Congress forcing new tanks on military

[Sallow]

Yeah, that's the problem with you Liberals, too busy fighting people to cooperate with them. You people are such babies.

Seriously dude.

Stick to stuff you know about.

Like this conservative:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-rGnMKszxg]Man Shoots Himself - YouTube[/ame]

How does this relate to the thread?

About as much as your crack about liberals being "babies"..

 

[pinqy]

Where do we plan on fighting a war with tanks?

Well, there are 4 armor companies in South Korea, (56 tanks) as part of the only Brigade in Korea.. The rest of the 2nd Infantry Division are 3 Stryker Brigades at Ft Lewis, WA, and then the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii and Alaska has 2 Stryker, 1 Infantry and 1 Airborne Brigades.

Other places where tanks would be useful would be Syria and Iran.

Tanks are not so good for mountains and urban areas, but open country? They're very effective.

The problems with tanks are that they are not easily deployed..you can fit 1 in a C-17 and 2 in a C-5. That's 7 C-5s just to transport the tanks of an armor company (plus support vehicles etc)

In contrast, a C-130 can carry a Stryker (though range will be crappy) and a C-17 can carry 4 Strykers and a C-5 can carry 7. Obviously a Stryker is not as well armored as an Abrams, but the MGS variant has a comparable main gun.

 

[Sallow]

After all the name-calling, back to the thread:

This has been going on for all of the years I can remember in my 70+ years.

A business donates to a congressional campaign with the idea the candidate, if elected, will think of them when the occasion arises. The more times the candidate is re-elected, the more power they gain - the more favors returned to donees.

I am willing to bet the the chairman of the committee - both Senate and House - have personal interests in the companies doing the work the Army feels is unneeded. Keep their constituents happy = more campaign donations and better chance at re-election!

Other than term limits - which will never happen - what do you suggest?

Reverse Citizen's United or at least provide full disclosure in terms of Campaign Contributions.

That and prohibiting Congress Skitters from becoming lobbyists should go a long way in curtailing this sort of crap.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Seriously dude.

Stick to stuff you know about.

Like this conservative:

Man Shoots Himself - YouTube

How does this relate to the thread?

About as much as your crack about liberals being "babies"..

Well, you act like one, you'll be referred to as one.

 

[Sallow]

Where do we plan on fighting a war with tanks?

Well, there are 4 armor companies in South Korea, (56 tanks) as part of the only Brigade in Korea.. The rest of the 2nd Infantry Division are 3 Stryker Brigades at Ft Lewis, WA, and then the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii and Alaska has 2 Stryker, 1 Infantry and 1 Airborne Brigades.

Other places where tanks would be useful would be Syria and Iran.

Tanks are not so good for mountains and urban areas, but open country? They're very effective.
The problems with tanks are that they are not easily deployed..you can fit 1 in a C-17 and 2 in a C-5. That's 7 C-5s just to transport the tanks of an armor company (plus support vehicles etc)

In contrast, a C-130 can carry a Stryker (though range will be crappy) and a C-17 can carry 4 Strykers and a C-5 can carry 7. Obviously a Stryker is not as well armored as an Abrams, but the MGS variant has a comparable main gun.

You go up against a country with planes like the A10 and Tanks get chopped up quick.

In any case, deploying ground troops to fight against North Koreans is a fools errand.

Hence no real reason for new tanks.

 

[Sallow]

How does this relate to the thread?

About as much as your crack about liberals being "babies"..

Well, you act like one, you'll be referred to as one.

Well if you keep shooting yourself in the leg..I will keep putting up that video.

 

[TemplarKormac]

About as much as your crack about liberals being "babies"..

Well, you act like one, you'll be referred to as one.

Well if you keep shooting yourself in the leg..I will keep putting up that video.

And I can report you for stalking. How do you like that? Huh? Post it again in response to one of my posts, and it will be reported. Try me.

 

[Sallow]

Well, you act like one, you'll be referred to as one.

Well if you keep shooting yourself in the leg..I will keep putting up that video.

And I can report you for stalking. How do you like that? Huh? Post it again in response to one of my posts, and it will be reported. Try me.

Report all you want.

You don't know what stalking is..

And..this is an open board. I am staying on topic..while you clearly are not.

In this very thread..which is ABOUT TANKS, you've introduced muslim extremists and ObamaCare.

Going off topic is a violation of the spirit of the board.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well if you keep shooting yourself in the leg..I will keep putting up that video.

And I can report you for stalking. How do you like that? Huh? Post it again in response to one of my posts, and it will be reported. Try me.

Report all you want.

You don't know what stalking is..

And..this is an open board. I am staying on topic..while you clearly are not.

In this very thread..which is ABOUT TANKS, you've introduced muslim extremists and ObamaCare.

Going off topic is a violation of the spirit of the board.

You're full of shit. You aren't the only liberal I've seen trying to hijack a thread.

And you've introduced... nothing. Except some random idiot shooting himself in the foot. Oh yes, I know what stalking is. The board I came from? I pissed all the liberals off there soo bad they started sending me hate mail. I got into regular debates with the staff of the local newspaper, and whipped them pretty good. You are small fry, Sallow.

Tanks are relevant, since we just sent a few of them to Egypt, whose leader is *time for a little education here* a Muslim extremist.

Now if you will kindly stop posting for a while now, maybe you won't break any more rules this morning.

 

[Dot Com]

the n00b- TemplarKormac wants to dictate how the board is run. Thats rich. Seems like he's auto-posting too. Take a breath n00b & stop posting so much. You're over investing yourself too early. Besides, its bad netiquette.

Oh yeah, thanks for the meltdown.

 

[pinqy]

You go up against a country with planes like the A10 and Tanks get chopped up quick.

Only if the enemy can get those planes to the tanks in the first place. Getting slow movers like the A-10 past the USAF is not easy. And even if they do, while a Combined Arms Batallion has no organic ADA, the Bradleys in the Batallion can use either their 25mm or the .50 cal to help defend the tanks. And that's assuming no ADA has been attached, which it would be.

In any case, deploying ground troops to fight against North Koreans is a fools errand.[/quote] Better equipment and better training can overcome the numbers. And since we're talking primarily defense against a North Korean Invasion, 4 armor companies with 4 Bradley infantry companies can slow them down long enough for the Air Force to have its fun. Only ground troops can hold ground.

Hence no real reason for new tanks.

Well, we don't need new tanks (because we already have more than we need), but it has nothing to do with enemy air capability.

 

[Sallow]

And I can report you for stalking. How do you like that? Huh? Post it again in response to one of my posts, and it will be reported. Try me.

Report all you want.

You don't know what stalking is..

And..this is an open board. I am staying on topic..while you clearly are not.

In this very thread..which is ABOUT TANKS, you've introduced muslim extremists and ObamaCare.

Going off topic is a violation of the spirit of the board.

You're full of shit. You aren't the only liberal I've seen trying to hijack a thread.

And you've introduced... nothing. Except some random idiot shooting himself in the foot. Oh yes, I know what stalking is. The board I came from? I pissed all the liberals off there soo bad they started sending me hate mail. I got into regular debates with the staff of the local newspaper, and whipped them pretty good. You are small fry, Sallow.

Tanks are relevant, since we just sent a few of them to Egypt, whose leader is *time for a little education here* a Muslim extremist.

Now if you will kindly stop posting for a while now, maybe you won't break any more rules this morning.

Well no.

Apparently you are also not up on history..are you?

We have a real live treaty with Egypt. Or didn't you know that? So your crap about "Muslim extremists" is just that..crap. And it's also got nothing to do with the amount of tanks maintained in our own arsenal. I guess that's another thing you have no fucking idea about either. So..what you are doing here..is what most of you fools do. Stirring the pot about the new people you have chosen to hate.

So, it's you that's breaking the rules, by hijacking the thread..about your favorite topic, crusader..hating Muslims.

 

[Sallow]

Only if the enemy can get those planes to the tanks in the first place. Getting slow movers like the A-10 past the USAF is not easy. And even if they do, while a Combined Arms Batallion has no organic ADA, the Bradleys in the Batallion can use either their 25mm or the .50 cal to help defend the tanks. And that's assuming no ADA has been attached, which it would be.

Better equipment and better training can overcome the numbers. And since we're talking primarily defense against a North Korean Invasion, 4 armor companies with 4 Bradley infantry companies can slow them down long enough for the Air Force to have its fun. Only ground troops can hold ground.

Well, we don't need new tanks (because we already have more than we need), but it has nothing to do with enemy air capability.

1. Well yes and no. I basically was trying to illustrate that tanks are not the awesome weapons systems the cheerleaders think they are. And the last time we were in NK, they weren't all that great. Given the terrain and weather, they were largely ineffective.

2. My point is engaging in a ground war in NK is a fool's errand to begin with. I agree that use of ground forces in a defensive posture makes sense. But moving into NK territory with ground troops would have severe political ramifications. Last time around, China entered the war because they felt we were to close to their borders.

3, Okay..

 

[longknife]

Only if the enemy can get those planes to the tanks in the first place. Getting slow movers like the A-10 past the USAF is not easy. And even if they do, while a Combined Arms Batallion has no organic ADA, the Bradleys in the Batallion can use either their 25mm or the .50 cal to help defend the tanks. And that's assuming no ADA has been attached, which it would be.

Better equipment and better training can overcome the numbers. And since we're talking primarily defense against a North Korean Invasion, 4 armor companies with 4 Bradley infantry companies can slow them down long enough for the Air Force to have its fun. Only ground troops can hold ground.

Well, we don't need new tanks (because we already have more than we need), but it has nothing to do with enemy air capability.

1. Well yes and no. I basically was trying to illustrate that tanks are not the awesome weapons systems the cheerleaders think they are. And the last time we were in NK, they weren't all that great. Given the terrain and weather, they were largely ineffective.

2. My point is engaging in a ground war in NK is a fool's errand to begin with. I agree that use of ground forces in a defensive posture makes sense. But moving into NK territory with ground troops would have severe political ramifications. Last time around, China entered the war because they felt we were to close to their borders.

3, Okay..

When we were in North Korea out tanks were left over from WWII and did not have the horse or firepower to operate in such extreme conditions.

The M1A1 Abrams is an awesome machine with outstanding power and maneuverability. It can go just about anywhere and the aiming system is near magical. The antiquated armor NK could put up against ANY of our systems would last less time than the newer Russian ones operated by Iraq.

 

[Brain357]

Only if the enemy can get those planes to the tanks in the first place. Getting slow movers like the A-10 past the USAF is not easy. And even if they do, while a Combined Arms Batallion has no organic ADA, the Bradleys in the Batallion can use either their 25mm or the .50 cal to help defend the tanks. And that's assuming no ADA has been attached, which it would be.

Better equipment and better training can overcome the numbers. And since we're talking primarily defense against a North Korean Invasion, 4 armor companies with 4 Bradley infantry companies can slow them down long enough for the Air Force to have its fun. Only ground troops can hold ground.

Well, we don't need new tanks (because we already have more than we need), but it has nothing to do with enemy air capability.

1. Well yes and no. I basically was trying to illustrate that tanks are not the awesome weapons systems the cheerleaders think they are. And the last time we were in NK, they weren't all that great. Given the terrain and weather, they were largely ineffective.

2. My point is engaging in a ground war in NK is a fool's errand to begin with. I agree that use of ground forces in a defensive posture makes sense. But moving into NK territory with ground troops would have severe political ramifications. Last time around, China entered the war because they felt we were to close to their borders.

3, Okay..

I think any ground troops should be South Korean.

 

[Oldguy]

Where do we plan on fighting a war with tanks?

Where WE plan to fight a war using tanks is not nearly so important as where our prospective enemies might plan to make us fight one.

 

[Oldguy]

Where do we plan on fighting a war with tanks?

Well, there are 4 armor companies in South Korea, (56 tanks) as part of the only Brigade in Korea.. The rest of the 2nd Infantry Division are 3 Stryker Brigades at Ft Lewis, WA, and then the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii and Alaska has 2 Stryker, 1 Infantry and 1 Airborne Brigades.

Other places where tanks would be useful would be Syria and Iran.

Tanks are not so good for mountains and urban areas, but open country? They're very effective.
The problems with tanks are that they are not easily deployed..you can fit 1 in a C-17 and 2 in a C-5. That's 7 C-5s just to transport the tanks of an armor company (plus support vehicles etc)

In contrast, a C-130 can carry a Stryker (though range will be crappy) and a C-17 can carry 4 Strykers and a C-5 can carry 7. Obviously a Stryker is not as well armored as an Abrams, but the MGS variant has a comparable main gun.

You go up against a country with planes like the A10 and Tanks get chopped up quick.

In any case, deploying ground troops to fight against North Koreans is a fools errand.

Hence no real reason for new tanks.

"Everybody" once said we didn't need tanks anymore...but then came 73 Easting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where do we plan on fighting a war with tanks?

Where WE plan to fight a war using tanks is not nearly so important as where our prospective enemies might plan to make us fight one.

Where? Korea? Let the South Koreans build a new tank army.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where do we plan on fighting a war with tanks?

Well, there are 4 armor companies in South Korea, (56 tanks) as part of the only Brigade in Korea.. The rest of the 2nd Infantry Division are 3 Stryker Brigades at Ft Lewis, WA, and then the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii and Alaska has 2 Stryker, 1 Infantry and 1 Airborne Brigades.

Other places where tanks would be useful would be Syria and Iran.

Tanks are not so good for mountains and urban areas, but open country? They're very effective.

The problems with tanks are that they are not easily deployed..you can fit 1 in a C-17 and 2 in a C-5. That's 7 C-5s just to transport the tanks of an armor company (plus support vehicles etc)

In contrast, a C-130 can carry a Stryker (though range will be crappy) and a C-17 can carry 4 Strykers and a C-5 can carry 7. Obviously a Stryker is not as well armored as an Abrams, but the MGS variant has a comparable main gun.

The Koreans can build or buy their own tanks.

 

[Oldguy]

Where do we plan on fighting a war with tanks?

Well, there are 4 armor companies in South Korea, (56 tanks) as part of the only Brigade in Korea.. The rest of the 2nd Infantry Division are 3 Stryker Brigades at Ft Lewis, WA, and then the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii and Alaska has 2 Stryker, 1 Infantry and 1 Airborne Brigades.

Other places where tanks would be useful would be Syria and Iran.

Tanks are not so good for mountains and urban areas, but open country? They're very effective.

The problems with tanks are that they are not easily deployed..you can fit 1 in a C-17 and 2 in a C-5. That's 7 C-5s just to transport the tanks of an armor company (plus support vehicles etc)

In contrast, a C-130 can carry a Stryker (though range will be crappy) and a C-17 can carry 4 Strykers and a C-5 can carry 7. Obviously a Stryker is not as well armored as an Abrams, but the MGS variant has a comparable main gun.

The Koreans can build or buy their own tanks.

Ok. They can buy them from us.....which would mean the tank line in Ohio should be kept open...right?