Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: waltm@maxzilla.UUCP (Walt Mattison) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Military Cuts Message-ID: <12966@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 10 Jan 90 03:27:53 GMT References: <12686@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12757@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12818@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: GRU Spetsnaz Naval Infantry Brigade Lines: 117 Approved: military@att.att.com From: waltm@maxzilla.UUCP (Walt Mattison) In article <12818@cbnews.ATT.COM> terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) writes: > > >In article <12757@cbnews.ATT.COM> tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu (Terrell Drinkard) writes: >> >>>P.S. If it were up to me, I would cut Army "heavy" divisions and strategic >>>weapons first, and *NOT* air-mobile and naval forces. What do yall think >>>on this? >> >>I would also be interested in your reasoning for disbanding a >>'heavy' division. >> >>We might also do well by considering whether or not we really >>*need* 17 attack aircraft carriers Aircraft carriers are an important part of America's ability to project power, which is essential to protect vital interests and a valuable method of forcing the hand of some two bit dictator ( Moahmar, you listening buddy? )... The reason we need so many is that they are constantly being shuffled between on station, in port or in repair. >>The Air Force has been incredibly successful in avoiding the >>purchase of appropriate logistics aircraft so that they could >>afford larger numbers of B-2 bombers and F-117 fighters (which so >>ably demonstrated precision vacant lot bombing in Panama :-) with >>which their officers could fly very fast and make rank quickly. The Air Force has a caste system within its ranks, Fighter jocks on top, then the Trash-haulers and finally the non- flyers. It is a very nasty circle where the jocks make rank and then the descisions, of course they then support more exotic aircraft and this continues until they make stupid decisions like the A-16.... Find me a pilot that knows CAS and I'll show you an A-10 pilot. They also put little or no effort into Cargo aircraft. >Your comments are somewhat contradictory. It is not possible to move >a heavy division anywhere quickly. All of the heavy vehicles are >difficult to airlift, and even with the fastest ships still take >awhile to get there and even longer to load and unload. If you feel >that the primary threat in the future is Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) >then heavy divisions are not the way to go. That was one of the >complaints about the US Army's readiness for Vietnam. All of the mech >infantry had to be taken out of their tracs and trained to operate on >foot. Good point... Someone's thinking out there... This country has little or no Sealift capability any longer and our limited airlift capacity would not su suffice in a major conflict. "Heavy Divisions" and I assume you mean Armor and or Mech Inf. could not deploy to any Theater in a hurry, they are the knockout punch, not the opening jab. Because of this they should be sent by sea to the conflict and the LIDs should be airlifted quickly into the area to slow and tire the attackers. Example follows... A sudden attack of massive Warsaw Pact Armies across Europe. ( creative huh ) We deploy our LIDs by air into position to intercept the assault by placing t them defensively in depth ( about 100 klicks deep ) and allowing them to use a moving defense, very much like a retrograde operation, this causes the deployment of the mech inf of the attackers to protect the armor, and allows fresh troops of our side to be constantly added to the fray as our defense collapsed through our own lines. Snipers could keep the armor buttoned up to reduce visibility and anti-armor teams could be dep[loyed to take shots at the lead elements. This would effectively remove armor main advantage, the rout, since there is no real defensive line there can be no breakthrough and encirclement which is how armor should be used. Airborne and Ranger units could be dropped behind the lines to operate against rear areas and SF teams could organize overrun police and military units into a resistance behind the lines. Ask any tanker how long they want to stay buttoned up for protection and then you'll see why it would wear on the assualt element to attack a defense in depth like this. After several weeks of this we would have our heavy units in place and they would be fresh and recently maintained, ( the Pact would be in trouble cause the equipment would be unmaintained for several weeks ) now the knockout punch is delivered. Reasons this would work. 1. Since only Light Infantry is in FEBA enemy CAS is ineffective ( no hard hits) 2. Enemy could not focus force on any part of our defense. 3. Armor is not cost effective against infantry deployed in depth.. 4. Our own armor would be deployed fresh against a worn opponent. 5. Friendly CAS would not worry about hitting wrong targets. > [mod.note: Of course, you're not going to stop a Soviet >armored thrust with light infantry and air cav... clearly, "heavy >divisions" are needed for that job. - Bill ] I don't know, I think I'd take my chances on foot rather than in a coffin, Personal choice based on a lifetime as a groundpounder.. 8 ) 8 ) >As for carriers in general, they are admirably suited to supporting >LIC, and operations such as Grenada and Panama. In some cases, such >as Grenada, the operation is distant from supporting land based air. >Or even worse it could be Southwest Asia where we have essentially no >land based air. A carrier can simply park over the horizon and wait. >When you need it, is simply launches an airstrike and presto! instant >urban renewal. No problems with allied support. No problems with >overflight rights. Air wings are flexible and can be adjusted to the >situation. If you need more bombers, put bombs on the F-18's or trade >them for additional A-6's. The one carrier selling point that most >everyone agrees upon is that they are a mobile airfield with few >political entangelements that can be moved to where they are needed. >If you need more planes bring in another carrier. > Good point on the LIC situation, I believe that we will not be involved in anything but LIC for a long time. The political ramifications are also valid. Walt Mattison