Quote Originally Posted by Gian P Gentile View Post
"Ken: My point about trade-offs was not an argument for building an armor-only force as your post..."
I did not think it was and did not mean to say or imply that you did.
"...suggests when it uses the term branch parochialism.
Not an accusation, merely a possibly unwarranted caution. I do not believe that is your motivation.
"Of course the Army needs an infantry capability. But if the Army is not careful we may wake up one day and look around and see the majority of its combat brigades as infantry with its few remaining mech and armor bcts in the national gaurd. That i do not think is a wise move.
I think that would depend on how many Bdes went where, how it was done -- but I certainly do not think under any circumstances that all the heavy stuff should go to the Guard. We need to keep at least about 9 Heavy Bdes active. I think we also need at least 2 ACRS active and three or four in the Guard.
And hey Ken, what infantryman on the ground in Falujah in 04 didnt love having that Bradley in his hip pocket backing him up?
Actually, my son the Grunt was there at the time and he said Brads were great for crashing through gates. . He also sent me a great pic of an M1A2 resting on its Cupola in a ditch along with an 88 Crew that looked like they'd love to be anywhere else.
"Read David Belavia's book "House to House" to get a feel for the importance of firepower and protection even for dismounted infantry forces.
I will. Having wandered through Seoul and Uijongbu with Tanks to run antisocial types out of town I'm sort of aware of that importance. There's no doubt in my mind that tracks are good things (though I've gotta admit to never having been a Brad fan) and as a former M26 Gunner and M41 TC as one of the world's better Cav Platoon Sergeants, not to mention a Mech Bde Ops SGM who had to teach all the new guys how to drive an M577A2 -- I'm not against the heavy guys at all...

All for 'em, in fact. As you may recall, I agree with you that MCO is and must be the driver, that we need to be proficient at that and that then, oh by the way, we can do stability ops as well as a lesser chore. I hope you now see that I agree with you on the value of Armor. Where we really differ, I believe, is on the subject of how much the Army and its units can do -- I think they are capable of much more than we currently ask of them -- but I do know that to get there, we have to invest in training and that is not a popular thing to fund.

The force structure for the next few years is locked and I'm not going to affect that -- what I wish I could affect is our training -- even though it's better now than it's ever been, we just do not do it as well as we could