Army shakeups clear path for Rumsfeld's vision

Stars and Stripes ^ | European edition, Sunday, April 27, 2003 | By Joseph L. Galloway, Knight Ridder

[GOP_1900AD]

The central plains of Europe are now replaced by the multitudes of various plains throughout Asia.

[John Lenin]

If you study the German war machine during WWII Germany had the type of military Rummy is pushing for. The German army could run circles around the enemy and often did. The Germans were far outnumbered but they had superior equipment until the end of the war, it's amazing that they almost won.

[ThanhPhero]

The changes that seem to be in prospect do tend to make me nervous but I won't second guess Rumsfield. Part of what he contends with is the officers who survived the Clinton purges. Those who had what takes to be approved by Clinton are much less likely to have what it takes to design an army or fight a war.

[GOP_1900AD]

Our real problem, which would need increased military spending (above and beyond current plans) to fix is two fold. Firstly, we have not kept up with the Russians in terms of airlift. This means the Russians and all whom they supply can lift more and heavier equipment than we now can. Secondly, by allowing ourselves to lose our excellent forward basing we once had in Thailand and the Philippines, we now are faced with one or more elements of worst case MRC in the worst case location (e.g. SE Asia). Read "Beijing's Surge for the Strait of Malacca" (Google search reveals multiple instances) by Bodansky for the low down. Since Bodansky wrote that, Myanmar have quietly armed, built roads from the PRC and 2 mile long runways (not to mention the codeveloped PLAN bases along the Bay of Bengal). One can easily picture us being tied down in the ME and Korea, when all of the sudden, the PLA attack (and perhaps not even invade) Taiwan (e.g. via missiles) while combined PLA - Myanmar and Pakistani forces (these three are coordinating ops in Myanmar) make a blitz via highway to the SE. What would we do.... what WOULD we do?

[demlosers]

Clearly, this isn't a shortage. How many top-quality tanks do the Chinese or Russkies have?

Yes, no shortage at the moment; but what will the world look like in 2025? Will we have a rival that can challenge us? I'd like us to error on the side of caution. We can have mixed forces of light and fast along with some heavy backup if need be.

[GOP_1900AD]

Don't underestimate the PRC's logistics. Quietly, under the cover of industrialization, they have developed the world's largest and highest revenue merchant marine fleet (COSCO) including wholly owned port facilities. In terms of overland, the web of superhighway construction has been particularly notable in terms of increasing interconnection to S and SE Asia. I find it curious that, in parallel, the PRC have not only been increasing numbers of tanks, but also of TELs. As for material movement, no doubt the large commercial fleet of trucks could be quickly converted for military use.

[LS]

I think by 2025 we will be in ceramic/plastic tanks. No crap. The "Discovery Channel" special I saw on the new Brit plastic tank was amazing. This thing could take full AT rounds at range and shed them. Main draw back in the light weight isn't the armor---it's the gun. But we should have gun improvements by then, too.

[Brett66]

the Brits have developed (you'll hate this) a plastic tank that can sustain heavy mm. direct gun hits at range. It is something like 1/3 the weight of an Abrams

That's interesting, do you have any links to this new type of armor? Does it have better stopping power than the M1's DU armor? It seems like, given about ten more years, it might be possible to build a new MBT with molecular armor. No weapon on this planet could penetrate it, except maybe a direct nuke hit.

[LS]

With all due respect, the concerns over the Straits of Malacca were an issue back in the late 1970s. China ain't gonna get them, period.

Second, all the lift in the word doesn't mean squat if you have nothing to lift. I am not convinced that the post-USSR Russia has even a FRACTION of the combat ability that the Soviets had.

Third, forward bases are a blessing and a curse. We saw in Turkey that a "forward base" didn't mean squat. The advantages of forward bases are frequently offset by the political "strings" required to maintain them. Do I favor losing the ones we have? Of course not. But I do think that the 21st century wars are going to be faster than ever, and likely will allow us LESS time, not more, to work things out with our fine "allies."

[Quix]

I'm clueless. Why would his wife work?

[LS]

This was on Discovery Channel's special on "Tanks" just before the war. This tank is about the size of an old Panzer IV. The prototype had a 37 mm. gun---obviously not a "tank" gun. But the issue wasn't so much firepower as armor, and the testing was stunning. They showed it taking full AT rounds and shedding them. This isn't "Chobam," either but a totally new plastic composite armor. VERY light.

[Quix]

I agree with you.

I like Rummy in a lot of ways.

But I still believe he's a dyed-in-the-wool globalist.

Taking our army lower in numbers would play into the hands of the scenarios that many insist are already afoot vis a vis other countries' military forces being in place in the USA ready to take us over for the UN.

[Steel Wolf]

In 2025, we'll be 20 + years into our transformation process. Which of our enemies has even started? The other heavies are just getting around to trying to copy our current model.

No one is talking about getting rid of tanks, just reducing their numbers per unit. They will be replaced with faster, easier to maintain vehicles that can kill tanks from twice the distance that tanks can shoot. Most of the tanks from Gulf II were killed by air power, and the rest were crushed by our ground forces from extreme standoff range. All this was supported by C4I so advanced that it seemed like the Iraqis were moving in slow motion.

Only a handful of militaries on the planet could have done better than Iraq, and for them, we've got several other divisions ready. The old adage 'quantity has a quality all its own' just isn't true anymore. All it does is let our guys rack up more kills.

I'm a fairly recent convert, but I've seen the light on this one. We are well advised to keep marching down the road to transformation. If we sit still, they will catch up, and we can afford to keep moving forward.

[Wolfstar]

Good. Now if Rummy will get rid of those stupid French/Euro/UN-weenie berets, I'll be happy. I can understand the use of a beret as a means to distinguish a special unit, like the Green Berets. But I hate them for the whole army.

[demlosers]

I think by 2025 we will be in ceramic/plastic tanks. No crap.

Yeah, I've heard/read of it somewhere....probably here on FR.

[MEG33]

The UN in place in the US will take us over? I'll go grab my tinfoil hat.Black helos are coming and there are troops on the border of Mexico.(Chinese, I believe)!!

[Quix]

I AGREE THERE NEEDS TO BE DEEP SYSTEMIC CHANGE.

I don't agree the threats are weak to nonexistent or that far off in the future.

I don't agree we can get away with too few in uniform.

[Theophilus]

The Germans were far outnumbered but they had superior equipment until the end of the war

Not really true in every respect. The Russian T-34 had diesel. It was much better in the snow and mud. The German tank was better manned, commanded, and late in the war was better gunned.

[Quix]

It will surprise me greatly if we have 30 years before the last war before the 1,000 of peace is fought.

Though, technically, I suppose as long as one person who was alive in 1948--is alive when things conclude--the Scripture and interpretation would be intact.

I just have a hard time seeing all the trend lines take that long to reach their more or less given or natural end point.

[Quix]

A worthy caution.

Unless, of course,

the we have some of the HUGH

UFO's as well as the smaller ones we supposedly have fleets of.


But then, if it's the puppet masters who controll all those--we're still back with your well stated caution.