Comments on: “Future Combat” Fattens Up

By: eugene van vuuren

eugene van vuuren — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 09:57:22 +0000

try using south african armoured vehicles they are cheap easy to handle and are built for any type of terrain,us forces humvees have a weakness, nam ely not enough sloping angles to deflect blast of explosions. another problem is that they are to close to the ground and flat sided allowing blast force to fully impact and that in itself is bone jarring, sa vehicles can withstand huge blasts simply due to design, what is wrong with usa, are ur troops just simply expendable dont think heavy, think angles and deflection it will save a lot of good guys lives.usa is a super power think like one

By: Maximus

Maximus — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:47:59 +0000

Light, Air-Deployable Tanks are useful for forced entry or in terrain that will not support heavy armor. However, in any match between heavy armor and light armor, the heavy armor wins hands down. Although there are technical improvements, there is no way to change the simple basic primise that heavy beats medium beats light. Our greatest strategic vulnerability is loss & injury of American life. Heavy armor protects soldiers. Period. Combined arms wins battles. Infantry unsupported by Armor gets shot up. Armor unsupported by infantry gets shot up. Armor and Infantry working together, supported by Artillery and Engineers wins. Air power is not a substitute. It is flying artillery or flying reconnaissance. Shock & Awe did not beat the Baathists in 2003. Tanks and Infantry with ample fire support did.

By: D. Denman

D. Denman — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:42:15 +0000

Hey people I served in IRAQ and I think that our soldiers are doing a damn good job. We can’t turn back time to make the wrong right, but this is time and now to learn from our mistakes and stand correct the guys that planned this war in the pentagon. We should have from the start cut off all entry and exit from Syria,Iran, and Saudi Arabia and we wouldn’t have this major FUBAR in the first place. What good leader would send his troops to war without the proper planning, training and protection and equipement to a war. Answer “someone who has not ever fought in this type of urban tactical warfare., and a bunch of Intelligence geeks who don’t know their a– from —-. Assist, Protect and Defend MP CORP “REGULATORS” PROUD TO BE US ARMY

By: Dan G

Dan G — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:50:55 +0000

Didn’t “Crusader” die a sudden death due to being “Overweight? Guess Politics are still alive. If we had continued with Crusader, it would have been in the field by now.….

By: BuckSGT on the ground

BuckSGT on the ground — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:20:50 +0000

Different vehicles are needed for different tasks. From my perspectiove over there in Iraq (where I have been) The armor boys looked better off in there track vehicles than I felt in my Plastic covered Humvee. Even when we recieved the Turtle Back, light armored Humvees I still envied armor.
BUT…I understodd that in convoy and escort operstions were not holding a position, or engaging to hold land, were in the buisness of getting from A to B with all our fingers and toes still connected to ourselves. And for that You do need speed and firepower. A hair more speed than firepower. I wish there was a hybrid humvee and NTV (Non Tactical Vehicle). An armored Landrover, like we see the Brits ridding around in only a little more armored, with turret addaption for multiple crew serve weapon systems. That would allow me to coast at 70 MPH and still allow me to hold some fire down lane when I had to stop for IED or breakdowns.
I just don’t see the need to focus on the heavy vehicles at this time. We do more work in the urban environment and Armor is good, and scary, but its too big and scary to effectively do what lighter and faster equipment can do. QRF teams with humvees and M2’s or MRK 19, can get there and deliever the same effect.
Armor is great and I love those guy, they are needed and they have a job. I feel that the lighter wheeled vehicles are where we need to go and are headed. Armor in this theater is like usong a sledge hammer to nail a finish nail on some molding, it will work, just not producing the effect you wanted. Just not the surgical equipment we need overhere.
Just an NCOs’ on the ground opinion,

By: AirCommando

AirCommando — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 12:39:24 +0000

The problem is The “Lighter, Faster, more Lethal” concept is a myth. It sound good in the corporate world like “More With Less” The key is Lessons Learned until some great technical advancement come you have to deal with reality. The reality is “You Need A Bigger Plane” This Aircraft would be be between the size of the C-130 and the C-17 with a 50,000 pound STOL capability.

By: Helmoed Heitman

Helmoed Heitman — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:44:48 +0000

Re Wheels vs Tracks and Heavy vs Light
I cannot agree more with Rolf M: An effective Army needs both sets of capabilities unless it can predict exactly and exclusively where it will fight. Very few armies have that luxury, and certainly not the US Army.
The SA Army go quite far down the line with a good combination of mobility and protection in the Rooikat armoured car, but money ran out before an ICV derivative could follow. That vehicle is nevertheless a good example of a middle weight type. The lower end of the SA scale were the Casspir and Mamba (today the RG-32 and RG-31, albeit only for export), which were simple, tough and cheap — and worked in the real world.
Two final comments:
1. Some light vehicles are better tracked if they are to be flown in and need a biggish gun — a tracked hull has more internal volume for any given size, unless you go skid-steer a la AMX-10RC, and that has its own problems.
2. Armies need to think about urban operations in developing countries — roads in shanty towns are likely to be easily mined, which would stop a tracked vehicle dead, quite probably in a narrow alley where it cannot be passed or easily repaired. Wheeled vehicles, on the other hand, have large turning circles (back to skid-steer), are not as good at crossing rubble unless they are 6x6 or 8x8, but are less vulnerable to mines.
Bottom line: Vehicles are like guns. Different ones are needed for different tasks.

By: James Hurtt

James Hurtt — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:39:42 +0000

What we need is a well balanced force not a light force. We need both heavy and light vehicles. Once this war is over what type of enemy will we fight next? We have no idea. So instead of changing the force why not just be flexible? Will it cost more to keep both heavy and light vehicles. Sure it will. Think of the time it will save and the soldiers lives that will be saved as well. For instance, up-armored hummers. If we would have been prepared for the types of IEDs and such more lives would have been saved. We would have had the items needed for our soldiers quicker to protect them.
I think it fair to say that we all need balance in everything that we do. I think that the Forces need to keep the same. Make certain vehicles perform specific functions. If used in the right manner and tactics, then putting too many eggs in one basket can be avoided.
I served in OIF II and think that I have a pretty decent judgement of what would assist us in performing our mission.

By: Michael Wales

Michael Wales — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:04:47 +0000

I see a lot of people saying wheeled vehicles, lose the tracks, etc.
Have you forgotten how we got into Iraq? We drove across thousands of miles of desert. Our tracked vehicles easily hit the 35–45 MPH range, which is about the same an uparmored Humvee can reach. Now, add in 2 ft of loose sand, and the tracked vehicle easily outruns the Humvee. Yes, the Humvee can get out of it, but it’s slow going. The tracked vehicle has it’s weight dispersed across a wider area, making it’s displacement of the sand less of a factor. It’s just like being in quicksand — they tell you to lay down flat and increase your the area your body is applying it’s weight to the sands.
Now, once we get into an area, and have a decent amount of control (like we did in Iraq, we took their airport), then yes — tracked vehicles are virtually useless. They are not as manuevarble in tight areas — way to large.
But, you can’t say go wheeled vehicles only, we’ll never make it to the war that way. Every vehicle has it’s purpose.

By: Terri Hatcher

Terri Hatcher — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:34:37 +0000

I suggest that all who made comments read into FCS a little bit more. Obviously no one understands what the Army is trying to accomplish with FCS. Maybe if you actually read into it, you will find that FCS is doing so much more than just making a lighter force. And they are actually designing a MEDIUM weight force, and with all the new things they are designing, they can afford to build a lighter force. Do everyone a favor and read on before you comment any more…
http://www.army.mil/fcs