I love the U.S. Army.
But how would it handle any Pacific pivot where dealing with water obstacles could be common in an operation?
Badly.
As this 2009 Russian Army exercise shows, the U.S. Army just doesn't have what it takes to do ops in the Pacific, or a lot of other places.
4 comments:
Your comment is sound but i dout that the US Army will buy russian armour :)
dont know why but its a gut feeling i have...
But vehicles like an upgraded M-113,the Patria/Havoc ,the Iveco or an upgraded AAV-7 could be very useful.
As for the Abrams...well...you are right about fuel ,but it can be fitted with a snorkel and cross rivers like the T-72/80/90...
If only that was part of U.S. Army doctrine that was exercised routinely in an operational armor unit.
I'd support bringing the K-21 IFV back into the ARMY replacement vehicle evaluation process.
It was designed for river crossing in mind. Is advertised at around $5m/ea including soft/hard kill defense suite, and be further up-armored apparently (@ 30t) for defeating 50mm Armor piercing ammo all-around.
How much again is Army expecting to budget per replacement IFV vehicle, $13-15m or something? Why not $5-6m?!? Confused.
It's 40mm auto gun provides dangerous firepower to include Air burst munitions/anti-aircraft rounds.
Is heavily powered with turbo diesel and suffices the 9 troop requirement.
With the money saved, they could afford a battalion of remote driven mine clearing vehicles/decoys to lead the way.
The USMC does it a lot...but you maybe be right on the army...now that you talk about it i dont recal the army using the snorkel...ever...
All images i saw was from the USMC...
Post a Comment