http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news...e-stopped?lite
The above is a link to an article about the fight on Capital Hill regarding refurbishment of M1 Abrams tanks or possible lack there of. There are a couple of quotes in the article - one by a retired general and another by General Ordinero that I kind of bothered me.
Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general now with the nonprofit National Security Network, said in an interview:Everything I've read about the M1 in Iraq was positive. The bad guys feared the tanks and our guys loved having em around. Game changers.The M1 is an extraordinary vehicle, the best tank on the planet..Since the primary purpose of tanks is to kill other tanks, however, their utility in modern counterinsurgency warfare is limited..
Warfare has changed, Odierno explained while discussing the Army’s new strategy at the February hearing:This kind of thinking bothers me. We never seem to guess the future right, but here we go trying again. I'd would much rather have and not use them than need them and "oh crap". To me it seems more sensible to not be involved in counterinsurgency warfare whenever possible. If one looks at history so many of the lands that we or our allies that have fought counterinsurgencies, where they really worth it? I don't know what is easier (probably not the right word), taking troops trained for full spectrum operations and shifting gears to a counterinsurgency or taking a force trained to fight insurgencies, but having to shift to conventional war - after we build more tanks and train the crews.We don’t believe we’ll ever see a straight conventional conflict again in the future.
Bookmarks