Paradigm Shift . . . . . We are in 4TH Generation Warfare (4GW)

2011-12-01T11:02:00.000-08:00

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Kill, Muqtada al-Sadr's, his Adminstration is one of Death! There is an Elephant in our Living Room, "Iran, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" He's Back! December 1, 2011
Militant cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Shiite militia has been battling U.S. forces across Iraq, warned Monday that he would fight "until the last drop of my blood has been spilled," in his first appearance since the violence began. So be it, he must be removed, and his Army left in ruin. His leadership is an "Administration of Death", and his Victims are Suni Women, Children, and the Downtrodden. He has been weighed in the scales and found wanting. He will likey stand before Jesus soon! His days are numbered.It is now time to engage the real enemy Iran, and give them The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM)TLAM-A and TLAM-N in the thousands. Give their Nuclear sites and armys the same! We have the technology, we have the will it is time to take the war were it belongs. Admit it DOD, there is an Elephant in the Living Room, and it is Iran, were much of radical Islam is spawned! Crush the Head of the Serpent, and then crush its body Syria. It will change the balance of power in favor of moderate Islam. If Iran thinks we are Lucifer, give his nuclear sites, and their Army's "Lucifer's Hammer". It should be noted it's leader actually wants this "inevitable event" to hassen the advent of their false apocalyptic beliefs.We must take the pressure of our Active & Reserve Components by using STAND-OFF capabilities. America is in the fight of its life, and doesn't even know it. Our Country is within two years of loosing one of its cities from and Iranian nuclear weapon, or worse a black market Pocket Nuclear weapons from Russia, Korea, or one the Balkan States, which they will sell for greed sake. We know all of these weapons have nuclear signature. Those that sell them will be a victim, by default of the same, because We will know were they originated!We must not forget the Suni down trodden, their Women or Children. Seek the wise Counsel of Saudi Arabia, as long as if benefits our troops, the American people, and the price per barrel of Oil. We must recognize who our true Enemy are. At the end of the day, it will likely be US, the Brits, IDF, and maybe the Saudi's. We must take the battle to were it belongs. If we don't kill them in their battlefield we will be doing it in our own Homeland. They are already here, so prepare. We have grown soft, have forgotton 911, and Oklahoma City, and the bombings and deaths of many our fighting Men and Women. We will not be able to appease an enemy, that cannot be appeased. We will not be able to negotiate a peace. There is no peace. We will fight them there, but it is clear the time is coming when we will fight them here. America is at sleep, but it will awaken soon, and as a result of a WMD in our own Country.Ok, what little things can be done? We can change the day by starting to put our Soldiers back in the right equipment, which is the M113 APC, instead of the Humvee. The Humvee is not fit for this battlefield. The M113 APC is a "Diamond in the Rough" The Up-Armored M114 Humvee is a failure. The Styker is an over priced SUV. Neither of these two vehicles are non-linier warfighters. Secure our boarders. Implement a National ID card, and do it before it is to late!Put our Soldiers back in the M113A1 Gavin ACAV. We own thrity thousand. Lets give the new Secretary of Defense a chance to remove remnants of Rumsfeld's Neocon Generals and change entrenched paradygme of Lighter, Faster, Cheaper!

America, Its Not About You Any More Bring them Home

2011-04-10T11:17:00.001-07:00

If America wants to spark Freedom in a World of Tyrants then offer up the Internet Free Via US sponsored Satellite over these Nation State that have Tyrants in the Middle East! It wouldn't take to many. I use this technology as a Security Specialist in my field, and I know! Use the technology that America thrives in against the Enemy! The people will rise up on their own against the Tyrants if they have a taste of Freedom. It will result in the revolutions we are now witnessing at a manifold level! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access/ That will be America's Victory. America has had its Revolutions. We had to learn "Freedom is not Free". Think about our own Revolutionary War, and the Civil War. Peoples in the Middle East, and elsewhere will have to pay their own price for Freedom if they want it! We have seen the spark of freedom that the Internet has provided people through Face Book and Twitter in the Middle East. If people want Freedom the cost is Revolution! We can support them, we can help them, "but we cannot Fight their Fight". American cannot win in 4Th Generation Warfare (4GW) bring our Troops Home. http://antiwar.com/lind/index.php?articleid=1702 We cannot win in this manner. There is nothing to win! We have wasted 3 Trillion Dollars. "It is a Fiasco!" The Human toll in US sacrifices is over 4500 Troops, and more than 70,000 injured troops who were wounded so seriously that they had to be Medivaced. There are over a half million Troops that will impact the Veterans Administration Hospitals with all levels of PTSD, and other ailments. This is a 3 Trillion Dollar War. http://threetrilliondollarwar.org/ Our Occupation of Iraq is now in its 8Th year. Retired First Sergeant Stanfill (Armored Cavalry) says "get our Troops the hell out of there", and be prepared to "Decapitate The Leadership of any Rogue Nations" with Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. Be prepared to use the entire available inventory of Warheads, especially when "Genocide" occurs. Gather the Intelligence and Decapitate the Leadership! Clinton should have done in Rwanda, but didn't do it! Bush 1 and 2 should have, but didn't do it in Dufar. http://www.darfurscores.org/darfur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide President Obama you are barely doing doing it Libya! http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/04/10/Libya-battles-rage-amid-diplomatic-efforts/UPI-23941302438262/ Paradigm Shift now Mr. President. Make the Leaders or Rouge Nations pay with their lives. We owe this Paradigm Shift in thinking to humanity to stop Genocide. We cannot afford or sustain this our current way of thinking financially, because this battle is 4GW. That is 4TH Generation Warfare. It is now time for the Paradigm Shift! Bring our Troops Home. It is a wasted effort, just like Vietnam. I am a Vietnam Veteran and a Retired First Sergeant. Listen to your NOC's bring them home. Destroy leaderships that commit Genocide. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm. Spend millions on Intelligence, and a decade to find the where they hide, live, finances, move, and have their being, and kill the. Then let America spend it resources wisely instead of it Soldiers wasting Americas greatest resource. That is why we have the CIA. That is their job. If they should find them. I they can't "fire its leadership, and hire someone who can accomplish the mission". Again Decapitate any Foreign Leaderships that commits "Genocide"on its own people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide Remove every Soldier out of both Theaters of War immediately! Get every Soldiers out back to the USA. Leave those those disgusting "Wheeled Vehicles" industry has created to make a profit at the Soldiers expense. Vehicles and equipment that been killing are Soldiers. Put them back in "Armor" they deserve and refit our Military. The beans and bullets of this matter is simply this; If the United States of America ever has to go to War never take "Contractor's" into Theater to sustain the Order of Battle. "Don't Fricking Go" with Contractors you Idiots! Our Government by Commission is sacrificing America's best for nothing. If the United States ever goes to War we cannot use any thing but the Army's Organic Equipment (TOE), or just don't go. That means "No Fricking Contractors". It is that simple "America should never go to war unless its for it protection of the "Homeland". Don't go to war without the Powell Doctrine firmly entrenched in the "Order of Battle" What does this mean? It means the Powell Doctrine is always in effect, and there has to be an "Exit Strategy". Also our military must never be in the business of rebuilding any infrastructure of a given nation i.e. the Social Military. There is no such thing. Army's are designed to kill not do social work for some other Nation State. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/iraq/powelldoctrine_short.html The business of war has now become a get rich quick scheme for Rouge Corporations, Perverted Capitalists, some Retired Government Executives, including a Vice President, and some Retired Military Officers. Its over folks. We are right were the Russian's were just before the Wall came down in East Germany. We are Broke! Its as simple as that America. This country is being run by the Robber Baron's. http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plan/industrial-age-america-robber-barons-and-captains-industry America, Its Not About You Any More Bring Them Home!

"There is the sound of War in the Camp"

2010-04-10T21:59:00.000-07:00

Israel, "There is the sound of War in the Camp, and its not ours". America, "Shinseki, Rumsfeld are gone, but his ill concieved Lighter, Faster, Cheaper initiatives are still alive. Kill the "Army Transformation" it has failed. Now is the time to hold the Civilian leaders and Commanders responsible, and fire them. The Rumsfeld NeoCons are still entrenched in DOD.

Iraq and Afganistan casualties is an end sign of Vietnam. Its time to Ramp-Up with "Armored Cavalry", and embrace the Horror's of War, or get out. This is an old story. Follow General Gavin, not Donald Rumsfeld. Fire Rumsfeld's NeoCons Mr. President!

Get ready for a rude awakening Israel and America, Iran will shortly have their first in a series of Tactical Level Nuclear Weapons. I estimate at the latest in the next calendar year. When it happens it will opens Pandora's Box, and America will follow Isreal's demise. Isreal don't listen to America, Hillary Rodham Clinton, or the President's advise.

Improve your military Israel, and make it more professional. Your last several military interventions Lebanon were appauling. Don't give up your Armor for Armored Cars. Soldiers were playing with Batman Masks in your last exercises. Ramp-up! "Fire Generals"and protect your own people.

I personally know how the Nuclear tradgedy can affect families from from my Dads War II history in Operation Cross Roads (USS Saratoga) This was really the first Nuclear Test of the Cold War.

Attack IRAN now, before its to late. Use your entire arsenal to do so. "The hand writing is on the wall", you know the story Isreal. America will learn soon enough unfortunately. Your families will learn by your inaction

http://www.project-112shad-fdn.com/News_15.htm

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

General Shinseki's initiative was to transform the Army's deployment capabilities by creating lightweight brigades capable of rapid deployment with wheeled vehicles. We are now seeing the fruits of that in two threaters. Our troops will continue to die in Armored Cars. It is discusting. The Transformation has failed. Why, because the concept does not hold water in 4GW.

Our Soldiers will continue to be sacrificed needlessly as our military continues to use these vehicles in combat. Rumsfeld must finally admit the Transformation has failed. This wrong thinking paradygm has cost hundreds of lives, and maimed thousands. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and General Shinseki's are responsible. The thinking is severely FLAWED.

The Stryker and Humvee can't fight in the nonlinier battlefield. The M1 Tank and Bradley Fighting Vehicle are not suited for close quarter combat, within narrow roads of the urban environment. The M1 and Bradley are "Rhino's in a box"(joy stick controlled electronic turrets). No question, great fighters in the Linier Battlefield.

The up-armored M114 Humvee is inadequate, even in light of the new upgrades. It is not fit for battle. A Flat Bottom wheeled vehicle is no match for an IED. In addition our Soldiers are "War Fighters", not peace keepers in up-armored SUV's. As a result of Shinseki's Initiatives the enemy has no fear. Why? because of;">Shinseki's & Rumsfeld wrong thinking paradygm.

4GW must be fought with weapons that evoke terror in the enemy. The M113 Gavin is the answer, preserving the lives of our WarFighters. The GAVIN is a terror to those that would do evil. Properly employed against the enemy it evokes fear.

Think of this; for the cost of one Platoon of Strykers 3rd ID has been able to retrofit 500 M113. Do the math. An M114 up-armored cost about 250,000. For the same price you can rebuild two M113A1's. I'd also like to say even you Rangers need the M113A1. Think of the lives that would have been saved in Somalia. That's right even Ranger's need Armor.

Every Soldier hates war. What is a War Fighter, but an individual that is an expert at Fighting Wars, hence "War Fighter". They are not peace keepers! War Fighters execute the art in a precision manner, so they can end it quickly, with as little loss of life as possible. The Rumsfeld/Shinseki Initiatives have emasculated the military and our War Fighters. This is exactly what happened in Somalia, 4GW. The only safe place is in the GAVIN (Tracked Armor, out of the Humvee.

Why should America have to re-learn the lessons already learned in Vietnam. Put the Troopers back in the M113 ACAV (Gavin), also called the Green Dragon. Fight Terror with terror, in this vehicle. The M113 has acquired the new name called the GAVIN, because of the correct thinking of the famous Airborne General Gavin. He had the right idea then, "his future is now". The M113 ACAV fights well in confined environments (roads, jungle, cities, villages).

We are in a 4GW War again. Instead of Robert McNamara, Donald Rumsfeld directed manuever schemes, and doing it by his flawed transformation doctine. This is Vietnam again. Iraq is 4th Generation Warefare again. In 4GW you can win every battle and still not win the war. To understand this kind of warefare please refer to the link below. This is about 4GW and understanding how to fight it.

antiwar.com">http://antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=1702">antiwar.com

That is why the M113 GAVIN ACAV is the right vehicle for this type of warefare. It can fight in this environment. The Green Dragon evokes "FEAR" in anyone who angers it"
Iraq is, "The Death of a Thousand Cuts" for the US. Give our War Fighters the equipment they need to fight in the 4th Generation War and kill the enemy. Over a 1420 lives have been lost in Iraq. 1/2 of those lives lost would have been saved if they had been in the M113A1 ACAV GAVIN. DOD must get our "War Fighters" back into their tracked armored vehicles. DOD must put to rest the false paradygm of peace keepers in up-armored SUV's i.e. Shinseki's Initiatives

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20020320mobilenat4p4.asp

http://www.geocities.com/wheelsvstracks/

The Viet Cong and NVA called the M113 ACAV the Green Dragons, Why, because they spit fire, turn around in their own skin, and dispatched the enemy quickly, with 3 machine guns, a grenadier, or 106 recoilless. In fact the driver often dispatched the enemy either by quick thinking, or guidance to the Track Commander. The vehicle evoked in the heart of enemy. I know I was there (Armored Cavalry), and recently retired from the Army in 2002 (1SG CAV). There are 13,000 M113 series vehicles in the US Army Inventory.

http://www.gruntonline.com/US_Forces/US_Armor/armour2.htm

Yet, the DOD continues to put our troops in harms way in Humvee's and the Stryker Armored Car's. They are glorified SUV's. These are "Sin's of Commission" i.e. Commissioned Officers, but certainly not many, I hope. General Shinseki and Donald Rumsfeld have betrayed our WarFighters. Gavin was far a head of his time, and his future is now (Tracked Armored Rapid Deployment). His views are more relevant today than they have ever been. Shinseki's paradygm must be "Eradicated" from DOD thinking. The Stryker cost up to 3 million dollars a copy, depending. The only way it fights well is head-on. The M113 retrofitted, with appliqueé armor, advanced communications, with upgraded ban-tracks, drive-trains, and possibly Hybrid Diesel Electric motors, at the cost of only $300,000 each, and we already own 13,000 of them.

Seven Hundred M113A1 were just sitting in Kuwait as our War Fighters died needlessly in Humvee's, by road side bombs and ambushes, Why, because the enemy has no fear. Let's put the fear back in their lives. The Public must push the message forward get our War Fighters out of Humvee's and back in Tracked Armor. Armored Cars have failed! It's not rocket science. Could you fight from the seat of an SUV, answer, no. Neither can our War Fighters. Get them in a weapons platforms that evokes fear in the hearts of the enemy, in which every Soldier can fight. This is the M113 ACAV.

President Bush needs to purge the DOD OF the General Shinseki's, that have poorly served America, and the Soldier, having created the damage by the false paradigm of General Shinseki. We must get our War Fighters back in Tracked Armored Vehicles. This has been going on for three administrations. We are now seeing the fruit of General Shinseki's work in the attrition rates (deaths) in Iraq & Afghanistan. These Catastrophic Injuries are unnecessary. Soldiers shouldn't have to suffer a life time injury because of the wrong equipment.

Americas Mother's have spoken in this election. The did not sit silently by.

In closing I find it hard to believe that General Shinseki would base his Transformation of the Army on so many false premises. This tragic error has evolved into even more tragic consequences. It's disturbing that General Shinseki and other Rumsfeld Neocons have endorsed such a poorly thought out concept.

Americans have been heard! Lets get our troops out of wheeled combat vehicles. They have no place in combat or in the 4GW. AMERICA PUT OUR TROOPS BACK IN THE "GAVIN ACAV"

Sincerely, a Vietnam Veteran, retired December 2002.

Please review the article below.

Wheels vs. Tracks: A Rebuttal
By Don Loughlin, d.loughlin@attbi.com360-318-1134Revised 22-Jul-2000
This paper is a rebuttal to a 1998 US Army Strategic Studies Institute (SSI), Army War College, report: "The Case for Army XXI Medium Weight Aero-Motorized Divisions: A Pathway to the Army of 2020" (1), insofar as it deals with "Armored Fighting Vehicle Options."
A. Foreword.
The SSI report is associated with the GEN Shinseki initiative, the Army's Chief of Staff (CSA) since 21 June 1999. The initiative is Shinseki's move to transform the Army's strategic deployment capabilities by creating lightweight brigades capable of rapid airlift. (2, 3) Many of the things said, or left unsaid, about these brigades are puzzling.
For example, the CSA never mentioned the very clear need for more or improved sea- and airlift capability. Then he dropped a figurative bombshell announcing a potential plan to buy an all-wheeled vehicle fleet that allegedly will save 50%-70% of vehicle weight. (2) His attempted later qualifier that it would be done "as soon as technology permits" did not quell the uproar. (3) The fact that he offered no evidence or sources to support the supposed weight saving of wheeled combat vehicles makes his decision all the more mystifying. In searching for the rationale for the wheels initiative, a colleague told this writer about the SSI report, which is the subject of this rebuttal. If the SSI paper is the best that can be said for replacing light armored tracked vehicles with armored cars (shorter than wheeled armored vehicles), then the argument is very weak, indeed.
A point about the SSI report is that it was published over a year before GEN Shinseki took office. Thus, at some level in the hierarchy, the push for armored cars predates the Shinseki régime. What is harder to understand is just why the push exists; and the SSI report doesn't explain it.
The SSI report states some worthy goals in its Foreword (See Appendix). However the report itself claims that:
1. The Army's force structure suffers because the force has a barbell posture, a mixture of very light and ultra-heavy combat formations. That is an exaggeration insofar as it relates to hardware, specifically combat vehicles.
2. "Strategic responsiveness coupled with enhanced theater agility and combat power" will be improved by creating "medium weight combat units equipped with light armored vehicles" (p. iii) The context makes it clear that light armored vehicles means wheeled light armored vehicles, and that the strategic responsiveness can supposedly be accomplished by just buying wheeled light armored vehicles (anybodies?) without ever describing the physical or operational characteristics of these same armored cars.
3. Furthermore, the report appears to postulate a current light armored vehicle population of zero. It completely ignores, as if they didn't exist, the family of approximately 13,000 M113-series tracked light armored vehicles already in the operational fleet, all capable of C-130 transport. The M113 family has later versions as well, but the point here is to highlight vehicles already in the Army's fleet that, for some unstated reason, the authors of the SSI report have chosen to discount at 100%.
This is what the SSI report says, or omits:
A. The barbell organization.
"The authors contend that today's Army is essentially a barbell shaped organization: very light or very heavy forces with very little in the form of middleweight units.."(p. 1, and similar statements on at least five other pages: iii, 3,4,7, and 16.) Elsewhere in the report, in much the same vein, it makes this claim: "The Army has been generally configured into either very heavy armored and mechanized units armed with large numbers of heavy fully tracked vehicles or very light infantry-type units that are primarily foot mobile." (p. 4)
As to armored combat vehicles, the "barbell" description is both exaggerated and misleading. In addition to foot-mobile infantry, and in addition to the "heavy fully tracked vehicles" (M1 Tanks, and presumably M2 and M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles); the Army already has a fleet of M113-series tracked, light armored vehicles fully capable of C-130 airlift. The authors are correct in that the Army is organized roughly along "barbell" lines, but it is not equipped that way.
Since the authors believe in a medium weight force comprised of armored cars to rectify the alleged barbell organization, how can it be that such vaguely described vehicles, of unknown performance, are any more of a strategic deployment improvement than M113-series vehicles, of known weight, size, cross country mobility, and armor protection, and that the Army already owns? Why aren't M113s the medium weight force? Is it that the M113s lack staying power in a fight? Then the report should state the staying power of the undefined armored cars. The authors say nothing of the weapons, armor protection, speed, fuel consumption, cost (acquisition or life cycle), personnel carrying capacity, or whatever of the unspecific armored cars they espouse. For example, once upon a time, the large rear exit ramp/door of tracked APCs was considered to be a significant asset for both relatively safe and rapid exit of troops and rapid loading of cargo. Is that consideration no longer valid? Or do the armored cars espoused have such rear exit doors? Do the SSI authors even know, one way or another?
B. Why not even a mention of the M113?
What is astounding is that nowhere in the SSI report is the M113-series vehicles ever mentioned. The M113-series fleet has an existing production and logistic support base, and every M113 is fully capable of C-130 aircraft transport and airdrop as well. There are about 13,000 M113s of all variants in the operational inventory, with another 6,000 stored in depots in varying condition. Approximately 3-4 thousand M113s in the operational inventory are the M113A3s that participated successfully in Operation Desert Storm. Omitting even mention of the Army's large fleet of existing light armored vehicles is mind-boggling.
C. Advanced Technology applies equally to tracked vehicles.
The potential for advanced technologies to improve wheeled vehicle performance is mentioned in several places: Targeting sensors on page 7, engine and power train on pages 10 and 11, armor and passive protection on pages 10 and 11, and improved weaponry on pages 11 and 12. The fallacy of the report is that these same technologies offer just as much capability improvement to tracked vehicles as to wheeled.
D. Three statements in the report are absurd.
Absurdity No. 1: "There are available in the world today a wide variety of wheeled light and medium weight armored vehicles in the 5-25 ton weight class." (P. 9, and there is a reference to a Jane's publication.) A true but absurd statement the absurdity being that there are a wide variety of tracked and wheeled vehicles under 25 tons.
Absurdity No. 2: "Many of the models of wheeled armored vehicles in production already have command and medical versions available." (P. 12) True! There are also the same command and medical versions available in M113s.
Absurdity No. 3: "Finally, light-medium armored vehicles can be designed to be inherently amphibious, " (P. 12) Inherently amphibious! The absurdity in the statement is that all the Army's current tracked, light armored vehicles are amphibious, and have been since at least the M59 APC of the 50s; as is the entire M113 fleet.
E. False claims re: Wheels vs. Tracks.
Decades of studies, testing and experience have indicated the superiority of tracks over wheels for combat vehicles, except for the lightest and most road bound. Current " operations in Bosnia have demonstrated the inherent weaknesses of wheeled vehicles with regard to mobility and protection" (4) Since the importance of strategic mobility is finally emphasized within the Army, especially for airlift, compactness for aircraft loading is important. Do wheeled vehicles have an advantage there? Certainly not: "Tracked vehicles, by design, are inherently more compact than wheeled vehicles. The primary reasons for a tracked vehicle's compactness are reduced suspension clearance, wheel turning clearance, and the absence of multiple transfer cases and drive shafts that are integral to the design of multiwheeled vehicles." (4)
Armored cars are inefficient with respect to weight and size, as compared to tracked armored vehicles. For example, the armored M113A3 is only a thousand pounds heavier than an unarmored FMTV 5-ton truck.
Up until the last paragraph on page 9 of the SSI report (carried over to page 10), the report has been mainly errors of omission, misstatements, circumlocutions, and statements of the obvious. However, the last paragraph on page 9 is much worse because it makes false claims and cites another Army report as the source of the claims. Following is the paragraph, verbatim:
"Studies by the Army Corps of Engineers indicate that the all terrain mobility break-point between wheeled and tracked armored vehicles is around 20 tons. That is to say, wheeled vehicles have similar cross-country mobility attributes as track laying vehicles below the weight of 20 tons. Even heavier wheeled vehicles will have superior mobility on road surfaces. Further there have been some interesting innovations in wheeled armored vehicle designs, which suggest that the break point may move upward. 14 " In the following two paragraphs I dispute statements made in this last SSI paragraph:
1. The reader of the SSI report would logically believe that the Reference 14 cited (a Corps of Engineers report, my Reference 5 in this paper) at the end of the paragraph contains the supporting data to validate the claims of wheeled vehicle mobility, especially the claims of interesting innovations. But SSI Reference 14 says no such thing. It is simply a Corps traction study comparing three different kinds of vehicles [M113A1, LAV-25, and a Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT)], investigating loss of traction associated with soil type and rainfall amounts. What were the Conclusions? There were four, but only the last has any relevance:
"d. The traction loss is more appreciable for the wheeled vehicles than for the tracked vehicle."
2. Also note this statement in the first sentence of the second paragraph above: "the Army Corps of Engineers indicate that the all terrain mobility break-point between wheeled and tracked armored vehicles is around 20 tons." I have no idea whether the Corps ever really reported that, but there was certainly no such statement in the Corps report. However, most wheels vs tracks studies that I have seen report that wheels are usually better below about 10 tons, and between 10 and 20 tons the tradeoff is mission- and terrain-dependent. Above 20 tons "a tracked configuration is the optimal solution for tactical, high-mobility roles" (4)
Do we plan to go to war? Or perhaps the Army plans for the for the prototype brigade to become "the Services first combat arms unit designed for peacekeeping operations." (6)
Ground Pressure. Regarding all-terrain mobility: there is a governing figure of merit, or parameter not mentioned by the authors for such comparisons. That parameter is ground pressure. Its effect is well known to all who have ever tried getting through heavy snow without snowshoes or skis. Wheeled-vehicle ground pressure can be reduced to some extent by tire deflation (or by the use of enormous tires), but there are practical limits, and for vulnerability reasons neither method is very attractive on the battlefield. The authors admit that "in some types of very adverse terrain [wheeled armored vehicles] have cross country mobility that is inferior to tracked systems." (p. 9). The truth is, in most types of moderately adverse terrain, wheels are inherently inferior. This isn't some soft value judgment, it's a matter of the laws of physics and soil mechanics. It's why serious bulldozers aren't wheeled. It's why tracks were invented in the first place.
A specific comparison of wheels vs tracks was the mid-70s Army program called the XM800 Armored Reconnaissance Scout Vehicle Program (ARSV); later cancelled. What is relevant here is that both a wheeled and a tracked vehicle were designed to the same specification by competing contractors, then built and exhaustively tested by the Army. Neither vehicle weighed more than 19,000 lb (less than 10 tons, please note!), and the tracked vehicle had lower height and less ground pressure than the wheeled vehicle. (7) Once cancelled, the program lost the notice of most people, but author Christopher Foss did say on page 175: "At the time of writing the best vehicle had yet to be announced, but it did appear that the tracked FMC ARSV was superior to the Lockheed wheeled ARSV."
We are not yet done with misleading citations. Here is the citation of Ref. 14 on page 22 of the SSI report:
"14. See Dennis W. Moore, The Influence of Soil Surface Conditions On The Traction of Wheeled and Tracked Military Vehicles, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Report GL-89-6, 1989. During the 1980s, major advances in off-road wheel technology occurred with the deployment of radial/run flat tires and central tire inflation systems."
Once again, the reader is likely to believe that the sentence added to the citation (During the 1980s, tire inflation systems.) refers to affirmative statements of wheeled vehicle technology advances made in the Corps report. Not so. The closest thing said in the Corps report is a recommendation (beginning on p. 41) for further testing to include varying tire pressures and tire sizes for wheeled vehicles. There were no conclusions drawn either way, since there was no testing of radial/run flat tires or central tire inflation systems!
F. Conclusion.
The SSI report's treatment of "Armored Fighting Vehicle Options" is clearly an attempt to justify procurement of wheeled armored vehicles, but it provides no meaningful data or rationale to support the pitch. The report correctly states that the Army needs light armored vehicles for rapid strategic mobility, and then concludes that, since light armored vehicles are (by the authors definition) wheeled, the Army must buy some, perhaps anyone's. It is the conclusion that light armored vehicles must be wheeled, and only wheeled, that is not just wrong, but bizarrely wrong. It ignores the real capabilities and financial investment in the Army's existing fleet of M113 variants, all tracked light armored vehicles capable of C-130 airlift. Whatever its merits as to organization and doctrine, the document's approach to combat vehicles is seriously flawed, as evidenced by its own distortions and omissions. If there is any real justification for a wheeled armored vehicle procurement program, the authors have not presented it here.
G. Disclaimer.
The author is an engineer retired from two companies formerly in the defense industry. Both companies have, to his knowledge, withdrawn from the defense business. He is a financially disinterested party since his limited retirement income is safely sequestered from the fallout of any DoD decisions.
H. Acknowledgement.
The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance and contribution to this paper made by COL David A. Appling, US Army (Ret.)
I. References:
1. John Gordon IV and Peter A. Wilson, The Case for Army XXI Medium Weight Aero-Motorized Divisions: A Pathway to the Army of 2020, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 27 May 1998. A copy should be available on the web at:
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usassi/ssipubs/pubs98/aeromotr/aeromotr.pdf.
2. GEN Shinseki's Address to the Eisenhower Luncheon, AUSA Annual Meeting, Oct. 12, 1999, First Para. On p. 4. Army Home Page, US Army News Release, "What Senior Leaders Are Saying."
3. Army Link News, "Chief of Staff expands on Army Vision," Army News Service, Jan. 31, 2000, p. 1.
4. Paul Hornbeck, "The Wheel Versus Track Dilemma," ARMOR, March-April 1998, p. 33.
5. Dennis W. Moore, The Influence of Soil Surface Conditions On The Traction of Wheeled and Tracked Military Vehicles, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Report GL-89-6, 1989. DTIC No. AD-A208 253.
6. John G. Roos, Editorial: "Headlong Charge: As US Army Leaders Rush To Recast Force,", AFJI, January 2000.
7. Christopher F. Foss, , "XM800 Armoured Reconnaissance Scout Vehicle," Jane's World Armoured Fighting Vehicles, p. 175. St. Martin's Press, NY. 1977.
J. Appendix:
FOREWORD to Reference 1, SSI report. [Pages iii and iv.]
Since the end of the Cold War nearly a decade ago, there have been repeated calls for the U.S. Army to make major changes to accommodate to a transformed geo-strategic environment. Specifically, advocates of major change believe the Army should become strategically agile while maintaining a high in-theater combat and mobility capability. For example, much of the design work associated with the Army After Next (AAN) exercise series has focused on the development of a next generation of combat forces which have very high strategic/theater mobility and dramatically enhanced combat power. Unfortunately, some of the concepts associated with the AAN are true "leap-ahead" technologies that even in the most favorable budgetary circumstances and development schedules will not likely be available during the 2020 timeframe. At present, the Army appears to have settled on the selective modernization of its current force structure that is a mixture of very light and ultra-heavy combat formations; a "barbell posture." This approach provides an inadequate strategy for dealing with near-term political military challenges and acting as a transition to a true next generation Army.
The purpose of this monograph, therefore, is to stimulate a debate within the Army as to whether there is a credible transition strategy to modify a portion of its force structure to gain some AAN-like attributes---enhanced strategic responsiveness coupled with enhanced theater agility and combat power. The authors believe there is a mix of extant and near-term combat systems and technologies that will allow the Army to create a number of "aero-motorized" divisions within likely budgetary constraints by the end of the next decade. These medium weight combat units would exploit the large investment the Air Force is making to modernize its strategic and theater airlift fleets during the first decade of the 21st century. The authors believe that forces equipped with light armored vehicles, next generation combat aviation, and enhanced indirect fire support will provide the Army with a strategic "fist." Aero-motorized forces can be used either as part of a leading edge of a large and inherently slower to deploy expeditionary force or as a central combat component of future lesser contingencies including operations other than war. Finally, the aero-motorized will allow the Army to develop thoroughly the doctrine and concept of land forces operations that have the strategic agility of current light forces and approach the combat power of current heavy forces---major features of a desired next generation Army.
The Strategic Studies Institute strongly encourages readers to participate in a continuing discussion on the future of American land power and the challenges it holds for the U.S. Army.
LARRY M. WORTZELColonel, U.S. ArmyDirector, Strategic Studies Institute
The End

Embrace the horrors of war, or get OUT

2010-01-27T13:43:00.000-08:00

Dear Josh,

You asked for my perspective of the Vietnam War. I was in the thick of that war. I was a young man, barely 17, and in 1968 and volunteered during the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, for the US Army. Within a year I was in an H Troop 17th Cavalry, 198th Brigade Americal Division. Many bad things happened on both sides during that war. Like the My Lai massacre, Tet Offensive, and many others.

I won’t elaborate on any combat I was involved in other than generalities. Unless you were in it you will not understand, so that is a mute point! War is horrific, violent beyond description and necessary at times. I spent my entire life in the military and at the height of my career was a First Sergeant of an Armored Cavalry Troop, 9 M1 Tanks, 13 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, all the MTOE (equipment) and 170 men. In 2002 I retired. You asked was Vietnam worth it?

The truth of this may be confusing to you. It is certainly graphic. In my view, I believe out of necessity that the 59,000 lives that were lost, and the 300,000 injured or maimed, did effect a change in World History for benefit of democracy of Eastern Bloc Nations. I would like to explain.

The Vietnam War was a war of attrition by all sides. That is, over whelming forces of Nation States devoting massive expenditures in supplies, goods, war making efforts, logistics, and tragically the sacrifice of Soldiers. In the case of the United State we had more of it all, despite the fact that we left Vietnam.

We also left behind many that supported us. The oppressive regime of the North Vietnamese Government destroyed for example the Montagarnds Yard Tribesmen of Vietnam. Many that supported the US were killed, or their societies were decimated after the war by the North Vietnamese Government. This is because the US failed to support those whom fought alongside us. This is much like the Kurds in Iraq after we left Iraq in Desert 1. I had a Kit Carson Scout that was Viet Cong that switched sides in Vietnam. He was my interpreter. He didn’t make it as well. All crew members on my Track have passed away as a result of War.

As a result of these powerful forces being involved, and I specifically refer to the USSR, and China, it caused them to devote massive resources, and money into their war fighting effort. I believe their efforts resulted in the USSR falling and the opening of the Eastern block to democratic principles!

It is my view the United States should embrace the horrors of war, execute it with extreme prejudice, or simply get out. That includes Water-Boarding. I speak of it current poorly executed initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope this helps you Josh. I also have a BLOG site I been running since Desert One.

In closing it is quite simple. I don’t think the United States and more specifically its populace can embrace the violence necessary to make the changes that are needed in the entire Middle East. So we should get out and harden our own National Defense. At the end of the day so to speak it will be the United States, the Brits, and the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). The United State sadly should brace itself for weapons of mass destruction in our own Country. It will likely be the case the IDF will make the change in the Middle East starting with Iran for America, out of its own National Interest. It will likely happen soon. I have enclosed some random web sites on the history of these events, and I appreciate your interest in my BLOG forourtroops.blogspot.com/

Note: For you Josh and your school mates I suggest you love your families, study, enjoy school, your youth, and don’t be in a hurry to grow up! Endeavor to find other interests. This is to dark. Because of many things I mentioned in this letter I cheated myself out of my youth. I don’t regret it. For me it was a history of achievements, but for you don’t be in a hurry to grow up! Have fun!
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/vietnamwar/a/VietnamTet.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit_Carson_Scouts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
http://russian-ukrainian-belarus-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_demise_of_the_ussr
http://www.americandaily.com/article/4463 http://forourtroops.blogspot.com/

Iranian Nuclear Sites, to be eliminated

2007-05-19T09:07:00.000-07:00

Last Updated: Monday, 16 January 2006, 17:28 GMT
E-mail this to a friend
Printable version
Iran's key nuclear sites
With international concerns running high over Iran's nuclear programme, use the map below to find out more about its key nuclear facilities.

January 27, 2010 Iran continues to expand their offensive nuclear programs. Attack their military before it is to late, and folks this is at least four years after this BLOG was created! I can only hope for the United States of America that the IDF takes care of business. At the end of the day it will be US, BRITS and the IDF. There are a few other as well, but its coming!

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Iran_A_Threat_to_Israel_and_the_World.asp

BUSHEHR - Nuclear power station

The Bushehr nuclear power station (image: DigitalGlobe)Iran's nuclear programme began in 1974 with plans to build a nuclear power station at Bushehr with German assistance.
The project was abandoned because of the Islamic revolution five years later, but revived in 1992 when Tehran signed an agreement with Russia to resume work at the site.
There are two pressurised water reactors at the site - one reportedly near completion.
Return to the top

ISFAHAN - Uranium conversion plant

Isfahan uranium conversion plantIran is building a plant here to convert uranium ore into three forms:
Hexafluoride gas - used in gas centrifuges
Uranium oxide - used to fuel reactors, albeit not the type Iran is constructing
Metal - often used in the cores of nuclear bombs. The IAEA is concerned about the metal's use, as Iran's reactors do not require it as fuel.
In depth: The nuclear fuel cycle
Return to the top

NATANZ - Uranium enrichment plant

A recent satellite image of the Natanz site
Enlarge ImageIran suspended work on an uranium enrichment plant at Natanz in 2003 - but has recently reopened the facility.
In 2003, a leaked International Atomic Energy Agency report said that weapons-grade uranium had been found in samples taken from the site, although Iran blamed contaminated imported equipment, and an independent report later confirmed this.
According to some estimates, when complete, Natanz could house some 50,000 advanced gas centrifuges, which would produce enough weapons-grade uranium to produce more than 20 weapons per year.
Other estimates suggest the plant will have a total of 5,000 centrifuges when initial stages of the project are completed. With that number, Iran would be able to produce sufficient enriched uranium to make a small number of nuclear weapons each year.
Return to the top

ARAK - Heavy water plant

The Arak plant in 2002 (image: DigitalGlobe)The apparent existence of a heavy water facility near the town of Arak first emerged with the publication of satellite images by the US-based Institute for Science and International Security in December 2002.
Heavy water is used to moderate the nuclear fission chain reaction either in a certain type of reactor - albeit not the type that Iran is currently building - or produce plutonium for use in a nuclear bomb.

The US needs to attack IRAN, and with US Stand-Off Capablities (Cruise Missles)

2007-02-03T16:34:00.000-08:00

Attack Iran, before it is to late. Iran supplies RPG 18's, 82mm Mortar Rounds, and components to various explosive devises to the insurgents in Iraq. Iran is killing our Soldiers! Destroy the Iranian Army, AirForce, Navy, Nuclear capablities, NBC Sites and Communications.

Remember Beriut Barracks, Khobar Towers, USS Cole bombings. Destroy IRAN's war making capability now!

Kill, Muqtada al-Sadr's, his Adminstration is one of Death! There is an Elephant in our Living Room, "Iran, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"

2006-10-21T14:16:00.000-07:00

Militant cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Shiite militia has been battling U.S. forces across Iraq, warned Monday that he would fight "until the last drop of my blood has been spilled," in his first appearance since the violence began. So be it, he must be removed, and his Army left in ruin. His leadership is an "Administration of Death", and his Victims are Suni Women, Children, and the Downtrodden. He has been weighed in the scales and found wanting. He will likey stand before Jesus soon! His days are numbered.

It is now time to engage the real enemy Iran, and give them The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM)TLAM-A and TLAM-N in the thousands. Give their Nuclear sites and armys the same! We have the technology, we have the will it is time to take the war were it belongs. Admit it DOD, there is an Elephant in the Living Room, and it is Iran, were much of radical Islam is spawned! Crush the Head of the Serpent, and then crush its body Syria. It will change the balance of power in favor of moderate Islam. If Iran thinks we are Lucifer, give his nuclear sites, and their Army's "Lucifer's Hammer". It should be noted it's leader actually wants this "inevitable event" to hassen the advent of their false apocalyptic beliefs.

We must take the pressure of our Active & Reserve Components by using STAND-OFF capabilities. America is in the fight of its life, and doesn't even know it. Our Country is within two years of loosing one of its cities from and Iranian nuclear weapon, or worse a black market Pocket Nuclear weapons from Russia, Korea, or one the Balkan States, which they will sell for greed sake. We know all of these weapons have nuclear signature. Those that sell them will be a victim, by default of the same, because We will know were they originated!

We must not forget the Suni down trodden, their Women or Children. Seek the wise Counsel of Saudi Arabia, as long as if benefits our troops, the American people, and the price per barrel of Oil. We must recognize who our true Enemy are. At the end of the day, it will likely be US, the Brits, IDF, and maybe the Saudi's. We must take the battle to were it belongs. If we don't kill them in their battlefield we will be doing it in our own Homeland. They are already here, so prepare. We have grown soft, have forgotton 911, and Oklahoma City, and the bombings and deaths of many our fighting Men and Women. We will not be able to appease an enemy, that cannot be appeased. We will not be able to negotiate a peace. There is no peace. We will fight them there, but it is clear the time is coming when we will fight them here. America is at sleep, but it will awaken soon, and as a result of a WMD in our own Country.

Ok, what little things can be done? We can change the day by starting to put our Soldiers back in the right equipment, which is the M113 APC, instead of the Humvee. The Humvee is not fit for this battlefield. The M113 APC is a "Diamond in the Rough" The Up-Armored M114 Humvee is a failure. The Styker is an over priced SUV. Neither of these two vehicles are non-linier warfighters. Secure our boarders. Implement a National ID card, and do it before it is to late!

Put our Soldiers back in the M113A1 Gavin ACAV. We own thrity thousand. Lets give the new Secretary of Defense a chance to remove remnants of Rumsfeld's Neocon Generals and change entrenched paradygme of Lighter, Faster, Cheaper!

New Rules of Engagement

2006-10-21T13:49:00.000-07:00

Anyone carrying a Weapon will be killed!

Enough is enough, put these soldier back in the GAVIN M113 ACAV. We own 30,000 of them. DOD; either get out or committ the Logistics and Numbers of Troops to complete the mission. It is that simple. Lets give the new Secretary of Defense a chance.

Secretary of Defense: start replacing the Generals, and remove Rumsfelds Neocon Generals, or give them a chance to redeem themselves by killing the Transformation they are responsible for.

Donald Rumsfeld said the events of today could not be anticipated. As a retired First Sergeant, and Vietnam Veteran I say it all could be anticipated.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, some of which are Rumsfled NeoCon's must redeem the time, and kill the Transformation!

2006-10-08T11:06:00.000-07:00

The Army Transformation has Failed.
The Failure of Military Leadership in Iraq
Fire the Generals!
By Col. DOUGLAS A. MacGREGOR (Ret.)http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/Macgregor%20Fire%20the%20Generals.pdf#search=%22fire%20the%20generals%22

"The Future is Now" Israel's Trophy Anti-RPG Armor Protection System will save lives

2006-09-07T21:52:00.000-07:00

Put our Troops back in the Armor they deserve, "Trophy", Israel's Anti-RPG, Armor Protection System (APS) is ready for deployment. Mr. Rumsfeld quit trying to put people back to work, in the US, at the expense of the Soldiers Lives. This is the inherant problem with Lighter, Faster, Cheapter, it just cost lives.

Raytheon's "Quick Kill" System will not be ready until 2011. RPGs have killed nearly 40 Americans in Afghanistan and more than 130 in Iraq, including 21-year-old Pvt. Dennis Miller.

“They were in Ramadi, and his tank was hit with a rocket-propelled grenade,” says Miller’s mother, Kathy. “Little Denny never knew what hit him.”

Up Armored M114 Humvee Fatal InAction

2006-08-02T12:48:00.000-07:00

Up Armored M114 Humvee Fatal InAction

CATASTROPHIC INJURIES

2005-02-16T22:54:00.000-08:00

Commanders have shuddered as the M114 Up-Armored Humvees fail in the battlefield. They do not provide the protection that was forcasted. The vehicle is drastically over weighted, and the height windows have made them highly vulnerable to IED's. There is no need for Soldiers to suffer these catastrophic injuries, put the troops back in the M113A1 ACav.

GAVIN ON PATROL M113A1 ACAV CAN SAVE LIVES

2005-02-16T22:40:00.001-08:00

GAVIN ACAV ON PATROL. It's built for 4th Generation Warefare. A Diamond in the Rough

4GW WAR FIGHTER

2005-02-16T22:40:00.000-08:00

M113 ACAV, GAVIN 4GW WarFighter