Gavins Paratroopers

[sgmgrumpy]

You could spend all day at this site. Huge informational site on past/present US and other country airborne force operations.


GAVIN'S PARATROOPERS
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/7963/paratrooper.htm

[Rifleman]

I confess I have spent all day on that site.

I've got mixed feelings about Mike Sparks though. He does have some pretty good ideas about some things but he's a little far fetched about others. He's also not helping himself, credibility wise, with his well known anti Marine Corps bias.

HE ALSO LIKES TO EMPHASIZE KEY THOUGHTS IN CAPITAL LETTERS AND IT LOOKS LIKE HE'S SHOUTING AT YOU IN PRINT!

I guess it's not so much what Sparks says but the way he says it that rubs some the wrong way.

[slapout9]

Here is audio interview with General Gavin before his death. Most people do not know that he went on to become CEO of the consulting group Arthur D. Little in Cambridge,Massachusetts. Be prepared for an ear burning session as he pulls no punches. The link is listed below #509 Military Security Blankets.



http://www.library.ucsb.edu/speccoll/csdi/a8185.html

[120mm]

I confess I have spent all day on that site.

I've got mixed feelings about Mike Sparks though. He does have some pretty good ideas about some things but he's a little far fetched about others. He's also not helping himself, credibility wise, with his well known anti Marine Corps bias.

HE ALSO LIKES TO EMPHASIZE KEY THOUGHTS IN CAPITAL LETTERS AND IT LOOKS LIKE HE'S SHOUTING AT YOU IN PRINT!

I guess it's not so much what Sparks says but the way he says it that rubs some the wrong way.

Mike Sparks appears to be pretty much a nut-case. Go to this link to read and enjoy:

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=19719

[William F. Owen]

Mike Sparks appears to be pretty much a nut-case. Go to this link to read and enjoy:

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=19719

It's easy to dismiss Sparks as a nut case but that would be a huge mistake.

I think, and have told him at some length, that I strongly disagree with most of his ideas. I think his military thought is mostly wrong and possibly dangerous.

Now,

1. Mike Sparks is, IMO, actually two or even three people. I think "he" does amazon reviews under the name Sam Damon. I also have e-mails from him that appear to be written by different people. He does exist, I have spoken to him and know men who knew him in the USMC, but there are some others voices out there.

2. His out put is phenomenal. He has literally 100's of web pages across several sites. Some contain excellent historical information. As far as I can tell he works full time on his web sites, and even managed to buy a surplus CH-47 fuselage for some project. - he has resources, and capability.

3. His capacity to influence people is truly extraordinary. Look at the list of authors for "Air-Mech Strike". Some of these guys are smart, well respected men who agreed to work with Sparks. Some of the people on his forum are outstanding individuals and very knowledgeable, or experienced soldiers, and subject matter experts. He has convinced several companies to invest time and money in his projects. The Battle Box being one.

All in all, "we" may dismiss Sparks, but when "he" is sitting across the table from some Senator, or some staffer is writing briefs based on what 'former Marine Officer and Paratrooper, Mike Sparks' is telling them, then you have a cat of a whole different colour.

[SWJED]

Sparks stole whole pages from my old MOUT Homepage web site and published them as his own and sent long ranting e-mails to me that went unread after the first. Haven't heard from him in years and I am the better for it.

[Steve Blair]

Sparks stole whole pages from my old MOUT Homepage web site and published them as his own and sent long ranting e-mails to me that went unread after the first. Haven't heard from him in years and I am the better for it.

And practices like that make it pretty easy for him to "maintain" tons of web pages. Much easier when you 'borrow' your content.

[ibnEpaminondas]

I know that General Gavin's name and the M113 have no connection, but I saw Mike Sparks' name, along with his standard MO, in this thread and thought that he might like read the story link below.

I sincerely hope that Mike uses this news (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/0...icles_072108w/) to reinvent himself and do something a little more productive. The potential is there...

[SWJED]

This thread should die - but when it comes to mikey - it is a slow and painful death. If only he had passed his swim test as a Marine 2nd Lt we might have been spared all the pain and agony of his Internet rants and raves.

Hell hath no fury like a Marine scorned...

[SWJED]

“…I know it when I see it.”

What Sparks' doesn't get - from our about page:

“Small Wars” is an imperfect term used to describe a broad spectrum of spirited continuation of politics by other means, falling somewhere in the middle bit of the continuum between feisty diplomatic words and global thermonuclear war. The Small Wars Journal embraces that imperfection.

Just as friendly fire isn’t, there isn’t necessarily anything small about a Small War.

The term “Small War” either encompasses or overlaps with a number of familiar terms such as counterinsurgency, foreign internal defense, support and stability operations, peacemaking, peacekeeping, and many flavors of intervention. Operations such as noncombatant evacuation, disaster relief, and humanitarian assistance will often either be a part of a Small War, or have a Small Wars feel to them. Small Wars involve a wide spectrum of specialized tactical, technical, social, and cultural skills and expertise, requiring great ingenuity from their practitioners. The Small Wars Manual (a wonderful resource, unfortunately more often referred to than read) notes that:

Small Wars demand the highest type of leadership directed by intelligence, resourcefulness, and ingenuity. Small Wars are conceived in uncertainty, are conducted often with precarious responsibility and doubtful authority, under indeterminate orders lacking specific instructions.

The “three block war” construct employed by General Krulak is exceptionally useful in describing the tactical and operational challenges of a Small War and of many urban operations. Its only shortcoming is that is so useful that it is often mistaken as a definition or as a type of operation.

We’d like to deploy a primer on Small Wars that provides more depth than this brief section. Your suggestions and contributions of content are welcome.

[slapout9]

“…I know it when I see it.”

What Sparks' doesn't get - from our about page:

“Small Wars” is an imperfect term used to describe a broad spectrum of spirited continuation of politics by other means, falling somewhere in the middle bit of the continuum between feisty diplomatic words and global thermonuclear war. The Small Wars Journal embraces that imperfection.

Just as friendly fire isn’t, there isn’t necessarily anything small about a Small War.

The term “Small War” either encompasses or overlaps with a number of familiar terms such as counterinsurgency, foreign internal defense, support and stability operations, peacemaking, peacekeeping, and many flavors of intervention. Operations such as noncombatant evacuation, disaster relief, and humanitarian assistance will often either be a part of a Small War, or have a Small Wars feel to them. Small Wars involve a wide spectrum of specialized tactical, technical, social, and cultural skills and expertise, requiring great ingenuity from their practitioners. The Small Wars Manual (a wonderful resource, unfortunately more often referred to than read) notes that:

Small Wars demand the highest type of leadership directed by intelligence, resourcefulness, and ingenuity. Small Wars are conceived in uncertainty, are conducted often with precarious responsibility and doubtful authority, under indeterminate orders lacking specific instructions.

The “three block war” construct employed by General Krulak is exceptionally useful in describing the tactical and operational challenges of a Small War and of many urban operations. Its only shortcoming is that is so useful that it is often mistaken as a definition or as a type of operation.

We’d like to deploy a primer on Small Wars that provides more depth than this brief section. Your suggestions and contributions of content are welcome.

Dave, then start with Gavin without Sparks. Gavin called them Brush fire wars...and he also said that the USMC would be in an excellant position to fight them because of their forward deployment as a Sea based force. I met Gavin 3 times before his death(at his second home in Winter Park,Fl.) and he always spoke highly of the USMC in person and in his writings. I guess my point is don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[William F. Owen]

We’d like to deploy a primer on Small Wars that provides more depth than this brief section. Your suggestions and contributions of content are welcome.

If I may venture an opening line:

"Small Wars are neither small or wars in terms of relative and conventional understanding. Despite the fact that both the words are inaccurate and misleading, but they are useful...."

[William F. Owen]

This thread should die - but when it comes to mikey - it is a slow and painful death. If only he had passed his swim test as a Marine 2nd Lt we might have been spared all the pain and agony of his Internet rants and raves.

Hell hath no fury like a Marine scorned...

I sincerely hope that Mike uses this news (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/0...icles_072108w/) to reinvent himself and do something a little more productive. The potential is there...

I am certainly no defender of Mike Sparks, (who ever and how ever many people he may be) and he/they is/are his/their own worst enemy/ies, but the issues he/they raises are sometimes deserving of careful study. (and some are moon screamer out there!)

The M113 fiasco is his best known effort. Some of issues Mike raises (usually in error and usually over stated) ask some very serious questions about issues that reside at the very heart of military thought, and its relationships with technology and industry - and even though he comes off as some ranting extremist, a lot of his ideas, stripped of their emotional and abusive content, are more main stream than is comfortable for many.

[Norfolk]

[] a lot of his ideas [] are more main stream than is comfortable for many.

Having to give credit where credit is due, Mike Sparks is at least due that as well as a few other things. As to the Moon Screamers, it goes without saying that if such flubs didn't occurr with depressing and unsettling regularity, then Sparks et al. wouldn't have much credibility. Extremes beget their opposites.

[Rifleman]

Giving credit where credit is due: Sparks' proposal to mechanize the combat support companies in parachute battalions doesn't seem outlandish to me. Some airborne forces have light tracked armor but the US makes do with up-armored Hummers.

I believe Sparks' idea was that the company's vehicles could continue to be used as platforms for crew served weapons (like the Hummers are now), transport one of the rifle companies, or serve as something like a cav troop of sorts for the battalion commander. I may not be understanding that exactly right, but I think that's more or less what he envisioned.

So, assuming that the M113 isn't the best option for that role, what light tracked armor would be suitable that can be airdropped? The German Weisel? Something else?

There are some cav types on this board who should have some good ideas. I never experienced anything heavier than leather personel carriers or the old 1/4 ton jeeps, so I have no idea what can or can't be airdropped and what the logistical problems are.

[MikeF]

I've served in heavy and light (airborne) units in combat.

With tongue partially in cheek, here's my voice- platform is irrelevant.

For an airfield seizure, scouts should jump in (dismounted) prior to main body (old LRSD mission). Scouts survey subsequent drop zones for enemy activity providing brigade commander accurate picture of DZ.

After infantry seizes airfields, planes land and reconnaissance vehicles exit the aircraft...no air drop...just a landing. Then, scouts mount and expand the BCT's terrain.

I know this is short, but it's valid. Too many old NCO's traded stories of failed efforts to drop an LRAS and scout HMMWV. The initial shock of an airborne seizure provides the needed time to land recon vehicles....

Oh BTW, the M113 is not a recon vehicle. I'd prefer a Harley or a gater with a .240 mounted over an M113.

I think we had it right with the XVIIth Airborne concept: 82nd BCT seizes airfield followed by a mechanize IRC from 3ID (tank platoon/bradley platoon with HQ) concept.

It works.

v/r

Mike

[William F. Owen]

Giving credit where credit is due: Sparks' proposal to mechanize the combat support companies in parachute battalions doesn't seem outlandish to me. Some airborne forces have light tracked armor but the US makes do with up-armored Hummers.

I believe Sparks' idea was that the company's vehicles could continue to be used as platforms for crew served weapons (like the Hummers are now), transport one of the rifle companies, or serve as something like a cav troop of sorts for the battalion commander. I may not be understanding that exactly right, but I think that's more or less what he envisioned.

I was somewhat involved in the original Mike Sparks group discussion on this, and I am certainly not claiming credit for anything, but what it came down to was that it simply made no sense to try and drop an M-113 equipped infantry battalion. What did seem to have merit was adding a small number of M-113s to provide whatever basic capability they brought to the party.

So, assuming that the M113 isn't the best option for that role, what light tracked armor would be suitable that can be airdropped? The German Weisel? Something else?

There are some cav types on this board who should have some good ideas. I never experienced anything heavier than leather personel carriers or the old 1/4 ton jeeps, so I have no idea what can or can't be airdropped and what the logistical problems are.

What is an M113?? There is vast difference between the original A1 and the some of the stuff that has recently been prototyped by RAFAEL and others. Some iterations are incredibly capable, but they tip the scales at >18,000kg

Personally, for modern operations, I think it is generally waste of time to airdrop an AFV. Yes, everyone can come up with a mission where it may have to be done, but I submit they are/will become incredibly rare and the effort does not match the reward.

That being said, there is massive and obvious merit in creating a reasonably armoured vehicle that is as light as possible, with a reduce signature and small logistic foot print. For various reasons the M113 is not an ideal starting point. Personally I favour the UK CVR-T as the basis for future thinking in relation to tracked vehicles.