Comments on: Not Over-Correcting?

By: Blacktail

Blacktail — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:35:06 +0000

Like I said in a previous thread, this event is the product of a plan more than 10 years old;

http://www.americanreformation.org/policy/Defense/TanklessArmy.htm

By: Hawk

Hawk — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:27:03 +0000

Interesting. This is probably a good think in the long run if the HBCT cuts don’t go too far.

Ironically, it is much cheaper and easier to convert an IBCT to and SBCT than to convert an HBCT to an SBCT due to the number and types of personnel with specific skills, so I’m a little surprised that the bean-counters at the Pentagon went this way — I suspect when they ran the long-term operating cost numbers on equipment the HBCT decrement came out ahead.

By: Neil C. Reinhardt

Neil C. Reinhardt — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:17:11 +0000

Maybe, SOMEDAY, the recruiting ads for our militry will actually be ones for WAR time instead of “Peace” time like they have been for years.

IF I ever win a Lotto for big bucks, I am going to produce some hard hitting War time recruiting ads and show them how it is done.

By: Chad

Chad — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:31:24 +0000

Why not just expand the army by two brigades (now that the army is making it’s recruiting goals to the point of getting rid of PT failures), and rebuild from some of the cutbacks of the 90s? Losing the capability to fight heavy opponents is a potential achilles heel. You can’t just tool up to build abrams overnight.

By: Harley D

Harley D — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:04:02 +0000

Flanker, you got a link to that factoid?

By: Toejam

Toejam — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:51:51 +0000

Flanker…

Use your computer program’s spell-check.

Looks like you have the same two-finger dyslexia that I have.;)

By: Neil C. Reinhardt

Neil C. Reinhardt — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:21:18 +0000

MORE Strykers, GOOD!

LESS Abrams, BAD!

Need Both!

By: Flanker

Flanker — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:03:38 +0000

Damn it! Murdoc! Where’s that edit function?! LOL!

By: Flanker

Flanker — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:01:29 +0000

naderbus……….obviously you didn’t get the mamo on the DoD’s combat vehicle green initiative. Their new progressive measure to reduce our hostageness (thier word…….not mine) to foreign oil suppliers. It’s a huge directive, so I won’t bore you with the all the details, however, in regards to M1 Abrams varients. Their fuel SUCKING turbines will be detuned to approximately 800HP to improve fuel efficiency, and their evirofriendliness quotient (a new Obama Admin sponsored initiative to progressively grade combat vehicle greeness [a critical performance factor in any life or death situation]).

Once again, progressively thinking ahead………the CVGI has preempted (reluctently used as a descriptive term, as this word has taken on “Imperial” connotations from it’s use by a “previous” Administration) military objections to the reduced acceleration and “alleged” loss of combat performance the Abrams power reduction would cause. By the innovative use of poser generating miniture wind propellers distributed about the Abrams superstructure! No doubt these eco friendly green power production measures and the new 120mm mortar system of the Abrams will strike (not terror really…….because that wouldn’t be in keeping with the Obamanations progressive commitment to being friends with EVERYONE) stern introspection into potential allies of the US (i.e. Iran, China, Russia, Lichtenstein, etc).

By: Nadnerbus

Nadnerbus — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:10:05 +0000

120MM mortar system, eh? What will they think of next? Its a direct-indirect fire system!