The Ghost of Genral Gavin
Read War and Peace in the Space Age written in 1958 BY Genral James Gavin former commander of the 82nd and you will find that what General Scales talked about is exactly what Genral Gavin wanted as a future 82nd Airborne division. Most people don't know it but what are called PGM"s were invented by the Army but were called guided missles and were platform independant. Any service could use them on any platform. The Gavin Army was to be an Airborne Guided missile army with lightweigt air drop, air transportable armor, with UAV's for the ground force commander. This was already in process before it was stripped of this capability in the late 50' early 60's. This led to his premature resignation because he refused to standby and watch the army and marines stripped of what they needed to fight. He even coined the term pushbutton warfare where UAV's give data to missle artillery and the ground commander can launch and get BDA in real time.
Jointness and combined arms
I do think that the jointness practice is a way of integrating forces for more effective combined arms action.
Airborne attacks and helicopter air assaults are basically a form of verticle envelopment that must still rely on supporting arms for effectiveness in most cases, otherwise they are just light infantry in the enemy's rear.
The Stryker is a weapon system that is supposed to be capable of being flown into an area as opposed to having to go by ship like the Abrams. While it is relatively light compared to a main battle tank, it is a cut above the Ontos. If it were equiped with the Trophy active defense system it might be able to fight above its weight. Is there a vehicle in the pipeline that meets the criteria Scales was suggesting?
Think outside your Jominian box
What about fomenting insurrection inside their borders through exploiting ethnic strife? There are plenty of ethoreligious groups that transcend across Irans international borders. I understand some the underlying reasons behind the UN sanctions are not entirely over nuclear weapons, but to thwart the invisible "oil swap" pipeline between Kazakhstan oilfields and low sulfer oilfields in southern Iran(which is currently sold to China); what about destroying relations between the two by forcing division between the Kazakh or Turkmen minority in Iran and the Persian majority? Why not rouse jihadists to support the Uigur insurgency in China, disrupting the Kazakh-China pipeline and sabataging their domestic oilfields and refinerys?Just more food for thought.
1. Monkey wrench their plans
2. Divide their alliences
3. Destroy cohesion
4. Then if need be...attack physically.
Quote:
Is there a vehicle in the pipeline that meets the criteria Scales was suggesting?
The M113 Gavin is cheap to refurbish...
but every time a Stryker is made the GNP goes up
I had a M-1117 ASV in Iraq for a short time. The AC is bone chilling :cool:
Framing this discussion...
As this is a Small Wars forum and that is our future - a couple of notes to remember - to ensure this thread does not become a "Gavin" vs. Stryker debate.
First, and foremost, the bread and butter of successful Small Wars, to include COIN, are dismounted infantry supported by combined arms and all the elements of interagency operations... Whether the "other agencies” are no-shows or not – the inherent tasks are still in the need to do category.
Second, when considering the type of vehicle most suited for these types of operations, there are several considerations…
1) Influence ops are essential – tracked combat vehicles in this setting do little, if nothing to win hearts and minds.
2) Winning hearts and minds – as well as destroying the enemy - are essentially urban operations – building a road or repairing a bridge one day is of little use should a tracked vehicle tear it up the next.
And two notes on the continuing links to General Butler’s War is a Racket by GT-6 and various "moonbat" webpages…
1) General Smedley Darlington Butler was an active duty hero – and an extremist in retirement. While some of his 1930’s diatribes were based on truth at that time – had his rants to members of veteran, Communist and pacifist groups been taken to heart – we would have lost World War II. Moreover, to take his “War is a Racket” book and simply plop it down as gospel for our post 9/11 operating environment is ludicrous. The anti-American crowd love War is a Racket because it supports their America is Evil Racket.
2) If you desire to link or otherwise quote Pre-WW II era Marines I would suggest
LtCol Pete Ellis as a start...
Moonbats are the sheep...
The so-called anti-war coalition are the wolves. These anti-war front organizations for the World Workers Party and other anti-U.S. groups are hardly against war - and love dragging out Butler's remarks at the drop of a hat... If a shoe fits, I say wear it.
Against our half of the war
Antiwar activist are not pacifist. If they were they would be carrying signs condemning the enemy too. They just want the US not to engage in war period and if it does they want the US to lose. There opposition is to the use of force by the US under any circumstances.
Smedly Butler should be appreciated for what he did while he was in the USMC and ignored for what he tried to do after he left. He was pretty good at fighting small wars, but not very good at thinking large after he retired.
Effects-Based Operations: A Critique
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapout9
The current edition of Joint Force Quarterly has a good article about some of the draw backs to EBO. It was written by a professor from the Naval War College. Makes some very good points.
Issue 41 of the Joint Force Quarterly - Effects-Based Operations: A Critique by Milan Vigo.