Re: [FYI] World's Longest page on tracks vs wheels

At 11:00 AM -0500 1/12/02, Glenn M Wilson wrote:

>
>Hmm, can I talk strictly speculatively here?  *None* of this would ever
>happen, right?  And it would be impolite to discuss some of it in
>'friendly' company okay?  And I never said it.

Well, friendly fire incidents have always happened. It happened in 
WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. Its only becoming more apparent due 
to the fact that the US is getting so big in its missions and is 
taking so few Red on Blue Casualties. One could make similar 
statements about US Apache pilots and grid references.
>

>What if the rest of the world tightens up and gets better pilots?  The
>Chinese aren't stupid just; thank God, busy with more problems then one
>nation has a need for solving, saddled with more corruption then the
mind

Always keep the ball rolling forwards is what I think. Otherwise we 
end up with a situation like that in WWII. Brewster Buffaloes vs 
Zero's.
>

>I have a perversion to reveal.  Yes, security knows.  My favorite
>airplane of all time is the A-10, although the F15E tempted me for a

I agree, I'm sure the A-10 is a good aircraft. But, the JSF's mission 
isn't just CAS. That role more and more seems to be going to Rotary 
wing aircraft. Remember the A-6? Its history. We need a new bomb 
truck. Granted JSF won't be the same kind of low and slow bomb truck 
as the A-6, but, it will be a good replacement for the mix of F-16, 
A-4, F-4, F-15, F-18, AV-8, that we currently use. It does so far 
seem to be a much much better interservice fighter than past common 
aircraft were. The STO-VL capabilites reduces the need for super 
massive payload robbing undercarriage weight too.

> >Yeah.  But we just can't afford it.	If you add all
> >the US Army procurement and R&D programs together and
> >compare it to individual procurement and R&D programs
> >(ie: CVNX, JSF, F-22, etc. etc.) it comes in as #8.
> >Either the first 3 or 4 are aircraft procurement
> >programs.  None of which are for aircraft that the
> >military actually needs.
> >
>
>Neo-Isolationist (half a mind)set - "We just need a reaction force to
mop
>after the precision strikes.  WW3 will not be like WW2, in fact WW3
will
>never happen..."

I agree. But other small conflicts where the Airborne guys are stuck
will.

>
> >If you're dropping your airborne into a fight where
> >they NEED a 105mm gun, you're misusing them.
> >

(I know this was John BTW)
Well, I'm sure the Airborne guys liked it when they had light tanks 
capable of firing multipurpose rounds in support of infantry. The 
152mm Beehive round was highly liked by the 82'd dudes in Vietnam and 
in Panama. Tanks can do more than fight other tanks. If they can 
engage enemy med and light armor at 4 klicks with direct and indirect 
fires all the better. HE rounds are also great for fire in support of 
infantry when engaging strong points from more than Arms length away. 
Sure Karl Gustav and SMAW are good for that too, but are much shorter 
ranged than a 105mm in direct fire.

Tanks make Airborne a bit more than too light to fight. Light tanks 
work great in situations where there is close order fighting too. Add 
additional MGs and add some APC's with more MGs and you've got a 
force that can throw so much lead down range that ambushers wish they 
hand't.

--
Ryan Gill	  |	   |	     rmgill@mindspring.com
		  |	   |
		  | O--=-  |
		  |_/|o|_\_|
		  / 00DA61 \
	       _w/|=_[__]_= \w_
	      |: O(4) ==    O :|
	      |---\________/---|
	       |‰|\	    /|‰|
	       |‰|=\______/=|‰|
	       |‰|	     |‰|