer weighs about 4,500 pounds. When one looks at lift availability, the altitude of the fight and the characteristics of the systems -- that means whether a system fires at a low trajectory (the characteristic of a howitzer), or at a very high trajectory (that's a mortar) -- then one will factor in all those considerations when deciding what the force mix should be.
``As I put all those things together, I satisfied myself that the man on the ground making the tactical decisions, made a good one in not calling for artillery.''
On the potential role for Crusader:
``Would it have been employed in Anaconda had we had it? Candidly, I doubt it. I don't think it would have because of the altitude, weight and movement characteristics of the weapons systems that the tactical commanders chose to use in that particular battlefield. Mortars provide the sort of capabilities one would like to see in that cut-up sort of terrain.
``I suppose those who would seek to make a point on behalf of Crusader would say `if it had been there, with it's range and with its rate of fire, it would have been a very effective weapon.' On the other side, one says that given the characteristics of that particular fight, it probably wouldn't have been there. The tactical commander decided based on weight, mobility and characteristics of the sort of systems he wanted to use.''
Jeeze, WHEN are these people going to put the American people first?
Some of the comments made to this post and remarks of our elected "leaders" in congress are enough to make me puke. They critize the efforts of our real leaders, including the military, in combatting terrorism. Most of them have no qualifications to be a monday morning quarterback. Many critics of the military have commanded nothing more complicated than a beer delivery truck.
Thank you for letting me vent. Anyone who votes for a democrat is a fool and deserves to get what they voted for!
I concur.
``I suppose those who would seek to make a point on behalf of Crusader would say `if it had been there, with it's range and with its rate of fire, it would have been a very effective weapon.' On the other side, one says that given the characteristics of that particular fight, it probably wouldn't have been there. The tactical commander decided based on weight, mobility and characteristics of the sort of systems he wanted to use.''
For all the armchair generals out there who are up in arms that we need this tactical 'ball and chain' called Crusader, just one more piece of evidence that it is not what the warfighters want out of the system.
True, but too many times the rest of us, as well as our heirs are 'stuck', 'harmed' by those votes. This nation has become one of 'entitlements'. Accountability and responsibility are just buzz words nowadays. The nontax paying, entitlement reciepients are seduced by the Dems' created 'Uncle Sugar Daddy'. These same nontax paying entiltement recipients are the ones that overwhemingly vote for the Democrats and their agendas.
As for criticisms of our military leaders, far too many are Clinton appointed. Were they warriors or just managers getting their 'tickets punced'? It will be awhile before they get weeded out.
Rumsfeld has to deal with all the Clinton military appointees that have been politically correct in their social engineering/feminization/homosexual/self esteem 'experiments of the last administration.Clinton has laid out many 'timebombs' for the Bush Administration. The Clinton appointees in various judicial/military/legislative/executive positions will be the bane of this country for years to come. Other Clinton 'timebombs' in the form of recess appointments and executive orders have serious consequences for this nation.
Here's a Reagan vs. Clinton comparison I did some time ago. SECDEF Rumsfeld is STILL dealing with the decaying remains of the Clinton administration
Let's revisit the 1980's (the era Clinton labeled the decade of greed). The Commander-In-Chief was held in high esteem. The economy was booming, the numbers of men aged 18-25 were at an all time high, the Armed Services were RAISING their academic standards. High school diplomas weren't always enough. Some service disciplines were holding out for college degrees. Physical standards were exacting and were met.There were ‘Warriors" as leaders, warriors as a mind set, a culture. There existed a mystique, an honor regarding military service. Love of country was evident. The Armed Services were at high manning, morale was uplifted, equipment furnished, operations & maintenance monies were forthcoming. Training funds were available thus readiness/preparedness. Quality of life was an important consideration. DOD Research and development activities were adequately funded and experienced many tremendous scientific breakthroughs. . Recruitment quotas were easily met.
It was Morning in America.Now let's discern the 1990's (the era Clinton stated would be the most ethical). The Commander-In-Chief is held to ridicule, scorn, mockery. The economy is still booming, the number of PERSONS aged 18-25 aged are a little lower, the Armed Services are LOWERING their standards (i.e. high school dropouts, persons with disabilities being considered). Physical standards are lowered to accommodate the new 'person' recruits. Blue cards (time-outs) are issued. Feminization, social engineering and self-esteem concepts are the bane of the Services.
There are now ‘Managers" as leaders, the warrior culture has dissolved into one viewed as a necessary evil. There doesn’t exist any mystique about military service, but rather just a means to get one’s ticket punched. There’s a disconnection between enlisted and the general officers. Love of country seems lost among the desensitized/apathetic young persons. The Armed Services are at low manning (recruitment difficulties, downsizing, non reenlistment) morale is low, equipment recycled, cannibalized, operations & maintenance monies are rerouted to pay for some of Clinton's 36 foreign deployments. Training funds are not available thus readiness/preparedness suffers greatly. Troops are on Food stamps and are experiencing broken promises regarding education and health care. DOD Research and development activities are cut back, scientists/technicians are downsized, thus scientific breakthroughs are not forthcoming. Recruitment quotas are not being met.
It was dusk in America.
Look at it this way, the entire cost of the Crusader program is, I think, less than the amount of the increase in the Department of Education budget for the next fiscal year. Since DOE money is completely wasted and artillery support is indispensable I'm having a hard time accepting the demise of the Crusader without knowing what artillery system will replace it. Before I get a lecture on the budget process let me add that our excursion into Bosnia, projected at $1.5 billion for the first 12 months hit $4 billion at the ten month mark. Needless to say, I presume we've kept the spending level for the Balkans at something like the same level. DOD has plenty of savings available to pay for Crusader, or something else. What, for example, are we still doing in Germany?
You are correct in believing that I want our ground forces almost entirely withdrawn from Europe. I've served in the US Army Europe and came away unimpressed. They've no mission and many of USAREUR's mid and senior level officers greatly enjoy their tours in what is derisively referred to as The Imperial Seventh Army for its penchant for ignoring guidance from the Pentagon and going its own way. Our European committment is amply served by an air and naval presence. The expense of maintaining an Army in Europe cannot, IMHO, be justified. The 2/3rds of 2 divisions in Germany should be brought home - the sooner the better.
Of course heavy divisions are used in flat or in industrialized country, which just happens to be most of the world where there is anything worth fighting over. Of course specialist forms of light infantry get the other roles. Snake eaters are not the wave of the future. Light is not the wave of the future. The future of ground warfare is going to be dominated by the revolution in *firepower* brought about by the advent of widespread and cheap smart munitions.
An increased role of firepower does not council maneuverist doctrine, nor riding around in LAV tin cans with less combat power than Vietnam era M113s. It definitely does council blowing away whole maneuver brigades with over the horizon smart artillery firepower from 20 miles away. Which Crusader will do, when cheap IR sensors are put into every ICM bomblet. From beyond range of effective reply. Firepower kills, that is the future of ground warfare.
And it is perfectly reasonable for both officers and civilian legislators who know all of this to tell the self-appointed maneuverist gurus trying to run the revamping of the army that they are flat wrong about this stuff. Because they are. Many officers know it.
The maneuverists are in fact stuck in a hidebound 1940 era doctrine, and do not have a doctrinal place for firepower-ascendent warfare in which the maneuver elements (infantry and armor battalions) are subordinate to the firepower arms (artillery and air). Because firepower ascendent warfare councils attritionist doctrine - expending ammo from firepower arms at the main body of enemy fielded forces, instead of avoiding his main body to put maneuver elements in his rear areas.
To the maneuverists, this is too unlike Guderian's 1940 era ideas to be true. They equate modernization with being more like Guderian, and less like WW I. Which means more emphasis on maneuver elements and less on firepower elements, especially artillery, and hitting where the enemy isn't instead of applying firepower where he is. They do not notice that this is a hidebound an archaic doctrine rooted in the military realities of the 1940s, because maneuver theory has become an academic cult at the army officer schools, and they never even hear the rival arguments.
But the air force knows better. They focus on decision through firepower. And because that is what works in the era of smart weapons, and because they have the JDAMs and dasiy cutters, the air force fights and wins the nation's wars. While the army holds their coats and bleets about modernization, with their head stuck in 60 year old maneuverist sand. The army has never had a warfighting doctrine as out of touch with the military realities of the age as right now. And that will remain the case until maneuverist orthodoxy is broken, and they face the necessity for serious *doctrinal* changes, that the firepower revolution really brings.
The maneuverists presenting themselves as the wave of the future, by equating "futuristic" with "light", is one of the great snow-jobs of all time. And the men being asked to fight against smart munitions in LAVs sure as heck know it, and are not willing to be the guinea pigs of academic antiquarians dreaming about France 1940 and Russia 1941, casting themselves as Manstein and Guderian. Until the army schools buy a clue (hint - all that 40s stuff is *over*, and firepower again rules), air force boys will run the nation's wars.
Unfortunately, the other areas do NOT have the Fulda Gap road net in place--and without roads, Crusader is logistically unsupportable. (The Crusader and its ammunition resupply vehicle may have amazing cross-country mobility, but the trucks to haul the ammo to the forward logistics points do not, and neither do the fuel trucks.)
In most places where we can expect to fight a war, the Crusader won't even make it to the front without a LOT of bridging support.
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.