McG said:
That's why it is all arms. The infantry worry about the goat herders, and the "system of systems" engages the big targets beyond the next ridge (and the one after that too).
Well, at least I know I have a job now...
baa-aaa-aaa-aaa....
pbi said:
On the issue of not wanting to ask Allies for MBT support, I would not be so quick to dismiss that as "begging". If we offer high-quality, well-equipped and trained infantry, the Alliance partner might be only too happy to give tank sp. It seems to me that in Iraq at the moment it is the quality Infantry that are in short supply. not the MBT battalions. Cheers.
I think you are on to something here PBI. Until I can rebuild the Army in my image, we have to find something to "sell" in the short term. Since the idea of "selling" Peacekeeping is repulsive to any professional soldier, perhaps light and flexible infantry, supported by light and mobile combined arms support - assets that can be injected into situations across the spectrum of conflict - is the objective.
Kind of like the Swiss. From their mountainous Helvetian hideouts, they were never up to playing the heavy, mounted, shock cavalry game that the rest of Europe was into. Instead, they "sold" their Pike, which along with the
Condotieri, was to become all the rage in Europe and eventually displace the mounted Knight as ruler of the European battlefield.
The question is, should a combat team that attempts to "sell" this focus on fancy mechanized systems? Should acquisition instead shift towards a greater variety of hand-held systems, air-portable systems (ie: by tac-hel), and a decent Army chopper as well? Should our doctrine move away from mass and firepower of the Brigade to a more dispersed, unconventional force?